AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: rte66man on July 14, 2010, 06:52:15 PM

Title: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on July 14, 2010, 06:52:15 PM
I came across this today:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf
and wondered if anyone can verify if the open dates mentioned are accurate

rte66man
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on July 14, 2010, 07:26:48 PM
Is Arkansas working on the stretch of Future I-49 from Doddridge and the Louisiana border?

What number will the completed sections of I-49 in LA get?  It won't be I-49 because the northernmost sections of the freeway are scheduled to be finished before the southernmost sections.  Or will they reroute US 71 onto the freeway?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on July 15, 2010, 07:43:57 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 14, 2010, 07:26:48 PM
Is Arkansas working on the stretch of Future I-49 from Doddridge and the Louisiana border?

According to the STIP, Phase III of that section is expected to bet let in 2012. I'm not sure what Phase III is referring to.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on July 15, 2010, 10:23:19 AM
I was just down that way in March and I didn't see anything that looked like LA 168 to the AR Line would be finished this Summer. I need to find some time to check it again.

As far as Arkansas, some work is being done from the end of AR 549 to Miller Co Rd 4, but I haven't noticed anything south of that.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on July 25, 2010, 11:13:13 PM
I-49 may Open in 2013

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20100725/OPINION03/7250364/30-miles-of-I-49-North-could-be-opened-in-late-2013

A 30-mile section of I-49 North between La. 1 and Louisiana Highway 168 (Segments I through B) can be opened to traffic in late 2013. The remaining two-mile segment between La. 168 and Arkansas (Segment A) can be opened after that state finishes its remaining portion of I-49 North in 2015.
Title: Louisiana Urban I-49; Which City Will Be First?
Post by: Grzrd on August 23, 2010, 10:57:30 PM
To facilitate discussion, I decided to start a topic instead of a poll.

The question is simple: Which project do you think will be completed first:

Lafayette I-49 Connector or Shreveport Inner-City Connector?
(If anyone wants to make an argument for New Orleans from West Bank Expressway to I-310, please do so).

I see situation as follows

Lafayette
Pros:

Studies have been conducted and ROW procedure has been set up (although unfunded) (http://www.i49connector.com/row.html)

For above reason, Lafayette is farther along in process than Shreveport and, for Shreveport "cons" outlined below, should have this advantage for many more years.

Cons: Momentum for construction has slowed down as LADOTD has focused on I-49 North construction from I-220 to Arkansas state line.  For same reason, construction of I-49 South as a whole has appeared to slow down.  LADOTD may want to first focus on less expensive, piecemeal intersection upgrades to tranform U.S. 90 to I-49 South.

Shreveport:

Pros:

Business and political leaders appear to agree on need for Inner-City Connector and have been seeking community involvement in the process (http://www.i49shreveport.com/community.php).

Approximately 32 miles of 37 mile segment of I-49 North in Louisiana is scheduled to be completed by 2013 and Arkansas segment from Doddridge to LA state line should be finished by 2015 (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20100725/OPINION03/7250364/30-miles-of-I-49-North-could-be-opened-in-late-2013).  Assuming recently awarded contract in Texarkana from Arkansas Blvd. to I-30 is also completed by 2015, all but 5 miles will be completed from I-220 to I-30.  All of which should put pressure on feds to seriously consider the project (complete I-49 from I-10 to I-30!).

Cons

The 5 mile segment of I-49 North immediately north of I-220 (sections J and K) is currently unfunded and will be expensive.  Presumably, LADOTD would want to complete these sections before considering the Inner-City Connector, which will consume many years.

I-220 to LA 3132 to I-49 south of Shreveport could already be considered "missing link" easily resigned as I-49 and feds might question necessity for project.

I am not from Louisiana and I do not know the local politics.  That said, I think Shreveport Inner-City Connector will be built first.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Louisiana Urban I-49; Which City Will Be First?
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 24, 2010, 11:53:51 AM
Well....I'm a Louisiana native and have followed the I-49 projects for the past 20 or so years, so I'll take a crack at it.

1) I-49 Connector in Lafayette/I-49 South

No brainer: After I-49 North is finished between I-220 and Arkansas, THIS MUST BE LaDOTD'S HIGHEST PRIORITY. Considering that much of US 90 between New Iberia and Wax Lake is nearing completion to Interstate standards -- only two at-grade intersections (LA 308 near Four Corners and LA 182 at Calumet) need to be converted to interchanges, and only some spot frontage road construction is needed between LA 88 and LA 675) --  that would leave only the Lafayette segments and the segment between  Wax Lake and Berwick/Morgan City to be constructed before we have a legit Interstate between Lafayette and Raceland.

ROW is being slowly acquired in Lafayette proper for the I-49 Connector project....but the emphasis is on S-L-O-W-L-Y. Right now, they are awaiting the results of a study on the amount of spacing between the elevated structures of the proposed freeway within Lafayette proper; that has become a major sticking point between the local authorities and the LaDOTD during the design process. It is possible that any additional ROW may require a supplemental environmental study, which would further delay construction...but as always, the big drawback is MONEY. It would cost nearly $400 million to construct I-49 through Lafayette, and that doesn't include the additional $350 mil that would be needed to upgrade the segment of US 90 immediately south to the LA 88 interchange.

For all that, I still say that LaDOTD should bite the bullet and fund the Lafayette-Morgan City upgrade post haste as the #1 priority...if not for the need for rapid hurricane evacuation of the cities along that corridor, than definitely for the benefits to the oil industry dependent communities along that corridor.

The second priority should be to complete the Westbank Expressway upgrade all the way to US 90 and rebuild the WBX/90 interchange to tie into the Huey P. Long Bridge rebuild....perhaps with some upgrade of existing US 90 through Avondale.

The remaining segments of US 90/proposed I-49 South can be delayed a bit until proper financing is obtained...though having a decent connection from Raceland to I-310 which would allow use of the latter as a stop-gap would be a nice langiappe.


[continued]
Anthony
Title: Re: Louisiana Urban I-49; Which City Will Be First?
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 24, 2010, 12:07:43 PM
2) I-49 Shreveport Connector/I-49 North to Texarkana

The LaDOTD just complete a Phase 0 Feasibility Study on the possibility of closing the gap between I-20 and I-220 via a downtown connector freeway, and thus far public response has been suprisingly positive.  Even many in the communities who were the most opposed during the 1980's to running I-49 through downtown have had a change of heart...mostly due to the potential economic growth impacts and neighborhood rehab possibilities.

Yes, I-220/LA 3132 do exist as a bypass alternative...but locals have expressed major concerns that that route would require serious widening to 6 lanes to handle the potential through traffic, and that such would also remove traffic from the central downtown area.  More importantly, I-220 crosses Cross Lake, which serves as Shreveport's main source of drinking water; and there are major concerns about having major trucks and hazardous materials using that route.

Also...LaDOTD did think ahead of themselves and incorporate into the I-49/I-220 interchange ROW for a future extension southward..so they must favor a more direct through route as well.

I'm guessing that once the remainding funds for I-49 north of 220 are secured and construction is completed, they will find some way to fund the Inner City Connector. There may still be some who would prefer the I-220/Inner Loop corridor and who would oppose the downtown route on NIMBY principles...but they would be in the minority this time.

Now...anyone here has about $2 BILLION to spare so that we can get both projects going???


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 25, 2010, 12:31:24 PM
Just received an email reply from LaDOTD re completion of Sections A and B of I-49 North.  No driving on either one of them (Section A makes sense because it ends right at Arkansas state line; Section B  :hmmm:) for a long time.  Intervening time between completion and opening to traffic provides opportunity to hike a piece of interstate before driving on it.  Anyone ever done that?

The reply:

Quote
Section A of I-49 North (from La. 168 to the Arkansas line) will be completed by October 2010, and Section B (from Mira-Myrtis Road to La. 168) is estimated to be completed by March 2011. These segments will not be open to motorists until other segments have been completed, possibly in 2013.
We are currently discussing options for ribbon cutting/ groundbreaking ceremonies for I-49 North segments.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on August 25, 2010, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 14, 2010, 07:26:48 PMWhat number will the completed sections of I-49 in LA get?  It won't be I-49 because the northernmost sections of the freeway are scheduled to be finished before the southernmost sections.  Or will they reroute US 71 onto the freeway?

I have looked at the construction plans for all the I-49 jobs in Louisiana which have plans available, and all of the lengths involved (according to the signing plans) are to be signed as I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on August 25, 2010, 01:13:50 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 24, 2010, 12:07:43 PM

Now...anyone here has about $2 BILLION to spare so that we can get both projects going???


Rupert Murdoch? ;)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on August 25, 2010, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 25, 2010, 12:31:24 PM
Just received an email reply from LaDOTD re completion of Sections A and B of I-49 North.  No driving on either one of them (Section A makes sense because it ends right at Arkansas state line; Section B  :hmmm:) for a long time.  Intervening time between completion and opening to traffic provides opportunity to hike a piece of interstate before driving on it.  Anyone ever done that?


It also has the potential to be an illegal drag strip.  :-o

I walked on a section of I-540 north of Fayetteville before it opened (we were having a bottle rocket war  :cool:)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 25, 2010, 03:06:26 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 25, 2010, 03:04:54 PM

It also has the potential to be an illegal drag strip.  :-o


a few strategically placed Jersey barriers will leave it open to pedestrians but closed to John Force.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on August 25, 2010, 09:34:13 PM
I-49 South should be the top national priortiy as of right now for Federal Highway funding. If America wants New Orleans to remain a major city with a large population. Then New Orleans and Southern Louisana need a top notch Interstate to move people and move them quickly from oncoming Hurricane's path. Luckily America and Louisana actually didn't get a full blow from Katrina and it was weaking upon landing. Next time we might not be so lucky and the death rates will be higher if the current transportation situation remains in the New Orleans and Southern Louisana area.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 26, 2010, 01:14:30 AM
http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8220.asp

Segment E of I-49 North still listed for September letting (Sept. 29?; not listed for Sept. 22):

Quote
Caddo  Sep 2010  455-09-0006  I 49  I-49 North (La 170 - US 71) Seg E  New Interstate (Segment E)  $30,000,000 to $50,000,000  2.77  Umeozulu, Joe  May 2010

Lettings for Sections F & G pushed back to October:

Quote
Caddo  Oct 2010  455-09-0005  I 49  I-49 North (La 530 - La 170) Seg F  New Interstate (Segment F)  $20,000,000 to $30,000,000  3.29  Umeozulu, Joe  May 2010  
Caddo  Oct 2010  455-09-0011  I 49  I-49 North (La 169 - La 530) Seg G  New Interstate (Segment G)  $30,000,000 to $50,000,000  4.78  Umeozulu, Joe  Jun 2010

Any bets as to when these projects will actually be let?  
 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: froggie on August 26, 2010, 10:08:07 AM
QuoteI-49 South should be the top national priortiy as of right now for Federal Highway funding.

Disagree.  Repairing and improving what we already have (starting with I-10) should be the top national priority.  Period.

What good is building new roads if we let our existing roads fall apart?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on August 26, 2010, 12:07:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 26, 2010, 10:08:07 AM
QuoteI-49 South should be the top national priortiy as of right now for Federal Highway funding.

Disagree.  Repairing and improving what we already have (starting with I-10) should be the top national priority.  Period.

What good is building new roads if we let our existing roads fall apart?

But then we can get federal bailout money </sarcasm>
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: InterstateNG on August 26, 2010, 09:15:39 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on August 25, 2010, 09:34:13 PM
I-49 South should be the top national priortiy as of right now for Federal Highway funding. If America wants New Orleans to remain a major city with a large population. Then New Orleans and Southern Louisana need a top notch Interstate to move people and move them quickly from oncoming Hurricane's path. Luckily America and Louisana actually didn't get a full blow from Katrina and it was weaking upon landing. Next time we might not be so lucky and the death rates will be higher if the current transportation situation remains in the New Orleans and Southern Louisana area.

Yeah, NoLa really was let off the hook when it came to Katrina.

And all those people who couldn't leave the city because of their lack of a personal vehicle will certainly be able to use new 49 in the future.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2010, 09:21:19 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on August 26, 2010, 09:15:39 PM
Yeah, NoLa really was let off the hook when it came to Katrina.

It was.  See Galveston, 1900 for approximate effect of a direct hit.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on August 26, 2010, 10:11:40 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on August 26, 2010, 09:15:39 PM

Yeah, NoLa really was let off the hook when it came to Katrina.


At the risk of going OT, NOLA has been a redheaded stepchild for many years. Was it 1965 they got hammered by a bad hurricane and decided to build better barriers, but when Katrina hit, the barriers still weren't finished... Uncle Sam kept diverting money to other projects.  There was a big discussion on Talk of the Nation today.


But even if 49 isn't completed to NOLA, maybe they can at least upgrade the non-expressway segments along US 90. That would still be better than what they have now.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2010, 11:08:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 26, 2010, 10:08:07 AM
QuoteI-49 South should be the top national priortiy as of right now for Federal Highway funding.

Disagree.  Repairing and improving what we already have (starting with I-10) should be the top national priority.  Period.

What good is building new roads if we let our existing roads fall apart?


First off, US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans IS an existing road that has been already upgraded to Interstate standards for most of its distance. Completing the upgrade (along with improving existing Interstate highways like I-10, I-20, I-55, etc.) should be a high priority.

Secondly, the state already has a maintanence program for repairing and upgrading their existing highways.

Third...if we took the "only improve the existing highways we have" approach, we wouldn't even have I-49 between Lafayette and Shreveport, since four-laning the existing highways would have been less costly. I understand that money is an issue, but you just can't stand pat while needs grow.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2010, 11:20:45 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on August 25, 2010, 09:34:13 PM
I-49 South should be the top national priortiy as of right now for Federal Highway funding. If America wants New Orleans to remain a major city with a large population. Then New Orleans and Southern Louisana need a top notch Interstate to move people and move them quickly from oncoming Hurricane's path. Luckily America and Louisana actually didn't get a full blow from Katrina and it was weaking upon landing. Next time we might not be so lucky and the death rates will be higher if the current transportation situation remains in the New Orleans and Southern Louisana area.

Actually, I-49 South would be far more valuable for hurricane evacualtion for most of the towns in South Louisiana such as Morgan City/Houma/Thibodeaux, Franklin, Baldwin, Patterson/Bayou Vista, Jeanerette, and New Iberia, than it would be for NOLA.  I-10/I-55 and I-59 (and to a lesser extent the Ponchatrain Causeway) are the main evac routes for NOLA; using US 90 would be a bit of a reach for NOLA residents since they would be doubling back..not to mention fighting with evacuees from other cities along that corridor.

And yes, because Katrina did go slightly east of the city, its winds didn't do much harm..but the storm surge dumping all that water onto Lake Ponchatrain and ultimately onto the Southshore areas was more than enough of a calamity, as the levee breaches clearly showed. Also, Katrina wasn't the 175 mph monster that it had been in the open Gulf of Mexico by the time it passed through LA/MS; it had died down to a still respectably dangerous 130 mph once it got abeam of NOLA. Slidell and the MS coast still got smacked pretty good wind-wise, though.

Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on August 27, 2010, 08:44:08 AM
This is typical of the signing plans for I-49 North:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fbd%2FSheet_0110.png&hash=6def8ebd70199b08d7a4b2ced0329a47b3c0ba87)

Note I-49 trailblazer assembly.

The format is also typical of LaDOTD signing plans in general.  I am sorry to say that they generally do not produce good signing plans.  LaDOTD does not do sign design sheets, period, and it is rare for sign layout sheets to be pattern-accurate, although LaDOTD did this a few years ago for (among other projects) a sign rehabilitation contract on the existing length of I-49.

In terms of the scheduling of future I-49 contracts, plans are currently available for 455-09-0006 and 455-09-0011, but not 455-09-0005.  My guess is that the three contracts will be let individually, without ties or "A + B" bidding arrangements, because the individual contracts are all fairly large and, since the relevant lengths of I-49 are being built substantially on new location, there is limited scope for scale economies through consolidation of traffic management.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 27, 2010, 04:50:32 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2010, 09:21:19 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on August 26, 2010, 09:15:39 PM
Yeah, NoLa really was let off the hook when it came to Katrina.

It was.  See Galveston, 1900 for approximate effect of a direct hit.
And I'll raise you the Mississippi gulf coast after Camille in 1969, the last time a hurricane at cat 5 hit the US shore.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 30, 2010, 05:25:40 PM
Here is part of AASHTO report presented today in Little Rock as it pertains to Louisiana.  Both I-49 North and I-49 South are mentioned:

http://expandingcapacity.transportation.org/unlocking_freight/states/LA_Unlocking_Freight_0610.pdf
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 01, 2010, 08:47:35 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 27, 2010, 08:44:08 AM
In terms of the scheduling of future I-49 contracts, plans are currently available for 455-09-0006 and 455-09-0011, but not 455-09-0005.  My guess is that the three contracts will be let individually, without ties or "A + B" bidding arrangements, because the individual contracts are all fairly large and, since the relevant lengths of I-49 are being built substantially on new location, there is limited scope for scale economies through consolidation of traffic management.

As predicted, Section E of I-49 North (3.0 miles) will be let individually (on September 29).

http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsinfo/bihq20100929.asp

Quote
Lead Project: 455-09-0006 Lead Federal No. : 0021(019) Parish(es): Caddo
Description: I-49 NORTH (JCT. LA 170 TO US 71)
Type: CLEARING & GRUBBING, GR., DR. STRUCTURES, CLASS II BC, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT, CONC. SLAB SPAN BRIDGES, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONC. GIRDER SPAN BRIDGES; ALT. A1, SUPERPAVE ASPH. CONC. PAVEMENT; ALT. A2, PCC PAVEMENT; & RELATED WORK.

Bidder Address City
State Zip
Code Phone Fax DBE\SE
Certified
Benton & Brown, LLC. 5626 HWY. 528 MINDEN, LA 71055 (318)377-8720 (318)371-1974  
James Construction Group LLC 11200 INDUSTRIPLEX BLVD.STE 150 BATON ROUGE, LA 70809 (225)295-4830 (866)
422-0865

By my count, this the 7th of the 11 "I-220 to Arkansas" segments to be let (along with Sections A, B, C, D, H, and I).  LADOTD I-49 North map: http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf

Sections F & G still listed for an October letting: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8220.asp

Sections J & K still unfunded.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 02, 2010, 12:41:40 PM
Got an email update this a.m. from LADOTD re Segment C of I-49 North.  Pertinent part is as follows:

Quote
The current work on segment C, from La. 2 to Mira-Myrtis Road included clearing, paving and building bridges. The majority of this work has already been completed, and the minor remaining items should be completed by the end of September.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 09, 2010, 10:27:19 AM
A Fort Smith, Arkansas official has already reacted to Obama's announced infrastructure plan by requesting $330 million for work on I-49 near Fort Smith. (http://www.thecitywire.com/index.php?q=node/11713)  One year ago, in the recent round of TIGER discretionary grants, Louisiana requested $196 million to fund Segments E, J and K of I-49 North and complete the funding for I-49 North from I-220 to the Arkansas state line (Segment E - $38.8 million, Segment J - $60.5 million, and Segment K - $96.7 million). (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/TIGER%20Grant%20Louisiana%209-14-09.pdf).   In response, Louisiana received zero dollars from the Feds for I-49 North.

Since the application for the TIGER grant, Louisiana has found another source to fund Segment E and a contract for grubbing work, etc. is scheduled to be let on September 29.  Not accounting for one year's worth of inflation, Louisiana still needs $157.2 million to fund Segments J & K.

If Obama's announced infrastructure plan comes to fruition in any manner, it will be interesting to see if Louisiana will request funds in partial or full amount of $157.2 million for I-49 North again.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on September 09, 2010, 10:28:08 PM
No doubt here that LA will find a way to fund I-49 north thru state or federal funding. It's on the fast track and will get faster once traffic starts flowing on the brand new stretches. Hats off to LA for making this happen in hard budget times.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on September 11, 2010, 09:59:32 AM
Assuming I go to the Texarkana meet, I'm going to want to spy some of the I-49 construction from AR 549 down to Shreveport.  (Unless that's part of the meet - please advise if so.)  Basically, is there a good, up to date map showing where construction is going on and where it hasn't yet  begun, so that I'm not turning down every single road?  Related questions: Is LA 3049 old 71?  Is future I-49 west or east of 3049?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on September 11, 2010, 10:32:58 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on September 11, 2010, 09:59:32 AM
Assuming I go to the Texarkana meet, I'm going to want to spy some of the I-49 construction from AR 549 down to Shreveport.  (Unless that's part of the meet - please advise if so.)  Basically, is there a good, up to date map showing where construction is going on and where it hasn't yet  begun, so that I'm not turning down every single road?  Related questions: Is LA 3049 old 71?  Is future I-49 west or east of 3049?


The plan was to follow Future I-49 to near Hosston (LA 2 East).

71=3049: insufficient data, but I suspect at least part of it is.

I've already driven many of the county roads in the area to check construction

As of March 2010, most of the work was going on in Louisiana:
-bridges on LA 168 over Future I-49 (west of Ida)
-bridges on Future I-49 over Myra-Myrtis Rd
-bridges on 71 over Future I-49 (and some preliminary paving on 49 itself)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=goodson,+la&sll=32.917314,-93.88577&sspn=0.021615,0.032916&gl=us&ie=UTF8&ll=32.920016,-93.887787&spn=0.041428,0.065832&z=14&layer=c&cbll=32.920357,-93.887712&panoid=jzSK4AD2-KoaYnEI9WOvnQ&cbp=12,27.02,,0,-0.75
-LA 2 east of Hosston: no work, signs only

Future 49 crosses 71 twice, but I don't have the exact info handy. I am guessing 49 will pass east of Gilliam and LA 3049



Arkansas:
There was some preliminary work at the south end of AR 549
Miller County Rd 2: trees were being cleared along the Right of Way
Miller CR 4: Road Work signs, but no apparent work

There was also notice from AHTD about I-30 being closed a couple days this past week:
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/sep/03/lanes-close-i-30-texarkana-week/
Probably to raise bridge girders for I-130/I-49

The way my show schedule is looking, I may not make it back that way until November to investigate further.




Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 11, 2010, 03:06:59 PM
Here is LADOTD's web page on I-49 North: http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/
There is also a link to a map of the project on that page, most recently updated as of June 29.

The only Segments which have had final paving, signing, etc. contracts let are Segment A and Segment B.
The rest of the "Completion Dates" on the page are for the initial grubbing, etc. contracts.
Segment C's grubbing work is supposed to be finished by the end of this month.
Segment A is supposed to be completed next month.
Segment B currently on track to be completed in March, 2011.
Segment E's grubbing contract will be let on September 29.
Segment F's grubbing contract tentatively scheduled for October.
Segment G's grubbing contract tentatively scheduled for October.
Segment C's final paving, signing, etc. contract has not yet been tentatively scheduled as through Feb., 2011.
Grubbing work for Segments H and I should have started by now.
No motorists will be allowed on A & B before 2013.  Provides a great opportunity for "up close" inspection of Segment A and, possibly by time of meet, Segment B.
Road Scholar may be amenable to bottle rocket wars and/or hot-rodding on Segment A. :-D

EDIT - ADDITIONAL THOUGHT

IIRC AHTD has 2 separate current grubbing, etc. projects underway from current end of AR 549 to LA state line.  I think dividing line for 2 projects is Co. Road 2, with the section closest to AR 549 having been let first.  By time of meet, you should have some pretty good viewing opportunities.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on September 11, 2010, 08:59:18 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 11, 2010, 03:06:59 PM

No motorists will be allowed on A & B before 2013.  Provides a great opportunity for "up close" inspection of Segment A and, possibly by time of meet, Segment B.
Road Scholar may be amenable to bottle rocket wars and/or hot-rodding on Segment A. :-D


Not likely. I might be interested in inspecting the work, but no bottle rockets: too many people looking for "terrorists" these days... (and I'm only half joking)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on September 11, 2010, 09:07:41 PM
Bottle rockets in Louisana nawwwwwwww nothing too much out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 11, 2010, 09:42:44 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 11, 2010, 08:59:18 PM
Not likely. I might be interested in inspecting the work, but no bottle rockets: too many people looking for "terrorists" these days... (and I'm only half joking)
Better also be careful about vehicle choice for the meet.  Local law enforcement may have same concerns as FSPD:

Quote
Sgt. Danny Baker, head of the Fort Smith Police Department's Street Crimes Unit, has been doing extensive research on outlaw biker gangs and the crimes their members have been accused and convicted of committing across the nation.
"Any time you open up a major thoroughfare, you're opening it up to the possibility of that type of activity,"  Baker said. "There's certainly been instances of bikers carrying drugs on the interstate systems."
Baker said that although the Police Department is concerned about what he describes as an outlaw biker presence in and around Fort Smith, there is no reason to believe that outlaw bikers are using the interstate systems or will use I-49 for crimes such as drug trafficking.
Nevertheless, Baker said I-49 likely will attract drug traffickers.
"Are we expecting an increase in drugs passing through on it? Certainly, any major routes around here are well known drug arteries,"  he said. "If we have a north/south route (such as I-49), we can only expect the same."
(http://www.swtimes.com/news/article_e5a0673e-bb5f-11df-85e7-001cc4c002e0.html)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 15, 2010, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on September 11, 2010, 09:59:32 AM
Assuming I go to the Texarkana meet, I'm going to want to spy some of the I-49 construction from AR 549 down to Shreveport.
Perhaps more viewing pleasure will be available by the time of the Texarkana meet.  LADOTD recently moved anticipated letting date for Segment F from October to November and left anticipated letting date for Segment G in October, which strongly suggests that the Segment G grubbing, etc. contract will be let in October:

http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8220.asp

Quote
Caddo  Oct 2010  455-09-0011  I 49  I-49 North (La 169 - La 530) Seg G  New Interstate (Segment G)  $30,000,000 to $50,000,000  4.78  Umeozulu, Joe  Jun 2010  
Caddo  Nov 2010  455-09-0005  I 49  I-49 North (La 530 - La 170) Seg F  New Interstate (Segment F)  $20,000,000 to $30,000,000  3.29  Umeozulu, Joe  May 2010
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 30, 2010, 04:53:38 PM
Segment E of I-49 North was let on Sept. 29: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20100929.asp

Quote
455-09-0006 (DBE Goal Project) I-49 NORTH (JCT. LA 170 TO US 71)
CLEARING & GRUBBING, GR., DR. STRUCTURES, CLASS II BC, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT, CONC. SLAB SPAN BRIDGES, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONC. GIRDER SPAN BRIDGES; ALT. A1, SUPERPAVE ASPH. CONC. PAVEMENT; ALT. A2, PCC PAVEMENT; & RELATED WORK.
Parish(es): Caddo
Route(s): I-49
Federal: 0021(019)
Estimated Construction Cost: $41,044,209.77
Apparent Low Bidder: James Construction Group Llc
11200 INDUSTRIPLEX BLVD.STE 150
BATON ROUGE, LA 70809
Phone: (225)295-4830  $38,926,189.64

Segment G of I-49 North has officially been listed for the October 27 letting: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsinfo/bihq20101027.asp

Quote
Lead Project: 455-09-0011 Lead Federal No. : 0900(539) Parish(es): Caddo
Description: I-49 NORTH (LA 169 - LA 530)
Type: CLR & GRUBB, GRADING, DRAINAGE STR, CLASS II BASE COURSE, SUPERPAVE ASPH CONC PAVEMENT, CONC SLAB SPAN BR, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONC GRIDER SPAN BR; ALTERNATE A1, SUPERPAVE ASPH CONC PAVEMENT; ALTERNATE A2, PORTLAND CEMENT CONC PAVEMENT; & RELATED WORK.

Bidder Address City
State Zip
Code Phone Fax DBE\SE
Certified
Brudd Construction Co., LLC 565 HWY 453 MARKSVILLE, LA 71351 (318)253-0747 (318)253-0749 DBE
Pac Unlimited, Inc. PO BOX 789 CALHOUN, LA 71225 (318)644-5911 (318)644-5913 DBE
Stars & Stripes Traffic Sys., LLC. 5790 GENE BALL DR ALEXANDRIA, LA 71302 (318)442-5921 (318)442-0288

Tentative letting date for Segment F of I-49 North has been moved from November to December: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8220.asp

Quote
Caddo  Dec 2010  455-09-0005  I 49  I-49 North (La 530 - La 170) Seg F  New Interstate (Segment F)  $20,000,000 to $30,000,000  3.29  Umeozulu, Joe  May 2010
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 05, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
I apparently misinterpreted LADOTD's I-49 North webpage.  According to LADOTD (via email today), Segment C, like Segment A, is essentially complete:

Quote
Segment C is not on the "Projects to Be Let Within 6 Months" page because it has already been let (in April 2008) . The current work on segment C, from La. 2 to Mira-Myrtis Road included clearing, paving and building bridges. The majority of this work has already been completed, and minor items remain to be completed.

I'm guessing that, post- Segments A & B, LADOTD's lettings have been for the entire project.  I had assumed, given below info, from I-49 North webpage, that Segment C, etc. would have a "final" paving, bridgework, etc. contract:

Quote
Construction Completion Schedules
Arkansas state line to La. 168, Segment A, paving and bridges - Summer 2010
La 168 to Mira-Myrtis Road, Segment B, paving and bridges - Fall 2010
Mira-Myrtis Road to La 2, Segment C, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving - Summer 2010
La 2 to U.S. 71, Segment D, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving - Fall 2011
La. 170 to U.S. 71, Segment E (partially funded), clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving
La. 530 to La. 170, Segment F, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving - Fall 2011 - Summer 2012 La 530 to La 169, Segment G, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving - Summer 2012
La. 173 to La. 169, Segment H, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving - Fall 2011
La. 1 to La. 173, Segment I, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving - Spring 2013
I-220 to La. 1, Segments J-K (unfunded), clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving
(http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/)

All the more completed work for SW Arkansas Meet attendees to see in the Spring (I think).

Any recent visual confirmations?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on October 05, 2010, 09:54:50 PM
So close yet so far with those last two sections and the Inner City Connector to go. I say LA will find the money for the last two sections within the next year. Well the ICC is a different story. I do seem to sense from a distance that the normal inner city resistance to a Interstate isn't there. In fact from what I read and hear that the locals want it badly and sooner than later. Hopefully LA can build the Inner City Connector to a six laner with bridges easily expandable.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2010, 09:33:02 AM
Segment G of I-49 North (4.78 miles) was let on October 27: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20101027.asp

Quote
455-09-0011 (DBE Goal Project) I-49 NORTH (LA 169 - LA 530)
CLR & GRUBB, GRADING, DRAINAGE STR, CLASS II BASE COURSE, SUPERPAVE ASPH CONC PAVEMENT, CONC SLAB SPAN BR, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONC GRIDER SPAN BR; ALTERNATE A1, SUPERPAVE ASPH CONC PAVEMENT; ALTERNATE A2, PORTLAND CEMENT CONC PAVEMENT; & RELATED WORK.
Parish(es): Caddo
Route(s): I-49
Federal: 0900(539)
Estimated Construction Cost: $36,630,905.88
Apparent Low Bidder: James Construction Group Llc
11200 INDUSTRIPLEX BLVD.STE 150
BATON ROUGE, LA 70809
Phone: (225)295-4830  $36,439,346.06

Eight of the eleven I-49 North segments have now been let.

Segment F still scheduled for a tentative December letting: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8220.asp

Quote
Caddo  Dec 2010  455-09-0005  I 49  I-49 North (La 530 - La 170) Seg F  New Interstate (Segment F)  $20,000,000 to $30,000,000  3.29  Umeozulu, Joe  May 2010
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 04, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on October 05, 2010, 09:54:50 PM
Well the ICC is a different story. I do seem to sense from a distance that the normal inner city resistance to a Interstate isn't there. In fact from what I read and hear that the locals want it badly and sooner than later. Hopefully LA can build the Inner City Connector to a six laner with bridges easily expandable.
ICC still proceeding slowly.  Stage 0 feasibility study complete: http://www.i49shreveport.com/documents.php.  Got an e-mail update from Providence Engineering: ICC is high priority for NLCOG & they are trying to procure funding for Stage 1 & Interchange Justification studies. It is currently anticipated that those studies will begin in approximately 6 months.

I find it interesting that the community wants at least part of the ICC to be elevated:  Interesting contrast to I-10/ Claiborne boulevardization debate in NO.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 05, 2010, 12:25:11 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 04, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on October 05, 2010, 09:54:50 PM
Well the ICC is a different story. I do seem to sense from a distance that the normal inner city resistance to a Interstate isn't there. In fact from what I read and hear that the locals want it badly and sooner than later. Hopefully LA can build the Inner City Connector to a six laner with bridges easily expandable.
ICC still proceeding slowly.  Stage 0 feasibility study complete: http://www.i49shreveport.com/documents.php.  Got an e-mail update from Providence Engineering: ICC is high priority for NLCOG & they are trying to procure funding for Stage 1 & Interchange Justification studies. It is currently anticipated that those studies will begin in approximately 6 months.

I find it interesting that the community wants at least part of the ICC to be elevated:  Interesting contrast to I-10/ Claiborne boulevardization debate in NO.
But comparing the folks in Shreveport to New Orleans is like comparing NYC to Kansas.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 05, 2010, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 05, 2010, 12:25:11 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 04, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on October 05, 2010, 09:54:50 PM
Well the ICC is a different story ... the normal inner city resistance to a Interstate isn't there.
I find it interesting that the community wants at least part of the ICC to be elevated:  Interesting contrast to I-10/ Claiborne boulevardization debate in NO.
But comparing the folks in Shreveport to New Orleans is like comparing NYC to Kansas.
I agree Treme probably has more historical significance than Allendale, but I believe the communities face similar challenges (and re Allendale perhaps perceived opportunities) regarding interstates running through them.    Wasn't trying to compare greater Big Easy to greater Shreveport.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on November 06, 2010, 10:30:38 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 04, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
I find it interesting that the community wants at least part of the ICC to be elevated:  Interesting contrast to I-10/ Claiborne boulevardization debate in NO.

To be honest (and off-topic), I think most people in the N.O. would rather see the I-10 rebuilt as a modern elevated expressway than be torn down. Those pushing the idea of removing it are developers and urban planners who are looking to gentrify and then you have to yuppie types who jumped on the bandwagon, not caring how it affects the bulk of the area.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 22, 2010, 05:20:16 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 25, 2010, 01:01:34 PM
I have looked at the construction plans for all the I-49 jobs in Louisiana which have plans available, and all of the lengths involved (according to the signing plans) are to be signed as I-49.
A recent email from LADOTD confirms that I-49 North will be initially signed as I-49.  Also, mileage for mile markers will be based on I-220 routing.  If and when ICC ever built, mile markers will be changed to reflect that routing.  Relevant part of email:

Quote
The new segment of I-49 from I-220 to Arkansas will be signed as I-49. Currently, we only have approval for the routing of I-49 that overlaps I-20 and I-220. The section that runs through Shreveport probably will not be open to traffic for quite some time. Once the section is built between I-20 and 220, the exit numbers on the north section will be changed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 22, 2010, 06:41:44 PM
Well....they better save some of those mileposts, because if they don't build the IICC through downtown Shreveport before they build I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans, they are going to have to change their mileage markers a third time.

On the other hand, the fact that LaDOTD seems committed to building the IICC is nice. Now, where are they going to find the money??



Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 23, 2010, 04:08:54 PM
Having just returned from a trip through Louisiana, I can update the construction status:

-north of Gilliam: construction underway on the east side of US 71 (49 will pass over 71), bridge embankment less than 25 percent complete

-east of Hosston: construction underway at LA 2 (49 passing over LA 2), bridge embankments less than 50 percent complete

-north of Hosston: construction complete (49 passing under US 71, no interchange)

-west of Mira: construction roughly 50 percent complete at Mira-Myrtis Rd (49 passing over Mira-Myrtis Rd, also realignment of M-M Rd between I-49 and US 71)

-west of Ida: construction roughly 95 percent complete at LA 168 (49 passing under LA 168 which is 4-Lanes divided, plus left turn lanes)

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 24, 2010, 05:44:34 PM
Did you have a chance to check on 5 mile section on Arkansas side of state line?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 24, 2010, 06:50:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 24, 2010, 05:44:34 PM
Did you have a chance to check on 5 mile section on Arkansas side of state line?

Yes, I did.

Miller CR 41: mostly preliminary dirt work.  I-49 parallels the road

71 @ AR 549: dirt embankments still u/c on both sides of 71 and end of 549. I'm guessing less than 50 percent complete

AR 245: preliminary dirt work to the east of AR 245 just south of I-30. Less than 25 percent complete

19th St Interchange is about 75 percent finished. Overpass is complete, but work continues on ramps and rebuilding 245.

Also appears to be some work on 245 at US 82, but it was getting too dark to see.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 25, 2010, 11:24:11 AM
Quote from: US71 on November 23, 2010, 04:08:54 PM
Having just returned from a trip through Louisiana, I can update the construction status:
-north of Gilliam: construction underway on the east side of US 71 (49 will pass over 71), bridge embankment less than 25 percent complete
-east of Hosston: construction underway at LA 2 (49 passing over LA 2), bridge embankments less than 50 percent complete
-north of Hosston: construction complete (49 passing under US 71, no interchange)
-west of Mira: construction roughly 50 percent complete at Mira-Myrtis Rd (49 passing over Mira-Myrtis Rd, also realignment of M-M Rd between I-49 and US 71)
-west of Ida: construction roughly 95 percent complete at LA 168 (49 passing under LA 168 which is 4-Lanes divided, plus left turn lanes)
Apparently, more work is coming.  Segment F is on track for a Dec. 15 letting: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsinfo/bihq20101215.asp

Quote
Lead Project: 455-09-0005 Lead Federal No. : 0021(017) Parish(es): Caddo
Description: I-49 NORTH (LA 530 TO LA 170), Segment F
Type: GRADING; DRAINAGE STRUCTURES; CLASS II BASE COURSE; SLAB SPAN AND PRESTRESSED GIRDER BRIDGES; ALTERNATE AA1, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT; ALTERNATE AA2, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT; AND RELATED WORK.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 22, 2010, 06:41:44 PM
On the other hand, the fact that LaDOTD seems committed to building the IICC is nice. Now, where are they going to find the money??
Anthony
Segment F will be 9th of 11 I-49 North segments to be let.  I just hope they can find the money soon for the remaining two, Segments J & K, much less the ICC!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 06, 2010, 01:36:22 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 22, 2010, 05:20:16 PM
" [from a LADOTD email] ...Currently, we only have approval for the routing of I-49 that overlaps I-20 and I-220. The section that runs through Shreveport probably will not be open to traffic for quite some time. Once the section is built between I-20 and 220, the exit numbers on the north section will be changed."
Received an email from LADOTD today which corrects above information.  The mileage markers for I-49 North running from I-220 to the Arkansas state line are going to be based on the assumption that the ICC will one day be built.  Also, contrary to Wikipedia, I was advised that the interim routing for I-49 will overlap I-20 (not LA 3132) and I-220.  Nonetheless, I expect much of the through traffic will use LA 3132.

Here is relevant part of email (I included the public information officer's name & contact info in case a member of this forum is a Wikipedia author and would like to follow up with her):

Quote
The I-49 exits will be numbered based on the assumption that the I-49 intercity connection is made. Until that time, I-49 will overlap I-20 and I-220, not LA 3132.   Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,
Lauren Lee
Public Information Officer  225.379.1294
Department of Transportation and Development"
Lauren.Lee@LA.GOV
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on December 06, 2010, 09:56:20 PM
Hopefully the ICC is built someday. It would really help Shreveport traffic and thru traffic alot. As I said before it appears the town and neighborhoods wouldn't be against it. Maybe 10-15 years down the road.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 11, 2010, 01:05:23 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 27, 2010, 08:44:08 AM
This is typical of the signing plans for I-49 North:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fbd%2FSheet_0110.png&hash=6def8ebd70199b08d7a4b2ced0329a47b3c0ba87)

Note I-49 trailblazer assembly.

The format is also typical of LaDOTD signing plans in general.  I am sorry to say that they generally do not produce good signing plans.  LaDOTD does not do sign design sheets, period, and it is rare for sign layout sheets to be pattern-accurate, although LaDOTD did this a few years ago for (among other projects) a sign rehabilitation contract on the existing length of I-49.

In terms of the scheduling of future I-49 contracts, plans are currently available for 455-09-0006 and 455-09-0011, but not 455-09-0005.  My guess is that the three contracts will be let individually, without ties or "A + B" bidding arrangements, because the individual contracts are all fairly large and, since the relevant lengths of I-49 are being built substantially on new location, there is limited scope for scale economies through consolidation of traffic management.

Do you know any other exit numbers from Shreveport to Arkansas?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 11, 2010, 01:15:40 AM
Also, I think it's really crappy that we can't even drive on the completed segments for another 2.5 years?!  That's horrible.  All this anticipation.  If you can open 6 miles (or whatever) then that's a decent length of road... Just don't sign it as I-49, but at least let traffic use it.  Just mark it as a US 71 detour with those orange temporary construction signs.  But 2013?  really?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 15, 2010, 02:53:17 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 27, 2010, 08:44:08 AM
In terms of the scheduling of future I-49 contracts, plans are currently available for 455-09-0006 and 455-09-0011, but not 455-09-0005.  My guess is that the three contracts will be let individually, without ties or "A + B" bidding arrangements, because the individual contracts are all fairly large and, since the relevant lengths of I-49 are being built substantially on new location, there is limited scope for scale economies through consolidation of traffic management.
Although Segments E, F, and G were let individually, it appears that the same construction contractor has submitted the winning bid for all three.  James Construction Group, LLC seems to have pulled off the I-49 North Segments E, F and G trifecta and submitted the apparent low bid of $25,651,578.20 for Segment F today: http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20101215.asp

Quote
455-09-0005 (DBE Goal Project) I-49 NORTH (LA 530 TO LA 170), Segment F
GRADING; DRAINAGE STRUCTURES; CLASS II BASE COURSE; SLAB SPAN AND PRESTRESSED GIRDER BRIDGES; ALTERNATE AA1, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT; ALTERNATE AA2, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT; AND RELATED WORK.
Parish(es): Caddo
Route(s): I-49
Federal: 0021(017)
Estimated Construction Cost: $28,821,476.25
Apparent Low Bidder: James Construction Group Llc
11200 INDUSTRIPLEX BLVD.STE 150
BATON ROUGE, LA 70809
Phone: (225)295-4830  $25,651,578.20

Here's a link to a Business Week article about the contractor winning the Segments E & G work, as well as a considerable I-12 project near Slidell: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JRCU880.htm

9 I-49 North initial Segment lettings done and 2 to go.
Title: Lafayette; I-49 Connector Tolls, Construction in 2013?
Post by: Grzrd on December 17, 2010, 11:27:49 AM
A local commission is studying tolls as an option to pay the $700 million price for the I-49 Connector.  The study is in extremely early stages.  Article contains an optimistic projection of construction beginning in 2013: http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/112047789.html

Quote
Tolls eyed for I-49 completion
LAFAYETTE – A commission is exploring the possibility of collecting tolls to fund the completion of Interstate 49 through Lafayette.
The Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission will study whether traffic volumes would generate enough toll revenue to upgrade U.S. 90 to interstate standards from Interstate 10 south through Iberia Parish, commission member Elaine Abell said this week.
There is no estimate yet for the total project, but the cost of the elevated stretch through the city of Lafayette has been estimated at $700 million ...
Abell said tolls might offer an option to put the interstate on the fast track, assuming the fees can generate sufficient revenue.
If the toll option is pursued and there are no major obstacles, construction could begin as early as 2013, said Kam Movassaghi, president of the Lafayette engineering firm Fenstermaker, which is working on the project ...
The commission plans to use a $2.5 million state appropriation to pay for the toll-feasibility study, Abell said.
The study is expected to be completed within three months, she said, and planning could quickly pick up pace if the project seems viable.
The plan at this time remains in the early stages, and many of the details have yet to be addressed, such as the amount of any future tolls or where and how the tolls would be collected.
There is also the question of whether Lafayette-area residents and political leaders will be receptive to the idea ...
The Expressway Commission's focus on I-49 is a shift from its original mission to make plans for a traffic "loop"  around Lafayette, but the state legislation that created the commission in 2003 does not limit the group's work to the loop project.
The loop idea is still a possibility, but I-49 is a more immediate and realistic goal, Guidry said.
Unlike the loop, the planning and environmental studies for I-49 are complete.
"It's ready to roll,"  Abell said. "It's just the funding."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 17, 2010, 03:11:08 PM
Sorry, but this just isn't going to fly.

For starters, where in the hell are you going to put in the toll booths?? Kind of hard to do within the ROW limits.

Secondly...they do know that the Evangeline Thruway is still going to be open, right?? Which means, that anyone wanting to cheat the tolls will simply remain on the surface portion.

Third...if they decide to go to electronic tolling to avoid the toll booths, then what about those who don't have the ability to buy transponders? (Cajun Pass, anyone??)) I guess they will have to use the Thruway, then??

And finally...how does Shreveport get the Inner City Connector built as a freeway (as well as the rest of I-49 North), yet South Louisiana has to pony up tolls for I-49 South?? Especially when most of US 90 is already either completed to Interstate standards or well on the way??

Good ole Bobby Jindal seems to be getting his transportation planning lessons from Goodhair Perry next door...the WRONG lessons.

Here's a better idea, Gov:  Pony up your new majority buds in next year's Congress for some real transportation funds and build the I-49 Connector and I-49 South between Lafayette and Morgan City as a FREEWAY as it was meant to be.  Or, if you really want to toll US 90, do it between Lafayette and New Iberia, but upgrade it as a Texas-style urban freeway with access roads and improvements to the interchanges in between.

Otherwise, just dump this project and simply build an all-toll Lafayette Metro X-way loop with the Teche Ridge East Bypass included on the east side.


Amthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on December 26, 2010, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 17, 2010, 03:11:08 PM
Sorry, but this just isn't going to fly.

For starters, where in the hell are you going to put in the toll booths?? Kind of hard to do within the ROW limits.

GeauxPass, think LA-1

Quote
Secondly...they do know that the Evangeline Thruway is still going to be open, right?? Which means, that anyone wanting to cheat the tolls will simply remain on the surface portion.

Tolls in Texas and in New Orleans have alternates. At the end of the day most people just chalk it up and take the most convenient route.

Quote
Third...if they decide to go to electronic tolling to avoid the toll booths, then what about those who don't have the ability to buy transponders? (Cajun Pass, anyone??)) I guess they will have to use the Thruway, then??

A GeauxPass is $12. On another note the GeauxPass system is currently unable to process violators and LaDOTD recently discovered that the software has not been capturing and storing information from non-payers for at least 5 or 6 years. In the likely chance that they correct this and with the current trend of going all electronic in Louisiana, I'd hope that they'd implement tolls by mail for those who don't have a geauxpass.

Quote
And finally...how does Shreveport get the Inner City Connector built as a freeway (as well as the rest of I-49 North), yet South Louisiana has to pony up tolls for I-49 South?? Especially when most of US 90 is already either completed to Interstate standards or well on the way??

The community there actually embraces the ICC and the I-49 North project is viewed as more urgent than I-49 South for some reason.
[/quote]
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 26, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on December 26, 2010, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 17, 2010, 03:11:08 PM
Sorry, but this just isn't going to fly.

For starters, where in the hell are you going to put in the toll booths?? Kind of hard to do within the ROW limits.

GeauxPass, think LA-1

Within a 300' ROW?? In an urban freeway setting?? Really??

That may work for US 90 south of Lafayette Regional Airport...but within Lafayette proper??

Quote
Quote
Secondly...they do know that the Evangeline Thruway is still going to be open, right?? Which means, that anyone wanting to cheat the tolls will simply remain on the surface portion.

Tolls in Texas and in New Orleans have alternates. At the end of the day most people just chalk it up and take the most convenient route.

Problem is, there IS no alternative to the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor for north/south traffic traveling through Lafayette.  And no, University Avenue/Pinhook Road doesn't count.

Quote
Quote
Third...if they decide to go to electronic tolling to avoid the toll booths, then what about those who don't have the ability to buy transponders? (Cajun Pass, anyone??)) I guess they will have to use the Thruway, then??

A GeauxPass is $12. On another note the GeauxPass system is currently unable to process violators and LaDOTD recently discovered that the software has not been capturing and storing information from non-payers for at least 5 or 6 years. In the likely chance that they correct this and with the current trend of going all electronic in Louisiana, I'd hope that they'd implement tolls by mail for those who don't have a geauxpass.

Do you really think that people in Lafayette used to riding on "free" highways are going to accept being billed by mail?? Especially, on a route that is essentially complete as a free route??

Quote
Quote
And finally...how does Shreveport get the Inner City Connector built as a freeway (as well as the rest of I-49 North), yet South Louisiana has to pony up tolls for I-49 South?? Especially when most of US 90 is already either completed to Interstate standards or well on the way??

The community there actually embraces the ICC and the I-49 North project is viewed as more urgent than I-49 South for some reason.
[/quote]

Of course, I-49 North is considered more urgent, because it is almost completed. That still doesn't lessen the main importance of I-49 South, or the need to at least complete the segment between Lafayette and Morgan City. Plus, the I-49 Connector is already approved and in the final design stage, while the ICIC in Shreveport hasn't even started an EIS.

It still strikes me as an insult to South Louisiana why they couldn't push Congress for more funding at least to build I-49 through Lafayette and down to Morgan City without tolls.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on December 26, 2010, 05:02:43 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 26, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Within a 300' ROW?? In an urban freeway setting?? Really??

All you need are overhead gantries.

Quote
Problem is, there IS no alternative to the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor for north/south traffic traveling through Lafayette.  And no, University Avenue/Pinhook Road doesn't count.

I was under the impression that Evangeline Thruway would serve as a feeder along most of the new highway except for a section that drifts away and then comes back. If so that would serve as the Texas equivelalent to an alternate and would be and a step-up compared to those we have in N.O. which take you a bit out of the way. If not I honestly wouldn't know.

Quote
Do you really think that people in Lafayette used to riding on "free" highways are going to accept being billed by mail?? Especially, on a route that is essentially complete as a free route??

I don't know what Lafayette residents will except, but at the rate that things are going it seems like they'll either have to pay for the highway or not have a highway at all.

Quote
Of course, I-49 North is considered more urgent, because it is almost completed. That still doesn't lessen the main importance of I-49 South, or the need to at least complete the segment between Lafayette and Morgan City. Plus, the I-49 Connector is already approved and in the final design stage, while the ICIC in Shreveport hasn't even started an EIS.

It still strikes me as an insult to South Louisiana why they couldn't push Congress for more funding at least to build I-49 through Lafayette and down to Morgan City without tolls.

I would like to see I-49 South here (maybe with a different number) just as much as you would. I think one problem is that many people see the western half of U.S. 90 fine as it is with the exception of the connector and they want to elevate a large portion of the eastern half and throw in two large interchanges. At that rate, I-49 South is an extremely expensive recontstruction of a route that is already four-laned and mostly access limited.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on December 26, 2010, 10:46:50 PM
I-49 South needs to go now. As sad as it sounds New Orleans actually got lucky with Katrina as a weaking Hurrricane in 2005. Next time New Orleans might not be so lucky. New Orleans and Acadia need I-49 urgently to get more evacuation thru put.
Title: LA Gov. Jindal Announces Plan to Build I-49 North Segment J
Post by: Grzrd on January 19, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
Segment J would be 4.25 miles in length and leave the 1 mile Segment K as the last remaining piece of the I-220 to Arkansas state line stretch of I-49 to be let: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110119/NEWS01/110119015/Jindal-announces-legislation-for-I-49-segment

Quote
Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Wednesday plans to construct a 4.25 mile stretch of Interstate 49 connecting Martin Luther King Boulevard and Louisiana Highway 1.
In order for Jindal to secure the $60 million needed for the J Segment of I-49, Rep. Jane Smith will author legislation expanding the purposes for using the unclaimed property leverage fund, allowing the state to bond out the fund to for the project ...

Here's a link to a more comprehensive article: http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=13871194
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on January 19, 2011, 10:59:02 PM
In time of little new Interstate building. We must congratulate Louisiana for getting it done by hook and crook on Interstate 49 north. I do think now that it's almost done to I-220 that Louisana should go hard after I-49 south. That will make I-49 north look like a dream with the money, politics, enviromental studies and turf fighting involved with every mile on I-49 south.
Title: LA Game Plan to Fund I-49 North Segment K
Post by: Grzrd on January 20, 2011, 11:22:58 AM
An editorial from this morning's Shreveport Times sets forth the game plan to fund Segment K, the final mile of the I-49 North project.  Essentially, if Segment J plan announced yesterday works out, then Louisiana will have spent approximately double its 20% split in 20/80 state/federal formula.  With Segment K literally being the "final mile" of the I-49 North project (plus all of the Arkansas section from LA state line to I-30 either complete or under construction), Louisiana anticipates that it should have high priority to be reimbursed by the Feds for the money spent over its 20% share, which reimbursement it would then use to fund Segment K:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110120/OPINION03/101200331/Editorial-Seizing-the-day-to-help-complete-I-49

Quote
... In mid-2007, Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a measure by Haughton Republican Billy Montgomery to set aside $15 million annually from the state's unclaimed property fund for I-49 construction, with the money divided equally for the segment between Interstate 220 in Shreveport and Arkansas and the segment between Lafayette and New Orleans.  The money was to be used as a magnet to attract more federal dollars for I-49, with the state putting up 20 percent to the U.S. government's 80 percent.
Alas, those federal dollars have not been coming to Louisiana as fast as the state would like. Of the $460 million spent on the northward extension as of last fall, Louisiana has spent about $185 million – slightly more than twice its 20 percent match.  And $7.5 million a year doesn't go a long way when financing highway construction. So, instead, Jindal basically wants to use those funds as collateral for a $60 million loan to finance completion of Segment J, a 4¼-mile stretch that runs from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Louisiana Highway 1.
"Instead of spending $7.5 million directly (on I-49), we would use that revenue stream to pay off the bonds," explained state Sen. Lydia Jackson, D-Shreveport, who was out of state when Jindal made the announcement.
"We've said we aren't going to wait for them (the federal government) to put up their dollars, we're simply going to get this project done," the governor said during his news conference here Wednesday.
The good news is that Louisiana is not forfeiting its ability to attract federal dollars for the years-old project. In fact, the objective is for the federal government to someday reimburse the state for what it's spent over its 20 percent share. That funding, once received, in turn would be used for the mile-long Segment K.
"Surely the feds can finish one mile for us. This has been funded for the state," state Rep. Jane Smith, R-Bossier City, said ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: froggie on January 20, 2011, 12:29:49 PM
To be fair, states putting up more than 20% will quite possibly become the norm instead of the exception.  The article doesn't mention it, but the Federal spigot is in the process of running dry.  And all indications are that Congress won't step in to change that.  House Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they intend Federal transportation spending to match gas tax revenue, with no more general treasury transfers.

So if Louisiana expects reimbursement from the Feds for I-49, they'll either be A) waiting a long time, or B) seeing it come from their normal Federal highway money allotment...such as that is.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 21, 2011, 12:21:58 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 20, 2011, 12:29:49 PM
To be fair, states putting up more than 20% will quite possibly become the norm instead of the exception.  The article doesn't mention it, but the Federal spigot is in the process of running dry.  And all indications are that Congress won't step in to change that.  House Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they intend Federal transportation spending to match gas tax revenue, with no more general treasury transfers.

So if Louisiana expects reimbursement from the Feds for I-49, they'll either be A) waiting a long time, or B) seeing it come from their normal Federal highway money allotment...such as that is.


Except that 7 of the 9 federal representives for Louisiana are Republican, as well as their governor.  
Yeah they'll all be favor of keeping federal money out of Louisiana.  :pan:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2011, 09:15:50 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on January 21, 2011, 12:21:58 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 20, 2011, 12:29:49 PM
To be fair, states putting up more than 20% will quite possibly become the norm instead of the exception.  The article doesn't mention it, but the Federal spigot is in the process of running dry.  And all indications are that Congress won't step in to change that.  House Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they intend Federal transportation spending to match gas tax revenue, with no more general treasury transfers.

So if Louisiana expects reimbursement from the Feds for I-49, they'll either be A) waiting a long time, or B) seeing it come from their normal Federal highway money allotment...such as that is.


Except that 7 of the 9 federal representives for Louisiana are Republican, as well as their governor. 
Yeah they'll all be favor of keeping federal money out of Louisiana.  :pan:

So much for "No Earmarks" (as if anyone believed them)  :evilgrin:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: froggie on January 21, 2011, 02:47:38 PM
QuoteYeah they'll all be favor of keeping federal money out of Louisiana.

If the Republicans in your home state are any indication...

That 7 out of 9 of the Louisiana reps are Republicans really doesn't matter.  The bottom line is that Federal highway funding is stagnating, whether you (or they) like it or not.  And the Republicans in Congress have put themselves in a situation where they cannot considerably increase it without losing major "political points", whether it be from raising taxes (taboo to the "mainstream" Republican) or diverting from elsewhere (which is unlikely given that they're proposing to do some drastic budget cutting already).

Earmarks would be even worse...because that's money that counts AGAINST what the state normally gets in Federal highway funding.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 21, 2011, 11:38:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 21, 2011, 02:47:38 PM
QuoteYeah they'll all be favor of keeping federal money out of Louisiana.

If the Republicans in your home state are any indication...

That 7 out of 9 of the Louisiana reps are Republicans really doesn't matter.  The bottom line is that Federal highway funding is stagnating, whether you (or they) like it or not.  And the Republicans in Congress have put themselves in a situation where they cannot considerably increase it without losing major "political points", whether it be from raising taxes (taboo to the "mainstream" Republican) or diverting from elsewhere (which is unlikely given that they're proposing to do some drastic budget cutting already).

Earmarks would be even worse...because that's money that counts AGAINST what the state normally gets in Federal highway funding.


But at the end of the day, all politics is local. Albeit in Louisiana or Ohio.
The Louisiana delegation, and the Louisiana population, has to decide what is more important. Find funds to build I-49 or sacrifice funding the highway to stop federal spending.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 22, 2011, 11:42:30 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 19, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
Segment J would be 4.25 miles in length and leave the 1 mile Segment K as the last remaining piece of the I-220 to Arkansas state line stretch of I-49 to be let: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110119/NEWS01/110119015/Jindal-announces-legislation-for-I-49-segment

"Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Wednesday plans to construct a 4.25 mile stretch of Interstate 49 connecting Martin Luther King Boulevard and Louisiana Highway 1.

In order for Jindal to secure the $60 million needed for the J Segment of I-49, Rep. Jane Smith will author legislation expanding the purposes for using the unclaimed property leverage fund, allowing the state to bond out the fund to for the project ..."

Here's a link to a more comprehensive article: http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=13871194


Interesting irony that the article is from a Lafayette TV station. I guess that Jindal isn't going to do the same for I-49 South anytime soon??

It's looking more and more like tolls will be the preferred solution there...even in the Lafayette urban segments.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 16, 2011, 09:18:49 PM
LADOTD recently updated their I-49 North page, including revised completion date estimates for the various Segments:

http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/

Quote
Construction Completion Schedules
Arkansas state line to La. 168, Segment A, paving and bridges — Spring 2011
La 168 to Mira-Myrtis Road, Segment B, paving and bridges — Summer 2011
Mira-Myrtis Road to La 2, Segment C, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2011
La 2 to U.S. 71, Segment D, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2012
La. 170 to U.S. 71, Segment E, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
La. 530 to La. 170, Segment F, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
La 530 to La 169, Segment G, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
La. 173 to La. 169, Segment H, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Fall 2011
La. 1 to La. 173, Segment I, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
I-220 to La. 1, Segments J-K (unfunded), clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — TBD pending funding
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on February 16, 2011, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 16, 2011, 09:18:49 PM
LADOTD recently updated their I-49 North page, including revised completion date estimates for the various Segments:

http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/

"Construction Completion Schedules
Arkansas state line to La. 168, Segment A, paving and bridges — Spring 2011
La 168 to Mira-Myrtis Road, Segment B, paving and bridges — Summer 2011


I'm a bit surprised Segment A will be done before Segment B. From what I saw last time I was there, Segment B was almost done.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: FLRoads on February 18, 2011, 05:53:05 PM
La DOTD is now reporting that they have awarded the contract to construct segment of I-49 North from La. 530 to La. 170 (Segment F):

DOTD awards contract to construct segment of I-49 North from La. 530 to La. 170
Friday, February 18, 2011

BATON ROUGE, La. — The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) announced today that a $25.7 million contract has been awarded to James Construction Group LLC of Baton Rouge to construct a 3.4-mile segment of I-49 North from La. 530 (Caddo Street) to La. 170 (Gilliam-Vivian Road).

This project is "Segment F" of the I-49 North project, which will construct a four-lane interstate with a 4-foot inside shoulder and a 10-foot outside shoulder from I-220 in Shreveport to the Arkansas state line. "Segment F" is the final segment of the project that is fully funded at this time.

"Awarding this contract is another example of DOTD's dedication to finishing the I-49 North corridor," said DOTD Secretary Sherri H. LeBas. "We will continue to work with local and state officials on finding innovative ways to fund the remaining two sections of this important roadway."

Last month, Governor Jindal announced that he is pursuing legislation in the upcoming session to bond out $7.5 million in order to invest the estimated $60 million needed to construct one of the two remaining segments for I-49 North. This funding will be put towards the construction of the 4.25-mile "J Segment" — from Martin Luther King Boulevard to La. 1. This will leave only one mile of the corridor left to complete.

To date, DOTD has bid a total of nine contracts for construction of I-49 North projects — valued at a total of $460 million. A total of 31 of 36.25 miles of I-49 North are now fully funded and under construction or are in the process of beginning construction.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is committed to delivering transportation and public works systems that enhance the quality of life. In addition to more than 16,600 miles of roadway, including over 890 miles of interstate, DOTD supports the development of the state's aviation, marine and rail infrastructures. Through this work, we are able to facilitate economic development, create job opportunities, improve vital evacuation routes, and make critical freight corridors safer and more efficient.

Also see the article here: http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1611 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1611)
Title: LADOTD Tours of I-49 North Project
Post by: Grzrd on February 19, 2011, 09:08:57 PM
The video on this news report has Sherri LeBas talking about the tours; no specifics are mentioned, but it looks like they are trying to drum up some excitement and investment from the business community:

http://www.ktbs.com/news/26906969/detail.html

Quote
.... The Louisiana Transportation Department is offering a tour of the I-49 north project and an update on the progress of building the corridor. The last two segments just north of Shreveport remain unfunded. They'll cost an estimated $160 million. Another $460 million in state and federal funds are already being used to finish I-49 from the city to the Arkansas line.

I could not find any info about the tours from either LADOTD's recent press releases or their I-49 North page.
Title: Segments A & B of I-49 North Completed?
Post by: Grzrd on February 22, 2011, 08:01:21 PM
Quote from: US71 on February 16, 2011, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 16, 2011, 09:18:49 PM
LADOTD recently updated their I-49 North page, including revised completion date estimates for the various Segments:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/
"Construction Completion Schedules
Arkansas state line to La. 168, Segment A, paving and bridges — Spring 2011
La 168 to Mira-Myrtis Road, Segment B, paving and bridges — Summer 2011
I'm a bit surprised Segment A will be done before Segment B. From what I saw last time I was there, Segment B was almost done.
Your observation seems to be confirmed by the following report that Segments A & B have been completed:

http://www.wreg.com/news/sns-ap-la--interstate49,0,3029545.story

Quote
State transportation secretary Sherri LeBas told The Times that the two segments close to Arkansas are completed. She says construction of two other segments will begin over the next few months.

Maybe Texarkana Take Deux meet participants will be able give us a conclusive report from the field (I have a family conflict & will be unable to attend).

EDIT

Here's a more comprehesive article from the Shreveport Times:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110222/NEWS01/102220325/I-49-taking-shape-from-different-pieces

Quote
... Segment A and Segment B, the closest to Arkansas, are already complete and construction of two other segments will begin in the next few months, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Secretary Sherri LeBas said .... A dirt-and-mud access road from there goes to Segment C, essentially complete except for signs and striping on the road. But it is still a closed road. Area Engineer Greg Wall said the police have been called several times for people cruising the stretch. ... Segment C was completed at the end of last year and required 1 million yards of excavation and one million yards of embankment, Wall said...

The article also has a video of Sherri LeBas in which she reiterates that LADOTD expects people to be driving on I-49 North in 2013.

Who on earth would want to cruise on a completed stretch?  :happy:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on February 22, 2011, 11:08:35 PM
I guess we now know of US 71's last stealth visit to Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 23, 2011, 07:05:56 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on February 22, 2011, 11:08:35 PM
I guess we now know of US 71's last stealth visit to Louisiana.
"Smokey and the Road Scholar"?  I guess the movie will come out about the time they allow the public to legally drive on it.  Can't wait to see the scene where he jumps over Mira-Myrtis Road.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2011, 06:43:13 PM
I see the Texarkana meet is covering Future I-49 from the LA 168 interchange south past Hosston to the US 71 interchange. What other sections of I-49 north of I-20 have enough progress to be worth looking at? In particular, 168 north to the beginning of 549, US 71 south to 169 (around Dixie), 173 and south?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 24, 2011, 12:24:18 AM
Here are the latest updates as of 3-23-2011:

LA 168: 99 percent complete

Mira-Myrtis Rd: 50 percent complete (still working on finishing bridges, paving ramps, realligning MM Rd

US 71 north of Hosston: 100 percent complete

LA 2 east of Hosston: 25 percent complete (embankments mostly finished, bridge work starting)

US 71 north of Gilliam: Maybe 10 percent complete (dirt work just beginning west of 71)

LA 169: dirt work just beginning on south side of the road

LA 173: dirt work on both sides of the roadway


ALSO: there appears to be preliminary work along US 71 north of Texarkana near Miller County Rd 55, on the east side of the roadway
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on March 24, 2011, 03:41:40 PM
What's the latest on when we might see work start on the part from I-20 to I-220 in northwest Shreveport, LA?

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 24, 2011, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 24, 2011, 03:41:40 PM
What's the latest on when we might see work start on the part from I-20 to I-220 in northwest Shreveport, LA?
Mike

Quote from: Grzrd on November 04, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
ICC still proceeding slowly.  Stage 0 feasibility study complete: http://www.i49shreveport.com/documents.php.  Got an e-mail update from Providence Engineering: ICC is high priority for NLCOG & they are trying to procure funding for Stage 1 & Interchange Justification studies. It is currently anticipated that those studies will begin in approximately 6 months.

I have not emailed Providence Engineering since above post (a little under 5 months ago), I have not noticed any recent articles, and the Inner-City Connector website does not reflect any recent progress.  The next "work" could possibly be Stage 1 and Interchange Justification studies in a couple of months.  Actual construction appears to be years away.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on March 24, 2011, 08:20:54 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 24, 2011, 12:24:18 AM
Here are the latest updates as of 3-23-2011:

LA 168: 99 percent complete

Mira-Myrtis Rd: 50 percent complete (still working on finishing bridges, paving ramps, realligning MM Rd

US 71 north of Hosston: 100 percent complete

LA 2 east of Hosston: 25 percent complete (embankments mostly finished, bridge work starting)

US 71 north of Gilliam: Maybe 10 percent complete (dirt work just beginning west of 71)

LA 169: dirt work just beginning on south side of the road

LA 173: dirt work on both sides of the roadway


ALSO: there appears to be preliminary work along US 71 north of Texarkana near Miller County Rd 55, on the east side of the roadway

Thanks - basically what Google Maps shows is what's out in the field, I suppose. I'll stick to the plan of seeing it all Friday afternoon, and since I'll be in Texarkana Saturday anyway... well... I have no idea!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 25, 2011, 08:46:51 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 24, 2011, 08:20:54 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 24, 2011, 12:24:18 AM
Here are the latest updates as of 3-23-2011:
LA 168: 99 percent complete
Mira-Myrtis Rd: 50 percent complete (still working on finishing bridges, paving ramps, realligning MM Rd
US 71 north of Hosston: 100 percent complete
LA 2 east of Hosston: 25 percent complete (embankments mostly finished, bridge work starting)
US 71 north of Gilliam: Maybe 10 percent complete (dirt work just beginning west of 71)
LA 169: dirt work just beginning on south side of the road
LA 173: dirt work on both sides of the roadway ...
Thanks - basically what Google Maps shows is what's out in the field, I suppose. I'll stick to the plan of seeing it all Friday afternoon, and since I'll be in Texarkana Saturday anyway... well... I have no idea!
I took a look at website for Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG" - their homepage proudly displays a non-neutered I-49 shield) and it has a link to a February 17 LaDOTD 7 1/2 minute video update of I-49 North construction progress.  I was underwhelmed by it, but you might find a couple of "video nuggets" to supplement US71's field report:

http://www.nlcog.org/

Quote from: Grzrd on March 24, 2011, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 24, 2011, 03:41:40 PM
What's the latest on when we might see work start on the part from I-20 to I-220 in northwest Shreveport, LA?
Mike
Quote from: Grzrd on November 04, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
ICC still proceeding slowly.  Stage 0 feasibility study complete: http://www.i49shreveport.com/documents.php.  Got an e-mail update from Providence Engineering: ICC is high priority for NLCOG & they are trying to procure funding for Stage 1 & Interchange Justification studies. It is currently anticipated that those studies will begin in approximately 6 months.
I have not emailed Providence Engineering since above post (a little under 5 months ago), I have not noticed any recent articles, and the Inner-City Connector website does not reflect any recent progress.  The next "work" could possibly be Stage 1 and Interchange Justification studies in a couple of months.  Actual construction appears to be years away.
NLCOG website also has a "I-49 ... Then & Now" page that has a brief discussion of the Inner-City Connector, including a rounded off to the dollar cost estimate of $281,428,002. :meh:, but no indication as to the timing of the next step in the process.  This page also has photos of I-49/La 168 completed interchange and a view from state line looking at the Arkansas construction of I-49 (I believe the photos are circa late September/early October 2010):

http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/I-49_then_now.pdf

NLCOG appears to do a good job of updating their info and is probably a good place to check for updated ICC information.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 25, 2011, 12:16:29 PM
There's also the official I-49 Shreveport ICC page:  http://www.i49shreveport.com/

A final public meeting for the Stage 0 Feasability Study and Environmental Inventory is scheduled for tonight in Shreveport. I'm assuming that they will get funding for future studies, and an EIS will be forthcoming.

The fact that LaDOTD is using I-20 west to I-220 (rather than LA 3132 Inner Loop) for the internim route for I-49 once the segments from I-220 north to Arkansas is completed, says to me that they want this to be finished.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 25, 2011, 12:54:43 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 25, 2011, 12:16:29 PM
A final public meeting for the Stage 0 Feasability Study and Environmental Inventory is scheduled for tonight in Shreveport. I'm assuming that they will get funding for future studies, and an EIS will be forthcoming.
By coincidence, the final public meeting was held on March 25 last year.  At this point, I think it is simply a matter of finding the money to proceed to Stage 1, etc.

Quote
Final Public Meeting Scheduled!

When: March 25, 2010
Where: J.S.Clark School Cafeteria
Time: 4:30pm to 6:30pm
Format: Open House
(come and go as you please)

http://www.i49shreveport.com/
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 25, 2011, 01:32:36 PM
Oh, darn it...I misread it then....I was under the impression that that was THIS year.  Oh, well...never mind.  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 25, 2011, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 19, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110119/NEWS01/110119015/Jindal-announces-legislation-for-I-49-segment
"Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Wednesday plans to construct a 4.25 mile stretch of Interstate 49 connecting Martin Luther King Boulevard and Louisiana Highway 1.

In order for Jindal to secure the $60 million needed for the J Segment of I-49, Rep. Jane Smith will author legislation expanding the purposes for using the unclaimed property leverage fund, allowing the state to bond out the fund to for the project ..."

Quote from: Grzrd on March 25, 2011, 08:46:51 AM
website for Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ... has a link to a February 17 LaDOTD 7 1/2 minute video update of I-49 North construction progress.
http://www.nlcog.org/
LaDOTD video referenced above has two interesting pieces of information.  First, at about the 4min30sec mark, Sherri LeBas comments that Arkansas is expecting to "do" its I-49 project from the state line up to AR 549 in 2015. (I think she means that it is expected to open to traffic in 2015, which in turn will allow LA to open Segment A in 2015).  Next, at about the 5min mark, she mentions that LaDOTD will use the unclaimed property leverage fund to bond out the funds for Segment J of the project and that Segment J construction is anticipated to begin in Summer 2012.

She mentions that one-mile Segment K will cost $100 million and that much of the cost will result from construction of the I-49/I-220 interchange, but Segment K is still currently unfunded.

No mention of either Shreveport Inner-City Connector or I-49 South.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 26, 2011, 03:04:51 AM
That would make sense, since LaDOTD is still awaiting funding to continue the environmental process for the ICC, and still waiting for the Feds to bring down some funds as well for I-49 South. I'd figure that securing funding for Seg. K and completing I-49 North is Priority #1 right now.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 28, 2011, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 25, 2011, 08:46:51 AM
NLCOG website also has a "I-49 ... Then & Now" page that has a brief discussion of the Inner-City Connector, including a rounded off to the dollar cost estimate of $281,428,002. :meh:, but no indication as to the timing of the next step in the process.
I called NLCOG's offices during lunch and received following info:

(1) NLCOG received a $250,000 HUD grant on March 18 to help develop a plan going forward for distressed neighborhoods of Allendale and Ledbetter Heights (NLCOG's grant application: http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/Choice_Neighborhoods_Grant_Final.pdf [map of Allendale and Ledbetter in relation to I-49/I-20 interchange is on page 67/95 of the application pdf]) and they are currently trying to figure out the scope of what that grant actually covers;

(2) Funding is in place for Stage 1 and Interchange Justification studies, but the HUD grant will expand the scope of the overall study, which they are still formulating;

(3) The current thinking is that the study will begin by the beginning of summer;

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 26, 2011, 03:04:51 AM
I'd figure that securing funding for Seg. K and completing I-49 North is Priority #1 right now.
(4) NLCOG's new slogan is "One More Mile!" (in reference to Segment K)

Regarding overall progress on I-49, they believe that controversy over Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" helped jumpstart I-49 progress because I-49 was second largest project on the list.

Also, the combination of highway corridor/HUD neighborhood study seems very similar to what is currently going on in Memphis with Lamar Corridor study (in which Lamar Corridor will in some revised form or fashion connect Memphis Airport to I-22 and I-240).

EDIT

Here is reference to Inner-City Connector in HUD application:

Quote
 I-49 Inner City Connector Study: NLCOG has historically recognized the need to develop a connection between existing Interstate 49 (I-49) to the I-49 North interchange with Interstate-220. This 3.8 mile section was part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement developed in 1976 for the I-49 Corridor. The inner-city section was removed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Recently, the I-49 North route received environmental clearance, and NLCOG has received over $3million from the State to design the connection. NLCOG has taken a comprehensive view of the project area, and incorporated livability principles into the planning effort; an extensive public involvement plan has been developed. Public participation is fostered through multiple means of outreach, public meetings and survey tools. Stakeholder interviews, public input surveys and community meetings have been utilized to ensure the public has been engaged in the process of determining the feasibility of the plan. Far too often planners consider the public after planning and design has begun, with preconceived ideas. The intent of this extensive outreach has been to enter the project with "eyes wide open/a blank page"  with a simple request "you tell us."  This method has become a model for other projects in the region.
[pages 7-8/95 of the HUD application pdf linked above]
Title: 75 MPH speed limit for I-49's stretch through DeSoto Parish, LA.
Post by: Alex on April 12, 2011, 03:02:50 PM
Thanks to lamsalfl for the update.

Speed limit increasing to 75 mph on I-49 in DeSoto (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110412/NEWS01/110412009/0/NEWS01/Speed-limit-increasing-75-mph-49-DeSoto?odyssey=nav%7Chead)

QuoteBATON ROUGE - The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development announced today that the speed limit on the rural portion of I-49 DeSoto Parish will be raised from 70 mph to 75 mph.

The new speed limit will be in effect from 1.5 miles south of the state Highway 175 interchange to the Natchitoches Parish line. The highway features on this section of roadway can safely accommodate higher speeds.

DOTD engineers study speed limits on state maintained roadways to ensure they are set correctly. Recently, the DOTD traffic engineering office in Shreveport launched a traffic study to help determine what the safest and most efficient posted speed limit should be on the rural portions of I-49.

After reviewing the results of the study, it was determined that 85 percent of all drivers traveling on this section of I-49 are traveling at or below 75 mph. The new speed limit will go into effect in the next two weeks.

National studies and practices have shown that setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile can help to reduce crashes along the roadway. Speed limits set higher than the 85th percentile are not considered reasonable and safe, and speed limits set below the 85th percentile do not move traffic efficiently. In addition, speed limits set below the 85th percentile cannot be enforced effectively and are not voluntarily observed by motorists.

To ensure the safety of motorists, DOTD personnel will install automated speed and count stations along the roadway to monitor speeds and crashes along this section of I-49. DOTD will reexamine the speed limit increase if at any time data supports a new study.
Title: Re: 75 MPH speed limit for I-49's stretch through DeSoto Parish, LA.
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
is this the furthest east in the country that will have a speed limit of 75?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Revive 755 on April 12, 2011, 05:26:01 PM
^Yes, since it appears to be further east than the 75mph Turnpike section of I-44 in Oklahoma.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2011, 11:40:36 AM
Construction updates for y'all, as of yesterday (4/15/11), cross street by cross street:

LA 1/LA 538: Just clearing so far. They were burning some evergreens in a large heap, which smelled wonderful. Didn't bother going up Albany Rd. because it would just be more of the same.
LA 173: Worth a stop. There's a good amount of active construction here, with one bridge pier in and another slowly taking shape from the ground up. Mainline is graded, ramps are already base-paved for construction vehicle access.
LA 169: Just grading at this point, surprising given the activity just to the south on 173.
US 71: Same thing, just grading here.
Hosston River Rd.: Definitely worth a stop. The I-49 overpass girders are in, but not yet the deck. Pavement is in on either side. Don't walk across, but you can walk up either side and take plenty of photos. It's a nice, remote location if you wanted to get out onto the old alignment, compared to most of the other crossings.
LA 2: Most of the overpass girders are in, but there's still part missing where LA 2 sneaks by. Worth at least a drive-by.
US 71 (take 2): 71 is on the new overpass, and the highway is complete beneath it except for striping. Worth a photo in either direction.
Mira Myrtis Rd.: The new alignment of Mira Myrtis is right next to the existing one and is basically complete starting at US 71. It doesn't look like a twinning, unless the old alignment is going to be completely rebuilt once the new one opens. Certainly possible. I-49 construction is ongoing here, a lot closer to completion than at LA 173 but not to the same degree as Hosston River Rd. (And not only is construction more active, but the road is too - would not recommend stopping here for too long.)
Munnerlyn Chapel Rd.: The road is closed at the new bridge over I-49, but it looks like construction is pretty close to complete.
LA 168, Ida State Line Rd.: Everything's complete at both locations.
Miller CR 2 (Arkansas): There's only grading in at this point, but it looks like construction is about to heat up. I guess because Louisiana is dragging its feet north of Shreveport, Arkansas saw no pressing need to extend AR 549 to the state line - just means that it'll be awhile before any new length of highway opens, even though several miles will be otherwise ready for traffic this year.
Title: Shreveport Inner-City Connector Update
Post by: Grzrd on April 27, 2011, 06:04:05 PM
NLCOG recently posted draft minutes from early April Transportation Committee meeting.  Stage 1 studies are beginning in conjunction with other studies:

http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/MPO_04_07_11.pdf

Quote
Task B-5 I-49 Inner City Connector Stage 1
Goal: Stage 1 of the I-49 Inner City Connector is to obtain environmental clearance consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a controlled access highway to connect the existing Interstate 49 (I-49)/Interstate 20 (I-20) interchange to the proposed I-49/Interstate-220 (I-220) interchange within the city of Shreveport in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. This corridor is approximately 3.8 miles long.

Mr. Rogers stated NLCOG with the completion of the enhanced Stage 0 for this project would be moving into the next phase which will include Stage 1 Environmental and coordination with the next few Tasks.

Task B-6 HUD Choice Neighborhood Planning
Goal: The NLCOG Choice Neighborhood Partnership's vision is for two inner-city neighborhoods marked by high abandonment, urban decay, severe poverty, elevated crime, high unemployment and low educational attainment: Allendale and Ledbetter Heights in Shreveport.

Mr. Rogers was pleased to announce that NLCOG and the City of Shreveport have been awarded a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant for the Allendale Ledbetter Heights area. Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments will receive $250,000 under the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative to implement a comprehensive approach to transforming distressed areas of poverty into viable and sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods.

Task B-7 I-49 Inner City Connector and HUD Choice Neighborhood Coordination
Goal: To promote a comprehensive, continuing and coordinated approach to transforming distressed areas of poverty into viable and sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods through carefully planned projects and developments.

Mr. Rogers noted that there are many planning efforts beginning and/or in the process for the area surrounding the I-49 Inner City Corridor including NLCOG's Stage 1 Environmental, I-49 Corridor Land Use Development and the HUD Choice Neighborhood project. He also noted that HUD, DOT, and EPA have signed an agreement to encourage coordination of projects within a common area. He stated that the purpose of this task is to make sure that all of these efforts are coordinated together and to be sure that their efforts do not contradict each other.
Mr. Altimus asked how where things going with these and how did we feel these are being received and if everyone was on board. Mr. Rogers noted that the outcome of the I-49 study showed nearly 90% approval and that the Choice Neighborhood group was the same basic group that had submitted for the regional grant. Mr. Rogers reiterated the HUD/DOT/EPA agreement and the need for better coordination. Mayor Glover concurred.

Task B-8 I-49 Corridor Land Use Study
Goal: A preferred future land use plan for the I-49 corridor with practical control mechanisms to help achieve the desired results.

Mr. Rogers noted that this is the final component to the I-49 work and that there is potential to expand the scope of this to include other areas of the parish. The expanded portion would be paid for by the parish.
Title: LA Gov Jindal Announces Funding For Completion of I-49 North
Post by: Grzrd on May 02, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
Today, Bobby Jindal announced funding for completion of I-49 North.  Construction should begin on Segment J in Summer 2012 and on Segment K as soon as Summer 2013:

http://www.ksla.com/story/14556230/jindal-announces-funding-for-completion-of-i49

Quote
... Governor Jindal announced Monday morning that his 2012 capital outlay bill includes the funding needed to complete the final section of the interstate in Louisiana.
That bill, HB 2, was filed Monday morning in Baton Rouge.  "Around four years ago, I said during my campaign that as Governor I would make sure we did everything we could to complete I-49 North and keep Northwest Louisiana growing. Today, we fulfill that commitment by announcing the last amount of new funding needed for the K Segment - $73 million — to finish I-49 North to Arkansas."
LA Rep. Jane Smith, (R) Dist. 8, introduced legislation in January to bond out $7.5 million from the state's Unclaimed Property Fund in order to invest the estimated $60 million needed to construct one of the two remaining segments for I-49 North.  
Depending on conditions of the financial market, Jindal says this bonding effort could generate $87 million - $27 million more than would be needed for Segment J, leaving additional funds for Segment K to cover the $100 million estimated cost of the final section.
Segment K will run from I-220 to Martin Luther King Boulevard, a distance of approximately one mile. Construction is expected to begin on Segment J in summer 2012 and segment K as early as summer 2013 ...
Governor Jindal also took a moment Monday to congratulate President Barack Obama, his national security team and the military for the death of Osama bin Laden, calling it a "great day for America, a great day for justice around the world."

This article has a bit more detail about the funding:

http://www.katc.com/news/governor-jindal-announces-funding-to-complete-i-49-north/

Quote
... The Governor's capital outlay bill for 2012 includes $73 million in new Priority 5 funds for I-49 to complete the project, in addition to the advancement of $14 million in Priority 5 funds and $22.5 million in Priority 2 bond funds announced last year ...

EDIT

Shreveport Times indicates that, if proposed legislation passes, Segments J & K (thus all of I-49 North) will be completed in 2016.:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110503/NEWS01/105030326/1060/Jindal-proposes-funding-final-stage-49

Quote
Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Monday that he plans on introducing legislation that would complete the final section of long-awaited Interstate 49 north, linking Louisiana to Arkansas .... Jindal said the first nine phases of the project, which have been previously worked on, would be completed by 2013. The final two phases, which is the money earmarked in the proposed bill, would be finished by 2016 if passed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 02, 2011, 10:21:07 PM
Congrats to LA in getting it done. Took time, energy but now I see I-49 coming thru Shreveport much quicker.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:32:41 PM
And in the meantime, folks down here in Lafayette are still twiddling their fingers waiting for Jindal to free up some cash for our segments.

Hopefully, he'll be as aggressive in completing at least some of I-49 South as he is for the Shreveport segments.

In any rate, congrats to Shreveport in getting it finally done this decade.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 04, 2011, 04:57:42 PM
One would think that would be a priority given the Hurricane evacuation issues. However maybe the endless enviromental issues are slowing things and him down.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 04, 2011, 04:57:42 PM
One would think that would be a priority given the Hurricane evacuation issues. However maybe the endless enviromental issues are slowing things and him down.

What environmental issues???

Most of US 90 (the portion between Morgan City and Raceland) is already Interstate grade; the segment between New Iberia and Wax Lake is nearly complete with only spot frontage roads to be completed and a couple of intesections needing to be replaced with grade-seperated interchanges; and the remaining segments have already gotten enviromental approvals through ROD's.

The only real issue is money....granted, with a price tag of $5 billion to complete the entire route between Lafayette and New Orleans, that's a plenty.

I'll settle for completing the segments through Lafayette and the segment through Patterson/Bayou Vista to Berwick, if I can get it.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 04, 2011, 11:21:00 PM
Was thinking west of New Orleans.........I know the Lafayette is ready to go............I say once the north is complete LA should find a steady revunue stream and bond it out.
Title: $250 Million For I-49 South?
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2011, 06:49:45 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 04, 2011, 11:21:00 PM
I know the Lafayette is ready to go
Financed not by taxes, but fees:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/state_commercial_personal_lice.html

Quote
A north Louisiana lawmaker Monday said that the Legislature needs to send to voters a proposal to increase the commercial and personal vehicle license fees to chip away at major road construction needs .... Rep. Hollis Downs, R-Ruston, said his House Bills 483 and 546 would increase the minimum personal license tag fees from $10 to $30 and would triple a variety of commercial drivers fees to generate about $200 million a year -- half from each group of drivers.
The money would be used to build 42 highway construction projects around the state, estimated to cost about $3 billion ....
The state Constitution bases the personal license tag on the value of a vehicle with all owners paying at least $10 now. That would go to $30 under the Downs proposal.
The basic fee increases by $1 for every $1,000 of the vehicle's value in excess of $10,000 ....
Downs said he has gotten "mixed reaction" from the governor's office with some saying the fee is the same as a tax and others saying that a fee would not be opposed by the administration because it is not a tax.
Gov. Bobby Jindal has promised to veto any tax lawmakers send him, but has left the door open to fees. Downs said that he is sponsoring a separate fee bill for the administration.
The proposed constitutional change would need a two-thirds vote of the Legislature but would not have to be signed by Jindal. Instead, it would go the the Oct. 22 ballot for voter approval or rejectiion.
The big-ticket items to be financed by the Transportation Infrastructure Growth of Economy through Roads Fund -- or the TIGER Fund -- include ... $250 million for construction of I-49 south in Lafayette from La. 88 to the Lafayette airport.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 09, 2011, 07:18:01 PM
Very interesting...although this probably won't fly, since our beloved Tea Party-dependent electorate here sees any attempt to raise revenue as an evil tax and will vote accordingly.

The "scrub the budget" attitude still reigns large here in Louisiana.

And, last time I checked, the cost for upgrading US 90 between Lafayette Regional Airport and the LA 88 interchange was roughly $350 million, so even this bit would fall short.  On the other hand, if that $250 mil raised by these "fees" was leveraged with Federal money on the 90% Fed/10% State scale, that would be enough to fund I-49 all the way from Lafayette to Raceland (including the urban segment in Lafayette from I-10 to the airport).

The only other alternative I can see is tolling US 90...and I'm not sure how the Tea Party conservatives down here would take to that.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 10, 2011, 05:41:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 09, 2011, 06:49:45 PM
Rep. Hollis Downs, R-Ruston, said his House Bills 483 and 546 would increase the minimum personal license tag fees from $10 to $30 and would triple a variety of commercial drivers fees to generate about $200 million a year -- half from each group of drivers.
The money would be used to build 42 highway construction projects around the state, estimated to cost about $3 billion ... includ[ing] ... $250 million for construction of I-49 south in Lafayette from La. 88 to the Lafayette airport."
Downs announced today that he is withdrawing the two bills after he met with Jindal and Jindal expressed his opposition to the plan:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/state_representative_withdraws.html

Back to the drawing board for I-49 South ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: qguy on May 21, 2011, 01:11:14 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 09, 2011, 07:18:01 PM
Very interesting...although this probably won't fly, since our beloved Tea Party-dependent electorate here sees any attempt to raise revenue as an evil tax and will vote accordingly.

Raising a tax rate is not the same as raising tax revenue. Increasing a tax rate decreases tax revenue (sometimes after a brief bump up) because it discourages the very activity that is being taxed. Conversely, decreasing a tax rate generally increases tax revenue (sometimes immediately, sometimes even ahead of an announced rate decrease) because it encourages growth of the activity that is being taxed.

So if you want to raise revenue, then yeah, don't raise tax rates. This is not a new concept; it's been preached by economists long before the tea party came around.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Revive 755 on May 21, 2011, 09:32:59 AM
^ Sure, people are going to quit buying license plates if the cost goes up by $20.  Pretty sure that extra $20 is cheaper than getting pulled over for driving without them.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 21, 2011, 09:50:00 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 21, 2011, 01:11:14 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 09, 2011, 07:18:01 PM
Very interesting...although this probably won't fly, since our beloved Tea Party-dependent electorate here sees any attempt to raise revenue as an evil tax and will vote accordingly.

Raising a tax rate is not the same as raising tax revenue. Increasing a tax rate decreases tax revenue (sometimes after a brief bump up) because it discourages the very activity that is being taxed. Conversely, decreasing a tax rate generally increases tax revenue (sometimes immediately, sometimes even ahead of an announced rate decrease) because it encourages growth of the activity that is being taxed.

So if you want to raise revenue, then yeah, don't raise tax rates. This is not a new concept; it's been preached by economists long before the tea party came around.

Ahhhh...no, it doesn't.

Supply-side economics has been proven to be an utter failure, because tax cuts do not bring more government revenue. In fact, the only reason supply-side APPEARED to work in 1983 was because there were tax increases (mostly regressive ones on Social Security via increased payroll taxes and reduced benefits), and because of the military budget skyrocketing. Plus, the debt ceiling was far lower than it is now, and it was consistently raised to cover the true value of the debt.

Basic fundamental needs such as infrastructure need to be supported by sufficient revenue. Like it or not, that means taxes and fees. This is not the 17th century.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: qguy on May 21, 2011, 05:53:58 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 21, 2011, 09:50:00 AMBasic fundamental needs such as infrastructure need to be supported by sufficient revenue. Like it or not, that means taxes and fees. This is not the 17th century.

I wholeheartely agree. We need tax revenues and plenty of them. No one is advocating elimination of taxes, only reduction of tax rates. Why would reducing tax rates return us to the 1600s?

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 21, 2011, 09:50:00 AMSupply-side economics has been proven to be an utter failure, because tax cuts do not bring more government revenue.

A lot of economic geniuses--including some with Nobel Prizes--disagree. Advocates of reducing tax rates don't say that it always increases tax revenue, or that tax revenues alway increase to the same degree. The principle is that for every tax or fee, there is an optimal set point that maximizes revenue generated by that tax or fee. Raising that tax rate above, or reducing that tax rate below, the optimal set point will reduce the revenue generated. If the tax rate is set too high, then lowering it will increase revenue. If the tax rate is set too low, then raising it will increase revenue.

No serious economist (or economic student) argues that this is not so. What economists argue about (among other things) is whether any particular tax or fee is set at, above, or below the optimal set point to maximize revenue.

Which is enough in itself to argue about for generations, so...

I'll quit arguing economics before I get us all banished to the nether regions.   :biggrin:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
qguy, you're right that there's an optimal point for taxation that maximizes revenue. You're wrong to think that we should be reducing taxes, though. Right now, we don't have enough funding for anything government does, including infrastructure maintenance. Our taxes are also far lower than they were under a healthy economy years ago. The answer is obvious.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mightyace on June 04, 2011, 09:39:38 PM
^^^

Actually there are three obvious answers:

1) Raise taxes
2) Cut spending
3) Raise taxes and cut spending until the amounts meet.

Which answer you prefer, naturally, depends on how much you think the government should be doing.

Personally, most of our leaders don't have the guts do pick ANY option that would balance budgets.  And, we the people are to blame.  As I've said before we seem to want socialist level of government services at Tea-party conservative tax rates.

If we want big government, then we'll need big taxes.  If we want small taxes, then we must scale down the government.
Title: I-49 South; US 90/LA 85 Interchange To Open To Traffic This Week
Post by: Grzrd on June 13, 2011, 04:37:15 PM
A little bit of good news for I-49 South; US 90/LA 85 interchange to open this week (upon its completion, Iberia Parish waill have all of its interchanges completed):

http://www.iberianet.com/news/overpass-nearly-complete/article_cb45708c-95d4-11e0-ad16-001cc4c03286.html

Quote
After more than a year of construction, the newest piece of the Interstate 49 South puzzle will be complete this week as the interchange of U.S. 90 and Louisiana 85 opens to vehicular traffic ... "We are very, very close,"  state Department of Transportation and Development district engineer Bill Oliver said. "The project has been going well, with just a few little hiccups."  ... Started in May 2010, the $24.5 million project was one of the first design-build projects approved by DOTD, Oliver said ... The project involved the realigning of U.S. 90, building an overpass over Louisiana 85, building new frontage roads and access ramps and moving a microwave tower previously located between the two roadways to a new location off of U.S. 90 ... It was initiated as part of the ongoing effort to upgrade U.S. 90 to interstate standards for the future Interstate 49, which will run from Lafayette to New Orleans ... In order to do that, local access roads must be limited and formal entrances and exits need to be constructed ...  "All of the interchanges in Iberia Parish are complete,"  Oliver said. "Y'all are the first to have all of your interchanges complete."  ...
Oliver said the only pieces in Iberia Parish that remain are the railroad tracks that cross U.S. 90 east of the Louisiana 85 interchange and the construction of the Captain Cade frontage road project ... A formal ribbon-cutting ceremony will be held in the upcoming weeks, Oliver said, with a number of "prominent officials,"  likely to be in attendance because of the stature of the overpass.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 14, 2011, 10:23:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 13, 2011, 04:37:15 PM
A little bit of good news for I-49 South; US 90/LA 85 interchange to open this week (upon its completion, Iberia Parish waill have all of its interchanges completed):

http://www.iberianet.com/news/overpass-nearly-complete/article_cb45708c-95d4-11e0-ad16-001cc4c03286.html

"After more than a year of construction, the newest piece of the Interstate 49 South puzzle will be complete this week as the interchange of U.S. 90 and Louisiana 85 opens to vehicular traffic ... "We are very, very close,"  state Department of Transportation and Development district engineer Bill Oliver said. "The project has been going well, with just a few little hiccups."  ... Started in May 2010, the $24.5 million project was one of the first design-build projects approved by DOTD, Oliver said ... The project involved the realigning of U.S. 90, building an overpass over Louisiana 85, building new frontage roads and access ramps and moving a microwave tower previously located between the two roadways to a new location off of U.S. 90 ... It was initiated as part of the ongoing effort to upgrade U.S. 90 to interstate standards for the future Interstate 49, which will run from Lafayette to New Orleans ... In order to do that, local access roads must be limited and formal entrances and exits need to be constructed ...  "All of the interchanges in Iberia Parish are complete,"  Oliver said. "Y'all are the first to have all of your interchanges complete."  ...
Oliver said the only pieces in Iberia Parish that remain are the railroad tracks that cross U.S. 90 east of the Louisiana 85 interchange and the construction of the Captain Cade frontage road project ... A formal ribbon-cutting ceremony will be held in the upcoming weeks, Oliver said, with a number of "prominent officials,"  likely to be in attendance because of the stature of the overpass."

And another one bites the dust. 

One question, though....what are they going to do with that at-grade railroad crossing about 300' or so east of the LA 85 interchange on US 90?? Isn't that the one that serves a sugar cane processing mill? Are they going to simply abandon them or rebuild the RR ROW to avoid crossing 90, or what??

Either way...progress. Glacier pace...but progress.

Next up: the LA 318 intersection near Four Corners. EA in progress, with construction soon to follow.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on June 17, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
LA 318 interchange is about to begin construction or are you just guessing?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on June 17, 2011, 03:03:36 PM
Not to get too Political here. Imagine if 53 Billion had gone to Hurricane Evacuation routes instead of playing trains. I-49 South, I-73, I-74 all could easily get done and then some major six laning of I-64, I-24 and many others.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 17, 2011, 03:41:45 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on June 17, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
LA 318 interchange is about to begin construction or are you just guessing?

Not yet construction...LADOTD began environmental studies and engineering about 3 months ago, should be completed with an EA/FONSI around this time next year, then construction pending funding.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 17, 2011, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on June 17, 2011, 03:03:36 PM
Not to get too Political here. Imagine if 53 Billion had gone to Hurricane Evacuation routes instead of playing trains. I-49 South, I-73, I-74 all could easily get done and then some major six laning of I-64, I-24 and many others.

Actually, I don't have a problem with funding rail-based transit where applicable and when needed....I'd just rather that Louisiana get their act together and complete this project. Hopefully, after I-49 North is finished near 2020, it will be our turn.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on July 19, 2011, 09:50:36 AM
To the next step on the Inner City Connector.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110718/NEWS01/107180306/I-49-inner-city-project-moves-into-next-phase
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on August 18, 2011, 03:01:04 PM
http://www.i49shreveport.com/
One of the photos in the rotation is an aerial of I-35E in Dallas...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on August 19, 2011, 10:02:47 PM
Waitaminiute?  They're only $10 in Louisiana?  We're paying $99 here in Illinois, up from $79.  $30 is a freaking bargin!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
On Thursday, federal and state officials asserted that I-49 South is still a top priority, but $$$$$ is the top problem:
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20110826/NEWS01/108260327

Quote
State and federal officials said Thursday that completing Interstate 49 South remains a top priority, even though there is no dedicated funding for portions of the project.
The entire route would run 156 miles, from Interstate 10 in Lafayette to New Orleans, and has been divided into 14 sections, said Eric Kalivoda, deputy secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
Seven of those sections are either completed or have total funding, Kalivoda told attendees at an Acadiana Regional Alliance meeting Thursday morning. The estimated cost for the remaining unfunded portions is about $5 billion.
Among the largest portions without funding are the section from I-10 in Lafayette to La. 88, and Wax Lake Outlet to Berwick in St. Mary Parish. The Lafayette section alone could cost about $1.1 billion.
U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany said those estimates have continued to increase over the years because of inflation.
"We're kind of chasing a moving goal post," Boustany said. "That's why we need a breakthough."
Other than funding through the federal highway bill, Boustany said other options have been discussed, including some type of infrastructure banking and public/private partnerships. So far, nothing has come of those talks, but Boustany said he remains optimistic ...
Kalivoda said revenue for transportation projects comes from fuel taxes, registration and permit fees, unclaimed property and vehicle sales taxes. Because of the magnitude of the I-49 project, Kalivoda said other options have been mentioned, including bonding some of the unclaimed property, putting tolls on at least portions of the interstate or transferring money from other road projects that have never materialized.
However, many of those ideas would likely create serious political and public-policy questions ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2011, 05:57:00 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on June 17, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
LA 318 interchange is about to begin construction or are you just guessing?

Not construction yet..they have to complete the EA (Enviornmental Assessment) first, that takes about 18 months. Then, design and construction.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on August 28, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
Just toll it. Ai yi yi.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2011, 09:18:30 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on August 28, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
Just toll it. Ai yi yi.
Video report about Thursday's I-49 South meeting has at least one "man in the street" interview in favor of tolling:  http://www.klfy.com/story/15336144/i-49-moving-forward
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on August 29, 2011, 10:37:03 AM
I think it will get done as their is the Political Will and the residents seem to want to get it done. The money will sort itself out eventually. Just taking a positive getting some road built geek vibe.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: texaskdog on August 29, 2011, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: mightyace on June 04, 2011, 09:39:38 PM
^^^

Actually there are three obvious answers:

1) Raise taxes
2) Cut spending
3) Raise taxes and cut spending until the amounts meet.

Which answer you prefer, naturally, depends on how much you think the government should be doing.

Personally, most of our leaders don't have the guts do pick ANY option that would balance budgets.  And, we the people are to blame.  As I've said before we seem to want socialist level of government services at Tea-party conservative tax rates.

If we want big government, then we'll need big taxes.  If we want small taxes, then we must scale down the government.


Or as the federal govt does, just get more credit cards and worry about it later
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 29, 2011, 06:23:58 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 28, 2011, 09:18:30 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on August 28, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
Just toll it. Ai yi yi.
Video report about Thursday's I-49 South meeting has at least one "man in the street" interview in favor of tolling:  http://www.klfy.com/story/15336144/i-49-moving-forward

It may be possible to toll some segments between Lafayette and New Iberia and use the proceeds to build the remaining segment in Lafayette proper (and perhaps even the Wax Lake to Berwick segment, too), but only if the service roads are converted to Texas-style one way access roads and a combination of toll booths and electronic tolling were utilized. I'm usually against tolls myself, but if it is the only option to build the road, then so be it.

Hopefully, after I-49 North is finished in 2015, the Feds and the state will send some love and money our way at last.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2011, 03:19:04 PM
i have been looking at google maps of the southern part, were US90 is being upgraded, and i want to know if anyone can explain to me why so much money is being waisted down in those compleatly rural areas with elevated sections of highway? at every interchange, the freeway becomes elevated  way before the road crossing, and is a complete waist of money. i can understand elevated sections in wetland areas, but not through farmland away from wetlands. my first thought was that it was for the evacuation of floodwater, but the ramps would be blocking that, so that isnt why. can anyone come up with an explanation for why so much money is being waisted there? because if they have extra fed money for the highway, and they are just burning it on useless elevated highway, i think it would be better spent somewere else, like helping boost the lack of Wisconsin freeways.  
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 08, 2011, 04:00:33 PM
Actually, there's a perfectly good reason why LA does their overpasses like that.

The soils down here are pretty wet due to being at or below sea level, and it is expensive to continuously truck better soil for filling over to cut down on building the elevated structures. So, in this case, it's more cost efficient to extend the elevated structures.

As far as US  90  and proposed I-49 South is concerned, the decision to go all elevated for the Raceland to New Orleans segments was motivated by Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, and the fact that the authorities wanted a highway built above the flood plain enough to survive a 100-year flood event and permit proper hurricane evacuation.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2011, 04:48:00 PM
i thought about the dirt thing, but the approach to the bridge structures was all dirt, and even with that explanation, there is no reason for 1500ft long overpasses. and for the bringing in dirt, there are 2 interchanges next to eachother at US90-sth329, were the sth239 interchange is built with the extended overpass, and the other interchange to the north isnt, it has a normal dirt approach, and normal length bridge.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 08, 2011, 08:57:32 PM
Are you talking about the LA 14 and LA 329 (Avery Island Rd.) interchanges on US 90 in New Iberia??

Those were some of the first interchanges to be built along US 90 in the 1970's.

The Lewis Street and LA 89 interchanges just south of those are more recently built, and contain the newer standards for elongated overpasses.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2011, 09:15:19 PM
alright, that makes sense because the pavement looked older, but why the elongated overpasses? it seems like a waist of money to me.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: InterstateNG on October 09, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
It's waste not waist.

Can we have some standards around here, please?  There has been a whole lot of crap recently.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: qguy on October 09, 2011, 05:36:42 PM
Maybe he meant that the money that was spent was piled up *to* the waist.   :biggrin:   (Sorry.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on October 09, 2011, 10:30:57 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 09, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
It's waste not waist.

Can we have some standards around here, please?  There has been a whole lot of crap recently.
Considering the poster is on topic and raises an interesting topic, if I were you, I'd forgive some degree of misspelling. Your post actually adds more crap to this thread than any of the others.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 10, 2011, 12:01:19 AM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2011, 09:15:19 PM
alright, that makes sense because the pavement looked older, but why the elongated overpasses? it seems like a waist of money to me.


As I said in my original answer to your OP, it's due to the recent lack of usable fill dirt for stable embankments. LADOTD finds it more cost efficient to use the elongated overpass structures....at least, in that region.


Anthony


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: InterstateNG on October 10, 2011, 01:32:07 AM
Quote from: Steve on October 09, 2011, 10:30:57 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 09, 2011, 02:17:16 AM
It's waste not waist.

Can we have some standards around here, please?  There has been a whole lot of crap recently.
Considering the poster is on topic and raises an interesting topic, if I were you, I'd forgive some degree of misspelling. Your post actually adds more crap to this thread than any of the others.

Then I guess I'm not going to be waisting any more of my fucking time posting here, trying to read garbage by teenagers or being the target of threats.

I advise you to work on your professionalism.  Good day.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2011, 01:49:18 AM
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 10, 2011, 01:32:07 AM
I advise you to work on your professionalism.  Good day.

I advise you to work on yours.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 10, 2011, 02:03:44 AM
I tend to scroll past posts written in txtspk, since they're harder to parse.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Sykotyk on October 10, 2011, 06:52:37 AM
Dirt, oddly enough, is expense. A truck can only haul about 25 tons of dirt at a time. That's not really a lot, volume wise (plus, it's not packed down, it's loose). Now, imagine the cost of paying the trucks to haul dirt to the desired site. Unloading it. Compacting/rolling it until it's hard.

Now do that for both carriageways, for every non-swampland interchange. It becomes expensive, very quickly. A little steel rebar, some concrete, and you get the same setup.

Now, in Nebraska, it'd be a waste of money. But, not in areas where good dirt is hard to come by.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on October 10, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on October 10, 2011, 06:52:37 AM
Dirt, oddly enough, is expense. A truck can only haul about 25 tons of dirt at a time. That's not really a lot, volume wise (plus, it's not packed down, it's loose). Now, imagine the cost of paying the trucks to haul dirt to the desired site. Unloading it. Compacting/rolling it until it's hard.

Now do that for both carriageways, for every non-swampland interchange. It becomes expensive, very quickly. A little steel rebar, some concrete, and you get the same setup.

Now, in Nebraska, it'd be a waste of money. But, not in areas where good dirt is hard to come by.
There are some overcrossings like that on I-75 between Saint Ignace and Sault Sainte Marie, MI, too.

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 10, 2011, 09:21:06 PM
there are 3 or 4 of them, and i think those are there because they probably built them, intending to continue the extreamly wide median past were the median narrows, were the long overasses are needed, although i think it would have been cheaper to put the freeway over those roads rather than have 1 long overpass. and they are the oposite of what im talkin about in Louisiana, were the freeway is going over the road, with a very long overpass, that has a dirt aproach, so again it still has a dirt approach, and all that concrete and gravel still has to be trucked in anyways, just for the roadbed itself. so it still cant possibly be cost effective.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on October 11, 2011, 07:39:46 AM
This soil is really poor for building anything on. Most buildings down there are built on pilings so that there isn't a need to rely on the poor bearing capacity of the soil (instead, it relies on friction between the piles and the soil around it). It isn't practical to build a soil embankment on pilings, hence why bridges are used.

Even if you hauled in dirt from somewhere else to create embankments, that doesn't take care of the underlying soil that would settle after a load is placed on it. Settlement would occur over years. You could build the soil embankment and wait for it to settle (a process called surcharging), but this would take a considerable amount of time and it wouldn't guarantee that there wouldn't be any additional settlement.

Any land reclaimed from wetlands generally isn't great to build on without a lot of work going into the foundation.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 11, 2011, 10:30:02 AM
This was mentioned in the SE Louisiana section about I-12, but I saw this past weekend where new mile markers are being constructed in North Louisiana. I saw them on 20 coming across from Texas and along I-49. Only in Caddo and Desoto Parishes so far. They are the new ones with "South" or "North", I-49 shield and the mile marker
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 12, 2011, 07:41:28 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on October 11, 2011, 07:39:46 AM
This soil is really poor for building anything on. Most buildings down there are built on pilings so that there isn't a need to rely on the poor bearing capacity of the soil (instead, it relies on friction between the piles and the soil around it). It isn't practical to build a soil embankment on pilings, hence why bridges are used.

Even if you hauled in dirt from somewhere else to create embankments, that doesn't take care of the underlying soil that would settle after a load is placed on it. Settlement would occur over years. You could build the soil embankment and wait for it to settle (a process called surcharging), but this would take a considerable amount of time and it wouldn't guarantee that there wouldn't be any additional settlement.

Any land reclaimed from wetlands generally isn't great to build on without a lot of work going into the foundation.
thats a better answer for me than its expensive, because i see it on other interchanges in the area.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on October 16, 2011, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on October 12, 2011, 07:41:28 AM
thats a better answer for me than its expensive, because i see it on other interchanges in the area.

It may not be a good enough answer for YOU, but it's true. There are also very few dirt embankments south of I-10 that I know of. By the time you get to New Orleans there aren't any at all.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 13, 2011, 08:54:50 PM
I FOUND THIS ON THE INTERNET. HOPE THIS CAN BE ACCESSED. http://theadvocate.com/news/683744-64/forum-sees-roadblock-to-completing.html
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 13, 2011, 09:03:12 PM
Gordon,

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2Fmisc%2Fcapslockor6.jpg&hash=4150cc97ed0023de09561514b3e2197e54839eba)

Thanks. ;)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on November 14, 2011, 07:47:00 AM
QuoteBut most expensive segments of the project have been stalled – the estimated $1.1 billion for the stretch through Lafayette and the estimated $3.6 billion for the 36-mile portion from Raceland to New Orleans.

That is $100,000,000 per mile. I guess the entire thing will be elevated from Raceland to New Orleans.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 14, 2011, 08:20:49 PM
Today's Houma Courier has an article regarding the struggle to find the $5.2 billion to complete I-49 South.  One option mentioned is to look to Leeville Bridge on LA 1 as providing a good model for implementing a toll on at least part of I-49 South:
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20111114/ARTICLES/111119753?p=1&tc=pg

The article also indicates that a $1 million study paid for by LaDOTD to consider ways of reducing the "tremendous cost" of upgrading US 90 between the Westbank Expressway and Raceland should be complete by "early 2012".  Here is a link to a map from an Oct. 12, 2009 Times-Picayune article which estimates the construction cost of that section of I-49 South to be $3.6 billion (as well as estimating costs for other sections of I-49 South):
http://blog.nola.com/graphics/2009/04/I49040609.jpg

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQxwDs.jpg&hash=a615ecc3292ffc5e793976f675d47ce12ded7c41)

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 14, 2011, 07:47:00 AM
That is $100,000,000 per mile. I guess the entire thing will be elevated from Raceland to New Orleans.
Here's a link to the Oct. 12, 2009 Times-Picayune article itself:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/plans_for_interstate_49_corrid.html

Quote
The biggest challenge is upgrading and replacing a 36-mile segment of U.S. 90 from the West Bank Expressway to Raceland: now estimated to cost about $3.6 billion, a figure that will probably swell to $5.2 billion, said Department of Transportation and Development Secretary William Ankner.
Another major money hurdle, he said, is a segment through the city of Lafayette, which will cost about $1.1 billion. Based on department estimates, about $694 million has been spent or committed for improvements along the southern leg of I-49, and almost $5.1 billion is needed to finish it.
"That is beyond our capacity given the current (budgetary and economic) constraints" on state and federal money, Ankner said. "I don't have $3.7 billion or $5.2 billion (for the New Orleans area to Raceland link). That kind of an investment is a killer. . . We don't have that kind of coin." ...
The main obstacle to building the stretch from the West Bank Expressway to Raceland is that the roadway has to be elevated and built through marshy areas, Ankner said. Building a road at ground level will not suffice because the area floods, he said ...

EDIT

Here is a link to Nov. 15 Houma Courier editorial making point that using tolls on I-49 South to entice federal spending would be problematic; nevertheless, in opinion of editorial staff, feds need to go ahead and dedicate some money for I-49 South:
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20111115/OPINION/111119716/-1/sports?p=1&tc=pg

Quote
... One possibility would be to implement a toll system to raise local money. That might give federal decision makers more reasons to pay for this project over others.
That prospect, though, brings other difficulties.
At least one area legislator has said he will not ask local people to pay another toll after the toll system that is helping to pay for the new Leeville Bridge has been so fraught with problems.
State Sen. Norby Chabert, R-Houma, also makes the valid point that local people have already paid "too much of their own money for projects that should be paid for by the federal government."
There is no way to argue with that sentiment. However, there has to be a way to make the case for bringing the I-49 corridor to fruition.
So far, this region has hoped the federal government would do what it should. And we're still waiting.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on November 15, 2011, 07:32:44 AM
^ And building the road on fill wouldn't suffice due to geotechnical reasons. It's a swamp; you don't want to build directly on that. I am also guessing that even though US 90 doesn't flood very often, this road needs to be able to withstand a 100 year flood so that is why it is also going to be built higher and elevated.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 15, 2011, 02:21:11 PM
The main justifications they gave for wanting to elevate I-49 South between Raceland and the Westbank Expressway was for hurricane evacuation and to raise the roadway at Barataria enough to clear the 100 yr. flood plain.

They could have shaved a billion or so off the costs by using existing US 90 from LA 308 to near Des Allemands, as well as upgrading and raising existing US 90 from just east of Willowridge Blvd in Mimosa Park to the Westbank Expressway...but, they still want to elevate the entire highway on structure.

Some have suggested saving money by truncating the project at I-310 near Luling, and overlaying I-310 to meet I-10 west of Kenner. That would fulfill the bare basic requirement of a Lafayette/NOLA freeway, but it would shortchange the Westbank Expy., which needs to be completed to US 90 to coordinate with the Huey P. Long Bridge upgrade.

Personally, what I would do is focus on the segments in Lafayette Parish (I-49 Lafayette Connector and US 90 from the airport to LA 88) and completing the segments from Lafayette to Morgan City first, then completing the WB expy segment (probably as a signed I-910 initially), then the Raceland to I-310 connection, and then cap it off with the I-310 to WB segment. You might not be able to complete it in one bite, so why not smaller chunks??


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 06, 2011, 11:22:08 AM
Today's Texarkana Gazette is quoting a LaDOTD area engineer as believing that some of I-49 North will be open to traffic in 2012 (article needs to be purchased):
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2011/12/06/getting-closer-21148.php

Quote
Miles of perfectly paved interstate stretch through the Louisiana countryside, a scene
made eerie by the complete lack of cars.
But that will likely change in just a few months as portions of Interstate 49 between the Arkansas state line and Shreveport, La., are expected to open.
I-49 will stretch 36.25 miles from Arkansas to Interstate 220 in Shreveport. From there I-49 is complete south to Lafayette.
Greg Wall, area engineer for the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, believes some of the local I-49 will be open in 2012 ...
Beautification is also in the plans.
Shortly after southbound motorists cross into Louisiana on I-49 they will be greeted by a Louisiana-shaped bed of daffodils planted on a hill.
During a November visit small flags whipped in the breeze, already outlining the state's shape, and daffodil bulbs had been purchased and retrieved from Mississippi.
The highway is also designed for safer travel in the winter. Where possible, I-49 in Louisiana stays on the ground and intersecting roads have overpasses.
"Typically when we have the major snow and ice events it hits Caddo Parish and Bossier Parish, so we don't like bridges,"  Hall said ...

I have previously read that LaDOTD was going to wait until 2013 to open an approximate thirty-mile stretch of I-49 North.  I hope Wall's comments indicate that they decided to open a shorter stretch before then.  Time will tell ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: txstateends on December 06, 2011, 05:38:58 PM
Are there plans at all for welcome centers on I-49 for either side (or both) of the state line?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 05:53:44 PM
I hope they will because shreveport to texarkana is a long stretch with no facilities, except for maybe the Fouke exit.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 06, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2011, 11:22:08 AM
Greg Wall, area engineer for the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, believes some of the local I-49 will be open in 2012 ... I have previously read that LaDOTD was going to wait until 2013 to open an approximate thirty-mile stretch of I-49 North.  I hope Wall's comments indicate that they decided to open a shorter stretch before then.  Time will tell ...
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 09, 2011, 12:46:22 AM
Signing the finished sections early (which I support) keeps the whole project in focus and I think helps to fasttrack funding for the incomplete sections.  government:  "Gee, what's the deal with this gap?"
(above quote from "I-49 in AR (Bella Vista, Fort Smith)" thread)

Maybe Wall's comments indicate that LaDOTD is thinking about signing a stretch around the time that Missouri will sign its stretch (and Arkansas possibly signing the Texarkana-area stretch as I-49, too).  Nah, that would be too good to be true ...  :no:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 06, 2011, 08:14:53 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 05:53:44 PM
I hope they will because shreveport to texarkana is a long stretch with no facilities, except for maybe the Fouke exit.

Fouke has almost nothing. No motels, an E-Z Mart and 3-4 restaurants. Maybe after 49 is completed, that will change.  They should be buying the land now while it's cheap. After 49 is official, I'm sure land prices will jump.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on December 07, 2011, 07:16:14 AM
Quote from: US71 on December 06, 2011, 08:14:53 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 05:53:44 PM
I hope they will because shreveport to texarkana is a long stretch with no facilities, except for maybe the Fouke exit.

Fouke has almost nothing. No motels, an E-Z Mart and 3-4 restaurants. Maybe after 49 is completed, that will change.  They should be buying the land now while it's cheap. After 49 is official, I'm sure land prices will jump.


I would be surprised if the land prices haven't already jumped in price. Along US 78/Future I-22 land prices jumped before construction finished. Now the areas are slow to develop because land prices are so high.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 07, 2011, 09:24:45 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 07, 2011, 07:16:14 AM
I would be surprised if the land prices haven't already jumped in price. Along US 78/Future I-22 land prices jumped before construction finished. Now the areas are slow to develop because land prices are so high.

Quite possible. It would seem like there's a lot of potential for a Love's or a Pilot. Then again, maybe they have land, but are waiting to build.  Oddly enough, there hasn't been a lot of new construction along I-540 between Alma and Fayetteville.  Greenland is the only place: it has a small truck stop/McDonald's and a Sonic. But Between Fayetteville and Bentonville, it's becoming overbuilt.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 07, 2011, 12:23:16 PM
There is Puh-lenty of room for a truck stop anywhere from Shreveport north. I think developments could definitely happen. Blanchard, my hometown just 5 miles north of Shreveport has already expanded its town limits and there are new fast food places and small businesses popping up along LA 1 near where I 49 will cross
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 13, 2011, 01:54:58 AM
Googlemaps.com now shows aerials of I-49 from the state line down to the Hosston area.  Also, south of there there are pieces of I-49 u/c but work barely started.  Isn't the whole thing in LA finished or well under construction?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 13, 2011, 02:03:06 AM
Also, if you look at the aerial map, on the LA side of the state line the dirt is a different color.  Maybe that's for a rest area, but there are no stub ramps on the road.  You'd think they would have built the stubs or the whole ramp system already and wait to build the building.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on December 13, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of gas for now. If somebody thinks they can make a buck putting a gas station along I-49 they will certainly not hesitate to do so.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2011, 10:53:04 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 13, 2011, 01:54:58 AM
Googlemaps.com now shows aerials of I-49 from the state line down to the Hosston area.  Also, south of there there are pieces of I-49 u/c but work barely started.  Isn't the whole thing in LA finished or well under construction?

I think that every section has started construction except for the last 2 sections, LA 1 to MLK Blvd (LA 3194) and south of there to connect to I 220. Last I heard/read those don't have the funding yet
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on December 13, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2011, 10:53:04 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 13, 2011, 01:54:58 AM
Googlemaps.com now shows aerials of I-49 from the state line down to the Hosston area.  Also, south of there there are pieces of I-49 u/c but work barely started.  Isn't the whole thing in LA finished or well under construction?

I think that every section has started construction except for the last 2 sections, LA 1 to MLK Blvd (LA 3194) and south of there to connect to I 220. Last I heard/read those don't have the funding yet

Also, the section between I-220 and I-20 won't be under construction for a few more years.

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2011, 10:53:04 AM
I think that every section has started construction except for the last 2 sections, LA 1 to MLK Blvd (LA 3194) and south of there to connect to I 220. Last I heard/read those don't have the funding yet
Here is the current construction completion schedule for I-49 North (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/):

Quote
Construction Completion Schedules
Arkansas state line to La. 168, Segment A, paving and bridges — Spring 2011
La 168 to Mira-Myrtis Road, Segment B, paving and bridges — Summer 2011
Mira-Myrtis Road to La 2, Segment C, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2011
La 2 to U.S. 71, Segment D, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2012
La. 170 to U.S. 71, Segment E, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
La. 530 to La. 170, Segment F, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
La 530 to La 169, Segment G, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
La. 173 to La. 169, Segment H, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Fall 2011
La. 1 to La. 173, Segment I, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Spring 2013
I-220 to La. 1, Segments J-K, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — TBD pending funding

Funding has been secured for Segments J and K, with construction on Segment J expected to begin in 2012 and Segment K in 2013:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1759
These two Segments are expected to be completed in 2016.

Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2011, 11:22:08 AM
Today's Texarkana Gazette is quoting a LaDOTD area engineer as believing that some of I-49 North will be open to traffic in 2012 (article needs to be purchased):
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2011/12/06/getting-closer-21148.php
"... Greg Wall, area engineer for the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, believes some of the local I-49 will be open in 2012 ...
I am guessing that the above comment from Greg Wall indicates that LaDOTD will open Segments B,C, and D to traffic in 2012 once Segment D is completed.  Otherwise, LaDOTD will probably wait to open Segments B-I to traffic in 2013 (Segment A will need to wait for Arkansas to complete its segment to the state line).

Quote from: mgk920 on December 13, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
Also, the section between I-220 and I-20 won't be under construction for a few more years.

Today's Shreveport Times indicates that three public forums regarding the Inner-City Connector are being held this week, and that completion of the Inner-City Connector is 15-20 years away, if at all:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20111213/OPINION03/112130338/Public-necessary-element-49-planning-meetings?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

Quote
Another series of forums will begin tonight to determine whether an inner-city connector for Interstate 49 is necessary and, if so, where specifically it should run.
The highway would extend from I-49's current ending point at the intersection with I-20 and head north toward I-220 where I-49 North will eventually connect.
With the Stage 0 feasibility study behind it, Stage 1 analyzes the potential effect the I-49 connector could have. Construction typically does not begin until Stage 5. If the decision to build is made, the cost could run between $100 million and $289 million, and realistically could be 15-20 years away from reality ...

EDIT

Here's a link to a TV news video report on the Inner-City Connector public forums:
http://www.ktbs.com/first-news/29984506/detail.html
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on December 13, 2011, 02:59:32 PM
Some photos of I-49's progress if anyone cares to go look.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=79.325
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 09:36:27 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Here's a link to a TV news video report on the Inner-City Connector public forums:
http://www.ktbs.com/first-news/29984506/detail.html
Here's a link to another TV news video report from the same station regarding the Inner-City Connector ("ICC") meetings that I found interesting because it has two community leaders from the Allendale/Ledbetter Heights community speaking in favor of the general notion of the ICC:
http://www.ktbs.com/news/29982400/detail.html
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 09:52:25 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on December 13, 2011, 02:59:32 PM
Some photos of I-49's progress if anyone cares to go look.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=79.325
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on December 13, 2011, 09:39:25 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 13, 2011, 06:06:43 PM
Who took those pictures?
DOTD
(above quote from "Louisiana" thread on Southeast page)
Here's a link to LaDOTD's I-49 North Facebook page, on which 34 new photos were posted in November:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-49-North/173375266084410
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 13, 2011, 10:39:44 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 09:36:27 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Here's a link to a TV news video report on the Inner-City Connector public forums:
http://www.ktbs.com/first-news/29984506/detail.html
Here's a link to another TV news video report from the same station regarding the Inner-City Connector ("ICC") meetings that I found interesting because it has two community leaders from the Allendale/Ledbetter Heights community speaking in favor of the general notion of the ICC:
http://www.ktbs.com/news/29982400/detail.html

That's not too surprising, since the original low-income development in Allendale that was such a factor in blocking the original proposal in the late 70's no longer exists, and most community leaders in the Allendale/Ledbetter Heights subs have changed their minds since then in favor of the ICC.

BTW..that editorial in the Shreveport Times seemed a bit off, since there are NO plans whatsoever for a "parkway" connection as a "low-biuild" alternative to the ICC. The plans are for a fully controlled-access freeway that would be either fully elevated or a mix of elevated and at-grade. I'd probably favor the latter, since it would be less expensive.

Also, that editorial hinted at funding of the ICC interfering with funding of the rest of I-49 North from I-220 to the AR border. That's wrong, since except for Segment K (from I-220 to Martin Luther King Drive), all the segments are fully funded and on schedule for construction, already under construction, or completed...and Seg. K will probably get theirs when (if) the next transportation reauthorization bill is passed on by Congress.


Anthony
Title: Initial Study Indicates Tolls Make Lafayette I-49 Connector Feasible
Post by: Grzrd on December 14, 2011, 08:26:43 AM
A consulting report was released yesterday indicating that tolls on I-49 through Lafayette would make the project economically feasible:
http://theadvocate.com/home/1558259-125/tolls-eyed-as-revenue-source.html

Quote
Tolls could likely generate enough revenue to pay half the cost of completing Interstate 49 through Lafayette, enough to make the long-delayed project economically feasible, according to a consulting firm hired to research the project.
Tolls of 16 cents per mile for passenger vehicles and four times that for commercial trucks could provide enough annual revenue to secure financing ranging from $540 million to $725 million, according to a preliminary traffic study by HNTB, a national consulting firm that specializes in transportation projects.
The firm, which presented its findings Tuesday, has been working with the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission to determine whether tolls could help fund the upgrade of U.S. 90 to interstate standards through Lafayette.
"This is a very, very, very feasible project. It is possible. It can be done. It's just a matter of whether we can sell it to the public as a toll facility or not,"  said Kam Movassaghi, president Lafayette consulting firm Fenstermaker, which is also working on the project.
The toll-backed financing represents about half of the estimated $1 billion to $1.4 billion needed to complete I-49 through Lafayette, an estimate that depends on how far south the highway upgrade would go.
Much of that is for the elevated portion through the city of Lafayette.
Even with the toll revenue, the funding gap would be about $500 million, but that is not unusual for toll projects, HNTB Chief Financial Consultant Brad Guilmino said.
"You are not going to find a toll project in America that is 100 percent feasible,"  he said.
In other toll projects, the funding gap is usually filled through federal grants, local taxes, federal loans, state transportation dollars or a combination of those sources, Guilmino said.
The I-49 toll idea is still in the early stages and the study by HNTB is considered a first step in determining whether the concept is worth pursuing ...
The HNTB study looked at two scenarios for toll-funded upgrades of U.S. 90, one from Interstate 10 in Lafayette to La. 88 near the Acadiana Regional Airport and the other farther south through Iberia Parish.
The first option is estimated to cost from $1 billion to $1.2 billion, and the second option is estimated to cost from $1.2 to $1.4 million, according to a preliminary analysis by HNTB.
The steep price tag has long been a roadblock for completing I-49 south, which traffic officials say is needed to address ever increasing numbers of commuters moving in and out of Lafayette...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
There's a part of me that says that not only will this not fly because of the traditional opposition to tolls here in South LA, but that this will revive the original opposition to the I-49 Connector through Lafayette and renew the calls for a bypass alignment...most notably, the Teche Ridge easten bypass through St. Martin Parish.

On the other hand, though...the majority opinion will probably be that if that's what it takes to build the road, then let's roll with it.

Still, I'm sure that there will be those who will grumble about how North Louisiana got to get their portions of I-49 North funded for free with stimulus dollars, while Acadiana has to fork over the tolls for what they believe to be a far more important and just as badly needed segment.

But, I guess that we all will have to wait and see how the locals will react.

If they do decide to go with the toll option, I'm guessing that the segment through Lafayette will remain toll free between I-10 and the airport, and that the toll segment will begin just south of that, through Broussard and just south of there. If that is the case, I'd favor extending the tolls to New Iberia and extending the one-way access roads from LA 88 down to at least LA 14 (similar to the Sam Houston Tollway/Beltway 8 setup in Houston, with US 90 using the access roads and I-49 the mainline).

Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on December 15, 2011, 08:00:34 PM
Well the comment session for the Lafayette Advertiser seems to be full of people in favor of the toll. I know that comes nowhere close to speaking for an entire city, but usually newspapers comments are full of opposition even when the city tends to support an issue.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 17, 2011, 10:32:49 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 13, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
Also, the section between I-220 and I-20 won't be under construction for a few more years.
Today's Shreveport Times indicates that three public forums regarding the Inner-City Connector are being held this week, and that completion of the Inner-City Connector is 15-20 years away, if at all:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20111213/OPINION03/112130338/Public-necessary-element-49-planning-meetings?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
This article indicates that it will be Winter 2013 before Providence Engineering, among other things, incorporates public comments from the three recent public forums and issues its Stage 1 report (seems like North Louisiana can experience a glacial pace, too):
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20111214/NEWS01/112140321/Interstate-meeting-left-some-questions-part-process?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

Quote
The first of three meetings, designed to gather input on a future Interstate 49 expansion, left some participants with questions and others with a sense they've participated in the future of Shreveport ...
The area in question Tuesday is a 3.9-mile stretch that would affect areas such as Allendale and the MLK neighborhood.
Kent Rodgers, executive director of the sponsoring organization, said input from the meeting would be used by the engineers when making considerations on how the freeway could look, should it be built.
Among the decisions participants had to consider was where to place the freeway within a 1,000-foot space, what structure the team should consider when planning and the environmental costs.
This is stage 1 in a process that goes from stage 0 to stage 6. The entire process would take 10 to 15 years to complete.
Darius Bonton, project manager for Providence Engineering, said once the information was collected from the three meetings, his firm would take them in consideration when making plans. It will be winter 2013 before they would be presented to the public, he said.
"The more input we get, the more we can incorporate it," he said ...

EDIT

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
Still, I'm sure that there will be those who will grumble about how North Louisiana got to get their portions of I-49 North funded for free with stimulus dollars, while Acadiana has to fork over the tolls for what they believe to be a far more important and just as badly needed segment.
You called it:
http://www.iberianet.com/opinion/editorials/more-attention-on-i--north/article_88e13c24-2735-11e1-8eb2-0019bb2963f4.html

Quote
Another pitch has been made for tolls to pay for much of the southern portion of Interstate 49 through Lafayette that will connect U.S. 90 to the Houma-Thibodaux area.
Although it is encouraging that such a project appears to be feasible if the toll is used, it is a bit discouraging that the state has given so much more attention to I-49 north in the Shreveport area and it is being contructed without the need of tolls ...
So why so much attention on North Louisiana and seemingly not enough here? ...
The route north of Shreveport is rural. There is little to no development along much of the route. Certainly it will be an economic boon to that region.
But what about here? ...
The question, however, lingers as to why over the past several years has the northern section of I-49 gotten an advantage over the southern portion?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on December 18, 2011, 12:51:06 AM
^^
Ahhh, it was the easiest and cheapest section to build first?

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 21, 2011, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2011, 11:22:08 AM
Today's Texarkana Gazette is quoting a LaDOTD area engineer as believing that some of I-49 North will be open to traffic in 2012 (article needs to be purchased):
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2011/12/06/getting-closer-21148.php
Miles of perfectly paved interstate stretch through the Louisiana countryside, a scene
made eerie by the complete lack of cars.
But that will likely change in just a few months as portions of Interstate 49 between the Arkansas state line and Shreveport, La., are expected to open...
Greg Wall, area engineer for the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, believes some of the local I-49 will be open in 2012 ...
No surprise 2012 I-49 North early opening from LaDOTD; I emailed LaDOTD about a possible 2012 opening and they responded that pavement will be complete on the project in 2012 [I presume the email was referring to Segments A-D], but that it will not be open to traffic until 2013.  This info is consistent with prior information from LaDOTD, but a Segment B-D 2012 opening would have been nice.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Funding has been secured for Segments J and K, with construction on Segment J expected to begin in 2012 and Segment K in 2013:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1759
These two Segments are expected to be completed in 2016.
The July 7, 2011 press release linked above states that construction on Segment J could begin as early as Summer 2012.  I communicated with LaDOTD yesterday and the current estimate is that the letting will be in Fall 2012.  Maybe some clearing and grubbing by the New Year?
Title: IIF/Tolls To Fund I-49 South?
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:52:18 PM
Here is a Jan. 11 opinion piece from Louisiana State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy on how to fund I-49 South:
http://thehayride.com/2012/01/the-challenge-of-i-49-south/

Quote
... So where do we get the money to finish I-49 South? The state does not have it; nor could we borrow it, even if we wanted to, under our constitutional debt limit. The feds have their own budget problems, starting with $14 trillion of sovereign debt. That leaves one possibility: someone else.
That "someone else"  might be an infrastructure investment fund (IIF). An IIF raises funds from private investors to finance, design, build, operate and maintain a public project through a public-private partnership (PPP) in exchange for a return on the investment, usually 5 to 7 percent per year. A PPP is not a privatization; the government entity retains full control and ownership of the project ....
There is, of course, no free lunch. An IIF expects a return on its investment, which would require Louisiana to come up with a guaranteed income stream over the life of the PPP. A portion of the state's capital outlay budget could be dedicated to the project but it won't be enough. The only other option is tolls, which is typically how PPPs are funded.
Support for tolls or a PPP for I-49 South could be mixed, as some will see tolls as a tax increase, and others will worry about allowing a private entity to manage a government asset. These are legitimate concerns, and perhaps a vote of the people would be in order. Much support or opposition would likely depend on the actual terms of the PPP, which must be transparent. But I do know this: there are no easy answers to the question of how to make I-49 South a reality and get this vital project built sooner rather than much later or not at all.

EDIT:

Here is another link to the same opinion piece, but this publication has a model of the I-49 Connector through Lafayette: http://www.theind.com/news/9716-guest-editorial-public-private-route-for-i-49-south?tmpl=component&layout=default&page=

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTSDGu.jpg&hash=c2db412d5767dc34949a06e8bef5615447a53648)

SECOND EDIT:

Here's a link to a video interview with Kennedy:
http://www.katc.com/news/proposal-to-pay-for-i-49/

Quote
We've been talking about this for 25 to 30 years and it's time to stop talking and start walking,"  and  "Let the people vote, if they believe I-49 South is important enough they will support the tolls.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 13, 2012, 05:37:19 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Funding has been secured for Segments J and K, with construction on Segment J expected to begin in 2012 and Segment K in 2013:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1759
These two Segments are expected to be completed in 2016.
The July 7, 2011 press release linked above states that construction on Segment J could begin as early as Summer 2012.  I communicated with LaDOTD yesterday and the current estimate is that the letting will be in Fall 2012.  Maybe some clearing and grubbing by the New Year?

I was driving there at Christmas and no work had been started yet. LA 1/N Market St. is the dividing line right now. Huge amounts of trees cleared and dirtwork for ramps is being done on the east side of the highway but nothing just yet on the other side
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 14, 2012, 12:59:13 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:52:18 PM
Here is a Jan. 11 opinion piece from Louisiana State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy on how to fund I-49 South:
http://thehayride.com/2012/01/the-challenge-of-i-49-south/

"... So where do we get the money to finish I-49 South? The state does not have it; nor could we borrow it, even if we wanted to, under our constitutional debt limit. The feds have their own budget problems, starting with $14 trillion of sovereign debt. That leaves one possibility: someone else.
That "someone else"  might be an infrastructure investment fund (IIF). An IIF raises funds from private investors to finance, design, build, operate and maintain a public project through a public-private partnership (PPP) in exchange for a return on the investment, usually 5 to 7 percent per year. A PPP is not a privatization; the government entity retains full control and ownership of the project ....
There is, of course, no free lunch. An IIF expects a return on its investment, which would require Louisiana to come up with a guaranteed income stream over the life of the PPP. A portion of the state's capital outlay budget could be dedicated to the project but it won't be enough. The only other option is tolls, which is typically how PPPs are funded.
Support for tolls or a PPP for I-49 South could be mixed, as some will see tolls as a tax increase, and others will worry about allowing a private entity to manage a government asset. These are legitimate concerns, and perhaps a vote of the people would be in order. Much support or opposition would likely depend on the actual terms of the PPP, which must be transparent. But I do know this: there are no easy answers to the question of how to make I-49 South a reality and get this vital project built sooner rather than much later or not at all."

EDIT:

Here is another link to the same opinion piece, but this publication has a model of the I-49 Connector through Lafayette: http://www.theind.com/news/9716-guest-editorial-public-private-route-for-i-49-south?tmpl=component&layout=default&page=

SECOND EDIT:

Here's a link to a video interview with Kennedy:
http://www.katc.com/news/proposal-to-pay-for-i-49/

"We've been talking about this for 25 to 30 years and it's time to stop talking and start walking,"  and  "Let the people vote, if they believe I-49 South is important enough they will support the tolls"

The real issues with a PPP, especially one funded through tolls, is that it will be perceived as a double tax, especially since most of US 90 between Lafayette and Raceland is already completed to Interstate freeway standards, and it will be a hard sell to get people to support converting that segment to tolls just to pay for the Lafayette segments.  Plus, it could revive some of the original opposition to the original I-49 Connector project that favored the "Teche Ridge" eastern bypass alternative through St. Martin Parish as a less expensive alternative.

There is a possibility that the Federal government could finally pass a long term transportation authorization bill that would increase funding for projects like I-49 South without the need for tolls. Or, by some miracle, the state could extend what's left of the TIMED funds and use that as a lever to help jump start funds for the rest of I-49 South. I'd rather go through those options before I commit a large chunk of state and federal funds to a PPP.


Anthony
Title: LaDOTD Posts 12 New Aerial Photos of I-49 North
Post by: Grzrd on January 26, 2012, 04:43:21 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 09:52:25 PM
Here's a link to LaDOTD's I-49 North Facebook page, on which 34 new photos were posted in November:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-49-North/173375266084410
In January, LaDOTD has posted twelve new aerial photos of I-49 North construction work. (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.218172008271402.55230.173375266084410&type=1)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 01, 2012, 05:11:19 PM
Here is a video update report on I-49 North. (http://www.ktbs.com/video/30033816/index.html)  It includes a brief discussion of the I-49/ I-220 interchange by Project Engineer Greg Wall. It is a little over two minutes long.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on February 02, 2012, 07:43:17 AM
^ Looks like they showed footage of an interstate in Atlanta when they started talking about the I-49/I-220 interchange. LOL
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dariusb on February 02, 2012, 04:22:33 PM
Cool. Louisiana is really making a lot of progress! Will be glad when Arkansas finally completes those last few miles to the Louisiana state line.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 02, 2012, 10:24:47 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Funding has been secured for Segments J and K, with construction on Segment J expected to begin in 2012 and Segment K in 2013:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1759
These two Segments are expected to be completed in 2016.
The July 7, 2011 press release linked above states that construction on Segment J could begin as early as Summer 2012.  I communicated with LaDOTD yesterday and the current estimate is that the letting will be in Fall 2012.

This video report (http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=230342) has Joe Umeozulu of LaDOTD stating that the letting for Segment K will be in Fall 2012, too.  Another interesting part of the video report has a resident of the MLK neighborhood sort of expressing an anti-Overton Park concern about the lack of an exit ramp near a park:

Quote
One of the hot issues, an off-ramp to the Shreveport neighborhood.
"How are you coming and putting I-20 and ramps coming everywhere else, but you not going to have an off ramp coming to the Cooper road," said Virginia Evans.
"The reason it's in the northside because theres a park on the southside," answered Greg Wall. "And the federal mandate is we cannot go through a park so therefore they had to modify their design."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on February 03, 2012, 12:13:30 AM
Some of Shreveport's finest at that 49 meeting. Maybe she meant "I-220 and ramps and everything else?"  :crazy:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2012, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 21, 2011, 03:49:05 PM
No surprise 2012 I-49 North early opening from LaDOTD; I emailed LaDOTD about a possible 2012 opening and they responded that pavement will be complete on the project in 2012 [I presume the email was referring to Segments A-D], but that it will not be open to traffic until 2013.  This info is consistent with prior information from LaDOTD, but a Segment B-D 2012 opening would have been nice.

In this article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120207/NEWS01/120207012/-null-?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE), Kent Rogers of NLCOG is quoted as as making some recent comments that could be interpeted as LaDOTD opening Segments B-D to traffic before Segments E-I are completed:

Quote
Kent Rogers of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, NLCOG, said sections A through D are complete, short of stripes and signage and determining the best route from U.S. Highway 71 until sections E through I are finished. Sections J and K, between Interstate 220 and state Highway 173, are still in the preliminary construction phase.
"Arkansas is doing dirt work and beginning construction"  at the state line, Rogers said. "It should be completed about the same time as the last segment at I-220 is here."

In this video report (http://www.ktbs.com/video/30033816/index.html), Project Engineer Greg Wall talks about the current widening of LA 168 (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=32.99752495661599~-93.90963172912597&lvl=15&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Mira%2C%20LA&form=LMLTCC) to safely accomodate traffic going from US 71 to I-49 Segment B until Arkansas completes its final segment to the state line around 2015.  He does not mention when the LA 168 widening is expected to be completed (US 71 and the southern end of Segment D (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=32.85263559401485~-93.86380290985107&lvl=15&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Hosston%2C%20LA&form=LMLTCC) have a direct connection).  Would LaDOTD open Segments B-D to traffic if the LA 168 widening is completed well before Segments E-I?

Maybe I'm injecting too much wishful thinking into the comments by Rogers...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 07, 2012, 08:37:25 PM
I got a question about AHTD having a priority for corridor 1. The latest job of building the six bridges on the 4.28 miles left says the contractor should finish this job in 325 working days. I know there is rainy days and weekends but another job could be let for paving maybe this fall because they have to haul the crushed rock in for a base before concreting the main lanes. they are saying 2015 before you can drive on it. the first contract for the first contract was let to proceed 9/21/2009 for grading and structures. That is say 5 years to do 4.28 miles to drive on. we will be all dead at that rate to finish it from Texarkana to Fort Smith. Something is wrong with our highway department.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 09, 2012, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2012, 09:25:15 AM
The best solution remains the best solution, IMO: end this nonsense that we can't fund transportation through gas taxes and public revenue...and then index the gas tax to inflation and use other ideas (such as an oil import fee) to fund real transportation projects. Save the tolls for the periphery projects.
Anthony
(above quote from "Atlanta's coming HOT lanes" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4851.msg134393;boardseen#new) thread on Southeast page)

Some like-minded sentiment in St. Landry Parish.  In this video report (http://www.katc.com/news/louisiana-down-the-road-dotd-reviews-projects/), former LaDOTD Engineer and current St. Landry Parish President Bill Fontenot opines that Louisiana needs to raise its gas tax to help fund I-49 South and other projects in the state:

Quote
Bill Fontenot is a former DOTD District Engineer and now, the St. Landry Parish President .... The top priority is completing an expensive I-49 .... The state coffers have been open for some time on the project, chipping away from St. Mary Parish up to Iberia Parish- eliminating nearly all stops on the way.
"They are trying to build an overpass for Ambassador Caffery extension and we're thinking while they're trying to do that one, it just makes sense to do ours as well," St. Martin Parish President Guy Cormier said.
Cormier feels his stretch of the highway is getting slighted. The section in Iberia Parish is nearly complete and the next portion covers Lafayette, skipping right over St. Martin Parish.
"Why not just finish it from Broussard all the way to St. Mary parish?" Cormier asked .... Completing I-49 would cost about $5-billion. That may likely take years to cover ....
"This state can do it," Fontenot said.
According to him, every parish can address some of their needs by increasing the state gas tax.
"It would add to the system." He says, "improve the system to a degree that people have not seen in many years."
The last time the state changed its gas tax was in 1984. The price per gallon then? $1.21.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on February 10, 2012, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 02, 2012, 04:22:33 PM
Cool. Louisiana is really making a lot of progress! Will be glad when Arkansas finally completes those last few miles to the Louisiana state line.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2012, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 21, 2011, 03:49:05 PM
No surprise 2012 I-49 North early opening from LaDOTD; I emailed LaDOTD about a possible 2012 opening and they responded that pavement will be complete on the project in 2012 [I presume the email was referring to Segments A-D], but that it will not be open to traffic until 2013.  This info is consistent with prior information from LaDOTD, but a Segment B-D 2012 opening would have been nice.

In this article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120207/NEWS01/120207012/-null-?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE), Kent Rogers of NLCOG is quoted as as making some recent comments that could be interpeted as LaDOTD opening Segments B-D to traffic before Segments E-I are completed:

Quote
Kent Rogers of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, NLCOG, said sections A through D are complete, short of stripes and signage and determining the best route from U.S. Highway 71 until sections E through I are finished. Sections J and K, between Interstate 220 and state Highway 173, are still in the preliminary construction phase.
"Arkansas is doing dirt work and beginning construction"  at the state line, Rogers said. "It should be completed about the same time as the last segment at I-220 is here."

In this video report (http://www.ktbs.com/video/30033816/index.html), Project Engineer Greg Wall talks about the current widening of LA 168 (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=32.99752495661599~-93.90963172912597&lvl=15&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Mira%2C%20LA&form=LMLTCC) to safely accomodate traffic going from US 71 to I-49 Segment B until Arkansas completes its final segment to the state line around 2015.  He does not mention when the LA 168 widening is expected to be completed (US 71 and the southern end of Segment D (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=32.85263559401485~-93.86380290985107&lvl=15&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Hosston%2C%20LA&form=LMLTCC) have a direct connection).  Would LaDOTD open Segments B-D to traffic if the LA 168 widening is completed well before Segments E-I?

Maybe I'm injecting too much wishful thinking into the comments by Rogers...
I think it's pretty nice that Louisiana is just as serious about building I-49 as Missouri is!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 22, 2012, 07:57:45 PM
Some good news about south I 49 construction. http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1904
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
Here is another article on I 49 South in LA. When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 23, 2012, 06:19:47 PM
Quote from: Gordon on February 22, 2012, 07:57:45 PM
Some good news about south I 49 construction. http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1904

This article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/marks-i--south-phase/article_8d26b860-5e47-11e1-9046-0019bb2963f4.html) has some additonal commentary from Governor Jindal and a local politician:

Quote
Jindal said if everything goes as planned, including funding, all but one segment of the project could be complete by 2017 .... The last portion to be complete in Iberia Parish will be the service roads up to Lafayette Parish. She said the route is the energy corridor and the seafood corridor, connecting all the important components in the area.

I assume Jindal's comment is in regard to the Iberia Parish section of I-49 South.  Here's a summary of the projects leading up to the last portion:

Quote
The most recent phase included 2.75 miles of frontage roads along U.S. 90 from Louisiana 83 to Darnall Road ....
Projects under way include:
- A $20 million project to widen U.S. 90 from four to six lanes from Pinhook Road to Broussard that will be completed by this summer.
- A $1.4 million project to construct service roads to connect Captain Cade Road to the interchange at U.S. 90 and Louisiana 88, which will be completed in the spring.
Projects to begin soon include:
- A $30 million project to construct an interchange on U.S. 90 at Louisiana 318 in St. Mary Parish. The environmental phase of this project will be completed in March. The project will be ready for construction in the next year.
- A $5 million project scheduled for the spring to construct frontage roads along U.S. 90 from Darnall Road to Louisiana 85.
- A $10 million-$15 million project to build a railroad crossing overpass between Louisiana 85 and 668. The project is in design phase and could go out for bid in fiscal year 2015.
- A $30 million-$50 million project that will construct an interchange at Ambassador Caffery and U.S. 90. The Department of Transportation and Development is scheduled to accept bids for construction in fiscal year 2016.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 23, 2012, 06:43:38 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 14, 2011, 08:20:49 PM
Here's a link to the Oct. 12, 2009 Times-Picayune article itself:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/plans_for_interstate_49_corrid.html
Quote
The biggest challenge is upgrading and replacing a 36-mile segment of U.S. 90 from the West Bank Expressway to Raceland: now estimated to cost about $3.6 billion, a figure that will probably swell to $5.2 billion, said Department of Transportation and Development Secretary William Ankner." ....
The main obstacle to building the stretch from the West Bank Expressway to Raceland is that the roadway has to be elevated and built through marshy areas, Ankner said. Building a road at ground level will not suffice because the area floods, he said ...
Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/

The West Bank Expressway could theoretically be signed as I-49 because it connects to I-10; however, that will not happen because the $3.6 billion segment to Raceland makes it very unlikely that the West Bank Expressway would be anything more than a short spur for a long, long time. The LaDOTD press release (http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1904) does indicate that a study is being conducted to see if the $3.6 billion amount can be reduced:

Quote
A $1 million study is currently underway to determine if the cost of the Ames Boulevard to Raceland project can be reduced.

On the northern (western) end, construction of the I-49 Connector through Lafayette is an estimated $1 billion to $1.4 billion barrier to I-49 signage:

Quote from: Grzrd on December 14, 2011, 08:26:43 AM
http://theadvocate.com/home/1558259-125/tolls-eyed-as-revenue-source.html
The toll-backed financing represents about half of the estimated $1 billion to $1.4 billion needed to complete I-49 through Lafayette, an estimate that depends on how far south the highway upgrade would go.
Much of that is for the elevated portion through the city of Lafayette .... The steep price tag has long been a roadblock for completing I-49 south ....

Unfortunately, I think it's going to be a while before you see I-49 signage south (east) of Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 07:53:27 PM
I would like to see I 49 South project be put back on the LaDOTD web site so you could see a map of the progress being made. I am not familiar with U.S. 90.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 23, 2012, 08:38:14 PM
Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
Here is another article on I 49 South in LA. When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/

I just took another look at the article Gordon linked.  Is that REALLY the color scheme for "Future I-49" shields in Louisiana, or is LaDOTD using Nike money for "combat" shields as an alternative financing source?

Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 07:53:27 PM
I would like to see I 49 South project be put back on the LaDOTD web site so you could see a map of the progress being made.

I agree. This map is from April, 2009 (http://blog.nola.com/graphics/2009/04/I49040609.jpg), but it is still a pretty good representation of the status of I-49 South:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYTpzc.jpg&hash=2ab9caf8bf64baf0bab2229cb6c59cf274f95486)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2012, 03:25:30 AM
First off, they are NOT going to sign any portion of US 90 or the Westbank Expressway as I-49 until the entire roadway is completed...including the segment through Lafayette. They still have to connect it to existing I-49 in order to make it work...and that requires completing the I-49 Connector segment and the upgrade of US 90 through Lafayette Parish.

The WBX segment still has that "I-910" hidden designation, but until they complete the segment to US 90 and tie it into the Huey P. Long Bridge improvements, then that would have to wait as well.

It may be possible to cut some savings off the Raceland to Avondale/WBX segment by using the existing US 90 roadway and raising it on fill with some bridged segments within Barataria Bay and from Boutte/Mimosa Park to near Avondale. Or, they could just say "Screw it" and truncate the project at I-310 and just overlay the latter to meet I-10 west of NOLA. I'm sure that  that will go well with Nawlins folk, though. (As in....NOT.)

The L&D RR overpass between LA 88 and LA 668: Hmmmm.....my impression was that they were going to not build an overpass, but find some way to reroute the existing L&D spur to reach that sugar cane processing mill, then just raze and remove that hazardous grade crossing. I guess that they decided that an overpass would be simpler and more cost effective.

It's going to get real interesting when Bobby J and his pals attempt to sell the idea of tolls to pay for finishing I-49 South in Lafayette, especially when he's still building and upgrading sections of US 90 free of charge, and after he succeeded in building I-49 North for free. Maybe they should take the hint of Texas officials and invest in some of that Freight Shuttle business.

And...there's still the matter of upgrading US 90 between Wax Lake and Berwick, which will require an elevated section in Patterson. Will they toll that one, too??


Anthony

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2012, 03:30:46 AM
Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
Here is another article on I 49 South in LA. When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/

BTW....How fascinating that the local Lafayette TV station quotes an AP rewrite of an newspaper article...from the Baton Rouge Advocate. Yeah, they have a pretty good Acadiana bureau, but what does that say about the local Lafayette paper, the Daily Advertiser??  Not too bloody much, I figure.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 24, 2012, 09:25:40 PM
I have been looking on Google earth and looks like from I 10 to Co. Hwy 728 is really congested. They will have buy a lot of homes and buseness to complete Interstate standards. As I understand to extend a designated Interstate you have to finish it from existing I 49 at I 10 towards New Orleans. That looks like a lot money and time.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on February 26, 2012, 08:28:05 PM
Quote from: Gordon on February 24, 2012, 09:25:40 PM
I have been looking on Google earth and looks like from I 10 to Co. Hwy 728 is really congested. They will have buy a lot of homes and buseness to complete Interstate standards. As I understand to extend a designated Interstate you have to finish it from existing I 49 at I 10 towards New Orleans. That looks like a lot money and time.

He said county... in Louisiana...  "(Co. Hwy 728)"  hahaha.  :)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 27, 2012, 10:01:38 AM
And where the hell is this "County Hwy 728", anyway?? I suppose he meant Surrey St./University Ave. near the airport??

Actually, most of the real ROW takings will be within the median of the Evangeline Thruway couplet and in a six-block section in downtown where the proposed freeway diverges from the Thruway median near Simcoe St. to gently curve parallel to the BNSF/UP mainline (closest point will be at the Johnston St./US 167 interchange) before rejoining the Thruway median near 12th St. It won't be too bad, as far as Interstates through cities goes.

The Lafayette segment will be kind of expensive due to it having to be elevated through most of the city and because the interchanges just south of Lafayette (Verot School Road and LA 89/Southpark Rd) have to accomodate crossing over the parallel BNSF rail line and maintaining the one way access roads that would serve the local traffic (and be used for the local "shunpikers" should they decide to toll the mainlaines). Still, though, it won't hold a candle to the Raceland/Boutte/Avondale segments, which will probably cost 3X as much due to the mandat of keeping it fully elevated to prevent flooding.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 27, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2012, 03:25:30 AM
Maybe they should take the hint of Texas officials and invest in some of that Freight Shuttle business.
Anthony

I recently emailed the person with a great deal of control over the Louisiana purse strings, Treasurer John N. Kennedy, about the Freight Shuttle.  Part of his response:

Quote
Thanks for your email.  I went to the web site you gave me about freight shuttles.  Very interesting.  I plan to speak with my colleagues at the Department of Transportation and Development about this idea.  If you have any updates on this subject, I would appreciate receiving them.

Since his reply, I have forwarded some info about the Texas RFP (including the I-35 proposal) to him.  At least he (a) responded, and (b) did not immediately dismiss the idea.  It will be interesting to see if LaDOTD takes a deep look at it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 28, 2012, 10:55:06 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 27, 2012, 10:01:38 AM
And where the hell is this "County Hwy 728", anyway?? I suppose he meant Surrey St./University Ave. near the airport??

Actually, most of the real ROW takings will be within the median of the Evangeline Thruway couplet and in a six-block section in downtown where the proposed freeway diverges from the Thruway median near Simcoe St. to gently curve parallel to the BNSF/UP mainline (closest point will be at the Johnston St./US 167 interchange) before rejoining the Thruway median near 12th St. It won't be too bad, as far as Interstates through cities goes.

The Lafayette segment will be kind of expensive due to it having to be elevated through most of the city and because the interchanges just south of Lafayette (Verot School Road and LA 89/Southpark Rd) have to accomodate crossing over the parallel BNSF rail line and maintaining the one way access roads that would serve the local traffic (and be used for the local "shunpikers" should they decide to toll the mainlaines). Still, though, it won't hold a candle to the Raceland/Boutte/Avondale segments, which will probably cost 3X as much due to the mandat of keeping it fully elevated to prevent flooding.


Anthony

Post Merge: February 29, 2012, 10:19:15 AM

Look on Google Earth At Lafayette,La. And near the Air Port you will see on the right  co hwy 728-8. on the the left is a symbol 182. That is where I come up with that. If it is wrong then Google Earth needs to correct that. Like I said I am not familiar with U.S. 90.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 29, 2012, 03:36:49 AM
Quote from: Gordon on February 28, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
Look on Google Earth At Lafayette,La. And near the Air Port you will see on the right  co hwy 728-8. on the the left is a symbol 182. That is where I come up with that. If it is wrong then Google Earth needs to correct that. Like I said I am not familiar with U.S. 90.

Dude...I don't have to look at Google...I LIVE near Lafayette and have passed there pretty frequently.

And, you and Google are partially right...there is an LA 728-8 that runs on Surrey Street near the LRA...but that is a State, not Parish, highway. Lafayette Parish doesn't have numbered parish highways...Iberia Parish does.

And...LA 182 doesn't even connect with US 90...it basically runs sorta parallel with US 90/US 167 via University Avenue, but it turns south at Pinhook Road and generally goes parallel to US 90 until just south of Broussard.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on March 01, 2012, 02:46:43 AM
Quote from: Gordon on February 28, 2012, 10:55:06 PM

Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 07:59:59 PM

Look on Google Earth At Lafayette,La. And near the Air Port you will see on the right  co hwy 728-8. on the the left is a symbol 182. That is where I come up with that. If it is wrong then Google Earth needs to correct that. Like I said I am not familiar with U.S. 90.

We were just busting your balls because you said "county" highway and not parish highway b/c LA doesn't have counties.  :)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on March 01, 2012, 10:34:38 PM
I didn't write county. I wrote co because that is what is on Google Earth. That is why I asked about looking that up. I know Louisiana does not have counties. Hey, just looking at I 49 south and supporting it being finished. If you guys live down in that area let me know why it so costly about it being finished , which Anthony explained in his response. I have traveled I 49 to I 10 and then to New Orleans. So I don't know what it like thru U.S. 90.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on March 04, 2012, 04:52:06 PM
Quote from: Gordon on March 01, 2012, 10:34:38 PM
I didn't write county. I wrote co because that is what is on Google Earth. That is why I asked about looking that up. I know Louisiana does not have counties. Hey, just looking at I 49 south and supporting it being finished. If you guys live down in that area let me know why it so costly about it being finished , which Anthony explained in his response. I have traveled I 49 to I 10 and then to New Orleans. So I don't know what it like thru U.S. 90.

Well I believe it will cost $3 billion to build an elevated expressway from the Westbank to Raceland.  I think that's the big hangup.
Title: John Norquist and CNU Critique Shreveport I-49 ICC
Post by: Grzrd on March 19, 2012, 10:44:14 AM
This opinion piece by John Norquist (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120318/OPINION0106/203170310/John-Norquist-Inner-city-49-throwback-flawed-transportation-model) indicates that CNU will oppose an I-49 Inner-City Connector.  As done recently regarding the proposed New Orleans I-10 teardown, Chattanooga is cited as an example of a successful freeway teardown.  It will be interesting to see if CNU will set forth a specific alternative proposal for Shreveport.  Also, had CNU been vocal during the Stage 0 assessment, a "boulevard" alternative might have been under consideration now during the Stage 1 process.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on March 19, 2012, 11:05:22 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 19, 2012, 10:44:14 AM
Chattanooga is cited as an example of a successful freeway teardown.

What freeway was torn down in Chattanooga?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on March 19, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
QuoteIn Chattanooga, former freeway traffic distributed more efficiently after a large road structure was removed from its riverfront. Property values have climbed and downtown Chattanooga has become much more of a destination for tourists, workers and even new residents.

This is news to me too. I don't know of a freeway that used to go along the Riverfront.

Maybe they are referring to Riverfront Parkway which might have been a freeway at some point: http://g.co/maps/526z3
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 19, 2012, 11:38:32 AM
Quote from: bugo on March 19, 2012, 11:05:22 AM
What freeway was torn down in Chattanooga?
Quote from: codyg1985 on March 19, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Maybe they are referring to Riverfront Parkway which might have been a freeway at some point: http://g.co/maps/526z3

Pages 9-15/36 of this presentation (http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/eric_dumbaugh_-_presentation_in_nola_12.6.11.pdf) regarding Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans use the Riverfront Parkway as an example.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 19, 2012, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 19, 2012, 10:44:14 AM
This opinion piece by John Norquist (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120318/OPINION0106/203170310/John-Norquist-Inner-city-49-throwback-flawed-transportation-model) indicates that CNU will oppose an I-49 Inner-City Connector.  As done recently regarding the proposed New Orleans I-10 teardown, Chattanooga is cited as an example of a successful freeway teardown.  It will be interesting to see if CNU will set forth a specific alternative proposal for Shreveport.  Also, had CNU been vocal during the Stage 0 assessment, a "boulevard" alternative might have been under consideration now during the Stage 1 process.

John Norquist needs to keep his sorrry butt our of our business.

I'm guessing that his alternative will be to reroute I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220, and either make existing I-49 into an I-x49 spur or tear that down and redistribute the traffic onto local streets.

Problem with that is that I-220 would have to be widened to 6 lanes; and Cross Lake is Shreveport's main drinking water supply which would be threatened by more hazmat travel on I-220.

But hey, tearing down freeways is FUN, and revitalizes neighborhoods, and forces people to save gas by going to light rail!!  So..full speed in reverse!!!

Jackass.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 23, 2012, 02:23:29 PM
The possibility of only tolling the six-mile I-49 Connector through Lafayette is being explored (http://www.theadvertiser.com/usatoday/article/38872567?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp):

Quote
A group exploring the idea of using tolls to pay for the completion of Interstate 49 south is considering a narrowed focus on only the 6-mile portion through Lafayette.
The Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission, which has taken the local lead in the search for I-49 funding, has been considering two tolling scenarios: an 18-mile stretch from Lafayette going south and the other extending 37 miles from Lafayette through Iberia Parish.
Commissioner Elaine Abell tells The Advocate (http://bit.ly/GHTFPg ) the commission has been asked by the state Department of Transportation and Development to consider tolls only for a 6-mile elevated portion through Lafayette.
The commission has the legal authority to oversee a toll project, but DOTD would need to grant a permit for it.
"We are just trying to get it built," Abell said. "It's a huge undertaking, but it can be done." ....
The 6-mile stretch through Lafayette – dubbed the "connector" – would cost an estimated $730 million, according to figures presented at a commission meeting this week.
Average tolls of up to $2 for the entire six-mile portion would be needed to make the project feasible if the focus were narrowed to the Lafayette connector, though that figure is a rough estimate and likely higher that what passenger vehicles would pay, according to consultants who have been hired by the commission to research the project.
Tolls likely could fund $300 million of the 6-mile connector, leaving a funding gap of $430 million that possibly could be filled with local tax revenue, state money, federal loans or a combination of sources, according to the commission's consultants, HNTB ....

The I-49 Connector Final EIS Summary of Comments and Responses (http://mpo.lafayettela.gov/projects/I-49connector/text/ROD_AppendixA.pdf) indicates that, as of December 2002, 91% of the traffic on the Evangeline Thruway was local (page 11/96 of pdf). If that is still true, a $2.00 average toll for local traffic may be a hard sell to the citizens of Lafayette.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 19, 2012, 12:36:23 PM
John Norquist needs to keep his sorrry butt our of our business .... Jackass.
Anthony

I have a feeling that it is only a matter of time before Norquist turns his attention from the Shreveport I-49 ICC and other projects to the elevated I-49 Connector, too.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 23, 2012, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 23, 2012, 02:23:29 PM
The possibility of only tolling the six-mile I-49 Connector through Lafayette is being explored (http://www.theadvertiser.com/usatoday/article/38872567?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp):

Quote
A group exploring the idea of using tolls to pay for the completion of Interstate 49 south is considering a narrowed focus on only the 6-mile portion through Lafayette.
The Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission, which has taken the local lead in the search for I-49 funding, has been considering two tolling scenarios: an 18-mile stretch from Lafayette going south and the other extending 37 miles from Lafayette through Iberia Parish.
Commissioner Elaine Abell tells The Advocate (http://bit.ly/GHTFPg ) the commission has been asked by the state Department of Transportation and Development to consider tolls only for a 6-mile elevated portion through Lafayette.
The commission has the legal authority to oversee a toll project, but DOTD would need to grant a permit for it.
"We are just trying to get it built," Abell said. "It's a huge undertaking, but it can be done." ....
The 6-mile stretch through Lafayette – dubbed the "connector" – would cost an estimated $730 million, according to figures presented at a commission meeting this week.
Average tolls of up to $2 for the entire six-mile portion would be needed to make the project feasible if the focus were narrowed to the Lafayette connector, though that figure is a rough estimate and likely higher that what passenger vehicles would pay, according to consultants who have been hired by the commission to research the project.
Tolls likely could fund $300 million of the 6-mile connector, leaving a funding gap of $430 million that possibly could be filled with local tax revenue, state money, federal loans or a combination of sources, according to the commission's consultants, HNTB ....

Hmmm...are they talking about the segment from I-10 to the airport?? I never figured that that was 6 miles long. I'm wondering if they are also including the segment of US 90 from the airport south to the LA 182 interchange just south of Broussard...or even further down to the US 90/LA 88 interchange??


Quote from: Grzrd on March 23, 2012, 02:23:29 PMThe I-49 Connector Final EIS Summary of Comments and Responses (http://mpo.lafayettela.gov/projects/I-49connector/text/ROD_AppendixA.pdf) indicates that, as of December 2002, 91% of the traffic on the Evangeline Thruway was local (page 11/96 of pdf). If that is still true, a $2.00 average toll for local traffic may be a hard sell to the citizens of Lafayette.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 19, 2012, 12:36:23 PM
John Norquist needs to keep his sorrry butt our of our business .... Jackass.
Anthony

I have a feeling that it is only a matter of time before Norquist turns his attention from the Shreveport I-49 ICC and other projects to the elevated I-49 Connector, too.

The people of the Sterling Grove neighborhood (just east of the proposed ROW for the I-49 Connector) might beat Norquist to the punch on that one.

Probably more likely is that there will be some calling for a reassessment of the Teche Ridge alternative, which would have re-routed I-49 east of Lafayette through St. Martin Parish, or perhaps building the Lafayette Metro Expressway loop around Lafayette to the west, and extending it north to meet I-49 near Carencro. The prohibitive costs of those alternatives, though, more than likely rules both of them out.

I always thought that the best solution would have been to toll the segment just south of Lafayette to New Iberia, converting it to a Texas-style tollway (similar to the Sam Houston Tollway/Beltway 8 setup in Houston), while leaving the segment within Lafayette proper as a freeway.

I still have hope, though, that it can be built as a freeway, without tolls. It would be a hard sell indeed, especially considering that the rest of US 90 and I-49 North from Shreveport northward was built as a freeway.

Anthony
Title: Lafayette I-49 Connector Building Demolition Contract Letting Scheduled For May
Post by: Grzrd on April 14, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 23, 2012, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 23, 2012, 02:23:29 PM
I have a feeling that it is only a matter of time before Norquist turns his attention from the Shreveport I-49 ICC and other projects to the elevated I-49 Connector, too.
The people of the Sterling Grove neighborhood (just east of the proposed ROW for the I-49 Connector) might beat Norquist to the punch on that one.
Anthony

LaDOTD's scheduled May 9 I-49 Connector building demolition letting (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsinfo/bihq20120509.asp) and the resultant demolitions may provide some urgency to wake up some opposition:

Quote
Lead Project: H.003453.3
Lead Federal No. : H003453
Parish(es): Lafayette
Description: I-49 CONNECTOR BUILDING DEMOLITION
Type: BUILDING DEMOLITION AND RELATED WORK

One small step for I-49 South ...

EDIT

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 23, 2012, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 23, 2012, 02:23:29 PM
The possibility of only tolling the six-mile I-49 Connector through Lafayette is being explored (http://www.theadvertiser.com/usatoday/article/38872567?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp)
The 6-mile stretch through Lafayette – dubbed the "connector" – would cost an estimated $730 million, according to figures presented at a commission meeting this week.
Average tolls of up to $2 for the entire six-mile portion would be needed to make the project feasible if the focus were narrowed to the Lafayette connector, though that figure is a rough estimate and likely higher that what passenger vehicles would pay, according to consultants who have been hired by the commission to research the project.
Tolls likely could fund $300 million of the 6-mile connector, leaving a funding gap of $430 million that possibly could be filled with local tax revenue, state money, federal loans or a combination of sources, according to the commission's consultants, HNTB ....
The I-49 Connector Final EIS Summary of Comments and Responses (http://mpo.lafayettela.gov/projects/I-49connector/text/ROD_AppendixA.pdf) indicates that, as of December 2002, 91% of the traffic on the Evangeline Thruway was local (page 11/96 of pdf). If that is still true, a $2.00 average toll for local traffic may be a hard sell to the citizens of Lafayette.
It would be a hard sell indeed, especially considering that the rest of US 90 and I-49 North from Shreveport northward was built as a freeway.
Anthony

This March 23 TV video report (http://www.klfy.com/story/17242769/i-49-toll-talks) includes a discussion of how Lafayette citizens could avoid the toll.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2012, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 14, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote
Lead Project: H.003453.3
Lead Federal No. : H003453
Parish(es): Lafayette
Description: I-49 CONNECTOR BUILDING DEMOLITION
Type: BUILDING DEMOLITION AND RELATED WORK
One small step for I-49 South ...

One backward step for I-49 South; the I-49 Connector building demolition project was withdrawn (and not simply postponed) (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsadde/adhq20120509.asp) on May 8:

Quote
STATE PROJECT-H.003453.3
ADDENDUM NO.-01 (Proposal)
ADDENDUM/WITHDRAW DATE-4/11/2012
PROJECT STATUS (withdrawn/postponed)-Withdrawn
5/8/2012

Maybe they decided to wait for results of the I-49 Connector toll study ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on May 09, 2012, 10:38:36 PM
Today LA DOTD had a low bid of 5,812,205.63 from Gilchrist Construction Co. to Construct frontage roads from Darnell Rd. to LA 85. A small section to convert U.S. 90 to I 49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on May 19, 2012, 05:07:11 PM


Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Login|Signup |Why Sign Up?
Home News
Marks I-49 south phase
Jindal, others visit local school to tout finished step in project
Story
Comments
Image (2)
ShareShare
Print
Create a hardcopy of this page
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
Previous Next

Hope Rurik / The Daily Iberian
Marks I-49 phase
Gov. Bobby Jindal greets, from left, Ross Helms, 5, Madison Helms, 6, and Amanda Bodin, 7, Wednesday before a ribbon cutting ceremony marking the completion of frontage roads as part of the I-49 South project.


Posted: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:00 pm | Updated: 4:15 pm, Thu Feb 23, 2012.
BY HOPE RURIK, THE DAILY IBERIAN | 0 comments
Gov. Bobby Jindal was on hand along with other local and state officials at Caneview Elementary School Wednesday to celebrate the completion of another phase in the I-49 South project.
The most recent phase included 2.75 miles of frontage roads along U.S. 90 from Louisiana 83 to Darnall Road.
"The completion of this project is a big step in the effort to complete this corridor to make our roads safer for our families, and to make this region even more attractive to companies who want to invest and create jobs,"  he said.
But, he said, the work is certainly not finished. He outlined the work under way and the work to come.
Projects under way include:
- A $20 million project to widen U.S. 90 from four to six lanes from Pinhook Road to Broussard that will be completed by this summer.
- A $1.4 million project to construct service roads to connect Captain Cade Road to the interchange at U.S. 90 and Louisiana 88, which will be completed in the spring.
Projects to begin soon include:
- A $30 million project to construct an interchange on U.S. 90 at Louisiana 318 in St. Mary Parish. The environmental phase of this project will be completed in March. The project will be ready for construction in the next year.
- A $5 million project scheduled for the spring to construct frontage roads along U.S. 90 from Darnall Road to Louisiana 85.
- A $10 million-$15 million project to build a railroad crossing overpass between Louisiana 85 and 668. The project is in design phase and could go out for bid in fiscal year 2015.
- A $30 million-$50 million project that will construct an interchange at Ambassador Caffery and U.S. 90. The Department of Transportation and Development is scheduled to accept bids for construction in fiscal year 2016.
Jindal said if everything goes as planned, including funding, all but one segment of the project could be complete by 2017.
He said DOTD is applying for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program. The state has the potential to receive $160 million from it.
"We're committed to completing I-49 South and we'll continue to look for additional sources of funding to finally fully fund this critical corridor,"  he said.
State Rep. Simone Champagne, R-Jeanerette, said the goal for the rest of this project is to continue the funding mechanism, calling it the "last leg of the journey."
The last portion to be complete in Iberia Parish will be the service roads up to Lafayette Parish. She said the route is the energy corridor and the seafood corridor, connecting all the important components in the area.
"That's why I say it is the corridor for the rest of the country,"  she said.
The governor also is looking to fund improvements for rural roads that are not considered eligible for match funding from the federal government.
The proposed legislation would bond out half of the State Highway Improvement Fund, which was created to fund mostly rural roads, generating $325 million to repair almost 1,000 miles of rural roadway.
Every parish would be eligible for the funding. Jindal said if the bill is passed, DOTD will evaluate roadways and make determinations on funding based on need.
Jindal said many of these roads are have become damaged and unsafe after years of use by agricultural machinery, by rapid economic growth and by impacts from natural disasters.
He said it's important to make these roads safer in addition to being more accessible to potential investors.
"I know it's a technical designation calling these "˜non-major routes.' The reality is, if you live on one of these roads, you're child goes to school on one of these roads, if your job is on one of these roads, it's a pretty major route to you,"  he said. "So it is important that we put money into this fund and put money into these roads."  I don't know if this was posted before but It is the first time I've seen it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 19, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
Well does anyone else know why the US 90/Ambassador Caffery interchange was not built to Interstate-quality? Boggles my mind, because you're gonna have to tear up the intersection in a few years.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on May 19, 2012, 07:55:05 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 19, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
Well does anyone else know why the US 90/Ambassador Caffery interchange was not built to Interstate-quality?
What does the interchange look like? Google's aerial shows a simple at-grade intersection.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 19, 2012, 09:06:11 PM
It is a simple at-grade intersection for now.

The plans I saw from LaDOTD call for a phased approach to building the interchange: first, as a stand-alone narrow diamond with temporary ramps to connect with mainline US 90; then, as the rest of US 90 is freewayized with overpasses and one-way Texas-style frontage roads, the ramps will be reversed to fat a more typical "X-ramp" configuration and the mainline widened to 6 lanes with auxillaries; then, finally, some directional connectors will be built to connect the mainlines with Ambassador Caffery.

Meanwhile, Bo Jindal is talking his usual nonsense about how "the corridor is nearly complete", because without finishing the segments in Lafayette Parish and Lafayette proper, all he's creating is a Cajun Breezwood. Plus, there's that segment from Wax Lake to Berwick via Patterson and Bayou Vista that needs to be completed...and let's not even begin on the Raceland to NOLA segment....


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on May 19, 2012, 09:23:07 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 19, 2012, 09:06:11 PM
It is a simple at-grade intersection for now.
Sounds reasonable. mcdonaat, would you rather have an at-grade or no connection because they decide to spend the money elsewhere?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 19, 2012, 09:27:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 23, 2012, 06:19:47 PM
- A $30 million-$50 million project that will construct an interchange at Ambassador Caffery and U.S. 90. The Department of Transportation and Development is scheduled to accept bids for construction in fiscal year 2016.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 19, 2012, 09:06:11 PM
The plans I saw from LaDOTD call for a phased approach to building the interchange: first, as a stand-alone narrow diamond with temporary ramps to connect with mainline US 90; then, as the rest of US 90 is freewayized with overpasses and one-way Texas-style frontage roads, the ramps will be reversed to fat a more typical "X-ramp" configuration and the mainline widened to 6 lanes with auxillaries; then, finally, some directional connectors will be built to connect the mainlines with Ambassador Caffery.
Anthony

Anthony's prior thread on the interchange project (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5800.0), as well as LaDOTD's Request For Qualification Statements (http://webmail.dotd.louisiana.gov/Agrestat.nsf/9ff2e3e9315e2f5c8625717e005516e5/361ccb88eaa013648625795a004e2b71/$FILE/H.002868.5.pdf) for a design-build letting on the project, provide some additional good info.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 20, 2012, 01:32:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on May 19, 2012, 09:23:07 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 19, 2012, 09:06:11 PM
It is a simple at-grade intersection for now.
Sounds reasonable. mcdonaat, would you rather have an at-grade or no connection because they decide to spend the money elsewhere?

Well, Ambassador Caffery Parkway is a major thoroughfare for South Lafayette, so a connection with US 90 would be apropos. An interchange would be justified even if I-49 South wasn't even planned, but money had to be found first.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 20, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 20, 2012, 01:32:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on May 19, 2012, 09:23:07 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 19, 2012, 09:06:11 PM
It is a simple at-grade intersection for now.
Sounds reasonable. mcdonaat, would you rather have an at-grade or no connection because they decide to spend the money elsewhere?

Well, Ambassador Caffery Parkway is a major thoroughfare for South Lafayette, so a connection with US 90 would be apropos. An interchange would be justified even if I-49 South wasn't even planned, but money had to be found first.

I would MUCH rather a diamond-intersection now than later. Why worry about building excess stuff to supplement the corridor with the money that could have been used to build the right interchange, when you WILL have to build a freeway-style interchange to even designate the corridor as I-49?

Sounds like a confusing plan, though... I would have rather had a Y-style interchange than a lighted one. From my three months that I've lived in Lafayette since the connector was built, most people that I see use Amb. Caffery hit 90 South towards Broussard anyways.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 21, 2012, 02:00:40 AM
In a word: MONEY.

At the time the southern extension of Ambassador Caffery Parkway was built, the segment of US 90 south of the airport was still under study to be upgraded, so no funds could be spent for an interchange at that time. Therefore, a temporary at-grade connection was built, with the full intention of upgrading it to an interchange when funding was located.

The "final build" for the Future I-49/AmbCaffery interchange will be a combination "urban diamond" connection with continuous 3-lane one-way Texas-style frontage roads running all the way between LA 88 and Lafayette (with the existing Evangeline Thruway incorporated into the frontage road system for local access), and some direct connectors between the 90/49 mainlanes and AmbCaffery. It won't be quite a fully directional interchange (the directional ramps will serve EB-NB and NB-WB movements, with other movements consigned to the frontage roads and the usual slip ramps to/from the mainlanes), but that will come when funding is secured for the full upgrade as part of I-49 South. For now, though, this will suffice pretty well, since traffic volumes and accessability to the main traffic creators (especially Mall of Acadiana and the new Our Lady of Lourdes hospital) certainly justify an interchange.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 21, 2012, 04:59:29 PM
Fingers crossed for the state to make this an attractive intersection... It's going to be your main entrance, basically, into Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 21, 2012, 05:28:15 PM
More like Broussard.  The Kaliste Saloom Road interchange and the University Avenue/Surrey St. interchange will be the true gateway to Lafayette from the south.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 21, 2012, 11:26:19 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 21, 2012, 04:59:29 PM
Fingers crossed for the state to make this an attractive intersection... It's going to be your main entrance, basically, into Lafayette.
We're talking about folks coming north from the coastal region of Louisiana (and the occasional traveler from New Orleans).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 22, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
This article seems to reflect some resentment in south Louisiana about having to possibly toll I-49 South (http://theadvocate.com/news/2890492-123/regional-split-arises-over-i-49):

Quote
But state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin, noted that I-49 between Shreveport and the Arkansas border was financed without any tolls.
"We have built ourselves to the cornfields or cotton fields or whatever,"  Jones said .... southbound stretches from Lafayette alone would cost from $1 billion to $1.4 billion, and cover up to 37 miles.
Gov. Bobby Jindal's office said in February that more than 100 miles of the 156-mile I-49 south corridor have been brought up to interstate standards.
State Rep. Terry Landry, D-Lafayette, a member of the committee, said he always found it perplexing that attention focused on I-49 in northwest Louisiana amid concerns about hurricane evacuations in south Louisiana.
State Rep. Terry Brown, No Party-Colfax, countered that the initial part of I-49 went from Lafayette to the St. Landry Parish town of Washington – south to north – and that some of the work on I-49 in north Louisiana stemmed from federal highway decisions.
Adley, responding to Jones, said it made no sense to impose tolls when I-49 was being built in north Louisiana.
"There was no road, nothing to toll,"  Adley said.
The I-49 south project is largely an effort to upgrade U.S. 90.
"There is a route in place that you can actually gain some additional dollars if you want to,"  Adley said. "You may not want to."

I don't think the money fairy will build the remainder of I-49 South.  :no:


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 22, 2012, 09:50:29 AM
My worries are that a Katrina will hit Acadia and folks will get stuck on I-49/US-90 in backups. My feelings are that if the United States wants to keep New Orleans as a major metro area. We as a country have to ensure their is another route of evacuation. To me that includes a full blown I-49 and yes a full blown 3 digit bypass of Lafayette with 4 lanes and from the ground up contraflow plans and construction.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 22, 2012, 11:21:16 AM
Ahhh...ACADIANA, not Acadia. Acadia is a parish located within Acadiana.

If we do get a full-blown Katrina headed our way, there will be tie-ups regardless.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 22, 2012, 11:36:02 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 22, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
This article seems to reflect some resentment in south Louisiana about having to possibly toll I-49 South (http://theadvocate.com/news/2890492-123/regional-split-arises-over-i-49):

Quote
But state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin, noted that I-49 between Shreveport and the Arkansas border was financed without any tolls.
"We have built ourselves to the cornfields or cotton fields or whatever,"  Jones said .... southbound stretches from Lafayette alone would cost from $1 billion to $1.4 billion, and cover up to 37 miles.
Gov. Bobby Jindal's office said in February that more than 100 miles of the 156-mile I-49 south corridor have been brought up to interstate standards.
State Rep. Terry Landry, D-Lafayette, a member of the committee, said he always found it perplexing that attention focused on I-49 in northwest Louisiana amid concerns about hurricane evacuations in south Louisiana.
State Rep. Terry Brown, No Party-Colfax, countered that the initial part of I-49 went from Lafayette to the St. Landry Parish town of Washington – south to north – and that some of the work on I-49 in north Louisiana stemmed from federal highway decisions.
Adley, responding to Jones, said it made no sense to impose tolls when I-49 was being built in north Louisiana.
"There was no road, nothing to toll,"  Adley said.
The I-49 south project is largely an effort to upgrade U.S. 90.
"There is a route in place that you can actually gain some additional dollars if you want to,"  Adley said. "You may not want to."

I don't think the money fairy will build the remainder of I-49 South.  :no:




Hate to say I told you so, but...

It will be a hard sell to South Louisiana lawmakers precisely because of the regional split...and the notion that I-49 North was built free but US 90 will have to be converted to toll to build I-49 South.

Perhaps, the idea of extending the TIMED tax and using that to fund I-49 South will gain some favor?


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 22, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
Oh touchy Cajuns.....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 22, 2012, 09:46:57 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 22, 2012, 11:21:16 AM
Ahhh...ACADIANA, not Acadia. Acadia is a parish located within Acadiana.

If we do get a full-blown Katrina headed our way, there will be tie-ups regardless.


Anthony

Didn't you folks get that experience with Hurricane Andrew back in 1992?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 22, 2012, 11:44:30 PM
Not quite...Andrew hit a tad east of where I was (near Cote Blanche Bay near Baldwin/Franklin), and moved through the Atchafalaya Basin.  Baton Rouge and points eastward got the worst of it.

But, we did get our share of tie ups on US 90, indeed...in fact, that was the motivation that spurred the state to expidite study of I-49 South to begin with.

Hopefully, we won't get another one like that to push people along.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 22, 2012, 11:56:03 PM
Dunno though, it's your main shopping/medical corridor with the mall, the centers at Kaliste Saloom and Johnston, and of course the new hospital near Verot School.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: texaskdog on May 23, 2012, 01:12:04 PM
Maybe they can just all huddle together in the Superdome :P
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 23, 2012, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 22, 2012, 11:56:03 PM
Dunno though, it's your main shopping/medical corridor with the mall, the centers at Kaliste Saloom and Johnston, and of course the new hospital near Verot School.

Johnston Street is far more important a corridor, since it connects UL-L directly with the Mall of LA and the new OLOL hospital. Ambassador Caffery Parkway is more important because it connects South Lafayette with US 90. When the northern extension of AmbCaffery from I-10 near Scott to I-49 north of Carencro is finished, then it becomes a bit more important as a quasi-"beltway"..until the actual Beltway is built.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 12:58:38 AM
Actually.. dunno if it's "breaking" or not, but the Louisiana DOTD does not acknowledge the true creation of the I-49 corridor. Many people at the DOTD have said that the corridor should just be signed as US 90, with a giant TO NEW ORLEANS sign on I-10 at Lafayette. I'm discussing with the DOTD the possibility of creating I-6 as a number (look at US 90 on a map versus I-8 in Cali/Ariz and I-4 in Florida). The number is available, so why not use that instead of a north-south Interstate?

Also, whats the opinion of people on here when discussing hurricane evacuation? I was thinking the DOTD could sign a state highway (or create US 251) with signs saying "TO I-55/I-10" from Houma over the Gramercy Bridge, and tie in the I-55/I-10 interchange. It's an idea, and a super sensible one for evacuation. Maybe even six lanes since it's going to evacuate the entire Houma/Thibodaux area. Just my 2 cents!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on May 26, 2012, 02:09:10 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 12:58:38 AM
Also, whats the opinion of people on here when discussing hurricane evacuation? I was thinking the DOTD could sign a state highway (or create US 251) with signs saying "TO I-55/I-10" from Houma over the Gramercy Bridge, and tie in the I-55/I-10 interchange. It's an idea, and a super sensible one for evacuation. Maybe even six lanes since it's going to evacuate the entire Houma/Thibodaux area. Just my 2 cents!

Problem is traffic from the New Orleans metro alone will tie up all of I-10 and I-55. You're looking at a 5+ hour drive just to get to BR and that's with contraflow. There won't be any available space on I-10 and barely any on I-55 to squeeze in anymore traffic. Also, Mississippi usually doesn't allow traffic from Louisiana to enter along I-10 East so whatever doesn't make it up I-59 is going to catch I-12 back over to 55 and 10.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on May 26, 2012, 02:09:10 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 12:58:38 AM
Also, whats the opinion of people on here when discussing hurricane evacuation? I was thinking the DOTD could sign a state highway (or create US 251) with signs saying "TO I-55/I-10" from Houma over the Gramercy Bridge, and tie in the I-55/I-10 interchange. It's an idea, and a super sensible one for evacuation. Maybe even six lanes since it's going to evacuate the entire Houma/Thibodaux area. Just my 2 cents!

Problem is traffic from the New Orleans metro alone will tie up all of I-10 and I-55. You're looking at a 5+ hour drive just to get to BR and that's with contraflow. There won't be any available space on I-10 and barely any on I-55 to squeeze in anymore traffic. Also, Mississippi usually doesn't allow traffic from Louisiana to enter along I-10 East so whatever doesn't make it up I-59 is going to catch I-12 back over to 55 and 10.
Maybe it's time to implement evacuation by parish. I-49 South is going to be sending in so much traffic from the southern parts of the state into the CCC.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2012, 10:14:35 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 02:32:01 AM
Maybe it's time to implement evacuation by parish. I-49 South is going to be sending in so much traffic from the southern parts of the state into the CCC.

Not quite, because there's also the Hale Boggs Bridge (I-310) and, once the upgrade is completed, the Huey P. Long bridge. 

Plus, most of the population along US 90 is from Morgan City westward..US90 through Lafayette and then either I-49 north to Shreveport or I-10 west would be their preferred choice of evacuation.

And....Louisiana already has a staged system for implementing evacuation by parish, based on the intensity and timing of an approaching storm.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2012, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 22, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
Oh touchy Cajuns.....

I'm not a Cajun, but I know quite a few.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 02:56:23 PM
If I-55 is widened to a six-lane highway, it would be a good thing. Also, you can count in the six lanes of the twin-span bridge AND widen I-10 west to six lanes. The infrastructure is there, and smaller highways will be used by the local people. I, for one, never immediately drive to an Interstate highway just because it's "faster"
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: austrini on May 27, 2012, 04:04:14 PM
I went and drove on to I-49 today. All of the bridges are covered with birds' nests, the kind of birds that build those hard nests out of mud.... with the effect that there are clouds of them that swoop down on any cars that come by. The entrance ramps are only blocked off with flimsy "road closed" signs and sandbags, if any scoundrel wanted to see if their Toyota could navigate the bird barraged interstate for a mile or two in the very early morning there would be nary a soul around to stop them.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7216%2F7281488882_d398c744e3_c.jpg&hash=fff5bf4680c0ce93ea0c3e71836dae405ec0e968)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7076%2F7281493478_6eba54e4f4_c.jpg&hash=2e9da44de33ddbc31014b3b5b8f2844e030801a6)

Flickr photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatguyinalittlecoat/7281483826/in/photostream
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2012, 04:29:08 PM
This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120531/NEWS01/205310311/I-49-construction-moving-along) includes a 16 min. 24 sec. video of construction from LA 1 to the Arkansas state line, and a photo gallery with twenty photos of construction.

Quote from: Grzrd on February 02, 2012, 10:24:47 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Funding has been secured for Segments J and K, with construction on Segment J expected to begin in 2012 and Segment K in 2013:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1759
These two Segments are expected to be completed in 2016.
The July 7, 2011 press release linked above states that construction on Segment J could begin as early as Summer 2012.  I communicated with LaDOTD yesterday and the current estimate is that the letting will be in Fall 2012.
This video report (http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=230342) has Joe Umeozulu of LaDOTD stating that the letting for Segment K will be in Fall 2012, too.

Segment J is still expected to be let this Fall, but Segment K is now expected to be let in late 2013:

Quote
Segment J: The portion between Martin Luther King Boulevard and La. 1 is scheduled to be out for bids this fall and expected to cost $50 million to $70 million.
Segment K: The final section of the project from Martin Luther King Boulevard that will connect with Interstate 220 carries an estimated cost of $70 million to $100 million. The project is scheduled to go out for bids in late 2013.

Completion of I-49 North is still expected to occur in 2016:

Quote
The entire corridor is estimated to be complete by 2016, but segments A through I (from Arkansas to Louisiana Highway 1) will be open sometime next year, said Susan Stafford, public information officer for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 31, 2012, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2012, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 22, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
Oh touchy Cajuns.....

I'm not a Cajun, but I know quite a few.
You can claim to be a Cajun.............works for MA Senate Candidates.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 31, 2012, 04:41:25 PM
Updates......

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120531/NEWS01/205310311/I-49-construction-moving-along
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on May 31, 2012, 05:55:45 PM
LA. shows you can work on Bridges and the paving at the same time. It is a shame AR. can't do the same and finish there last 4 miles so they could both open up I49 from LA 1 to Texarkana in the spring of 2013.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 31, 2012, 10:22:48 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 31, 2012, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2012, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 22, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
Oh touchy Cajuns.....

I'm not a Cajun, but I know quite a few.
You can claim to be a Cajun.............works for MA Senate Candidates.
Cajuns and Cherokees are not one of the same.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: qguy on June 01, 2012, 07:49:35 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 31, 2012, 10:22:48 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 31, 2012, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2012, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on May 22, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
Oh touchy Cajuns.....

I think he knew that and was applying the principle that the MA Senate candidate has been using. (And

I'm not a Cajun, but I know quite a few.
You can claim to be a Cajun.............works for MA Senate Candidates.
Cajuns and Cherokees are not one of the same.

I think he knows that and is applying the principle that the MA Senate candidate has been using. (But he did get more touchiness, therefore achieving a twofer.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: brownpelican on June 02, 2012, 01:31:40 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 12:58:38 AM
Also, whats the opinion of people on here when discussing hurricane evacuation? I was thinking the DOTD could sign a state highway (or create US 251) with signs saying "TO I-55/I-10" from Houma over the Gramercy Bridge, and tie in the I-55/I-10 interchange. It's an idea, and a super sensible one for evacuation. Maybe even six lanes since it's going to evacuate the entire Houma/Thibodaux area. Just my 2 cents!

Absolutely not! As Anthony said, the last thing you need is more traffic on I-10 or I-55. People need to start discovering state and US routes...and some parishes are encouraging that (Tangipahoa, Saint Tammany). The Westbank has a great evacuation route in LA 3127 (from I-310). Yes, it's only two lanes, but it's a straight shot to Donaldsonville and LA 1.

US 90 is sufficient to carry traffic from Houma to Lafayette and I-49 north/I-10 west. LA 1 north to I-10 or US 190 is another good option.

Post Merge: June 04, 2012, 06:06:25 AM

Quote from: mcdonaat on May 26, 2012, 02:32:01 AM

Maybe it's time to implement evacuation by parish. I-49 South is going to be sending in so much traffic from the southern parts of the state into the CCC.

Highly unlikely. If a storm is approaching New Orleans or Acadiana, I doubt DOTD and state police will allow traffic to go into New Orleans/Jefferson Parish to evacuate. They would implement contraflow to Lafayette, with the contraflow lanes going to Lake Charles and normal westbound lanes going to Alexandria.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on June 02, 2012, 02:38:10 AM
New I-49 Shreveport to Arkansas article with pictures and video from the air of the construction progress
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120531/NEWS01/205310311/I-49-construction-moving-along
Title: Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector Website
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
It had been a while since I checked the Shreveport ICC website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/index.html), but it looks like it has been revitalized by the transition from Stage 0 to Stage 1. It now has has an interactive map (http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cc22e9d8561e4fb884b931e919560817&extent=-93.8379,32.4896,-93.7152,32.5467) which shows the businesses, churches, etc. that will potentially be affected by the ICC.  Also, it has an April 2012 Newsletter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/34/90/Newsletter%20Volume%202_Number%201_April%202012.pdf), which is the first newsletter since June 2010.  In addition, page 4/4 of the April 2012 Newsletter pdf has a good map which shows the locations of two possible interchanges between I-20 and I-220.

It should be interesting to follow the communication efforts with the local community to see if they will keep the necessary support to build this project.  I wonder if outside anti-intown-freeway groups will begin participating in this process?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on June 03, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
Quote from: apjung on June 02, 2012, 02:38:10 AM
New I-49 Shreveport to Arkansas article with pictures and video from the air of the construction progress
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120531/NEWS01/205310311/I-49-construction-moving-along

Let's hope AHTD picks up the pace a bit...or a LOT.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 03, 2012, 09:02:04 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 31, 2012, 04:29:08 PM
This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120531/NEWS01/205310311/I-49-construction-moving-along) includes a 16 min. 24 sec. video of construction from LA 1 to the Arkansas state line, and a photo gallery with twenty photos of construction ....:
Quote
Segment J: The portion between Martin Luther King Boulevard and La. 1 is scheduled to be out for bids this fall and expected to cost $50 million to $70 million.
Quote from: US71 on June 03, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
Let's hope AHTD picks up the pace a bit...or a LOT.

LaDOTD is continuing ITS relatively torrid pace by tentatively scheduling Segment J for a November 14 letting (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp):

Quote
Parish-Caddo
Letting Date-2012-11-14
Project-H.003496 455-09-0002
Route-I-49
Project Name- I-49 North (Mlk Jr Dr-la 1) Seg J

Quote from: Gordon on May 31, 2012, 05:55:45 PM
LA. shows you can work on Bridges and the paving at the same time. It is a shame AR. can't do the same and finish there last 4 miles so they could both open up I49 from LA 1 to Texarkana in the spring of 2013.

The Segment J project apparently includes both grading and paving:

Quote
Type Improvement-Conc. New Pavement (Seg J)
Estimated Cost Range-$30,000,000 to $50,000,000
Length(miles)-4.09
Project Manager-Umeozulu, Joe
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on June 03, 2012, 09:46:40 PM
If it was in Little Rock there would be a paving contract letting. Look at the AHTD Home site and at the I430,I630 interchange and also the Broadway Bridge.They even gave a change order for 10 million for the interchange. We need two Highway departments for Arkansas: Little Rock and the rest of the state.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dariusb on June 05, 2012, 02:38:24 AM
Quote from: apjung on June 02, 2012, 02:38:10 AM
New I-49 Shreveport to Arkansas article with pictures and video from the air of the construction progress
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120531/NEWS01/205310311/I-49-construction-moving-along
I'll be so glad when this project is finished! Louisiana is really on the ball. Get it together Arkansas.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on June 05, 2012, 09:15:11 AM
I will be glad when I-49 North is done. They can get to the real I-49 problem in Louisiana. Yes that slow, slow, slow slog called I-49 south. After my Watkins lights in KC the I-49 south project is the most important in the US. Yes a real Interstate to help the Cajuns and Nawlins folks out of Hurricanes paths.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 05, 2012, 12:17:15 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on June 05, 2012, 09:15:11 AM
I will be glad when I-49 North is done. They can get to the real I-49 problem in Louisiana. Yes that slow, slow, slow slog called I-49 south. After my Watkins lights in KC the I-49 south project is the most important in the US. Yes a real Interstate to help the Cajuns and Nawlins folks out of Hurricanes paths.

I-49 north will be completed and signed by December.  The parts from north of Shreveport to Doddridge should be open in the next few years.  The Bella Vista bypass should be done within 10 years.  It's the part between Texarkana and Alma that we're going to be waiting for for a while.  I'm 38, and I don't expect to see I-49 completed in my lifetime.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 05, 2012, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on June 05, 2012, 09:15:11 AM
I will be glad when I-49 North is done. They can get to the real I-49 problem in Louisiana. Yes that slow, slow, slow slog called I-49 south. After my Watkins lights in KC the I-49 south project is the most important in the US. Yes a real Interstate to help the Cajuns and Nawlins folks out of Hurricanes paths.
From the people that I have talked to, including those working at the DOTD on the I-49 South project, the documents are referred to as I-49 South, but everyone calls it the US 90 Corridor project. I think upgrading US 90 is needed, but an Interstate designation isn't required. People are too scared of the fact that I-49 will be signed as North 49 - Houma, Westwego on the BGS, but will actually be facing south. You have a major N-S Interstate, but it's going E-W for 200 or so miles. Why not I-6? :P
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 05, 2012, 06:17:01 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 05, 2012, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on June 05, 2012, 09:15:11 AM
I will be glad when I-49 North is done. They can get to the real I-49 problem in Louisiana. Yes that slow, slow, slow slog called I-49 south. After my Watkins lights in KC the I-49 south project is the most important in the US. Yes a real Interstate to help the Cajuns and Nawlins folks out of Hurricanes paths.
From the people that I have talked to, including those working at the DOTD on the I-49 South project, the documents are referred to as I-49 South, but everyone calls it the US 90 Corridor project. I think upgrading US 90 is needed, but an Interstate designation isn't required. People are too scared of the fact that I-49 will be signed as North 49 - Houma, Westwego on the BGS, but will actually be facing south. You have a major N-S Interstate, but it's going E-W for 200 or so miles. Why not I-6? :P

The reason most people refer to I-49 South as the US 90 corridor project is because it consists almost entirely of upgrading the US 90 corridor, and it would be a logical extension of I-49.

Also, since the bulk of I-49 will be facing northwards when the extension is built, I really don't think that regular travellers will be confused by the cardinal directions. Just as people in the extended I-64 in St. Louis will still refer to US 40, most travellers on I-49 South will still reference US 90 in the same way.  I don't see the problem that you see.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 05, 2012, 07:31:50 PM
The problem that I see is that you would have a N-S highway starting off in the opposite direction, you would have to resign the exit numbers north of I-10 to new numbers, and a logical extension is not needed. I doubt that it would be faster to get to the Port of New Orleans via I-49 South versus I-10 through Baton Rouge if I-10 is widened. These days, if someone is trying to get to a point south of New Orleans, a GPS will most likely send someone via US 90 when it's upgraded. I think that once US 167/90 is upgraded through Lafayette, and the freeway is complete, an Alternate I-10 banner could be given. The following quote shows some, if not a large percentage, of the sentiment towards signing US 90 as I-49.

QuoteIf sanity prevails, the request to the Federal Highway Administration for proposed I-49 south from Lafayette to New Orleans to become I-49 should be rejected and the route should remain US 90.  The principal purpose for I-49 south was to slake the thirst of the screamers from Lafayette that have been referring to the unimproved segments of US 90 "Blood Alley."   The freeway upgrade will work just as well as US 90 as it will as I-49.  The only advantage of an interstate designation is direct access to unique interstate programs and there may be a small advantage in the federal funds prorated to Louisiana.  If mild insanity prevails an interstate route number other than I-49 will be approved and established according to national policies and the related principles.
-Mr. Jim Porter, DOTD Planning Support Engineer

However, if it's an east-west Interstate you want, why not name it I-6? It's between I-4 and I-6 geographically...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 05, 2012, 09:36:31 PM
First of all, Mr. Porter should understand that I-49 South is a joint effort of many states to create a New Orleans-to-Kansas City freeway corridor. The majority of that corridor has already been assigned or signed as I-49. What's wrong with continuity??

Secondly, US 90 does NOT connect with I-10 or currently existing I-49 directly in Lafayette, but uses the Evangeline Thruway (US 167) as the connection. How would he sign the proposed I-49 Connector, then, if it can't be I-49?? And, if he moves US 90 and US 167 to the upgraded freeway, then what happens to the existing Evangeline Thruway??

Third...the proposed I-49 South would bypass US 90 mostly between Des Alemands and Boutte, and would use the unfinished Westbank Expressway to New Orleans. How would Mr. Porter sign those segments??

Finally, it's not the FHWA's call anyway, since the corridor is legislatively set as I-49 as a High Priority Corridor (#37) by Congress. I-6 would be viable only if the Lafayette Metro Expressway loop is built on its westerly/southwesterly quadrant between US 90 and I-10.

Resigning and renumbering exits is not an impossible task, and the improved access will more than justify it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 05, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 05, 2012, 09:36:31 PM
First of all, Mr. Porter should understand that I-49 South is a joint effort of many states to create a New Orleans-to-Kansas City freeway corridor. The majority of that corridor has already been assigned or signed as I-49. What's wrong with continuity??

Secondly, US 90 does NOT connect with I-10 or I-49 directly in Lafayette, but uses the Evangeline Thruway (US 167) as the connection. How would he sign the proposed I-49 Connector, then, if it can't be US 90??

Third...the proposed I-49 South would bypass US 90 mostly between Des Alemands and Boutte, and would use the unfinished Westbank Expressway to New Orleans. How would Mr. Porter sign those segments??

Finally, it's not the FHWA's call anyway, since the corridor is legislatively set as I-49 as a High Priority Corridor (#37) by Congress. I-6 would be viable only if the Lafayette Metro Expressway loop is built on its westerly/southwesterly quadrant between US 90 and I-10.

Resigning and renumbering exits is not an impossible task, and the improved access will more than justify it.
It might be a joint task between states to connect Kansas City to New Orleans, but if it was, other states would be pressing their own segments more... look at Future I-49 north of Texarkana for an example.

The way around that would be to sign the Evangeline Thruway as TO US 90. The signage could stay the same, in fact... and if it does take less time between Lafayette and New Orleans via US 90 than I-10, then sign put a smaller sign saying to use US 90 as the route instead of I-10. I-49 in Alexandria has the same thing, where traffic to Monroe is directed along US 167 instead of US 165.

You would simply sign it as US 90 and the older road as LA 182, or US 90 Business through Des Allemands. US 90 through Boutte would be signed as a 3XXX state highway, or sign the newer road as US 90 Business.

From the looks of the High Priority Corridor, it is designated as US 90, not I-49. I just think that the people in South Louisiana want an Interstate number. Maybe even sign a bypass of Lafayette as I-410 or I-249.

Just the idea of an Interstate hooking around to meet an interstate a second time seems weird... We have Bypass routes, Truck routes, and Alternate routes at our disposal. I'll probably see the Baton Rouge Loop built and HOV lanes in New Orleans and Baton Rouge before the US 90 corridor is designated as I-49!

By the way, I remember seeing some giant radio tower right in the middle of the grassy median on US 90 between Lafayette and Baldwin... any word on if it's gonna be moved? I never go that way anymore... it's all basin bridge and US 190 for me!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 06, 2012, 12:15:15 AM
Once again, you miss my point.

Evangeline Thruway (at least, the ground level portion) is already signed as US 90 south of Cameron St./Mudd Ave. It is signed as US 167 from the current southern end of I-49 (remember that I-49 overlaid US 167 to Opelousas, and then extends US 167 to Exit 23 near Nuba) to Johnston St. There is an overlap between Mudd Ave. and Johnston St.

If the freeway portion of the I-49 Connector is built, what name would you designate it?? You simply can't say "TO US 90/I-49" because it still would require a designated number. You could designate it the same way as Evangeline Thruway is currently, but then what would you do with the surface portion?? LA 182 is out, because it has its own route (University Avenue/Pinhook Road), and AASHTO policy is not to return US highways onto their former routes anyway.

Just because some portions of US 90 are complete and up to freeway standards doesn't mean that the unfinished portions can be neglected...and unless Louisiana plans to fully fund the entirity of upgrading the rest of US 90 and the I-49 Connector, it's mostly going to be Federal money used to complete the project. Typically, that means an Interstate designation...and since the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor is a seamless extension of existing I-49, why waste continunity by requiring a different route number??  And NO, a 3di is not an option here...otherwise, I-12 or I-10 between Baton Rouge and NOLA/Slidell would have earned a similar designation.

An "I-6" or "I-4" would solve a lot of the "wrong way" concerns...but it would only be compatible if there was an outer freeway/tollway loop from I-10 near Scott to US 90 between Broussard and New Iberia which carried such a designation; then you could have a shorter I-49 extension that didn't violate the "wrong way" status. (The same would be true if you switched I-10 to run this combined corridor, as froggie's old "Louisiana Shuffle" would have proposed.) I-10's not going to be switched anytime soon, though, and the LMX is right now DOA, so you have to fight with the road you have...and right now, even with the "wrong way" sections in NOLA, "I-49" makes the most sense. I really don't think the regulars who travel on that road once it is upgraded will give a rats behind about "going south on I-49 to go north", since they are used to that already.

And, once again, AASHTO/FHWA rules disallow moving US routes off of their main routes and returning them to their old routes..so you can't recreate LA 182. Besides, LA 182 is its own roadway between Raceland and Morgan City, anyway.

Why Arkansas is so slow with developing their segments of I-49 is their problem, not mine. I want I-49 South built in my lifetime..and it's probably more important than any of the other routes, anyway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 06, 2012, 12:34:22 AM
I could see a beltway being built around Lafayette under the auspices of hurricane evacuation. Name it I-410 or I-810, since both ends will connect to I-10. What you would have is an Interstate, with federal funding. You could simply take I-49 South (make it a short route from I-10 through Lafayette to the beltway I-810) and create a messy interchange at Willow Street. Then you pull a Woodall Rodgers-type Interstate and have it buried twenty feet under... sounds crazy, but Lafayette isn't New Orleans. That way, surface streets stay intact, the current Thruway can still exist as frontage roads, and you have a true connector. Plus, all that dirt can be used to build the beltway! The only problem is the stretch near the airport.. Kaliste Saloom might have to be changed to a small trumpet-style interchange, but you gotta give and take. That's my newly-updated idea for south Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on June 06, 2012, 04:04:55 AM
Why not just have the signage change to east-west at some point south of Lafayette? It's not like it's the first time we've had an Interstate do that (I-69 changes from N-S to E-W in Michigan.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on June 06, 2012, 04:11:03 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 05, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
By the way, I remember seeing some giant radio tower right in the middle of the grassy median on US 90 between Lafayette and Baldwin... any word on if it's gonna be moved? I never go that way anymore... it's all basin bridge and US 190 for me!

The tower has been relocated, the overpass construction completed and opened last year.
http://goo.gl/maps/2Va2
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on June 06, 2012, 07:45:29 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 05, 2012, 09:36:31 PM
Finally, it's not the FHWA's call anyway, since the corridor is legislatively set as I-49 as a High Priority Corridor (#37) by Congress.
Are you sure? All I can find is that it's "designated as future parts of the Interstate System" along with some other corridors. Others have numbers assigned, but I don't see one for Corridor 37.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on June 06, 2012, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 05, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
The way around that would be to sign the Evangeline Thruway as TO US 90. The signage could stay the same, in fact... and if it does take less time between Lafayette and New Orleans via US 90 than I-10, then sign put a smaller sign saying to use US 90 as the route instead of I-10. I-49 in Alexandria has the same thing, where traffic to Monroe is directed along US 167 instead of US 165.

Going to to New Orleans via Morgan City vs via Baton Rouge would probably add only 30 minutes. Besides the need for branding (to encourage "economic development/growth"), I don't see why it can't just be left as U.S. 90. Just drag it to the Huey P. and put the 910 shields up on the WB Expwy after finishing it through Westwego.

Quote
From the looks of the High Priority Corridor, it is designated as US 90, not I-49. I just think that the people in South Louisiana want an Interstate number. Maybe even sign a bypass of Lafayette as I-410 or I-249.

They don't care, they just want something built.

Quote
Just the idea of an Interstate hooking around to meet an interstate a second time seems weird... We have Bypass routes, Truck routes, and Alternate routes at our disposal. I'll probably see the Baton Rouge Loop built and HOV lanes in New Orleans and Baton Rouge before the US 90 corridor is designated as I-49!

New Orleans already has HOV lanes and I think the that the Baton Rouge loop idea will be impacted by the outcome of the CCC toll extension vote in November.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 07, 2012, 03:29:28 AM
I'd take the guaranteed 30 minutes extra over the uncertainty of the I-10 corridor in Baton Rouge. My solution would be to build a loop around BR, to the south roughly paralleling the Burbank corridor, but force ALL truck traffic that is traveling to N.O. onto the highway... And make it four lanes for truck traffic, grade-separated from the rest of the loop.

Per HOV lanes, I meant adding elevated HOV on mainline I-10 and I-610. I could see the US 90 corridor left as US 90, older alignments given La 19X as a number other than La 191 or 190, and the new US 90 act as a 70 MPH freeway, with bumps to 75 through farmland and rural stretches. But with the freeway, also have a designated and marked Old Spanish Trail, cosigned with La 182, encouraging travelers to pull off and visit the towns.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on June 07, 2012, 09:57:09 AM
I think Lafyette needs both a bypass and a straight thru I-49. Since I have old Navy buddies from Acadia. I pronounce myself a self appointed Cajun.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 08, 2012, 01:56:55 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on June 07, 2012, 09:57:09 AM
I think Lafyette needs both a bypass and a straight thru I-49. Since I have old Navy buddies from Acadia. I pronounce myself a self appointed Cajun.

Dude, if those buddies of yours found out that you kept mispronouncing the name of their home region (it's still ACADIANA), they might want a word with you out back. :D
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 08, 2012, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 06, 2012, 12:34:22 AM
I could see a beltway being built around Lafayette under the auspices of hurricane evacuation. Name it I-410 or I-810, since both ends will connect to I-10. What you would have is an Interstate, with federal funding. You could simply take I-49 South (make it a short route from I-10 through Lafayette to the beltway I-810) and create a messy interchange at Willow Street. Then you pull a Woodall Rodgers-type Interstate and have it buried twenty feet under... sounds crazy, but Lafayette isn't New Orleans. That way, surface streets stay intact, the current Thruway can still exist as frontage roads, and you have a true connector. Plus, all that dirt can be used to build the beltway! The only problem is the stretch near the airport.. Kaliste Saloom might have to be changed to a small trumpet-style interchange, but you gotta give and take. That's my newly-updated idea for south Louisiana.

Depressing the I-49 Connector below ground was one of the options seriously considered in the enviromental process, but it was ultimately rejected because of hydraulic issues, and because of the centrality of I-49 being a hurricane evac route.

Kaliste Saloom Road can't be a trumpet interchange due to the proximity of both the airport  runway, which limits ROW and airspace immediately east of the US 90 corridor, and the presence of the UP/BNSF railroad line that parallels US 90 southeast to Broussard. Plus, a directional interchange as is proposed fits well with both the mainline and the parallel access roads that will carry local traffic and access the major cross streets.

The principal reason why they chose a fully elevated alignment was due to it allowing for full accessibility through keeping major cross streets open. A depressed or "cut-and-cover" option, while better than an at-grade option, would still sever some major cross streets, plus it would have made it less feasible to provide direct access to the adjacent downtown area and the CBD.
Title: I-49 South Studies Progressing
Post by: Grzrd on June 12, 2012, 08:16:32 AM
This article (http://theadvocate.com/home/3039731-125/i-49-toll-report-coming) indicates that at least three major studies are progressing: (1) LaDOTD's study of tolling all of I-49 South, (2) the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission's study of tolling a shorter section of I-49 South in the Lafayette area, and (3) LaDOTD's study of how to lower the projected cost of the Raceland to Westbank Expressway section:

Quote
The state Department of Transportation and Development will issue a report by year's end on using tolls to help pay for the completion of Interstate 49 south from Lafayette to New Orleans .... "It's another funding tool for consideration and public discussion,"  DOTD Deputy Secretary Eric Kalivoda said .... The DOTD study comes as the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission is researching the toll option. The Expressway Commission has taken the local lead in the search for I-49 funding.
The group has not looked at using tolls for the entire I-49 south project but instead has studied two shorter options: an 18-mile stretch from Lafayette going south and a 37-mile stretch from Lafayette through Iberia Parish.
The cost for those segments would range from $1 billion to $1.4 billion.
In a preliminary report last year, consultants hired by the Expressway Commission said tolls of 16 cents per mile for passenger vehicles could cover about half the cost for the 18-mile or 37-mile options, bringing the projects into the realm of feasibility .... DOTD estimated $5 billion worth of work remains, with most of that tied to the estimated $1.1 billion to build the partially elevated section through Lafayette and the estimated $3.7 billion for the 36-mile southern stretch from Raceland to the Westbank Expressway in Jefferson Parish.
There are few options for trimming the costs of the section through Lafayette, Kalivoda said, but DOTD is revisiting the plans for the stretch south of Raceland to determine if all of that portion needs to elevated.
Existing plans call for that section to be raised because of flooding concerns.
"It's desirable, but it may not be essential that it is elevated,"
he said.

In order for tolls to be implemented, LaDOTD would need to see strong local support for tolls:

Quote
For tolls to be seriously considered as an option for I-49 south, he said, DOTD would want to see strong local support. .... The idea of tolls has attracted opposition, most vocally from state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin.
Jones said he felt slighted that I-49 north was built through Shreveport without tolls but there seems to be no sense of urgency to find state and federal money to complete I-49 south.
"When is it time for us to be a priority?"  Jones said.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Here is how I would resolve this, if I was LADOTD:

Toll the segment of I-49 South/US 90 from Kaliste Saloom Road near the Lafayette Regional Airport to the LA 14 interchange in New Iberia, converting the frontage roads into "Texas-style" one-way continuous frontage roads and allowing them to carry US 90 local traffic. (This is what is ultimately planned anyway for the segment in Lafayette Parish anyway, I'd just extend that concept through Iberia Parish down to New Iberia.)

Keep the I-49 Connector segment through Lafayette and the US 90 upgrade through Wax Lake/Patterson/Bayou Vista/Berwick as free.

I'd keep the elevated segments of the Raceland through Boutte segment, and toll that; but an alternative would simply be to use and raise existing US 90 above the flood plain and build a bypass of Des Allemands and Paradis, crossing existing US 90 between Paradis and Boutte, just before the connection with LA 3127/I-310.

Find a way to use the existing connection with LA 3127/I-310 rather than build a more direct standalone connection with I-310, maybe using the existing I-55/I-10/US 51 interchange as a template.

Use existing US 90 rather than a seperate elevated section between Willowdale and Avondale, with service roads and intermentent grade seperated overpasses. I'd add an interchange with South Kenner Road for local access, and frontage roads to access the oil fields and the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office.

Of course, LADOTD won't be soliciting my views any time soon...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 14, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 14, 2012, 12:59:13 AM
The real issues with a PPP, especially one funded through tolls, is that it will be perceived as a double tax ... Plus, it could revive some of the original opposition to the original I-49 Connector project that favored the "Teche Ridge" eastern bypass alternative through St. Martin Parish as a less expensive alternative.

Page 3/3 of this article (http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20120614/ARTICLES/120619816?p=1&tc=pg) indicates that the opposition is beginning to stir:

Quote
State Rep. Truck Gisclair, D-Larose, said he is against the toll. He said politicians in the Lafayette area are driving up costs of the project by demanding it go through Lafayette instead of around the city before connecting with the existing section of Interstate 49 that links Lafayette and Shreveport.
"The local politicians there are driving the costs out of the ballpark,"  Gisclair said.

Starting an environmental study for a different Lafayette routing would really speed things up ...  X-(
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 14, 2012, 07:18:49 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 14, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 14, 2012, 12:59:13 AM
The real issues with a PPP, especially one funded through tolls, is that it will be perceived as a double tax ... Plus, it could revive some of the original opposition to the original I-49 Connector project that favored the "Teche Ridge" eastern bypass alternative through St. Martin Parish as a less expensive alternative.

Page 3/3 of this article (http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20120614/ARTICLES/120619816?p=1&tc=pg) indicates that the opposition is beginning to stir:

Quote
State Rep. Truck Gisclair, D-Larose, said he is against the toll. He said politicians in the Lafayette area are driving up costs of the project by demanding it go through Lafayette instead of around the city before connecting with the existing section of Interstate 49 that links Lafayette and Shreveport.
"The local politicians there are driving the costs out of the ballpark,” Gisclair said.

Starting an environmental study for a different Lafayette routing would really speed things up ...  X-(
It's Louisiana, when things go fast, something illegal is happening.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 14, 2012, 10:03:08 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 14, 2012, 07:18:49 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 14, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 14, 2012, 12:59:13 AM
The real issues with a PPP, especially one funded through tolls, is that it will be perceived as a double tax ... Plus, it could revive some of the original opposition to the original I-49 Connector project that favored the "Teche Ridge" eastern bypass alternative through St. Martin Parish as a less expensive alternative.

Page 3/3 of this article (http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20120614/ARTICLES/120619816?p=1&tc=pg) indicates that the opposition is beginning to stir:

Quote
State Rep. Truck Gisclair, D-Larose, said he is against the toll. He said politicians in the Lafayette area are driving up costs of the project by demanding it go through Lafayette instead of around the city before connecting with the existing section of Interstate 49 that links Lafayette and Shreveport.
"The local politicians there are driving the costs out of the ballpark,” Gisclair said.

Starting an environmental study for a different Lafayette routing would really speed things up ...  X-(
It's Louisiana, when things go fast, something illegal is happening.

I hate to break it to Mr. Gisclair, but the Feds simply aren't going to go along with any routing of I-49 South that doesn't use the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor.

And Teche Ridge is a non starter, because it would have to go through some prime farmland, it would require rerouting and redesignating that section of I-49 between I-10 and the northern terminus of any eastern bypass, and it would not remove any bit of traffic from the US 90/Evangeline Thruway. And that's with a freeway, before the tolls kick in.

Also, the original I-49 EIS study completed in 2003 found that a freeway along the Teche Ridge alternative route would cost something like $600 million, pretty much a wash compared to the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor. How much would that convert to in 2012 dollars??
Title: "Substantial Completion" of I-49 South by 2023?
Post by: Grzrd on June 19, 2012, 08:33:20 PM
This article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/i--tolls-in-future/article_a64bf3fe-ba23-11e1-8702-0019bb2963f4.html), about potential tolling of US 90 to fund I-49 South, indicates that "funding permitting", I-49 South should be substantially completed in all areas, except those near New Orleans, by 2017, and that the sections near New Orleans should see "substantial completion" by 2023:

Quote
.... The final cost of completing I-49 is $5 billion, according to the state Department of Transportation and Development .... DOTD spokeswoman Deidra Lockhart said the state is re-examining the scope of the project "in an effort to reduce cost."  Portions closer to New Orleans may be put on the backburner for several years, Lockhart said.
Once funding is secured, I-49 South should be substantially complete in 2017 in all areas except those near the Crescent City, she said. For those areas substantial completion should come in 2023, "funding permitting,"
she said.
Meanwhile, Lafayette has long made a push to finish I-49 South in and around its city limits. HNTB Corp., an engineering, construction and planning firm has been conducting studies for the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission. The firm finished a toll feasibility analysis recently, collecting data from late 2010 through the early part of this year, said David Flanders, vice president.
The study looked at tolls along an 18-mile stretch from Lafayette to the Acadiana Regional Airport exit and a 36-mile stretch from Lafayette to Iberia Parish's southern border, Flanders said.
The study did not factor in how many tolls or where they would be located. It did, however, conclude that a charge of about 16 cents per mile for passenger vehicles would fund about 50 percent of construction on I-49 South on those two stretches.

Substantial completion of the I-49 Connector by 2017? I don't know what LaDOTD is smoking, but ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2012, 10:09:10 PM
Actually, Griz, it's not that far fetched, because most of the planning and design for the segments of I-49 South in Lafayette Parish is basically a done deal, and the city of Lafayette is already in the process of slowly buying up the ROW. Once funding is resolved, it should be a smooth and quick process to actual construction.

In Iberia and St. Mary Parishes, other than the segment from Wax Lake Outlet east through Patterson and Bayou Vista to Berwick, I-49 is essentially complete, with only the frontage roads between LA 668 and LA 85, the frontage roads between John Darnell Rd. and LA 85, the grade seperation of the L&DRR spur just south of the LA 85 interchange, and interchanges with LA 318 and LA 182 at Ricohoc just west of the Wax Lake Outlet bridge to be built. Once those are completed, and they resolve the funding for the Lafayette/Lafayette Parish segments, I-49 South will be functionally complete from Lafayette to Raceland. Five years may be pushing it a bit, but at least it seems doable.

The Raceland to New Orleans segment, on the other hand, won't be so easy..especially if they insist on fully elevating the entire route. Completing the Westbank Expressway upgrade all the way to US 90 and upgrading US 90 through Avondale, along with an improved interchange between the WBX and US 90 should be the first priority, since that would go a long way to completing the NOLA system and complement the Huey P. Long Bridge imporovements. From there westward, though, is a crapshoot because of the need to connect seamlessly with I-310 and bypass Boutte/Mimosa Park, bypass Des Allemands and find a way to cross Bayou Des Allemands and Dufrene Ponds, and cross the low lying Barataria Basin. Using the existing US 90 footprint wherever possible and adding frontage roads for local access could save them some $$$, but it still will be an expensive endeavor.

I wonder whether or not the idea of just truncating the extension by using I-310 to I-10 W of Kenner got any traction?


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 19, 2012, 10:17:16 PM
I agree with using I-310. The Interstate is already there, so why not use it? The stub ramps are even there too.
Title: I-49 North Segment K Construction to Begin in September 2013?
Post by: Grzrd on June 21, 2012, 07:41:17 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 31, 2012, 04:29:08 PM
Quote
Segment K: The final section of the project from Martin Luther King Boulevard that will connect with Interstate 220 carries an estimated cost of $70 million to $100 million. The project is scheduled to go out for bids in late 2013.

The timetable for Segment K construction may be moving up slightly. This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120621/NEWS/120621045/Way-cleared-fund-49-north-segment?odyssey=nav%7Chead) indicates that funding has been secured for I-49 North Segment K, but LaDOTD is investigating getting a loan that would have better payback conditions than with the issuance of bonds.  Construction may possibly begin in September 2013:

Quote
Funding is available to construct another stretch of I-49 but work won't start for another 15 months.
Lawmakers in the legislative session that ended June 4 cleared the way to use unclaimed property in the state treasury to finance bonds to construct a section identified on Department of Transportation and Development maps as Section K.
It's located just north of Interstate 220 in Shreveport.
Using unclaimed property, which piles up every year, was the brainchild of Treasurer John Kennedy.
DOTD Undersecretary Michael Bridges told the State Bond Commission Thursday that "we're not going to need the money until next fall,"  possibly September 2013.
The original plan was to begin construction on the segment in 2011.
Bridges said DOTD is working on getting a loan through the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, which has "generous terms"  and could offer better payback conditions than issuing bonds.
He said the state could utilize the money Kennedy has placed in an unclaimed property fund as the state's portion to secure the TIFIA loan.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2012, 10:09:10 PM
it's not that far fetched, because most of the planning and design for the segments of I-49 South in Lafayette Parish is basically a done deal, and the city of Lafayette is already in the process of slowly buying up the ROW. Once funding is resolved, it should be a smooth and quick process to actual construction.
Anthony

The article also addresses the possibility of I-49 going through Lafayette and Shreveport, and reflects Anthony's observations about Lafayette:

Quote
Asked after the meeting about the expensive segments of I-49, going through the cities of Shreveport and Lafayette, Bridges said those projects aren't too close to being constructed.
However, he said, "Lafayette is just a matter of funding. The environmental process is done. Shreveport is a matter of environmental and funding."

Momentum seems to be building in Louisiana ...
Title: Would It Be "Logical" to Immediately Sign I-49 South?
Post by: Grzrd on July 01, 2012, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 22, 2012, 07:42:27 AM
Quote
Gov. Bobby Jindal's office said in February that more than 100 miles of the 156-mile I-49 south corridor have been brought up to interstate standards.

In this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7067.0), I argue that a provision in the new highway bill allows interstate-grade segments of highway that are not currently connected to the current interstate system to nevertheless receive the interstate shield as a "logical addition" to the interstate system.

I first thought that signing the more than 100 miles of interstate-grade highway in the I-49 South corridor would be a "logical addition" to the system because approximately two-thirds of the corridor has been completed.  Then, two other thoughts came to mind: (1) the cost to build the less-than-56 remaining miles of the corridor, and (2) how long it will take to build the less-than-56 remaining miles:

Quote from: Grzrd on June 12, 2012, 08:16:32 AM
This article (http://theadvocate.com/home/3039731-125/i-49-toll-report-coming) indicates that at least three major studies are progressing: (1) LaDOTD's study of tolling all of I-49 South, (2) the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission's study of tolling a shorter section of I-49 South in the Lafayette area, and (3) LaDOTD's study of how to lower the projected cost of the Raceland to Westbank Expressway section
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 22, 2012, 11:36:02 AM
It will be a hard sell to South Louisiana lawmakers precisely because of the regional split...and the notion that I-49 North was built free but US 90 will have to be converted to toll to build I-49 South.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 19, 2012, 08:33:20 PM
This article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/i--tolls-in-future/article_a64bf3fe-ba23-11e1-8702-0019bb2963f4.html), about potential tolling of US 90 to fund I-49 South, indicates that "funding permitting", I-49 South should be substantially completed in all areas, except those near New Orleans, by 2017, and that the sections near New Orleans should see "substantial completion" by 2023
Quote
.... The final cost of completing I-49 is $5 billion, according to the state Department of Transportation and Development .... DOTD spokeswoman Deidra Lockhart said the state is re-examining the scope of the project "in an effort to reduce cost."

With tolls, I-49 South might see substantial completion by 2023.  Without tolls, who knows if and when I-49 South would be completed?  In short, I can only see I-49 South as a "logical addition" for the purpose of immediate I-49 signage if the tolls are approved for all of I-49 South (for the same reason, I do not think the Westbank Expressway would be a "logical connection" until such a time, also).  Otherwise, there is a significant possibility that it will never be completed.

[mods - since this is application of a new statute to the currently existing US 90, I did not think that this post needed to be relegated to the fictional ghetto  :sombrero:] 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 02, 2012, 12:11:00 AM
Well...if they decide to build the segments of I-49 through Lafayette Parish and complete the segments to Morgan City, you could actually make a decent case for planting I-49 shields along US 90 probably as far as Raceland. I mean, if US 77 is allowed to get I-69 shields (even though that segment isn't even considered to be the main segment of that project), then why can't US 90 get the same treatment??
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 03, 2012, 12:58:39 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 02, 2012, 12:11:00 AM
Well...if they decide to build the segments of I-49 through Lafayette Parish and complete the segments to Morgan City, you could actually make a decent case for planting I-49 shields along US 90 probably as far as Raceland.

You raise an interesting scenario. Assuming the Raceland to Westbank Expresswy segment were left to be built at some undetermined time in the future, I agree that you could make the case for immediate interstate signage (assuming the local tolls are imposed for construction of Lafayette's I-49 Connector) for the Lafayette to Raceland segment as a "logical addition".  However, I think FHWA/AASHTO would then still have to make the following decision about the number of that segment:

(1) follow the I-26 example and sign the Lafayette to Raceland segment as an I-49 "extension'; or

(2) sign the Lafayette to Raceland segment as an "I-x49" spur until resolution is achieved regarding the Raceland to Westbank Expressway segment; or

(3) as a distant third option, sign the Lafayette to Raceland segment as "I-6" to create a short-distance 2di (1di?) cousin to I-12 that could eventually be extended along the Raceland to Westbank Expressway segment (this might be an option if Louisiana is currently not allowed to sign the Raceland to Westbank Expressway segment as "Future I-49", and avoid confusion to the traveling public, in the absence of a written agreement that the Raceland to Westbank Expressway will be finished within 25 years)?

My guess is that they would follow the I-26 example and stick with I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 03, 2012, 10:30:29 PM
I would MUCH rather I-6. It gives an east-west route, and would probably get the most approval from AASHTO. In fact, extend I-6 on a bypass around Lafayette to meet I-10, and extend I-49 south to meet I-6. This can create a network of highways for Acadiana, and hopefully spur some economic growth other than malls and River Ranches. :P
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 03, 2012, 11:57:15 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 03, 2012, 10:30:29 PM
I would MUCH rather I-6. It gives an east-west route, and would probably get the most approval from AASHTO. In fact, extend I-6 on a bypass around Lafayette to meet I-10, and extend I-49 south to meet I-6. This can create a network of highways for Acadiana, and hopefully spur some economic growth other than malls and River Ranches. :P

If the Lafayette Metro Expressway toll loop is built around Lafayette, then I would have no problem with that scenario. In fact, that's also Froggie's proposal (although he would use I-10 for that segment, and extend I-12 west along existing I-10).

However, I would go further and create a full loop around Lafayette using both the LMX and the Teche Ridge bypass on the east side. In that case, I'd retain I-49 South as originally obtained, and then make the full loop I-449.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2012, 12:06:38 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 03, 2012, 12:58:39 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 02, 2012, 12:11:00 AM
Well...if they decide to build the segments of I-49 through Lafayette Parish and complete the segments to Morgan City, you could actually make a decent case for planting I-49 shields along US 90 probably as far as Raceland.

You raise an interesting scenario. Assuming the Raceland to Westbank Expresswy segment were left to be built at some undetermined time in the future, I agree that you could make the case for immediate interstate signage (assuming the local tolls are imposed for construction of Lafayette's I-49 Connector) for the Lafayette to Raceland segment as a "logical addition".  However, I think FHWA/AASHTO would then still have to make the following decision about the number of that segment:

(1) follow the I-26 example and sign the Lafayette to Raceland segment as an I-49 "extension'; or

(2) sign the Lafayette to Raceland segment as an "I-x49" spur until resolution is achieved regarding the Raceland to Westbank Expressway segment; or

(3) as a distant third option, sign the Lafayette to Raceland segment as "I-6" to create a short-distance 2di (1di?) cousin to I-12 that could eventually be extended along the Raceland to Westbank Expressway segment (this might be an option if Louisiana is currently not allowed to sign the Raceland to Westbank Expressway segment as "Future I-49", and avoid confusion to the traveling public, in the absence of a written agreement that the Raceland to Westbank Expressway will be finished within 25 years)?

My guess is that they would follow the I-26 example and stick with I-49.

There are also two other scenarios:

4) Keep I-49, but truncate it by only building the segment from Raceland to I-310, then convert I-310 to I-49 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, and then call it a day by just ignoring the segment between Boutte and the Westbank Expressway.

5) Scenaio #4, make it an I-6 or a redefined I-10.

A variation of this would complete the upgrade of the Westbank Expressway to US 90 in Allendale as the already approved and unsigned I-910 (but adding the signs). Heck, you could go even further by ultimately adding the US 90 upgrade between I-310 and Avondale and possibly making it an I-x10 or I-x49 (or even an I-x06).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 04, 2012, 12:47:35 AM
A resigned I-10 wouldn't be bad at all, except for the current alignment of I-10 between Laplace and Baton Rouge. I could see it stamped with the designation of I-255, since it would connect I-55 to I-12. I-55 would be extended to New Orleans, to meet with I-10 at the I-310/10 interchange. I-310 could be shifted onto I-910. Just my little dream for the future I-6 corridor! I would also advocate removing the I-510 designation, since it's signed along with LA 47 (Paris Road).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dariusb on July 04, 2012, 02:13:39 AM
I know this is off topic but with all the road construction going on in Lafayette and cities/towns south of there, has it had any negative impacts on businesses in the area?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 04, 2012, 03:26:18 PM
Actually, I think it has had a positive influence. The two or three minute boosts in travel time for oil rig companies using the Future I-6 corridor (as I call it) have improved overall travel, and it looks like a positive overall impact. Lafayette seems to be, in my opinion, growing along the I-10 corridor, with the shopping center on Louisiana Avenue being a recent project.

Negative? I would have to say no negative things have come up for business.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on July 04, 2012, 11:37:42 PM
It won't be I-6, nor should it be, and there will be no renumbering of I-10.  Can we please keep that stuff to the fictional highways board?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 04, 2012, 11:58:20 PM
It shouldn't be I-49 either!!! U.S. 90 is perfectly fine, maybe even I-149.

I do have an update. In my tons of emails with DOTD officials, NONE of them refer to the project as I-49 South. The plans for intersections show US 90 instead of Future I-49, and I was told to refer to I-49 South as US 90. I've been told its too confusing to resign I-49 with exit tabs in the place of current signs, and that 310 is never going to be extended. And this is coming from someone that's worked for the DOTD for 40+ years.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Road Hog on July 05, 2012, 07:22:23 AM
I swear I saw several state-mounted Future I-49 Corridor signs on U.S. 90 the last time I was in New Orleans, about five years ago. Maybe the state did change its mind. Hmmmm.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MSU John on July 05, 2012, 09:41:58 AM
As of Memorial Day 2012, they still have the Future I-49 corridor signs up along US 90. They are occasionally signed from just east of Lafayette all the way through to I-310.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 05, 2012, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 04, 2012, 11:58:20 PM
It shouldn't be I-49 either!!! U.S. 90 is perfectly fine, maybe even I-149.

I do have an update. In my tons of emails with DOTD officials, NONE of them refer to the project as I-49 South. The plans for intersections show US 90 instead of Future I-49, and I was told to refer to I-49 South as US 90. I've been told its too confusing to resign I-49 with exit tabs in the place of current signs, and that 310 is never going to be extended. And this is coming from someone that's worked for the DOTD for 40+ years.

Funny...Missouri seems to have no problem putting exit tabs on US 71 in their conversion to I-49.

Of course, I-310's not going to be extended, because that was a portion of the old Dixie Freeway loop ("I-410") around New Orleans proper that was to also include I-510.

Three...If they are going to keep US 90 and not put in I-49 shields, then how in the hell are they going to sign the freeway through Lafayette, then?? Last time I checked, it's still called the I-49 Connector.

And yes, for right now, the plans will say US 90, because they still have to resolve the issue of funding. If this becomes a 90 Fed/10 State funded upgrade, though, there's no way they can justify not placing Interstate shields on a 143-mile extension. Sorry, but I-149 will not cut it. If it is bullt, it will be an extension of I-49..or it won't be built at all.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 05, 2012, 06:11:22 PM
The most likely scenario that I see is making the segment a connector, naming it US 90 Bypass, and leaving it to connect. The extension of I-49 through Lafayette is a possibility, ending at a Lafayette Loop, signed as I-410. I would even say its possible to name the road I-410, with I-10 creating a loop to US 90 near Broussard, then north along the Thruway. I could even assume that the best strategy is to sign that section as I-410 for the 90/10 funding, to connect 90 to 10 :P

As far as one number, people driving through Lafayette won't really pay attention to the numbers. A trip through NO means 10-610-10, Baton Rouge is 10-12. Sign it as Spur US 90 if you must have one number. Send US 90 down Pinhook again, letting it meet up south of Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on July 06, 2012, 02:38:23 AM
I would leave I-10 signed as it is currently. My pipe dream proposal would be to extend I-55 southward by multiplexing it with I-10 and renumbering I-310 as I-55! You can also do this with I-59 by multiplexing it with I-10 and renumbering I-510 as I-59 and extending it southward to meet up with future I-49. This would require another Mississippi River Bridge that is tall enough to allow the tallest cruise ships to pass underneath. The proposed bridge would also be tolled Eastbank bound similar to the Crescent City Connection (CCC).

Toll collection on the on the CCC is set to expire early next year and I live in the three Parish area where this is being put to the voters this Fall. I would only vote to renew the tolls on the CCC bridge for another 20 years if the proceeds would be dedicated towards converting the remaining 4 miles of the Westbank Expressway to a full freeway thus upgrading more of future I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on July 06, 2012, 09:22:21 PM
In the letting of construction in the next 6 months LA DOTD has a job 455-09-0026 for 9/12/12 for signs and misc. for segments A thru D. What will the Sign say I 49 or what sense it will not connect to I 220 or Arkansas as a Interstate?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 06, 2012, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: Gordon on July 06, 2012, 09:22:21 PM
In the letting of construction in the next 6 months LA DOTD has a job 455-09-0026 for 9/12/12 for signs and misc. for segments A thru D. What will the Sign say I 49 or what sense it will not connect to I 220 or Arkansas as a Interstate?
I can check on that, actually! I'm close to the DOTD headquarters, so I should know by Monday. The main question is... will the exit tabs include 3132/220, or the central connector through Shreveport?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on July 06, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
I can see Louisiana moving US 71 to the new freeway, while giving the old highway a number like 3184 or something.  Or they might just say to hell with it and sign it as I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 06, 2012, 10:30:18 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 06, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
I can see Louisiana moving US 71 to the new freeway, while giving the old highway a number like 3184 or something.  Or they might just say to hell with it and sign it as I-49.
I can see Louisiana leaving US 71 as US 71, and I-49 as I-49. It's the small towns that won't let US 71 go, and Louisiana has a VERY good track of leaving the US highways on their own. Just look at LA 1 between Alexandria and Shreveport, and US 51 with I-55. Also, look at US 11 with I-59. The highways are left alone. It's an idea about multiplexing for way too long, and the DOTD is against it. I'm fine with US 71 staying on I-49.

I could see I-49 as being signed as the 3XXX number, since it's a temporary measure. If anything, I-49 would be signed as I-49, but a temporary shield above it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on July 07, 2012, 12:04:48 AM
US 90 is being moved over to future I-49, so it's possible LADOT's policies have changed since those interstates were built.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 07, 2012, 12:11:47 AM
The only thing is, though, US 90 is on that alignment. It could be another 30 years before I-49 is designated for that alignment, if it ever is. US 90 gives thru traffic a route to follow. I-49 is on track, and going to be designated I-49 in about a year or two. The most sense would be to leave US 71 for thru traffic to follow, and temporary LA highway numbers for the freeway segments. Those numbers can be disposed of once the highway is completed. Louisiana considers US 71 a revered highway, and even with I-49 going through Alexandria, about a mile at most from US 71, the designation has never been moved. We don't really like running concurrent Interstate and US highways.

Just look at US 80 and I-20!

EDIT: I forgot to add this... maybe if it's running from AR 549 to meet US 71 in Louisiana, it could be signed as Temporary I-49, Bypass US 71, or just Alternate US 71.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2012, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 07, 2012, 12:04:48 AM
US 90 is being moved over to future I-49, so it's possible LADOT's policies have changed since those interstates were built.

Actually, it's the other way around...I-49 is taking over current US 90 betwen Lafayette and Raceland, including the sections already Interstate grade.  The problems comes in Lafayette, where US 90 veers away from the proposed connector to existing I-49/I-10 (via Cameron St./Mudd Ave.), and east of Raceland to just east of Boutte, where I-49 South is proposed to be built on new alignment.

They simply cannot reinstate US 90 along its former route (now designated as LA 182) due to federal policy.

As for I-49 North...since that was built as a new terrain freeway, there's really no need to move existing US 71 to it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 07, 2012, 05:08:58 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2012, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 07, 2012, 12:04:48 AM
US 90 is being moved over to future I-49, so it's possible LADOT's policies have changed since those interstates were built.

Actually, it's the other way around...I-49 is taking over current US 90 betwen Lafayette and Raceland, including the sections already Interstate grade.  The problems comes in Lafayette, where US 90 veers away from the proposed connector to existing I-49/I-10 (via Cameron St./Mudd Ave.), and east of Raceland to just east of Boutte, where I-49 South is proposed to be built on new alignment.

They simply cannot reinstate US 90 along its former route (now designated as LA 182) due to federal policy.

As for I-49 North...since that was built as a new terrain freeway, there's really no need to move existing US 71 to it.
The only question is, what will Segments A-D be signed as? Some think it's going to be signed as I-49, and some think it's going to be signed as a state highway, temporarily. You can look at LA 3026 (the old Pineville Expressway, now US 167) as an example.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on July 07, 2012, 08:45:36 PM
LADOT has a job for 11/14/12 to widen LA 168 to US 71 so they can open those segments until Arkansas can finish there 4 miles. I hope they sign it I 49 because it is a matter of 2015 when Arkansas finishes there part and it will be I 49. I think sense federal and states are hurting for money it is silly changing signs in a couple of yrs.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 07, 2012, 11:22:50 PM
I'm hoping they can put a Temporary shield for 49, and then just reuse the shield for different segments
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on July 11, 2012, 02:29:41 AM
Looks like the next project on I-49 South would be the LA 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish. This one will require a complete rebuild of the intersection and ROW acquisitions. See Appendix A for how the proposed interchange will look. There are 2 proposed versions, Alt B and Alt D. I prefer Alt D as fewer homeowners would have to be relocated.
http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/us90/

Google Maps of the area
http://goo.gl/maps/LBsu
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 02:35:15 AM
Saw that today... Louisiana's taking it step by step, while trudging forward for I-49 North to connect to Texarkana. I don't see why Louisiana can't just use the current frontage road setup and make it a Texas-style intechange, like you'd see on I-20 between Shreveport and Dallas. Exit onto frontage roads, use the frontage roads to mingle, then get back on the highway.

GMaps view of Texas-style
http://goo.gl/maps/SDsh
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 11, 2012, 08:30:07 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 02:35:15 AM
Saw that today... Louisiana's taking it step by step, while trudging forward for I-49 North to connect to Texarkana. I don't see why Louisiana can't just use the current frontage road setup and make it a Texas-style intechange, like you'd see on I-20 between Shreveport and Dallas. Exit onto frontage roads, use the frontage roads to mingle, then get back on the highway.

GMaps view of Texas-style
http://goo.gl/maps/SDsh

Probably can't do that due to the fact that the frontage roads are already two-way, and because of the rural nature of the surrounding area. This is pretty much the same setup as on existing I-49 between Lafayette and Opelousas.

Personally, I'd prefer Alternative B, because it fits the other interchanges currently being built on US 90...but I'd no problems with Alternative D. Just build the damn thing already.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 11, 2012, 08:35:08 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 07, 2012, 05:08:58 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2012, 11:19:26 AM
[...]
As for I-49 North...since that was built as a new terrain freeway, there's really no need to move existing US 71 to it.
The only question is, what will Segments A-D be signed as? Some think it's going to be signed as I-49, and some think it's going to be signed as a state highway, temporarily. You can look at LA 3026 (the old Pineville Expressway, now US 167) as an example.

I thought that LADOTD wouldn't even open those sections of I-49 North until they finished Segments J and K to I-220??  If they didn't, then probably a state number (LA 1049??) would suffice until then, and once the whole shebang is completed, AR 549 becomes I-49 as well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 09:24:44 PM
Build that highway! I honestly would like I-6 more than I-49, but if any number will do (even if it's LA 3297) as long as the expressway is built. Shoulda considered this when US 90 bypassed the towns!!!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on July 11, 2012, 10:09:45 PM
LADOTD has a public meeting in August for Ambassador Caffery Parkway. Location of the project is from Renaud Drive just north of the I-10 Interchange to the LA 182/I-49 Interchange in Carencro.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 10:20:44 PM
What exactly is the idea behind the project? I've never understood it. Hopefully they don't mess up 182 by widening or anything.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 12, 2012, 01:23:09 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 10:20:44 PM
What exactly is the idea behind the project? I've never understood it. Hopefully they don't mess up 182 by widening or anything.

Basically, it's to add an additional corridor to relieve LA 182 (N. University Ave.) through Carencro, and to make Ambassador Caffery into a poor man's beltway around Lafayette.

There are also plans to widen LA 182 through Carencro down to I-10, too.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 01:43:16 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 12, 2012, 01:23:09 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 10:20:44 PM
What exactly is the idea behind the project? I've never understood it. Hopefully they don't mess up 182 by widening or anything.

Basically, it's to add an additional corridor to relieve LA 182 (N. University Ave.) through Carencro, and to make Ambassador Caffery into a poor man's beltway around Lafayette.

There are also plans to widen LA 182 through Carencro down to I-10, too.
NOOO!!!! Don't mess up LA 182, PLEASE! It's the only true piece of two-lane US 167 south of Opelousas!! I thought I-49 was the four-lane to relieve Carencro, but oh well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on July 12, 2012, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 02:35:15 AM
Saw that today... Louisiana's taking it step by step, while trudging forward for I-49 North to connect to Texarkana. I don't see why Louisiana can't just use the current frontage road setup and make it a Texas-style intechange, like you'd see on I-20 between Shreveport and Dallas. Exit onto frontage roads, use the frontage roads to mingle, then get back on the highway.

I've always liked the Texas Frontage road system. I wish it had been used by LADODT on most of the freeway system here.

Quote from: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 02:35:15 AM
GMaps view of Texas-style
http://goo.gl/maps/SDsh

Fixed quote tags -Alex
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 12, 2012, 03:22:03 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 01:43:16 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 12, 2012, 01:23:09 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 11, 2012, 10:20:44 PM
What exactly is the idea behind the project? I've never understood it. Hopefully they don't mess up 182 by widening or anything.

Basically, it's to add an additional corridor to relieve LA 182 (N. University Ave.) through Carencro, and to make Ambassador Caffery into a poor man's beltway around Lafayette.

There are also plans to widen LA 182 through Carencro down to I-10, too.
NOOO!!!! Don't mess up LA 182, PLEASE! It's the only true piece of two-lane US 167 south of Opelousas!! I thought I-49 was the four-lan"[quote

Don't you mean the "only true piece" of OLD US 167??  Because the "new" alignment of US 167 between Lafayette and Opelousas  was originally built in the 1970's as an upgradable 4-lane expressway, in the same way as US 90 between Lafayette and Morgan City was. It was upgraded in the late 1970s/1980s as part of the original I-49.

The proposed widening of LA 182 would go from Carencro to near I-10, with a possible extension later on to the I-49 interchange north of Carencro, which would also serve as the northern terminus of the Ambassador Caffery Parkway northern extension. Considering the growth of Carencro, I'd say that it's long overdue, even with the presence of I-49 and the upcoming Ambassador Caffery extension.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 06:41:11 PM
Yeah, the true original piece. :P

Per the top question, it will be signed as I-49. I saw the plans today, and they had exits like LA 2 and US 71 and PR 16. 70 MPH, which is ridiculous.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on July 16, 2012, 12:07:46 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 06:41:11 PM
Yeah, the true original piece. :P

Per the top question, it will be signed as I-49. I saw the plans today, and they had exits like LA 2 and US 71 and PR 16. 70 MPH, which is ridiculous.

PR 16 is Mira-Myrtis Rd (FWIW)

And on a semi-related note, I see Google Maps has finally added I-49 http://goo.gl/maps/Vh4k
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 18, 2012, 07:23:34 PM
Meanwhile...the I-49 Shreveport Inner City Connnector study is rolling on, with a Notice of Intent for an EIS now posted in the Federal Register.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-08/pdf/2012-2772.pdf (Warning: PDF file, open with Adobe Reader)

According to LADOTD/NLCOG/FHWA, the goal is to have the DEIS published by October of this year, the Public Hearing in November, and a ROD on the books by spring 2013.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 18, 2012, 09:23:19 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 18, 2012, 07:23:34 PM
Meanwhile...the I-49 Shreveport Inner City Connnector study is rolling on, with a Notice of Intent for an EIS now posted in the Federal Register.

Below is a map of the study area that comes from the April 2012 Newsletter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/34/90/Newsletter%20Volume%202_Number%201_April%202012.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FicsEP.jpg&hash=930a4e1991d5da919774fcc42f437c5def2fcbdf)

This page from the I-49 Inner-City Connector website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/overview.html) periodically updates how far the Stage 1 process has progressed.

Progress is rolling on, indeed!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 20, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 13, 2012, 12:27:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 10, 2012, 06:20:00 PM
It looks like driving on the paved segments of I-49 North is an option ... I spoke with Susan Stafford, a LaDOTD Public Information Officer.
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 07, 2012, 12:38:14 AM
Go for it!! Ms. Stafford is the one I usually contact to complain about the signs being messed up and the roads numbered wrong.
I just got off of the phone with Susan Stafford.  LaDOTD would allow the group to drive Segments A-B
(above quote from Louisiana/ Mississippi Road Meet (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7101.msg160988#msg160988) thread)

This short video (http://www.ktbs.com/video/I-49-Pavement-Progress/-/144384/15525896/-/icw0luz/-/index.html) features Susan Stafford talking about progress on I-49 North.  This TV video report of a Doddridge, AR meeting of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri officials (http://www.ktbs.com/news/I-49-Completion-Meeting/-/144844/15612708/-/xanc5iz/-/index.html) about progress on I-49 indicates that a longer version of the video with Ms. Stafford may be on the KTBS website in the near future.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on July 22, 2012, 05:46:14 AM
So now we know what Susan Stafford has been doing since she stopped turning letters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Stafford), huh? :D
Title: Roadgeek Reporter Covering I-49 South?
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2012, 10:25:59 PM
In this article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/i--get-it-done/article_4e5dee66-d66d-11e1-a96e-001a4bcf887a.html), the reporter takes a local politician to task for taking a position based on a false perception of I-49:

Quote
state Rep ... Taylor Barras ....  said the money can make things difficult. Then, Barras incorrectly said I-49 starts around Minnesota or maybe even Canada .... Based on that false assertion, Barras said asking South Louisiana to pay for the final leg of I-49, between Lafayette and New Orleans, was "not totally acceptable."

However, I'm not entirely confident that the reporter always reports an accurate quote:

Quote
Funding permitting, DOTD has said I-49 will be finished in 2023, ending in Marrero south of New Orleans.

I guess I'm being a bit picky, but my understanding is that new I-49 South construction would connect to the Westbank Expressway in Marrero (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Marrero,+LA&hl=en&ll=29.922506,-90.090637&spn=0.224359,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.974572,79.013672&oq=marrero&hnear=Marrero,+Jefferson,+Louisiana&t=h&z=12), with a completed I-49 South connecting to and ending at I-10 in New Orleans.

Above all said, the critical part of the story:

Quote
The state needs $5 billion to finish I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 26, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Nobody said that South Louisiana politicians were Mensas.

Then again, Mr. Landry does have a point, though he bungled it badly. Most of US 90 between New Iberia and Raceland is already up to Interstate grade, with only the segment between Wax Lake and Berwick and a couple of interchanges and frontage road segments left to upgrade. The big issue, as always, will be completing the section though Lafayette...and although I personally wouldn't oppose tolling the segments from Lafayette to New Iberia using the "Texas-style" tollway system (US 90 carried via the frontage roads/Evangeline Thruway similar to Beltway 8, I-49 using the mainlines ala the Sam Houston Tollway), there is a legitimate argument about having South LA foot the toll bill since I-49 North (of Sherveport) is being built "free". The Feds may have to intervene with some assistance in this one.

I can also see the remaining segments of I-49 South between Raceland and New Orleans built in part with tolls, too, since they are mostly on new alignment.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 26, 2012, 08:35:10 PM
Here's the thing, though... South LA was fighting tooth and nail for I-49 South. North LA was more relaxed, since US 71 was perfectly fine. I would rather I-49 South utilize the I-310 alignment than I-910, with I-910 being extended with tolls. Make that I-910, signed, and the problem is solved. By the way, just out of curiosity, what is the expected travel benefits? I know that I-49 North means you can knock off 40 mins from a trip by going from 35-45-55 MPH to 70, maybe 75 MPH.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 03:40:19 PM
I'm not sure how long it has been on the website but LaDOTD now has a revised I-49 South Project From Lafayette to New Orleans (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/) webpage (I think years ago an engineering firm had its I-49 South webpage posted on the LaDOTD website).  The project is described as follows;

Quote
The I-49 South project from Lafayette to New Orleans will convert U.S. 90 into an interstate-quality roadway which would enhance travel between the two cities but ultimately across the state and nation once the entire project is completed.
The construction of frontage roads along U.S. 90 is the preliminary steps in the construction of the I-49 Extension between Lafayette and New Orleans. As such, the construction of frontage road projects will have a significant impact on a large part of the state.
Economic Impact
The extension of I-49 will provide a direct access of Midwest industries to the ports of south Louisiana, a bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10, and a connection between oil industry suppliers and manufacturers from New Orleans to Houston. This segment of US 90 is already a major industrial corridor in Louisiana that will expand significantly with better highway access.

The "bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10" angle is an interesting justification for the project.  Take #3,971?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 27, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
Could I see I-49 Suth carrying I-10 Alternate?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 27, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
Could I see I-49 Suth carrying I-10 Alternate?

In a word?  NO. You'll see them bring back "I-10S" shields before they do that.

If LADOTD was really smart, they'd  bring back the online plans/EIS's for ALL the segments of I-49 South, not just the Raceland-New Orleans segment. They used to have the EIS's for the Wax Lake-Berwick segment and the LRA-LA 88 segments online, but for some reason they pulled them. And, having the I-49 Lafayette Connector plans available wouldn't suck, either.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 12:05:51 PM
Also...they seriously need to add the LA 318 interchange EA study onto that page...STAT.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Road Hog on July 29, 2012, 02:00:14 PM
This is what bothers me a little about I-49 South. Unless it terminates at a 3-digit in Greater New Orleans, it'll be an interstate that crosses one interstate (I-10) and then doubles back to intersect it again. Isn't that pretty much the definition of an even-numbered 3DI?

With the exception of I-10/I-12 nearby and also I-90/94 between Chicago and Madison, I don't know of any other instances where two separately-numbered 2DIs split and reconverge. I suppose the precedent's been set, but it seems odd.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 29, 2012, 04:55:22 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on July 29, 2012, 02:00:14 PM
This is what bothers me a little about I-49 South. Unless it terminates at a 3-digit in Greater New Orleans, it'll be an interstate that crosses one interstate (I-10) and then doubles back to intersect it again. Isn't that pretty much the definition of an even-numbered 3DI?

With the exception of I-10/I-12 nearby and also I-90/94 between Chicago and Madison, I don't know of any other instances where two separately-numbered 2DIs split and reconverge. I suppose the precedent's been set, but it seems odd.
I-12 is a mainline route that begins and ends at I-10. I-49 South could be numbered I-810 or 410, with it using 310 instead of 910. Westwego/Gretna would oppose it, but who cares? How about just I-6? East-west located below I-10 and above I-4. Or just name it LA 3296 or LA 1268
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 06:18:36 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on July 29, 2012, 02:00:14 PM
This is what bothers me a little about I-49 South. Unless it terminates at a 3-digit in Greater New Orleans, it'll be an interstate that crosses one interstate (I-10) and then doubles back to intersect it again. Isn't that pretty much the definition of an even-numbered 3DI?

Normally, yes...but this is an EXTENSION of an existing route (I-49) which doesn't end until I-20, and ultimately to I-30 and beyond. I'd say that it's too long to be a 3DI, its importance as a key business corridor earns it a 2DI designation. If I-4 deserves to be  2di, than this deserves to be an I-49 extension.  Plus, it's longer than I-12.


QuoteWith the exception of I-10/I-12 nearby and also I-90/94 between Chicago and Madison, I don't know of any other instances where two separately-numbered 2DIs split and reconverge. I suppose the precedent's been set, but it seems odd.

Actually, I-10 and I-12 don't neccessarily split; I-12 simply serves as I-10's bypass of the NOLA region.


Quote from: mcdonaat on July 29, 2012, 04:55:22 PM
[...] I-49 South could be numbered I-810 or 410, with it using 310 instead of 910. Westwego/Gretna would oppose it, but who cares? How about just I-6? East-west located below I-10 and above I-4. Or just name it LA 3296 or LA 1268

Well, for starters, Westwego and Gretna and the rest of NOLA would care greatly, because the corridor is defined by federal law as using the Westbank Expressway, and they are relying on the completion of I-49 to finish the upgrade of the WBX in line with the Huey P. Long Bridge improvements.

A state designatiion for a 143-mile freeway??  Pardon my dispostion, but...HELL TO THE NO!!!

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on July 29, 2012, 10:33:26 PM


Quote from: mcdonaat on July 29, 2012, 04:55:22 PM
[...] I-49 South could be numbered I-810 or 410, with it using 310 instead of 910. Westwego/Gretna would oppose it, but who cares? How about just I-6? East-west located below I-10 and above I-4. Or just name it LA 3296 or LA 1268

Well, for starters, Westwego and Gretna and the rest of NOLA would care greatly, because the corridor is defined by federal law as using the Westbank Expressway, and they are relying on the completion of I-49 to finish the upgrade of the WBX in line with the Huey P. Long Bridge improvements.

An state designatiion for a 143-mile freeway??  Pardon my dispostion, but...HELL TO THE NO!!!
[/quote]

I take it this is the same NOLA Huey P. Long bridge?  (Amazing, there are three parallel above-deck bridge steel structures here and I don't think two of them (the ones on either side of the train track bridge) were in place two years ago although a couple lanes either direction of the highway were...) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=13DjPgzGTKM)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 29, 2012, 11:09:06 PM
Actually... this is copied and pasted from the FHWA list of corridors.

United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans.

According to that, US 90 is being upgraded, which could mean I-49 CAN use I-310. I-910 can be signed as such, and I would rather I-49 traffic be dumped out in the swamps with I-10 instead of at the CBD with I-10. I would push for the Westbank Expwy IF I-10 is demolished along Claiborne Avenue (New Orleans is pushing for it) with I-49 using the old Pontchartrain Expwy, and I-10 is rerouted along I-610. In a perfect world, I-10 would have been built through City Park, and 610 would have looped down to the 'Dome.

Anyways, putting alignment issues aside, what's the status on the Morgan City bridges that are going to be replaced? Funny how US 90's freeway bridges over Bayou Ramos are cracking, but ole LA 182 is doing just fine.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 29, 2012, 11:09:06 PM
United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans.
That's saying that pork can be used on this corridor. Nothing at all about freeway status, or numbering, or anything else.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 30, 2012, 02:12:59 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 29, 2012, 11:09:06 PM
Actually... this is copied and pasted from the FHWA list of corridors.

United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans.

According to that, US 90 is being upgraded, which could mean I-49 CAN use I-310. I-910 can be signed as such, and I would rather I-49 traffic be dumped out in the swamps with I-10 instead of at the CBD with I-10. I would push for the Westbank Expwy IF I-10 is demolished along Claiborne Avenue (New Orleans is pushing for it) with I-49 using the old Pontchartrain Expwy, and I-10 is rerouted along I-610. In a perfect world, I-10 would have been built through City Park, and 610 would have looped down to the 'Dome.

Anyways, putting alignment issues aside, what's the status on the Morgan City bridges that are going to be replaced? Funny how US 90's freeway bridges over Bayou Ramos are cracking, but ole LA 182 is doing just fine.

Since the WBX is designated as US 90 Business, it fits into the official definition in a way that I-310 doesn't.

The reason they ran I-10 the way they did rather than through what is now I-610 is to access the CBD and the French Quarter. Plus, there is no guarantee that the Claiborne Elevated will be torn down, because those who use it the most, such as NOLA East, and the state officials and the Feds who funded it, will have some say in the matter as well as the locals.

Using I-310 would save a ton of money, but it wouldn't complete the WBX, and it would dump traffic onto an already swamped I-10 through Metarie and Kenner. At least I-49 through the Westbank enroute to downtown NOLA would ease other arteries, as well as support the Huey P. Long improvements.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 30, 2012, 02:18:19 AM
Quote from: O Tamandua on July 29, 2012, 10:33:26 PM

I take it this is the same NOLA Huey P. Long bridge?  (Amazing, there are three parallel above-deck bridge steel structures here and I don't think two of them (the ones on either side of the train track bridge) were in place two years ago although a couple lanes either direction of the highway were...) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=13DjPgzGTKM)

You be correctamundo....the additional structures are part of the widening of the roadways to 3 lanes with proper shoulders, probably to match the girders surrounding the rail structure in the median. If you are going to build or upgrade a bridge, don't build it ugly.  =)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on July 30, 2012, 10:34:57 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on July 29, 2012, 02:00:14 PM
This is what bothers me a little about I-49 South. Unless it terminates at a 3-digit in Greater New Orleans, it'll be an interstate that crosses one interstate (I-10) and then doubles back to intersect it again. Isn't that pretty much the definition of an even-numbered 3DI?

With the exception of I-10/I-12 nearby and also I-90/94 between Chicago and Madison, I don't know of any other instances where two separately-numbered 2DIs split and reconverge. I suppose the precedent's been set, but it seems odd.

Ditto I-43/I-xx in Wisconsin and I-90 and I-94 between Tomah, WI and Billings, MT.

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on July 30, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 30, 2012, 02:18:19 AM
Quote from: O Tamandua on July 29, 2012, 10:33:26 PM

I take it this is the same NOLA Huey P. Long bridge?  (Amazing, there are three parallel above-deck bridge steel structures here and I don't think two of them (the ones on either side of the train track bridge) were in place two years ago although a couple lanes either direction of the highway were...) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=13DjPgzGTKM)

You be correctamundo....the additional structures are part of the widening of the roadways to 3 lanes with proper shoulders, probably to match the girders surrounding the rail structure in the median. If you are going to build or upgrade a bridge, don't build it ugly.  =)

Thanks, Anthony_JK.

I'm still amazed at some of our feats of engineering though I know it's not just restricted to the USofA...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on July 30, 2012, 10:13:36 PM
What about I 310 to Existing I 49. They are always talking about money to get it done, so looks that if they would finish it to those locations then maybe later extend to Marrero would be at least a start.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2012, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: Gordon on July 07, 2012, 08:45:36 PM
LADOT has a job for 11/14/12 to widen LA 168 to US 71 so they can open those segments until Arkansas can finish there 4 miles.

The LaDOTD website (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp) indicates that the LA 168 project has been pulled from the future lettings.  I think they are just postponing it until they are closer to opening I-49 North, which now looks like it will open in Summer 2013 instead of Spring 2013.

Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2012, 09:02:04 PM
LaDOTD is continuing ITS relatively torrid pace by tentatively scheduling Segment J for a November 14 letting (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp):
Quote
Parish-Caddo
Letting Date-2012-11-14
Project-H.003496 455-09-0002
Route-I-49
Project Name- I-49 North (Mlk Jr Dr-la 1) Seg J

However, the good news is that the Segment J project is still listed.

Quote from: Grzrd on May 09, 2012, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 14, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote
Lead Project: H.003453.3
Lead Federal No. : H003453
Parish(es): Lafayette
Description: I-49 CONNECTOR BUILDING DEMOLITION
Type: BUILDING DEMOLITION AND RELATED WORK
the I-49 Connector building demolition project was withdrawn (and not simply postponed) (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsadde/adhq20120509.asp) on May 8:
Quote
STATE PROJECT-H.003453.3
ADDENDUM NO.-01 (Proposal)
ADDENDUM/WITHDRAW DATE-4/11/2012
PROJECT STATUS (withdrawn/postponed)-Withdrawn
5/8/2012
Maybe they decided to wait for results of the I-49 Connector toll study ...

OTOH the I-49 Connector project has not re-appeared on the future lettings page.

Quote from: Grzrd on July 25, 2012, 10:25:59 PM
In this article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/i--get-it-done/article_4e5dee66-d66d-11e1-a96e-001a4bcf887a.html), the reporter takes a local politician to task for taking a position based on a false perception of I-49:
Quote
state Rep ... Taylor Barras ....  said the money can make things difficult. Then, Barras incorrectly said I-49 starts around Minnesota or maybe even Canada .... Based on that false assertion, Barras said asking South Louisiana to pay for the final leg of I-49, between Lafayette and New Orleans, was "not totally acceptable."
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 26, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Nobody said that South Louisiana politicians were Mensas.

In fairness to Rep. Barras, he had probably been looking at this map from the interstate 49.org website (http://www.interstate49.org/) that helps make a strong visual case for the importance of the I-49 corridor:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJKFZr.jpg&hash=e46396dc0f35519e81f338f47f294f26ffc1e123)

He should have known better, but maybe we should give him a partial roadgeek pass.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Road Hog on August 11, 2012, 03:47:06 PM
I've driven LA 168 on a sightseeing side trip, and it's a surprisingly hilly and scenic road (considering it's Louisiana, after all). The giant abandoned schoolhouse in Rodessa is a sight to see as well. But the road is very curvy with severely limited sight lines, and there's no way can it handle interstate detour traffic.
Title: Lafayette's I-49 South Toll Study Suspended
Post by: Grzrd on September 12, 2012, 08:15:32 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 19, 2012, 08:33:20 PM
This article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/i--tolls-in-future/article_a64bf3fe-ba23-11e1-8702-0019bb2963f4.html), about potential tolling of US 90 to fund I-49 South, indicates that "funding permitting", I-49 South should be substantially completed in all areas, except those near New Orleans, by 2017, and that the sections near New Orleans should see "substantial completion" by 2023
Quote
The Louisiana Legislature passed SCR 38 in the recent session, which provides for a feasibility study looking at authorizing tolls to finish I-49 South .... DOTD will conduct the study and report its findings and recommendations to the state Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Public Works and the state House Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works no later than Dec. 13, according to the resolution .... Meanwhile, Lafayette has long made a push to finish I-49 South in and around its city limits. HNTB Corp., an engineering, construction and planning firm has been conducting studies for the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission. The firm finished a toll feasibility analysis recently, collecting data from late 2010 through the early part of this year, said David Flanders, vice president.
The study looked at tolls along an 18-mile stretch from Lafayette to the Acadiana Regional Airport exit and a 36-mile stretch from Lafayette to Iberia Parish's southern border, Flanders said.

This article (http://theadvocate.com/news/3871686-123/i-49-group-suspends-work-on) reports that the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission is suspending its toll study until LaDOTD completes its study, but will "refocus" its efforts after the LaDOTD study is released:

Quote
The Expressway Commission on Tuesday announced that it has suspended further work on the toll study pending an I-49 toll report by the state Department of Transportation and Development on the possibility of using tolls to help pay for the full length from Lafayette to New Orleans. 
The Legislature earlier this year asked DOTD to issue the report by December.
Expressway Commissioner Elaine Abell said the commission will provide its past research on toll funding to DOTD.
"They can piggyback and use what we already have,"  she said .... Abell said the Expressway Commission plans to refocus its efforts after the completion of the DOTD study.
"We've got to press this to get this moving,"  she said.

The article also makes a vague reference to the possibility that the new federal transportation bill, MAP-21, might provide increased funding opportunities for I-49 South, but no specifics are provided:

Quote
The Expressway Commission on Tuesday also heard of new I-49 funding possibilities in the federal transportation bill that went into effect earlier this year.
It's too early to tell if I-49 might be a good candidate for substantial federal funding under the new bill, but the prospects seem better than in past years, said Kam Movassaghi, president of Lafayette consulting firm Fenstermaker.
"What is exciting is that there are some opportunities,"  Movassaghi said.

Perhaps Movassaghi is referring to the "regional and national" significance of I-49 South?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 20, 2012, 03:48:21 PM
LaDOTD has updated the I-49 North page (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/) on its website, with the page indicating that right-of-way purchase and utility relocation have been completed for Segments J & K, with construction to begin on Segment J (MLK Blvd.-La. 1) in the first quarter of 2013 and on Segment K (I-220 to MLK Blvd.) in 2014:

Quote
Right-of-way purchase and utility relocation have been completed for all sections

Construction Completion Schedules
Arkansas state line to La. 168, Segment A - Complete
La 168 to Mira-Myrtis Road, Segment B - Complete
Mira-Myrtis Road to La 2, Segment C - Complete
La 2 to U.S. 71, Segment D - Complete
La. 170 to U.S. 71, Segment E — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La. 530 to La. 170, Segment F — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La 530 to La 169, Segment G — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La. 173 to La. 169, Segment H — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La. 1 to La. 173, Segment I — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
I-220 to La. 1, Segment J (MLK Blvd.-La. 1) To begin Q1 2013
I-220 to La. 1, Segment K (I-220 to MLK Blvd.) To begin in 2014

Anticipated opening dates are as follows:

Quote
Opening for segments A-I are scheduled for the summer of 2013, leaving the final two segments (J-K) to be completed in 2016.

Everything still appears to be on track.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 22, 2012, 11:59:14 AM
Interesting new article at the Lafayette Daily Advertiser this morn updating the status of both I-49 North and I-49 South.

Seems like the state is now totally committed to completing all of I-49 North from I-220 to the Arkansas line by 2016, and the Inner City Connector segment in Shreveport should have a Public Hearing done in December (when the Draft EIS is scheduled to be issued).

Quote
Every section of Interstate 49 North, except through the City of Shreveport, should be open to traffic in 2016, and work is under way to make U.S. 90 worthy of being I-49 South.

Michael Bridges of the Department of Transportation and Development told the Joint Budget Committee Friday that the $634.1 million construction of I-49 North from I-220 to the Arkansas state line is fully funded and should be complete on time. Bids have been let on the final section north of Shreveport and the only remaining portion would be the most expensive per-mile segment, through the city.

The section linking I-20 to I-220 is expected to cost $350 million but an environmental impact study of the route has not been completed.

State Rep. Roy Burrell, D-Shreveport, said the group doing the study is nearing completion and is to have a public hearing in December to review proposed routes.

The process takes two years, he said, "but I'm still optimistic about it."

Burrell said he believes the $350 million price tag is "too high" because "it's 3.6 miles through the city and only about one mile of that is developed." That area is sparsely populated because "people died or moved out and young people don't want to move back into that area."

Although he supports the project, "I couldn't support just a big slab of concrete going through the city," Burrell said. He wants some redevelopment of the area to accompany the highway construction to help stimulate private development.

State Rep. Henry Burns, R-Haughton, was the most recent chairman of the I-49 Funding and Feasibility Committee. He said that after he got commitments from Gov. Bobby Jindal, State Treasurer John Kennedy and DOTD that the money would be there, "I quit calling meetings."

Burns said he got a notice from the governor's office three weeks ago that "I was fired" because the committee was dissolved.

And as far as I-49 South is concerned:

Quote
I-49 is to ultimately link New Orleans and Canada, connecting with other interstate highways in Kansas City.

Completing it from Lafayette, its official southern terminus, to Kenner has some problem areas, Bridges said, though sections of the route are designated I-49 and carry 70 mph speed limits.

Like Shreveport, passing through Lafayette will be expensive, as will two other sections.

An elevated I-49 South through Lafayette, a section in St. Mary Parish known as the Wax Lake Outlet segment, and an elevated portion linking Raceland to the West Bank Expressway in Kenner are estimated to cost $5 billion.

The route utilizes an already four-laned U.S. 90 but it's not built to interstate standards. Overpasses have been constructed at numerous intersections but many are still have stop signs or traffic lights at crossing streets. In numerous places, residential and commercial driveways intersect the highway.

Bridges said DOTD is working on more overpasses and constructing access roads so cross roads and driveways can be eliminated, yet traffic could still cross or have access to the highway at interchanges.

DOTD records show that $265.6 million has been appropriated or is available for upgrading U.S 90.

That includes $114 million in federal highway funds and $29.4 million in federal stimulus dollars, $45 million from unclaimed property funds 2008-12, state surplus dollars totaling $11 million in 2007 and $30.3 million in 2009, $20 million in a direct legislative allocation in 2008, $8.8 million in state Transportation Trust Fund dollars, $3.5 million in general obligation bonds and a $3.65 million line of credit.

When the I-49 North work is completed, all of the $30 million per year in unclaimed property funds are to be shifted to I-49 South construction.

Probably sitll on hold until the I-49 South toll study by LADOTD is released later this year.

Link to the full Daily Advertiser article:
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120922/NEWS01/209220312/


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on September 23, 2012, 02:06:58 AM
I support I-49 tolls completely. Nobody is forcing drivers to use US 90, there's the viable and fully capable LA 182 following US 90.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 23, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 23, 2012, 02:06:58 AM
I support I-49 tolls completely. Nobody is forcing drivers to use US 90, there's the viable and fully capable LA 182 following US 90.

You do know that LA 182 is mostly 2 lanes throughout South Louisiana, right?? (Excepting the one-way couplet through New Iberia, that is.)

Most likely, they'll toll only the segments through Lafayette and possibly extend to New Iberia, as well as the segment from Raceland to Gretna; the remaining segments of US 90 will remain free. It would be political suicide to toll the completed segments of US 90 in Iberia Parish, especially since I-49 North was completed toll free.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on September 23, 2012, 01:56:04 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 20, 2012, 03:48:21 PM
LaDOTD has updated the I-49 North page (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/) on its website, with the page indicating that right-of-way purchase and utility relocation have been completed for Segments J & K, with construction to begin on Segment J (MLK Blvd.-La. 1) in the first quarter of 2013 and on Segment K (I-220 to MLK Blvd.) in 2014:

Quote
Right-of-way purchase and utility relocation have been completed for all sections

Construction Completion Schedules
Arkansas state line to La. 168, Segment A - Complete
La 168 to Mira-Myrtis Road, Segment B - Complete
Mira-Myrtis Road to La 2, Segment C - Complete
La 2 to U.S. 71, Segment D - Complete
La. 170 to U.S. 71, Segment E — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La. 530 to La. 170, Segment F — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La 530 to La 169, Segment G — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La. 173 to La. 169, Segment H — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
La. 1 to La. 173, Segment I — Estimated completion: Spring 2013
I-220 to La. 1, Segment J (MLK Blvd.-La. 1) To begin Q1 2013
I-220 to La. 1, Segment K (I-220 to MLK Blvd.) To begin in 2014

Anticipated opening dates are as follows:

Quote
Opening for segments A-I are scheduled for the summer of 2013, leaving the final two segments (J-K) to be completed in 2016.

Everything still appears to be on track.
So LA and MO seem to be the most serious about completing I-49 to Kansas City...And now we await word on what AR (and TX) plan to do with their own segments...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on September 23, 2012, 09:06:23 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 23, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 23, 2012, 02:06:58 AM
I support I-49 tolls completely. Nobody is forcing drivers to use US 90, there's the viable and fully capable LA 182 following US 90.

You do know that LA 182 is mostly 2 lanes throughout South Louisiana, right?? (Excepting the one-way couplet through New Iberia, that is.)

Most likely, they'll toll only the segments through Lafayette and possibly extend to New Iberia, as well as the segment from Raceland to Gretna; the remaining segments of US 90 will remain free. It would be political suicide to toll the completed segments of US 90 in Iberia Parish, especially since I-49 North was completed toll free.
I do know that, but it's still an alternative. Tolls do need to be placed on new segments, but it's not like there's no alternate roads to take.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 29, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
Article in today's Advocate on the progress of converting US 90 in Lafayette Parish into a 6-lane "superstreet" with J-turns as a stopgap until I-49 South is funded:

http://theadvocate.com/home/4004902-125/left-turns-onto-us-90

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 05, 2012, 07:28:18 PM
This Oct. 1 TV video report (http://www.fox8live.com/story/19691776/supporters-isaac-shows-interstate-through-bayou-parishes-needed) has some interesting footage of a section of I-10 submerged by Isaac, which in turn is used to make the case for I-49 South.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 10, 2012, 02:30:27 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2012, 09:02:04 PM
LaDOTD is continuing ITS relatively torrid pace by tentatively scheduling Segment J for a November 14 letting (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp):
Quote
Letting Date-2012-11-14
Project Name- I-49 North (Mlk Jr Dr-la 1) Seg J
Quote from: Gordon on July 06, 2012, 09:22:21 PM
In the letting of construction in the next 6 months LA DOTD has a job 455-09-0026 for 9/12/12 for signs and misc. for segments A thru D.

Both the Segment J project and the Segments A-D signage project now have respective December 12 tentative letting dates (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp):

Quote
2012-12-12
I-49 North (Mlk Jr Dr-la 1) Seg J
Conc. New Pavement (Seg J)

2012-12-12
I-49n (Seg a - D) Signage & Misc
Const Permanent Signing and Striping Between Segments a and D

I believe both projects are fully funded, so revised tentative letting dates probably do not reflect money problems.  At any rate, the new dates coincide with Missouri's 12-12-12 I-49 designation.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 01, 2012, 11:01:31 AM
Meanwhile, back on the bayou, as it were: the US 90 widening/J-Turn project is now virtually complete, with all 6 lanes now open; and LADOTD seems to be more focused now on getting I-49 South funded.

Quote
U.S. 90 stretch opens (Baton Rouge Advocate)  (http://theadvocate.com/home/4288429-125/us-90-stretch-opens)

LAFAYETTE – A newly widened stretch of U.S. 90 opened Wednesday, expanding the heavily traveled route from four to six lanes for the seven miles between Pinhook Road in Lafayette and Broussard.

The $20 million widening project is the latest in a series of upgrades along U.S. 90 in an effort to bring the road up to interstate standards to serve as the southern leg of Interstate 49.

The portion of I-49 that runs through north Louisiana is largely complete, and the state plans to give more attention to the section from Lafayette to New Orleans, state Department of Transportation and Development Secretary Sherri LeBas said Wednesday at a news conference announcing the completion of the widening project.

"We are turning our attention very aggressively to I-49 South,"  she said.

The U.S. 90 widening project is on a section of the road that sees about 50,000 vehicles a day, LeBas said.

The project, which began in April 2010, also involved the redesign of several major intersections to phase out left turns onto the highway.

Drivers approaching U.S. 90 from University Avenue, Albertsons Parkway and Morgan Avenue will not be able to turn left onto the highway but rather will be required to turn right, travel down the highway and then make a U-turn to go in the other direction.

Traffic engineers refer to that series of movements as a "J-turn."

LeBas said the concept might sound counterintuitive at first, but J-turns have been shown to reduce accidents and improve traffic flow.

"It will make it safer for our travelling public,"  LeBas said.

It was also announced that LADOTD would resume design work on the I-49 segment through Lafayette (known as the I-49 Connector). Construction funding, though, has still not been found; I guess that they are still awaiting the toll study.

From the Lafayette Daily Advertiser (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20121101/NEWS01/211010310/All-lanes-open-U-S-90?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE&nclick_check=1):

Quote
More than $193 million has been dedicated to I-49 South-U.S. 90. Of that funding, the Jindal administration has invested about $120.9 million toward the completion of the I-49 South corridor, which includes U.S. 90. The total I-49 South corridor includes about 160 miles of roadway, of which more than 100 miles have been completed or are currently under construction, according to the department.

Next, the department will begin work on the design of the U.S. 90 and Ambassador Caffery Extension interchange. It has secured funding for both design and construction of that interchange, LeBas said.

It also will begin designing bridges and new roadway for a large portion of the Evangeline Thruway, where it has begun collecting right-of-way permits from Interstate 10 to Pinhook Road.

"The section from I-10 to Pinhook, what we call the Lafayette Connector, we are going to move forward with the design of that project. The estimated cost of that is $700 million to $750 million," LeBas said. "We do not have the construction funds identified at this time."

I wonder if that means that the CSS study they had started back in 2003, but halted because of concerns about the seperation between the twin elevated roadways through Lafayette, will be started back up again?

P.S.: The Advocate does not have a paywall; but the Advertiser does. If the latter's link fails, I apologize in advance.


Anthony
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 15, 2012, 06:35:32 PM
Here is a link that has some info about the Elevated Evangeline Thruway. Cost estimates are $900 million to $1 billion for that portion.

Post Merge: November 17, 2012, 05:03:55 AM

sorry my copy didn't take.  http://www.theind.com/business
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 16, 2012, 12:19:36 AM
Quote from: Gordon on November 15, 2012, 06:37:12 PM
sorry my copy didn't take.  http://www.theind.com/business

I see that two of the comments there in that article revive the idea of a bypass around Lafayette as an alternative to the Evangeline Thruway corridor. Problem is, though, a bypass would be prohibitively more expensive, would require much more ROW takings, and would require a new round of enviromental and engineering studies....and would still require tolling anyway. And still, it wouldn't even begin to relieve traffic on the existing Evangeline Thruway corridor.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on November 16, 2012, 09:34:29 AM
What constitutes the Evangeline thruway? Is it the U.S. 167/90 corridor south of I-49 to the Lafayette airport?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 16, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
Quote from: pctech on November 16, 2012, 09:34:29 AM
What constitutes the Evangeline thruway? Is it the U.S. 167/90 corridor south of I-49 to the Lafayette airport?

That's correct, from the existing I-10/I-49 interchange to the Lafayette airport....though technically, the Evangeline Thruway also extends along US 90 to just near Broussard.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on November 16, 2012, 05:24:15 PM
I would think with the growth of southern Louisiana a bypass and a straight thru route would be needed. Of course I have no ideal to find the billions needed. Maybe we can put a extra tax on duck hunters?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 17, 2012, 10:08:09 PM
Buying right away and having most of it at ground level is it out of the Question?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2012, 05:36:32 AM
Quote from: Gordon on November 17, 2012, 10:08:09 PM
Buying right away and having most of it at ground level is it out of the Question?

Yes, because of the ROW requirements and the need to maintain cross streets.

An alternative that would have kept I-49 at grade with selected overpasses was rejected for that very reason.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 18, 2012, 11:38:12 AM
I have not seen any plans ,Does not look that there is much room for an interchange at Pinhook RD. crossing. I read an article that they have a job panned for an interchange at Ambassador Cafferty in 2016. Is that the same as University Ave. By the airport.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:16:33 PM
I was through Lafayette and it looks like a lot of homes and businesses to be demolished if I-49 was to be built in the median of US 90/ US 167.  I know there is eminent domain, but still that is a lot considering that corridor is heavily populated.  It would indeed divide the city when built causing other issues and it would then constitute and urban freeway similar to I-280 in East Orange, NJ.

From what I saw, a bypass would not help at all. Most traffic is local and only some is straight through. 

I did also see a service road being added on both sides south of the airport.  It did not seem like the roadway was being turned to freeway, just initial work on the frontage roads.  I guess this is only phase one of what is to come.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 18, 2012, 11:38:12 AM
I have not seen any plans ,Does not look that there is much room for an interchange at Pinhook RD. crossing. I read an article that they have a job panned for an interchange at Ambassador Cafferty in 2016. Is that the same as University Ave. By the airport.

No interchange is planned at Pinhook Road, since traffic can be served quite adequately by the proposed interchange at University Avenue/Surrey Street. Plus, the recently built University Ave. extension includes a grade seperation of the UP/BNSF rail line, whereas Pinhook not only crosses at grade, but integrates the intersections of Jefferson St. and Dorsett Avenue with the crossing. Also, the existing Evangeline Thruway roadways will serve as virtual frontage roads for local access.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2012, 09:35:18 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:16:33 PM
I was through Lafayette and it looks like a lot of homes and businesses to be demolished if I-49 was to be built in the median of US 90/ US 167.  I know there is eminent domain, but still that is a lot considering that corridor is heavily populated.  It would indeed divide the city when built causing other issues and it would then constitute and urban freeway similar to I-280 in East Orange, NJ.

From what I saw, a bypass would not help at all. Most traffic is local and only some is straight through. 

I did also see a service road being added on both sides south of the airport.  It did not seem like the roadway was being turned to freeway, just initial work on the frontage roads.  I guess this is only phase one of what is to come.

It would be somewhat divisive, especially in the portion between Willow St. and Simcoe/Third St's where there would be the most displacements, but the fully elevated feature of the freeway would mitigate a lot of the divisiveness by keeping major cross streets open, and allowing for full accessibility underneath the elevated roadway.

From approximately Simcoe St. to past Johnston St., the freeway would leave the Evangeline Thruway ROW and take on a steady curve just on the east side of the UP/BNSF rail line. It would also be placed at grade, but with depressed underpasses under both I-49 and the railroad at the proposed Second/Third and Johnston St. interchanges (both planned as SPUI's; the first of its kind in LA) and at the existing Jefferson Boulevard underpass. From Jefferson to Johnston, there would be fewer displacements because that ROW is a former train yard, but there would be some disconnection since Sixth St./Lee Avenue would be severed. The railroad grade seperations, however, more than make up for the severed access, and with three fewer at grade crossings, it may even improve access and noise due to fewer train whistles.

From Johnston St. south to Pinhook, the proposed I-49 would curve to rejoin the Evangeline Thruway corridor near Taft St.  It would pass through an industrial area and displace a couple of heavy businesses, but they could be easily replaced. South of Taft St, there is nothing in the median of the Evangeline Thruway, so there would be no residential displacements.

Also, north of where Evangeline Thruway crosses a spur line of the Louisiana & Delta RR just S of the Walmart entrance/Donlon Avenue, there is no residential displacements; however, the Lafayette Tourist Information & Welcome Center does exist within the wide median of the thruway just S of the Willow St. intersection. Since that is there only through a joint use contract between the city and LADOTD, however, it will probably be moved to a new location to make room for I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2012, 10:15:16 PM
Here's a markup of how the proposed I-49 Lafayette Connector would look like, as contributed by the Univ. of La.-Lafayette's Community Design Workshop in 1999 (when ULL was still the University of Southwestern La.; they changed the name the very next year):

(https://plus.google.com/photos/106942937487510730137/albums/5812355753250450161/5812355762563522290)


If the image doesn't show up her, you can go here to see it:

https://plus.google.com/photos/106942937487510730137/albums/5812355753250450161/5812355762563522290

Original photo is here:

http://mpo.lafayettela.gov/projects/I-49connector/Map/CDWS_RR4.pdf

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 20, 2012, 11:14:53 AM
Well, well....seems like things are heating up as far as I-49 South are concerned.

Yesterday, Bobby Jindal had a presser along with LADOTD officials to announce that the 6-lane widening of US 90, just completed from Pinhook Road to Albertson's Parkway, would now be extended south to the Ambassador Caffery Parkway extension...and that the proposed interchange between US 90 and Ambassador Caffery Pkwy was on schedule for construction.

Quoting from the article posted today (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20121120/NEWS01/211200310/New-work-49-begin-Broussard) in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser:

Quote
Gov. Bobby Jindal made a stop here Monday to announce plans to widen and construct a new segment of Interstate 49 from north of Ambassador Caffery Parkway to Albertsons Parkway in Lafayette Parish.

The proposed extension of I-49 South announced by the governor actually will only cover a two-mile stretch of highway in Broussard. The cost for the work will be a hefty $90 million to $110 million, or up to $55 million a mile.

"Our investment in roads and bridges comes down to one simple thing – jobs," said Jindal. "A critical piece of transforming this region and our entire state for more economic growth is the completion of I-49 South. That's why investing and completing I-49 South has been our top transportation priority in this area since 2008."

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development officials said the massive expense of the project is due in part to some of the structural work that has to be done, including the construction of overpasses and frontage roads. That section of the road will also be made into the only "no access" portion of U.S. Route 90 in the area. There will be limited access at the beginning and end of the project, but the rest of the highway will remain open access as it is now.

Officials said currently some 35,000 commuters travel that segment of roadway every day.

"The project will be funded by bonding out the Unclaimed Property Fund," said Jindal. "We are able to do this because of a bill we proposed in the 2011 legislative session that gives us the authority to bond out those dollars. Now in order to do that, we needed legislative approval. I'm proud to announce that today the Joint Transportation Committee approved this proposal."

Jindal added that the contract for the project is expected to be awarded in early 2014, with estimated completion in early 2017.


More technical information about the proposed widening from the Baton Rouge Advocate (http://theadvocate.com/home/4476019-125/two-miles-of-us-90):

Quote
The state announced on Monday a project to widen about 2 miles of U.S. 90 between Albertsons Parkway and Ambassador Caffery Parkway.

The work will extend a project completed last month that widened 7 miles of U.S. 90 from four to six lanes, beginning at Pinhook Road in Lafayette and stretching south to Broussard.

The estimated $90 to $110 million price tag for the new project includes frontage roads and widening the La. 182 overpass, said state Department of Transportation and Development spokeswoman Jodi Conachen.

More than 35,000 commuters use that stretch every day, according to figures from Gov. Bobby Jindal's office.

"It is the bottleneck for that area,"  Conachen said.

A separate $30 million project is in the design phase to build an overpass and make other upgrades at the intersection of U.S. 90 and Ambassador Caffery.

The work is part of the ongoing effort to upgrade U.S. 90 to interstate standards to complete I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans.

The construction for the widening project from Albertsons Parkway to Ambassador Caffery is not expected to be complete until 2017.

So, at least that's more progress than what we've seen in the past 5 years.

Still awaiting that blasted toll study, though....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2012, 02:22:56 PM
^Steady progress in the Shreveport area, too...

The second round of Stage 1 Community Input Meetings (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/community.html) for the I-49 Inner City Connector will be held in early December:

Quote
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church
6:00 pm
1558 Buena Vista Street
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

Wednesday, December 13, 2012
Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce
12:00 pm — Bring your lunch!
400 Edwards Street
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

Also, Segment J of I-49 North is advertised for the December 12 letting (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsinfo/bihq20121212.asp) :

Quote
Lead Project: H.003496.6
Lead Federal No. : 0021(011)
Parish(es): Caddo

Description: I-49 NORTH (MLK TO LA HWY 1)
Type: CLEARING AND GRUBBING, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, SUBGRADE TREATMENT, CLASS II BASE COURSE, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER SPANS BRIDGE, AND RELATED WORK

edit - as is the I-49 North Segment A-D signage project:

Quote
Lead Project: H.003516.6
Lead Federal No. : 0910(510)
Parish(es): Caddo

Description: I-49N (A-D) SIGNAGE & MISC. CONSTRUCTION
Type: GRADING, CONCRETE CAST-IN-PLACE REVETMENT, SIGNING, STRIPING AND RELATED WORK.

December 11-13 will be quality I-49 time ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Chris on November 21, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
I was interested in the routing of I-49 through Lafayette, so I took a look with Google Street View. It appears a significant amount of homes in the US 90 median are either deserted or are in significant disrepair. A large number of lots are already empty.

I suspect it wouldn't be the most difficult thing to clear out the remaining homes and businesses via eminent domain, and get a decent right-of-way for an elevated freeway. It will give a major boost to the accessibility of central Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on November 22, 2012, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Chris on November 21, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
I was interested in the routing of I-49 through Lafayette, so I took a look with Google Street View. It appears a significant amount of homes in the US 90 median are either deserted or are in significant disrepair. A large number of lots are already empty.

I suspect it wouldn't be the most difficult thing to clear out the remaining homes and businesses via eminent domain, and get a decent right-of-way for an elevated freeway. It will give a major boost to the accessibility of central Lafayette.

It's sort of the same way on the proposed I-49 routing between I-20 and I-220 in Shreveport, too.  That large area of vacant land that is a couple of blocks north of the I-20/49 interchange is the site of a public housing project that was built in the ROW of the then cancelled freeway back in the late 1960s or early 1970s(I think).  That project failed (as most in the USA did) and the buildings were cleared about 10-15 years or so ago.  The rest of the I-49 corridor in that neighborhood is similarly 'spotty'.

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on November 22, 2012, 02:05:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2012, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Chris on November 21, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
I was interested in the routing of I-49 through Lafayette, so I took a look with Google Street View. It appears a significant amount of homes in the US 90 median are either deserted or are in significant disrepair. A large number of lots are already empty.

I suspect it wouldn't be the most difficult thing to clear out the remaining homes and businesses via eminent domain, and get a decent right-of-way for an elevated freeway. It will give a major boost to the accessibility of central Lafayette.

It's sort of the same way on the proposed I-49 routing between I-20 and I-220 in Shreveport, too.  That large area of vacant land that is a couple of blocks north of the I-20/49 interchange is the site of a public housing project that was built in the ROW of the then cancelled freeway back in the late 1960s or early 1970s(I think).  That project failed (as most in the USA did) and the buildings were cleared about 10-15 years or so ago.  The rest of the I-49 corridor in that neighborhood is similarly 'spotty'.

Mike
I'm really hoping the state overbuilds I-49 through that stretch, since widening would be costly. Maybe four lanes in both directions from 220 to 20, and three lanes until at least LA 1 turns off to Rodessa.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on November 22, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2012, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Chris on November 21, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
I was interested in the routing of I-49 through Lafayette, so I took a look with Google Street View. It appears a significant amount of homes in the US 90 median are either deserted or are in significant disrepair. A large number of lots are already empty.

I suspect it wouldn't be the most difficult thing to clear out the remaining homes and businesses via eminent domain, and get a decent right-of-way for an elevated freeway. It will give a major boost to the accessibility of central Lafayette.

It's sort of the same way on the proposed I-49 routing between I-20 and I-220 in Shreveport, too.  That large area of vacant land that is a couple of blocks north of the I-20/49 interchange is the site of a public housing project that was built in the ROW of the then cancelled freeway back in the late 1960s or early 1970s(I think).  That project failed (as most in the USA did) and the buildings were cleared about 10-15 years or so ago.  The rest of the I-49 corridor in that neighborhood is similarly 'spotty'.

Mike

"Spotty" is RNC-speak for "African-American."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 22, 2012, 10:17:17 PM
Here is an article on I 49 from Shreveport.http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.thetowntalk.com/viewart/20121120/NEWS01/121120012/I-49-construction-Shreveport-start-early-2013&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAxgAIAAoATAAOABAuJm5hQVIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=8Ozgb9fvcUw&usg=AFQjCNG23qOHsBjJFV4hyGEzxUG8oAun7A
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on November 25, 2012, 11:22:10 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 22, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2012, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Chris on November 21, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
I was interested in the routing of I-49 through Lafayette, so I took a look with Google Street View. It appears a significant amount of homes in the US 90 median are either deserted or are in significant disrepair. A large number of lots are already empty.

I suspect it wouldn't be the most difficult thing to clear out the remaining homes and businesses via eminent domain, and get a decent right-of-way for an elevated freeway. It will give a major boost to the accessibility of central Lafayette.

It's sort of the same way on the proposed I-49 routing between I-20 and I-220 in Shreveport, too.  That large area of vacant land that is a couple of blocks north of the I-20/49 interchange is the site of a public housing project that was built in the ROW of the then cancelled freeway back in the late 1960s or early 1970s(I think).  That project failed (as most in the USA did) and the buildings were cleared about 10-15 years or so ago.  The rest of the I-49 corridor in that neighborhood is similarly 'spotty'.

Mike

"Spotty" is RNC-speak for "African-American."

Yet another totally baseless racist partisan political cheap shot from the left.

Sad....

:no:

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on November 25, 2012, 05:14:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 25, 2012, 11:22:10 AM
Yet another totally baseless racist partisan political cheap shot from the left.

Yet another clueless Republican right-wing extremist who thinks everyone to the left of Mussolini is a Communist...

I'm not the one who made the racist statement, Mike.  You are.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 05:39:50 PM
To be fair, I think he actually meant 'spotty' literally - as in spots of houses interspersed with vacant properties.

But awesome people live there.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 25, 2012, 06:06:33 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 22, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2012, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Chris on November 21, 2012, 10:18:36 AM
I was interested in the routing of I-49 through Lafayette, so I took a look with Google Street View. It appears a significant amount of homes in the US 90 median are either deserted or are in significant disrepair. A large number of lots are already empty.

I suspect it wouldn't be the most difficult thing to clear out the remaining homes and businesses via eminent domain, and get a decent right-of-way for an elevated freeway. It will give a major boost to the accessibility of central Lafayette.

It's sort of the same way on the proposed I-49 routing between I-20 and I-220 in Shreveport, too.  That large area of vacant land that is a couple of blocks north of the I-20/49 interchange is the site of a public housing project that was built in the ROW of the then cancelled freeway back in the late 1960s or early 1970s(I think).  That project failed (as most in the USA did) and the buildings were cleared about 10-15 years or so ago.  The rest of the I-49 corridor in that neighborhood is similarly 'spotty'.

Mike

"Spotty" is RNC-speak for "African-American."

Actually, "spotty" means exactly that....spotty. There really isn't that much in that corridor, especially since they transformed Pierre Ave. and Pete Harris Drive into the one-way couplet feeders for I-49.

No comment whatsoever on that RNC smack.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 25, 2012, 07:46:37 PM
One item I noticed is the cost of I 49 from Shreveport to the Arkansas line . I remember when they started construction they estmated it would cost 600 million in 2006. Then the the I 49 north site had it at 622 million in 2009, now this article is saying 631 million. I can't believe cost jumping that much in that time frame.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: xonhulu on November 25, 2012, 08:51:59 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 25, 2012, 07:46:37 PM
One item I noticed is the cost of I 49 from Shreveport to the Arkansas line . I remember when they started construction they estmated it would cost 600 million in 2006. Then the the I 49 north site had it at 622 million in 2009, now this article is saying 631 million. I can't believe cost jumping that much in that time frame.

That's only a 5% increase in 6 years.  Compared to a lot of other projects, that's chump change.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2012, 12:36:57 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 05:39:50 PM
To be fair, I think he actually meant 'spotty' literally - as in spots of houses interspersed with vacant properties.

But awesome people live there.

That is EXACTLY what I meant and yes, I also have great respect for those who continue to hold on to what they have there, as well as for their taking the time to look to the future and figure out that perhaps the idea of building I-49 there is not so bad after all and may very well be the best course for the area's long-term good.

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2012, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2012, 12:36:57 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 05:39:50 PM
To be fair, I think he actually meant 'spotty' literally - as in spots of houses interspersed with vacant properties.

But awesome people live there.

That is EXACTLY what I meant and yes, I also have great respect for those who continue to hold on to what they have there, as well as for their taking the time to look to the future and figure out that perhaps the idea of building I-49 there is not so bad after all and may very well be the best course for the area's long-term good.

Mike
"Awesome people" is what this site corrects a certain derogatory word to...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2012, 05:09:22 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on November 25, 2012, 08:51:59 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 25, 2012, 07:46:37 PM
One item I noticed is the cost of I 49 from Shreveport to the Arkansas line . I remember when they started construction they estmated it would cost 600 million in 2006. Then the the I 49 north site had it at 622 million in 2009, now this article is saying 631 million. I can't believe cost jumping that much in that time frame.

That's only a 5% increase in 6 years.  Compared to a lot of other projects, that's chump change.
Yeah, even 500% would be low compared to some projects (Big Dig).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 26, 2012, 07:27:53 PM
Then I guess we need to raise taxes and build these roads. Because that is where the money comes from. Gas taxes would be a start.
Title: Map of Shreveport I-49 ICC Build Alternatives Posted
Post by: Grzrd on November 27, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2012, 02:22:56 PM
The second round of Stage 1 Community Input Meetings (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/community.html) for the I-49 Inner City Connector will be held in early December

The I-49 Inner City Connector Project website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/) now has a map of the four Build Alternatives (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/91/489-001-001-C086.pdf) that will be available for viewing at the Community Input Meetings:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLkHEt.jpg&hash=f3ecced93109d2adc25d1257cddad8e8618c0f14)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 28, 2012, 02:46:20 AM
Why would alignment 4 even be considered?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2012, 08:17:26 AM
Quote from: apjung on November 28, 2012, 02:46:20 AM
Why would alignment 4 even be considered?
Leadership 101: Make the other person feel like they came up with your idea. When the public selects purple as the least disruptive, fail to point out it's also the straightest and makes best use of existing infrastructure. Just nod your head and say, "We acquiesce to your demand."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 10, 2012, 01:38:44 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2012, 02:22:56 PM
Segment J of I-49 North is advertised for the December 12 letting (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsinfo/bihq20121212.asp) :
Quote
Lead Project: H.003496.6

Another week has been added to the wait.  The Segment J letting has been postponed until December 19 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsadde/adhq20121212.asp).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 11, 2012, 11:35:34 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2012, 02:22:56 PM
The second round of Stage 1 Community Input Meetings (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/community.html) for the I-49 Inner City Connector will be held in early December

This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Public-meetings-on-potential-I-49-Connector/-/144844/17729318/-/1h7nes/-/index.html) focuses on the Allendale opponents of the I-49 Inner City Connector who advocate the No Build Alternative:

Quote
a growing group of residents in the Allendale neighborhood have organized against the potential new construction. Instead, they want to utilize the current loop around Shreveport westbound on I-20 and I-220 to I-49N. These homeowners say the longer route will actually save money while saving their homes.
"Don't displace your people just to make this out a raceway for cars to get to somewhere," says Allendale resident Dorothy Wiley. "There are other ways to do it." ....
Concerned by the plans, Wiley and other Allendale residents reached out to Shreveport architect Kim Mitchell for guidance.
"Nowhere in the history of the interstate system has an interstate gone through a neighborhood and done anything than make that neighborhood worse," Mitchell says. "I don't quite understand why in our public process, the citizens of Shreveport haven't been told that. Particularly the ones to be most affected in Allendale."

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 19, 2012, 12:36:23 PM
John Norquist needs to keep his sorrry butt our of our business.

Although the report does not mention Norquist, Mitchell seems to sing the same song:

Quote
Mitchell says New Orleans and Portland, Oregon, are both trying to demolish elevated highways like the one proposed for Shreveport. He says such structures are visually unappealing and have far-reaching social implications.
"Traditionally, it has been an issue of separating 'haves' from 'have-nots,' which it really did on I-49 South," Mitchell says.

It is unclear from the report how large the opposition is at this point.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 11, 2012, 07:49:30 PM
Quote"Nowhere in the history of the interstate system has an interstate gone through a neighborhood and done anything than make that neighborhood worse," Mitchell says. "I don't quite understand why in our public process, the citizens of Shreveport haven't been told that. Particularly the ones to be most affected in Allendale."

Funny, but I don't hear the people in Alexandria complaining about the damage I-49 wrought through their city.

Also, routing I-49 though I-220 and LA 3132 has one major drawback: Cross Lake is the principal source of Shreveport's drinking water, and having hazardous materials use I-220 to travel norht and south would be a serious issue if any hazmat accident would occur.

Also....has Morgan City or the Westbank communities of Gretna and Harvey been so damaged by the elevated segments of US 90 or the Westbank Expressway?? 

Finally...I-49 South hasn't even been built through Lafayette, and we've already established that there will be no bypass.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on December 11, 2012, 11:16:34 PM
I-49 in Alexandria has done no good OR bad to those neighborhoods - already in the bad area of town, and business is still along MacArthur Drive (US 71).

I wish a bypass could be built in Lafayette, to encourage I-10 East traffic to use I-49 to New Orleans instead of through Baton Rouge. Maybe do what Baton Rouge does with the Green Light project - build small chunks of highways instead of large projects, and address your needs first, then connect the pieces. The public likes to see tax money being spent wisely, so show the public that taxes are good.

In that same sense, I wish Louisiana would open I-49 from Arkansas south to US 71 when it gets finished. The same was done for I-10 in its' path from west to east. Sign it as LA 3291, a temporary placeholder. Keep in mind, LA 3026 was the Pineville Expressway until US 167 took it over.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 12, 2012, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on December 11, 2012, 11:16:34 PM
I-49 in Alexandria has done no good OR bad to those neighborhoods - already in the bad area of town, and business is still along MacArthur Drive (US 71).

True, but the original plan for I-49 between Opelousas and Shreveport was to completely bypass Alexandria to the SW, and build a connector to hook up with downtown at the Pineville Expressway bridge. Businesses in Alexandria raised hell because they thought that they would be bypassed by the potential economic growth, and because there was no guarantee that the connector would be built.

QuoteI wish a bypass could be built in Lafayette, to encourage I-10 East traffic to use I-49 to New Orleans instead of through Baton Rouge. Maybe do what Baton Rouge does with the Green Light project - build small chunks of highways instead of large projects, and address your needs first, then connect the pieces. The public likes to see tax money being spent wisely, so show the public that taxes are good.

A bypass around W to S of Lafayette would be necessary even if I-49 South was built along the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor, if only for the reasons you suggested....as well as the fast growing outlyiing areas of Scott, Maurice, and Youngsville. Using that bypass to carry I-49, though, would be counterproductive, since it would not serve directly Lafayette and would be too much of a distance...especially since US 90 and the Thruway is already there. If you want to bypass the Thuway, an eastern alternative like Teche Ridge though St, Mary Parish would be more effective. But, why not use the most effecive, most direct route??


QuoteIn that same sense, I wish Louisiana would open I-49 from Arkansas south to US 71 when it gets finished. The same was done for I-10 in its' path from west to east. Sign it as LA 3291, a temporary placeholder. Keep in mind, LA 3026 was the Pineville Expressway until US 167 took it over.

Personally, I'd settle for LA 1049 for consistency's sake until the entire section from I-220 north is finished, then pressure Arkansas to remove those blasted AR 549 shields and make it officially I-49 up to I-30 (and perhaps further northward).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on December 12, 2012, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 11, 2012, 07:49:30 PM

Also, routing I-49 though I-220 and LA 3132 has one major drawback: Cross Lake is the principal source of Shreveport's drinking water, and having hazardous materials use I-220 to travel norht and south would be a serious issue if any hazmat accident would occur.

This was everybody's fear & reason to oppose the building of the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake back in the 80s.  The bridge was built & designed so that if a haz-mat spill did occur on the bridge, it would flow down drains into a long pipe to a large holding pond (lined with concrete) on the east end of the bridge just behind the gore area of the Blanchard exit ramp.   :clap:

Besides...the Kansas City Southern's mainline that exits their large yard on the south end runs along the shore of Cross Lake.  If they were to derail and let hazardous materials get into the lake there, it would be worse than anything I-220 could ever dish out.   :ded:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on December 12, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Keep in mind both LA 1049 and 3049/3149 are used. Numbering it LA 249 could work, except for the fact that LA 3249 exists in Shreveport.

Use one of the 3XXX temporary numbers for I-49. If ANYTHING, sign it as Bypass US 71/Alternate US 71. I just want the damn thing opened and drivable.

Hazmat is the least of our worries... if hazardous materials were ever an issue, I-10 and the Causeway wouldn't be open over Pontchartrain. Also, I-210 and 10 wouldn't cross Lake Charles.

I prefer I-49 to be sent through Shreveport, but sign LA 3132 as an Interstate... I-169. I know tons of people who never take LA 3132 because it's not an Interstate. Dumb, but true.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on December 12, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Keep in mind both LA 1049 and 3049/3149 are used. Numbering it LA 249 could work, except for the fact that LA 3249 exists in Shreveport.



I have never heard of that number. I looked at the state log on this site but all it said was south interchange of I-20 to US 80.  Which interchange is that? Monkhouse?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2012, 12:39:01 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on December 12, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Use one of the 3XXX temporary numbers for I-49. If ANYTHING, sign it as Bypass US 71/Alternate US 71. I just want the damn thing opened and drivable.

LaDOTD has posted an Apparent Low Bidder (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20121212.asp) for the Segment A-D signage project:

Quote
H.003516.6 (DBE Goal Project) I-49N (A-D) SIGNAGE & MISC. CONSTRUCTION
GRADING, CONCRETE CAST-IN-PLACE REVETMENT, SIGNING, STRIPING AND RELATED WORK.
Parish(es): Caddo
Route(s): I-49
Federal: 0910(510)
Estimated Construction Cost: $2,606,191.25
Apparent Low Bidder: T.L. Construction LLC
PO BOX 12893
ALEXANDRIA, LA 71315
Phone: (318)448-4720  $2,915,822.70

Also, this Plan sheet (http://www9.dotd.la.gov/falconPdfPublisher-data/pdf/B8E20300-DE52-48EF-84A9-5DC9DE869920-1_Docs.pdf) confirms that it will be signed as I-49.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 11, 2012, 07:49:30 PM
Funny, but I don't hear the people in Alexandria complaining about the damage I-49 wrought through their city ....
Also....has Morgan City or the Westbank communities of Gretna and Harvey been so damaged by the elevated segments of US 90 or the Westbank Expressway??

A Build Alternatives Community Impact Table (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/93/Build%20Alternatives%20Community%20Impact%20Table%20-%2012072012.pdf) was recently added to the Inner City Connector website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on December 13, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on December 12, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Keep in mind both LA 1049 and 3049/3149 are used. Numbering it LA 249 could work, except for the fact that LA 3249 exists in Shreveport.



I have never heard of that number. I looked at the state log on this site but all it said was south interchange of I-20 to US 80.  Which interchange is that? Monkhouse?
Jefferson Paige Road, signed as TO US 79/80 from 20, but 3249 from 79/80 to 20.

AKA the last 220 exit before 20 West.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Grzrd...that plan sheet makes me wonder if the mile markers are based on the Inner Loop/I-220 routing instead of the current 49 through town. If I guessed miles correctly based on US 71 now, milemarker 234 at US 71 south of hosston is about 22 miles from I-220 which would make a tentative milemarker there at 212. That's 6 miles away from I-49 at its terminus now, but it's exactly 13 miles away from I-49 at LA 3132, which is exit 199.

My numbers could be off but it looks like the mileage will go around the loop. If and when the ICC gets built down the road, it will be much later than the opening of 49 north of Shreveport. 30+ miles is a lot easier to replace mile markers than say all of 49 if mileage gets added to 49 south in 20 years...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on December 13, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on December 12, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Keep in mind both LA 1049 and 3049/3149 are used. Numbering it LA 249 could work, except for the fact that LA 3249 exists in Shreveport.



I have never heard of that number. I looked at the state log on this site but all it said was south interchange of I-20 to US 80.  Which interchange is that? Monkhouse?
Jefferson Paige Road, signed as TO US 79/80 from 20, but 3249 from 79/80 to 20.

AKA the last 220 exit before 20 West.

Is that actually signed??  All my life I've always seen one lone sign heading east of 220 there with LA 3231, which I always thought was way too close to LA 3132. Shrevport has that elsewhere though....(LA 3032 and 3036, or  LA 3049, LA 3094, and LA 3194)


Google Maps still shows it too...
https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Brookshire's,+North+Market+Street,+Shreveport,+LA&daddr=St+John's+Church+Rd,+Hosston,+LA&hl=en&ll=32.470034,-93.829958&spn=0.009631,0.013797&sll=32.864593,-93.872402&sspn=0.009588,0.013797&geocode=FdPN8AEdqflo-iGslSljALESaymhIxAZiMw2hjGslSljALESaw%3BFXVp9QEdJIdn-ik5lMZ6x682hjFvrQke4L7pZQ&oq=st+johns+&mra=ls&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.470098,-93.829866&panoid=gBSAL4lkHpbypTb2HWNzGg&cbp=12,103.56,,0,17.57
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2012, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 22, 2010, 05:20:16 PM
A recent email from LADOTD confirms that I-49 North will be initially signed as I-49.  Also, mileage for mile markers will be based on I-220 routing.  If and when ICC ever built, mile markers will be changed to reflect that routing.  Relevant part of email:
Quote
The new segment of I-49 from I-220 to Arkansas will be signed as I-49. Currently, we only have approval for the routing of I-49 that overlaps I-20 and I-220. The section that runs through Shreveport probably will not be open to traffic for quite some time. Once the section is built between I-20 and 220, the exit numbers on the north section will be changed.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Grzrd...that plan sheet makes me wonder if the mile markers are based on the Inner Loop/I-220 routing instead of the current 49 through town.

Great catch. It triggered a hazy memory of the 2010 email quoted above. Theoretically, the numbers should match an I-20/I-220 routing instead of an Inner Loop (LA 3132)/ I-220 routing.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on December 13, 2012, 04:09:43 PM
Well Road in West Monroe has been given a state road number recently...I think it was numbered LA 3249.  The only signs for it are on the Well Road exit ramps.  Can anyone else double check that? 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cenlaroads on December 13, 2012, 10:41:38 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 13, 2012, 04:09:43 PM
Well Road in West Monroe has been given a state road number recently...I think it was numbered LA 3249.  The only signs for it are on the Well Road exit ramps.  Can anyone else double check that? 

This is correct.  LA 3249 is Well Road in West Monroe from US 80 to the south end of the interchange with I-20.  LA 3231 was Jefferson Paige Road in Shreveport from US 80 to the interchange with I-220.  I believe it was decommissioned earlier this year.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on December 14, 2012, 12:30:28 AM
My mistake, I thought Jefferson Paige was LA 3249. I personally have never seen LA 3249 signs, just TO I-20 and TO US 80. On the south end, though, you have a Ouachita Parish shield.

Let's number I-49 in segments... LA 1264-1, LA 1264-2, etc... just kidding.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2012, 02:38:58 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Grzrd...that plan sheet makes me wonder if the mile markers are based on the Inner Loop/I-220 routing instead of the current 49 through town. If I guessed miles correctly based on US 71 now, milemarker 234 at US 71 south of hosston is about 22 miles from I-220 which would make a tentative milemarker there at 212. That's 6 miles away from I-49 at its terminus now, but it's exactly 13 miles away from I-49 at LA 3132, which is exit 199.

My numbers could be off but it looks like the mileage will go around the loop. If and when the ICC gets built down the road, it will be much later than the opening of 49 north of Shreveport. 30+ miles is a lot easier to replace mile markers than say all of 49 if mileage gets added to 49 south in 20 years...

I remember reading an old thread which said that according to LADOTD, until the ICC was completed, I-49 would use I-20 from the existing I-49 terminus west to I-220, then I-220 north/east to the proposed I-49 North terminus. Perhaps that would make for the difference in mile markers??
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 14, 2012, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 11, 2012, 07:49:30 PM
Funny, but I don't hear the people in Alexandria complaining about the damage I-49 wrought through their city ....
Also....has Morgan City or the Westbank communities of Gretna and Harvey been so damaged by the elevated segments of US 90 or the Westbank Expressway??

This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/I-49-Connector-Community-Meeting/-/144844/17771422/-/q125m1z/-/index.html) includes some shots of renderings of the proposed elevated Inner City Connector coursing through Allendale, etc.

edit

This TV video report (http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=288862) from one of the ICC public meetings is interesting because Pastor C.E. McLain of one of the community churches, Little Union Baptist Church, comments that, "I-49 is a reality; ready or not, it is coming ..."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on December 15, 2012, 12:23:07 PM
Quote from: cenlaroads on December 13, 2012, 10:41:38 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 13, 2012, 04:09:43 PM
Well Road in West Monroe has been given a state road number recently...I think it was numbered LA 3249.  The only signs for it are on the Well Road exit ramps.  Can anyone else double check that? 

This is correct.  LA 3249 is Well Road in West Monroe from US 80 to the south end of the interchange with I-20.

I remember seeing the Ouachita Parish sign on the north end of Well Rd. (can't remember the number though).  But I do remember seeing the LA 3249 directional signs on the exit ramps pointing both north and south.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 17, 2012, 06:17:06 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 20, 2012, 11:14:53 AM
Still awaiting that blasted toll study, though....

The wait will continue a bit longer.  LaDOTD was supposed to present the toll study to the Legislature (I think by Dec. 13), but an extension was requested and has been granted.  From a LaDOTD email:

Quote
In order to complete a more thorough analysis of potential tolling options on the future I-49 south corridor, as required by legislative resolution, DOTD has requested and the legislature has granted an extension of the resolution deadline until summer 2013.
While a complete toll analysis of the corridor was completed several years ago, the new study will allow for a fresh look at tolling options, and include new data collection, traffic and revenue models.

No toll study under the tree this year...
Title: Apparent Low Bidder Identified For I-49 North's Segment J
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 04:28:38 PM
... And the bid came in under $50 million (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20121219.asp):

Quote
H.003496.6 (DBE Goal Project)  I-49 NORTH (MLK TO LA HWY 1)
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, SUBGRADE TREATMENT, CLASS II BASE COURSE, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER SPANS BRIDGE, AND RELATED WORK
Parish(es): Caddo
Route(s): I-49
Federal: 0021(011)
Estimated Construction Cost: $55,365,092.30
Apparent Low Bidder: Jb James Construction Llc
1881 WOODDALE BLVD.
BATON ROUGE, LA 70806
Phone: (225)927-3131  $49,935,632.84

One more mile (Segment K) to I-220.  :nod:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 20, 2012, 03:02:22 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2012, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 22, 2010, 05:20:16 PM
A recent email from LADOTD confirms that I-49 North will be initially signed as I-49.  Also, mileage for mile markers will be based on I-220 routing.  If and when ICC ever built, mile markers will be changed to reflect that routing.  Relevant part of email:
Quote
The new segment of I-49 from I-220 to Arkansas will be signed as I-49. Currently, we only have approval for the routing of I-49 that overlaps I-20 and I-220. The section that runs through Shreveport probably will not be open to traffic for quite some time. Once the section is built between I-20 and 220, the exit numbers on the north section will be changed.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 13, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Grzrd...that plan sheet makes me wonder if the mile markers are based on the Inner Loop/I-220 routing instead of the current 49 through town.
Great catch. It triggered a hazy memory of the 2010 email quoted above. Theoretically, the numbers should match an I-20/I-220 routing instead of an Inner Loop (LA 3132)/ I-220 routing.

It looks like I was misadvised in 2010 (or, during the two-year interim since LaDOTD sent me the above email, LaDOTD sought and received approval for the LA 3132 routing). Several new documents have been posted on the Inner City Connector website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html), including a No Build Alternative map (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/97/489-001-001-C087.pdf), which shows a LA 3132/ I-220 routing.  At least you now have a definite route on which to check the accuracy of the mileage markers.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 26, 2012, 03:19:40 PM
Seems like some folk down here aren't so willing to wait until this summer for some movement on I-49 South. From the Baton Rouge Advocate on Monday:

Quote

I-49 plans get renewed (http://theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/4714172-123/i-49-plans-get-renewed)
Nonprofit coalition proposed


LAFAYETTE – Supporters of completing Interstate 49 from Lafayette to New Orleans are working to pull together a nonprofit coalition with a full-time executive director to help move the project forward.

"People have talked about I-49 for 30 years. It has moved and it has stopped, but mainly, it has stopped,"  said State Sen. R.L. "Bret"  Allain II, R-Franklin, who is part of the core group planning the new coalition.

Allain said two key factors in the renewed push to complete I-49 South will be soliciting more involvement from the industries that depend on the highway and hiring a full-time director to keep the effort focused and on track.

"One person dedicating their life to that is an absolute. It must happen,"  Allain said.

Community leaders and economic development officials from throughout the region came together at organizational meeting for the coalition this month in Lafayette.

A more extensive planning meeting is scheduled for next month.

"We are serious about getting this going,"  said Bruce Conque, with the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce.

The work to upgrade U.S. 90 to interstate standards has progressed steadily in recent years with a series of projects to build new overpasses, frontage roads and other improvements.

But an estimated $5 billion in work remains for the two most expensive portions – the partially elevated stretch through Lafayette and the southern leg from Raceland into the New Orleans area.

Those would be among the largest transportation projects in recent state history, and I-49 supporters have had little success in identifying a funding source at a time when state and federal highway money is tight.

Several efforts have been pursued over the past decade to galvanize support for the project, including a third incarnation of an I-49 South "task force"  that lost momentum soon after it launched in 2009 and a campaign to brand I-49 as "America's Energy Corridor"  in the hopes of attracting more attention.

St. Mary Parish Director of Economic Development Frank Fink said the new plans for the I-49 coalition differ from past efforts in that there is a greater emphasis on bringing the entire region from Lafayette to New Orleans on board and in actively involving business leaders.

"It's really come to the point where it is essential, and pulling together as a team will get it done,"  Fink said. "I think this is a fresh start."

The article also covers the possibility of using tolls to complete the project:

Quote
LA 1 Coalition Director Henri Boulet cautioned that even with a strong coalition, finding the money to complete I-49 South will be no easy task, considering that it will compete with projects nationwide for a limited pot of federal money.

"From this point on out, it is always going to be competitive. The nation has put off infrastructure improvements for many years, and it is finally catching up,"  Boulet said.

He said the use of tolls to pay for the road will have to be part of discussion.

Supporters of completing I-49 have proposed tolls as an option, and the state Department of Transportation and Development is now studying the feasibility of using tolls to help pay for the interstate project.

DOTD officials have also said they are studying existing plans for I-49 South to determine if the $5 billion price tag can be trimmed.

Allain said he is optimistic despite the obstacles.

"We have a great opportunity to get some movement in the right direction,"  he said.

Notice that I've taken the liberty of slightly altering my annotation to cap the "S" in "I-49 South" as it should properly be called. I've never liked the Advocate's insistence on lower-casing the phrase.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2013, 09:34:46 PM
Quote from: apjung on July 11, 2012, 02:29:41 AM
Looks like the next project on I-49 South would be the LA 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish. This one will require a complete rebuild of the intersection and ROW acquisitions. See Appendix A for how the proposed interchange will look. There are 2 proposed versions, Alt B and Alt D. I prefer Alt D as fewer homeowners would have to be relocated.
http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/us90/
Google Maps of the area
http://goo.gl/maps/LBsu
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 11, 2012, 08:30:07 PM
Personally, I'd prefer Alternative B, because it fits the other interchanges currently being built on US 90...but I'd no problems with Alternative D. Just build the damn thing already.

This article (http://www.banner-tribune.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Jones-+Allain+update+PC+on+road-+highway+projects%20&id=21505621) reports a possible construction date of late 2014 for this project:

Quote
Local state legislative delegation members Sen. Bret Allain and Rep. Sam Jones addressed the St. Mary Parish Council during its regular meeting Wednesday .... Upcoming road projects noted include ... the U.S. 90 overpass at La. 318 in the final design phase with possible construction to begin in late 2014 ...

Since construction of the interchange was mentioned, I emailed LaDOTD and asked them whether Alternative B or Alternative D had been chosen.  The reply leads me to believe that late 2014 may be an overly optimistic guess:

Quote
DOTD is currently in negotiations with the consultant to perform a supplemental environmental analysis. Once completed, we will be able to prepare the final environmental assessment to evaluate comments and concerns collected during the public hearing. DOTD will not make any recommendations on a preferred alternative until all comments have been assessed.

The Public Hearing was on July 17 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/us90/Notices/US_90_LA_318_Public_Hearing_Notice.pdf).  I think I recall an article in which an organized group of landowners proposed a modification to Alternative B that would affect fewer homes; I think they wanted to re-route the ramps to parallel the proposed new frontage roads to go behind the homes (I cannot find the article; link may be dead). I suspect that LaDOTD's desired supplemental EA may be related to that possibility (just my guess).  For a visual, here's Alternative B (page 8/76 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXVThxnB.jpg&hash=60735ec0710c34620a1c621ec4a4be92a11f9402)

For comparison's sake, here is Alternative D (page 40/76 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwrD6uQ1.jpg&hash=e43dcab5f5af362564146acf8015b76ecc590e8e)

Let's see, LaDOTD negotiates with consultant, consultant prepares supplemental EA, consultant then prepares final EA ... and construction begins late 2014? Maybe a "streamlined" process can move that quickly.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 27, 2013, 12:21:13 AM
Might this be the article you were talking about, Grz??

http://www.iberianet.com/news/crossing-paths-homes-could-be-razed-for-overpass/article_30f65ed6-d0f9-11e1-98f3-0019


Quote


FOUR CORNERS – More than 30 residents here could lose their homes to make room for the development of an overpass at the intersection of U.S. 90 and Louisiana 318.

Those and other residents submitted their concerns – either in writing or through an audio recording – for the project during a public hearing held Tuesday by the state Department of Transportation and Development inside the West St. Mary Civic Center.

Concerns with the lack of a public comments period, or question-and-answer session during Tuesday's hearing were raised by Lorna Bourg, executive director of the non-profit Southern Mutual Help Association, developers of Caribbean Winds, a nearby neighborhood of nine mixed-income families whose homes could be bulldozed as a result of the overpass project.

Bourg took issue with the refusal by DOTD officials to allow an "open-mic"  session for community members to share their ideas for project alternatives.

"She wanted a question-and-answer session, but that's not how the process works,"  said Carl Winters, who was one of about 20 DOTD officials on hand for Tuesday's hearing.

Winters said all members of the public could weigh in on the project, but for those comments to be included in the public record, they must be submitted in either writing or on an audio voice recording.

"It would have been a better process if they had an open mic so we could all listen to each others' ideas,"  Bourg said. "That way they could hear the people's concerns now and possibly start making compromises. To say your comments will be included in the public minutes of this hearing is not allowing people a chance to really express their concerns."

One of the compromises being advocated by Bourg's Southern Mutual is a change in the location of the on/off ramps.

Of the three options being considered for the project, the one likely to be pursued involves raising U.S. 90 over Louisiana 318, which is estimated to cost about $47 million and would warrant the razing of 29 homes and seven mobile homes – including Caribbean Winds – to make way for the highway's on/off ramps.

The solution, Bourg said, is to relocate the on/off ramps on the opposite side of Louisiana 318, where there are no homes, only sugar cane fields.

Bourg said another problem with leveling Caribbean Winds is that the neighborhood's homeowners received state financing through the Louisiana Housing Trust Fund. Receiving that funding required each of the development's homeowners to undergo a competitive approval process against other low- to mid-income families from throughout the state. If Caribbean Winds goes away to make way for the U.S. 90 overpass, so too will that state funding, said Bourg, adding "There's no guarantee they'll get that money again for a new home somewhere else."

Clementine Matthews, a lifelong Four Corners resident, said she's old enough to remember the days before the existence of U.S. 90. Matthews said though she understands the importance of the project, she disagrees with the design of the exit ramps. Too many families will be impacted.

"The ramps need to be redesigned,"  Matthews said.

Among the public officials attending Tuesday's hearing was state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin.

Jones said the project is long overdue. He said not only will it positively impact the Port of West St. Mary, but will go toward making the long-talked about conversion of U.S. 90 into the I-49 corridor a reality.

Jones said the project is expected to simultaneously start and end with the development of an overpass at the intersection of U.S. 90 and Ambassador Caffery Parkway, and will represent the longest "interstate-grade"  stretch of U.S. 90, going from Broussard to Patterson.

Jones made no guarantees but said that the relocation of the on/off ramps at the site of the Four Corners overpass was doable.

"If we're able to move the loop, it would affect fewer homes,"  Jones said.

DOTD communications director Deidra Lockhart said the deadline to submit comments on the project is Aug. 1. Once the comment period is over, Lockhart said a final decision will be made on which design will be used for the overpass. She estimated construction of the project will be put out for bid within the next one to two years.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 27, 2013, 12:34:44 AM
I'm wondering whether a tighter diamond interchange (like the I-49/Judson Walsh Drive interchange in Opelousas) or even a SPUI would be more appropriate here. Forcing the north offramp to parallel the outer service road would violate CofA standards, and leave those homes in a island.

Also...I don't see the funding issue for replacement, since isn't LADOTD required to fully compensate displaced homeowners? Especially considering that this is a potential Environmental Justice issue, since most of the displaced homeowners would be mostly poor and Black??

Again, they should resolve this to the benefit of everyone and get the damn thing built already.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 27, 2013, 12:39:01 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 27, 2013, 12:21:13 AM
Might this be the article you were talking about, Grz??
http://www.iberianet.com/news/crossing-paths-homes-could-be-razed-for-overpass/article_30f65ed6-d0f9-11e1-98f3-0019
Quote
.... One of the compromises being advocated by Bourg's Southern Mutual is a change in the location of the on/off ramps.
Of the three options being considered for the project, the one likely to be pursued involves raising U.S. 90 over Louisiana 318, which is estimated to cost about $47 million and would warrant the razing of 29 homes and seven mobile homes – including Caribbean Winds – to make way for the highway's on/off ramps.
The solution, Bourg said, is to relocate the on/off ramps on the opposite side of Louisiana 318, where there are no homes, only sugar cane fields ....
Among the public officials attending Tuesday's hearing was state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin ....
Jones made no guarantees but said that the relocation of the on/off ramps at the site of the Four Corners overpass was doable.
"If we're able to move the loop, it would affect fewer homes,"  Jones said ....

Yes, that is the article. Apologies for my faulty memory on the details.

Didn't you used to be Joe Friday?

edit

Apologies for the "LA"PD reference, too.  :happy:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on January 27, 2013, 03:54:04 PM
Alternative D is the best one.  Why unnecessarily destroy people's homes when you can more easily build the ramp in that sugarcane field.  Duh.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on January 27, 2013, 08:30:58 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on January 27, 2013, 03:54:04 PM
Alternative D is the best one.  Why unnecessarily destroy people's homes when you can more easily build the ramp in that sugarcane field.  Duh.

Depends if it's a poor neighborhood </sarcasm>
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on January 28, 2013, 03:35:49 AM
QuoteClementine Matthews, a lifelong Four Corners resident, said she's old enough to remember the days before the existence of U.S. 90.

Clementine Matthews is apparently older than my grandma.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on January 28, 2013, 04:37:16 AM
Or she remembers the days before the current alignment of US 90 existed (it used to be on LA 182).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 28, 2013, 10:06:00 PM
I received an email from the URS Project Manager today that provides a concise explanation of what is being studied:

Quote
Following the July 2012 Public Hearing, the LDOTD and FHWA identified a new alternative which is a combination of both Alternatives B and D. As part of the new alternative, US 90 will be elevated over LA 318 similar to Alternative B and the loop ramp on the Northeast quadrant of the interchange will be similar to Alternative D. URS will evaluate the new alternative in the final environmental assessment.

Assuming it is not less expensive, and with the loop ramp essentially the same, why would it it be preferable to elevate US 90 over LA 318 instead of elevating LA 318 over US 90?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 29, 2013, 03:00:15 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 28, 2013, 10:06:00 PM
Assuming it is not less expensive, and with the loop ramp essentially the same, why would it it be preferable to elevate US 90 over LA 318 instead of elevating LA 318 over US 90?

Probably much less need for ROW along LA 318...plus, Alternate D would have required some change in access to a public civic center that would be cut off from the main roadway due to CoA requirements. Also, it could possibly allow for retaining the eastern frontage road rather than cutting it off, possibly even saving the disputed residences that would have been displaced by the original Alignment B.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on February 05, 2013, 04:05:32 AM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of I-49 under construction north of Shreveport.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on February 05, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?

rte66man
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on February 05, 2013, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: rte66man on February 05, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?

rte66man
There are three types of bridge abutments, stub, half stub, and I forget. What changes with each one is how close you bring the fill on either side of the overpass, and thus bridge length. In this case, the design probably avoids the use of retaining walls altogether by keeping the fill slope below a certain maximum (1:2?), at the cost of a longer bridge. Someone must have done the math and figured out that the walls would have cost more (fill is relatively minor of a cost).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: amroad17 on February 06, 2013, 12:43:12 AM
Could it be for possible C/D lanes on US 71?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on February 07, 2013, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: rte66man on February 05, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?

rte66man

That's typical bridge construction in Louisiana south of I-10/I-12. Blame the topography.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on February 07, 2013, 06:13:41 AM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on February 07, 2013, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: rte66man on February 05, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?

rte66man

That's typical bridge construction in Louisiana south of I-10/I-12. Blame the topography.

But this is well north of there, north of I-20 even. I suppose being in the Red River flood plain may have something to do with it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 07, 2013, 12:01:06 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 07, 2013, 06:13:41 AM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on February 07, 2013, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: rte66man on February 05, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?

rte66man

That's typical bridge construction in Louisiana south of I-10/I-12. Blame the topography.

But this is well north of there, north of I-20 even. I suppose being in the Red River flood plain may have something to do with it.

Maybe also LADOTD has standardized it for the entire state. Lack of proper fill material for the embankments, perhaps?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 22, 2013, 10:12:23 PM
This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Vivian-moves-for-big-I-49-gains/-/144844/19048244/-/1iu1n8z/-/index.html) reports on the efforts of Vivian, LA to annex land adjacent to the I-49/LA 170 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Vivian,+LA&hl=en&ll=32.814401,-93.883967&spn=0.013976,0.019205&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&oq=vivian+la&t=h&hnear=Vivian,+Caddo,+Louisiana&z=16), and it contains some footage in and around the construction zone of the interchange:

Quote
Vivian is currently 5 miles away from the LA HWY 170 and I-49 interchange. Taylor says he and other officials are in active pursuit of the land around it. They're in contact with state legislators and have applied for a $1.5 million capital outlay grant for infrastructure ....
"If there is someone willing to sell property or go ahead and annex it. then, we can go through the process of annexing the highway," he said.
He's talking about the entire length of HWY 170, from Vivian to 1-49. Taylor says funds have been budgeted to upgrade the highway. "Particularly for access to larger delivery vehicles and trucks that would be coming to the industrial park," he said.




Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 07, 2013, 12:01:06 PM
Quote from: rte66man on February 05, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?
rte66man
Maybe also LADOTD has standardized it for the entire state. Lack of proper fill material for the embankments, perhaps?

The bridges at the I-49/LA 170 interchange appear to be of a similar length as the ones at the US 71 interchange.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on February 23, 2013, 03:23:14 PM
^^^

I still can't get over what it looks like in that area with I-49 construction now. That road (LA 170) was a tiny 2 lane road through some dense woods. I went to school around the corner from that interchange. It was surrounded by cotton fields. Hard to believe they can almost see an interstate across the highway from it now.
Title: Shreveport Inner City Connector Community Meetings Summary Released
Post by: Grzrd on February 24, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 20, 2012, 03:02:22 PM
Several new documents have been posted on the Inner City Connector website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html), including a No Build Alternative map (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/97/489-001-001-C087.pdf), which shows a LA 3132/ I-220 routing.

The Community Input Meetings (Round 2) December 11-13, 2012 Event Summary (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/106/Public%20Meeting%20Summary%20V6_Final%20Reduced.pdf) has been posted on the Inner City Connector website.  It contains some interesting information regarding opposition to the project.  First, from a small sample set of 238 choice cards, 149 cards (63%) expressed a preference for the No Build Alternative (page 22/184 of pdf):

Quote
Build or No-Build?
No-Build: 149 63%
Build: 71 30%
No Response: 18 8%

Also, an opposition flyer was distributed which proposed combining the No Build Alternative with the conversion of US 171/North Market Street into a business boulevard (pages 46-47/184 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqwoXN9B.jpg&hash=4b9dbd8ab4c55a462c6e62bea093870b104bfce3)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQeZpwr6.jpg&hash=95f6a5872cd50f418b7312f9b08dfab27ce960ce)

It is interesting that the project opponents took the extra step of adding the boulevardization of US 171 to the No Build Alternative.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on February 24, 2013, 05:57:58 PM
^ Isn't that supposed to be US 71 and not US 171?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2013, 08:06:37 PM
Sorry, but this is a non-starter.

First off, you still have the issue of what do you do with existing I-49 between I-220/LA 3132 and I-20. Does it stay in the Interstate system, or do the proponents of the "bypass" I-49 downgrade that to a surface street, too?

Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.

Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets).

Fourth....it's US 71, not US 171.

Fifth...where will the funds for this new "boulevard" along Market/Spring Streets come from?? Cutting from the extension of LA 3132??

Finally....the proposal reworks "Segment K" of the I-49 North proposal to a direct connection w/ I-220 at its interchange with US 71. Considering that Seg. K is fully funded and about to be constructed, how do you suppose that the state and the Feds will feel about shifting the alignment at the last moment??

One of these days, we will have to get over NIMBYism and commit to building things right. The current plan for the I-49 ICC is fine as is, and fills a badly needed gap. As much as I sympathize with those who would be displaced, sometimes you just have to allow for common sense.

Now, if you really do want an internim structure, then why not simply keep I-49 as is, but build a partial facility from the current I-49 North/I-220 interchange to near Milam St., then use Allen Avenue and Pete Harris Ave as an internim one-way couplet (similar to the Evangeline Thruway in Lafayette) to hold over until the final project is completed? You could still have I-220 and LA 3132 as a "bypass" facility, but there would be a far more suitable connection to downtown than this foolish "boulevard" proposal.

Sorry for ranting, but this is getting quite ridiculous.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on February 24, 2013, 08:56:24 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2013, 08:06:37 PM
Sorry, but this is a non-starter.

First off, you still have the issue of what do you do with existing I-49 between I-220/LA 3132 and I-20. Does it stay in the Interstate system, or do the proponents of the "bypass" I-49 downgrade that to a surface street, too?

Perhaps it could become I-149?

Quote
Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.

LA 3132 definitely needs a surfacing job, & upgraded to 70 MPH standards, but I think it & I-220 could handle the traffic.

Quote
Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets).

As long as the KCS has its mainline along the east shore of Cross Lake, nobody is allowed to complain or worry about haz-mat.

Quote
Fourth....it's US 71, not US 171.

Correct.

Quote
Fifth...where will the funds for this new "boulevard" along Market/Spring Streets come from?? Cutting from the extension of LA 3132??

Finally....the proposal reworks "Segment K" of the I-49 North proposal to a direct connection w/ I-220 at its interchange with US 71. Considering that Seg. K is fully funded and about to be constructed, how do you suppose that the state and the Feds will feel about shifting the alignment at the last moment??

These are the main reasons why there is no need to worry about the fate of the I-49 ICC.  It's gonna happen.

Quote
One of these days, we will have to get over NIMBYism and commit to building things right. The current plan for the I-49 ICC is fine as is, and fills a badly needed gap. As much as I sympathize with those who would be displaced, sometimes you just have to allow for common sense.

If the state was just taking over the land without compensating the owners, then sympathy would be warranted.  They will be paid, & probably live in a better neighborhood.

Quote
Now, if you really do want an internim structure, then why not simply keep I-49 as is, but build a partial facility from the current I-49 North/I-220 interchange to near Milam St., then use Allen Avenue and Pete Harris Ave as an internim one-way couplet (similar to the Evangeline Thruway in Lafayette) to hold over until the final project is completed? You could still have I-220 and LA 3132 as a "bypass" facility, but there would be a far more suitable connection to downtown than this foolish "boulevard" proposal.

Sorry for ranting, but this is getting quite ridiculous.
Sounds like a good idea...I don't know why they didn't plan for this.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on February 25, 2013, 12:01:15 PM
Uhhhhhhh are folks actually trying to build another Bruce Watkins fiasco in Louisiana?

Please, please don't do it Louisiana. It is a death trap waiting to happen.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 26, 2013, 11:12:00 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on February 25, 2013, 12:01:15 PM
Uhhhhhhh are folks actually trying to build another Bruce Watkins fiasco in Louisiana?

Please, please don't do it Louisiana. It is a death trap waiting to happen.



Not quite the same sitch as BWD, though, because there is I-220 and I-20 to Spring/Market (US 71 North) as a backup.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 26, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on February 24, 2013, 08:56:24 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2013, 08:06:37 PM
Sorry, but this is a non-starter.

First off, you still have the issue of what do you do with existing I-49 between I-220/LA 3132 and I-20. Does it stay in the Interstate system, or do the proponents of the "bypass" I-49 downgrade that to a surface street, too?

Perhaps it could become I-149?

Since it would connect between existing interstates, an even numbered 3di would be acceptable (I-249???), but still...

Quote
Quote
Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.

LA 3132 definitely needs a surfacing job, & upgraded to 70 MPH standards, but I think it & I-220 could handle the traffic.

Problem is, it wouldn't get much N/S through traffic, since most of the latter is designated solely towards downtown Shreveport. LA 3132 does get plenty of bypass traffic for folks going to/from Dallas from/to points southward (say, NOLA or Lafayette), but that doesn't count for I-220.

Quote
Quote
Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets).

As long as the KCS has its mainline along the east shore of Cross Lake, nobody is allowed to complain or worry about haz-mat.

The problem is that there is no road bypass alternative to I-220...and highway spillage would be a greater threat. I'm sure KCS has speed restrictions that would prevent any potential hazmat situations from getting out of hand.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on February 26, 2013, 02:57:57 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 26, 2013, 11:12:00 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on February 25, 2013, 12:01:15 PM
Uhhhhhhh are folks actually trying to build another Bruce Watkins fiasco in Louisiana?

Please, please don't do it Louisiana. It is a death trap waiting to happen.



Not quite the same sitch as BWD, though, because there is I-220 and I-20 to Spring/Market (US 71 North) as a backup.

There's I-435 to I-70 in Kansas City as a backup...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on February 26, 2013, 09:09:08 PM
Yes I-435 to I-70 is a backup.

My biggest worry is not traffic flow or routing.

Those lights are death traps.

I would even go so far as to do away with the lights and make them Interchanges but not allow I-49 north of I-435 and lower the speed limit to 45mph.
Title: I-49 South Coalition Launches New Website
Post by: Grzrd on March 07, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
Here is the Home Page (http://www.drive49south.org/home). The I-49 South (http://www.drive49south.org/I49-south) page illustrates their "regional vision" by expressing support for a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and a new link between Texas and Mississippi:

Quote
As we move forward, a larger goal of the coalition will be to link Texas and Mississippi along this southern route when I-49 South is completed.
To foster regional support and maximize the economic development potential of an uninterrupted, safe interstate system, the coalition will include in its plans a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles. This critical component will connect the Energy Corridor seamlessly to the West.

Their logo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2rjqsHJ.png&hash=8fcfeea8ef92b01f4d5ef4d1385f384b64d661e7)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2013, 01:32:04 PM
I'm assuming that this "new bridge" would be the long sought upgrade and replacement of the existing Calcasieu River I-10 bridge in Lake Charles, no??

And what exactly would this new "link" between Texas and Mississippi be??  Upgrading TX 12/LA 12/US 190 between Vidor and Baton Rouge?? The proposed "I-14" going through Alexandria and Vidalia/Natchez??

Either way, though, this is LONG overdue. If they can at least get the segments through Lafayette on to Morgan City built, I'd go for that in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 09, 2013, 08:05:42 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 28, 2011, 01:08:33 PM
NLCOG received a $250,000 HUD grant on March 18 to help develop a plan going forward for distressed neighborhoods of Allendale and Ledbetter Heights (NLCOG's grant application: http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/Choice_Neighborhoods_Grant_Final.pdf [map of Allendale and Ledbetter in relation to I-49/I-20 interchange is on page 67/95 of the application pdf])Here is reference to Inner-City Connector in HUD application:
Quote
 I-49 Inner City Connector Study: NLCOG has historically recognized the need to develop a connection between existing Interstate 49 (I-49) to the I-49 North interchange with Interstate-220. This 3.8 mile section was part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement developed in 1976 for the I-49 Corridor. The inner-city section was removed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Recently, the I-49 North route received environmental clearance, and NLCOG has received over $3million from the State to design the connection. NLCOG has taken a comprehensive view of the project area, and incorporated livability principles into the planning effort; an extensive public involvement plan has been developed. Public participation is fostered through multiple means of outreach, public meetings and survey tools. Stakeholder interviews, public input surveys and community meetings have been utilized to ensure the public has been engaged in the process of determining the feasibility of the plan. Far too often planners consider the public after planning and design has begun, with preconceived ideas. The intent of this extensive outreach has been to enter the project with "eyes wide open/a blank page” with a simple request "you tell us.” This method has become a model for other projects in the region.
[pages 7-8/95 of the HUD application pdf linked above]

This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/My-way-or-the-highway/-/144844/19231406/-/pl2eerz/-/index.html) reports that the Shreveport Housing Authority is proceeding with a development that may serve as an increased condemnation cost to the Inner City Connector:

Quote
When the Naomi D. Jackson Heights Housing Development was torn down in May 2006 demolition was supposed to make way for new low to moderate income housing.
Almost 7 years later, the only thing growing on the empty lot is grass.
Now the Shreveport Housing Authority plans to convert the green space to a housing development called the The Renaissance at Allendale for mixed-income families.
Authorities plan to break ground on the first phase as soon as October, using six and a half million dollars for the first 40 apartments. It will be funded primarily from private equity ....
However, the biggest potential roadblock could be a literal road: the Interstate 49 inner-city connector.
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments is still charting the connector's path. Some versions cut through this property, others put them side by side, and at least by-passes the lot completely.
Architect Kim Mitchell doubts the two developments could co-exist in Allendale.
"Within 100 feet -maybe 50 feet- we're gonna build an elevated expressway with traffic going 60 miles per hour through the center of our city?" Mitchell asks. "Does that sound like a place anybody wants to live?"

I suppose the private money is driving the project, but I still wonder if all of the local agencies are on the same page.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on March 11, 2013, 12:32:49 PM
Forgive this STUPID question but...when is driving supposed to be allowed on I-49 from the Arkansas line to wherever they link it in SHV?  And when will Arkansas finish connecting their segment to the state line?  (I"ve seen a video somewhere that looks like there's a LOT of interstate in north Caddo Parish now but am unsure just when it's supposed to open.)

Feel like a fool asking this out of all the posts on this thread, but I'd like to drive this, too, when possible...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 11, 2013, 12:51:45 PM
^ This map (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf) shows Segments A-K of I-49 North.  Segments B-I are supposed to have a joint grand opening at some point during the summer (Segment A will have to wait until Arkansas completes its state line section in 2015).  Segments J & K are scheduled to open in 2016.

I am guessing the opening will be in late summer because it looks like an upgrade project for LA 168 in Caddo Parish is scheduled to be let on May 8 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp). This project extends westward from I-49 to LA 1 and eastward from I-49 to US 71. LA 168 is at the interchange dividing Segments A and B and its I-49 to US 71 section will serve as part of a "TO I-49" routing until the 2015 opening of the Arkansas state line section.

I assume LaDOTD intends to complete the LA 168 project before it opens Segments B-I of I-49 North, which leads to my guess of a late summer opening. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on March 15, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 11, 2013, 12:51:45 PM
^ This map (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf) shows Segments A-K of I-49 North.  Segments B-I are supposed to have a joint grand opening at some point during the summer (Segment A will have to wait until Arkansas completes its state line section in 2015).  Segments J & K are scheduled to open in 2016.

I am guessing the opening will be in late summer because it looks like an upgrade project for LA 168 in Caddo Parish is scheduled to be let on May 8 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp). This project extends westward from I-49 to LA 1 and eastward from I-49 to US 71. LA 168 is at the interchange dividing Segments A and B and its I-49 to US 71 section will serve as part of a "TO I-49" routing until the 2015 opening of the Arkansas state line section.

I assume LaDOTD intends to complete the LA 168 project before it opens Segments B-I of I-49 North, which leads to my guess of a late summer opening.

Please accept my apologies for not saying this earlier, but thanks, Grzrd.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 15, 2013, 02:45:03 PM
Some very interesting developments now brewing concerning I-49 South, and the newly emerging coalition to finally build the project. This is from the KATC-TV (ABC Lafayette affiliate) website:

Quote

I-49 South Coalition Stakeholders' Meeting set for March 18 (http://www.katc.com/news/i-49-south-coalition-stakeholders-meeting-set-for-march-18/)

There will be an I-49 South Coalition Stakeholders' Meeting at the Patterson Civic Center at 3 pm on Monday, March 18th. The coalition to promotes, advocates, and identifies funding streams to ultimately complete I-49 South from I-49 in Lafayette to I-310 in Boutte. The meeting is open to the public, and they are encouraged to attend.

A secondary aspect of the project will be to fund and build a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and eventually link the new I-49 South with New Orleans through the GNO bridge.

The coalition is currently in the process of pitching these ideas to groups such as chambers, industrial groups, and other civic organizations so they can in turn recommend to their respective memberships.

So, apparently the idea is now to truncate I-49 South by constructing it only as far as I-310 near Boutte, then replacing I-310 to terminate at I-10 just west of NOLA's Louie Armstrong International Airport; and then wait until later to build the remaining segment to the Westbank Expressway (probably signed as the currently hidden I-910).

Also...the "new bridge" in Lake Charles is more than likely the rebuild and expansion of the existing I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge.

Snail's pace progress, but progress nevertheless.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 21, 2013, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 04:28:38 PM
One more mile (Segment K) to I-220.  :nod:

It's getting closer... The March 28 Agenda for the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") Transportation Policy Committee (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_03212013.pdf) includes an update presentation on the I-49 North/I-220 interchange by AFJM (http://www.afjmc.com/):

Quote
I-49 Update
1. I-49 North @ I-220 Interchange AFJM
2. I-49 Inner City Stage 1 Kent Rogers

I assume AFJM is doing the design work for the interchange.

If anybody is in the neighborhood on the 28th...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 22, 2013, 02:23:40 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 24, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
The Community Input Meetings (Round 2) December 11-13, 2012 Event Summary (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/106/Public%20Meeting%20Summary%20V6_Final%20Reduced.pdf) has been posted on the Inner City Connector website.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") Transportation Policy Committee has posted its January 17 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_011713.pdf). In that meeting, two representatives from Providence Engineering provided an update on the Inner City Connector.  Interestingly, they commented that traffic studies demonstate that one interchange would be preferable to two interchanges and that the public prefers the Hearne Avenue interchange over the Ford Street interchange:

Quote
Mr. Rogers introduced the members to Ms. Kerry Oriol, Providence Engineering's project manager for the I‐49 Inner City Connector study and Mr. Adam Davis of Providence Engineering .... Ms. Oriol ... Alternate 3, the eastern‐most route, received the most votes of the build options. She stated that route was developed to maintain community cohesion in the Allendale / Ledbetter Heights neighborhoods ... Mayor Walker asked if there was an interchange for Alternate 3. Mr. Davis stated it was proposed for either Ford or Hearne Avenue and the public chose Hearne Avenue. Mayor Walker asked how many total interchanges along the ICC, if built. Mr. Davis stated traffic data showed that 1 interchange was better than having 2 .... Mayor Glover asked about the interchanges, specifically at Ford, if they would help increase the potential for commerce within the community. He stated an interchange at Hearne would have no effect or impact on the neighborhoods. Ms. Oriol stated the costs of an interchange at Ford increase which makes it less feasible, but not ruled out. She further stated EPA was needed to help with the environmental justice input for the interchange.




Quote from: Grzrd on February 24, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
an opposition flyer was distributed which proposed combining the No Build Alternative with the conversion of US 171/North Market Street into a business boulevard (pages 46-47/184 of pdf) ...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQeZpwr6.jpg&hash=95f6a5872cd50f418b7312f9b08dfab27ce960ce)

The Providence Engineering reps also noted that the opposition flyer contained misinformation, particularly the notion that there would be no cost associated with the LA 3132/I-220 No Build Alternative:

Quote
Ms. Oriol also stated there is a group opposed to any of the alternates that caused some confusion at a couple of the previous meetings because of materials they passed out to attendees ... there is some misinformation floating around that there is no cost on the Inner Loop / I‐220 "no‐build"  option and in the ability to just re‐sign a roadway to make it an interstate .... Ms. Oriol stated the persons who handed out the confusing materials (Loop It, LLC) were mobilized by professionals to hand out the materials without understanding the implications. She further stated that everything they heard from the public post‐meeting was positive, that the public wanted the interstate connection. Mr. Jones asked if there would be a requirement to 6‐lane the no‐build option or if not required, would there be additional costs. Mr. Davis stated there could be the requirement to widen the road and possibly some median upgrades. Mayor Glover asked about the curve at Jefferson Paige Road to I‐20 and if any re‐alignment would be needed. Mr. Goza stated the Inner Loop would need to be rebuilt to handle interstate traffic and the interchange from I‐220 to I‐20 would need to be re‐aligned. Mr. Rogers stated there would likely also need to be improvements to LA 1 / US 71 to handle the increased traffic. Mr. Oriol stated these costs are key to the misinformation the no‐build group is spreading.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 22, 2013, 04:26:09 PM
Any group that confuses US 71 with US 171 can hardly be called "professional".

I sympathize with those who are attempting to protect their neighborhood, but this project needs to proceed.

I don't see why they just can't extend Pete Harris and Allen Avenues as an one-way couplet and connect that to I-49 as a frontage road system, and use that to connect with Ford Street.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 23, 2013, 11:56:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 07, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
Here is the Home Page (http://www.drive49south.org/home). The I-49 South (http://www.drive49south.org/I49-south) page illustrates their "regional vision" by expressing support for a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and a new link between Texas and Mississippi
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2013, 01:32:04 PM
this is LONG overdue. If they can at least get the segments through Lafayette on to Morgan City built, I'd go for that in a heartbeat.

This March 12 article (http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20130312/HURBLOG/130319896?p=2&tc=pg) reports that some representatives in communities along the corridor suspect that Lafayette's representatives do not fully support I-49 South:

Quote
Terrebonne Parish President Michel Claudet questioned whether Lafayette representatives are interested in the project, given that they already have I-49 and I-10 running through their borders.
St. Mary Parish President Paul Naquin echoed Claudet's concern.
"If we don't get Lafayette on board then we won't get anything, and I agree with (Claudet) wholeheartedly on that,"  Naquin said.
Allain said Lafayette is engaged, but a unified message is needed to draw more attention to the project.
"Let's see how serious Lafayette is once we put this coalition together,"  Allain said. "They seem to be engaged so far. This is the Energy Corridor. We've got the pipelines, we've got the infrastructure, we've got the offshore, we've got the population – we've got everything."

Is there substantial organized opposition to I-49 South in Lafayette?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: JON30 on March 28, 2013, 03:51:17 PM
I'm new to the forum but I wanted to give an update on the I-49 north construction.  I drove up LA1 today and saw a lot of progress.  They are pouring concrete for the on-ramp to I-49.  They were installing beams for the Old Mooringsport Rd(LA538) overpass and the overpass just north of there at Albany rd is complete. It looks like the only thing left to do is finish the overpass and pave from the overpass to LA1, including onramps.  I'm not sure about other parts of this section that are north of Albany road but most of that looks complete as well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 29, 2013, 09:12:35 AM
I also saw on LA 1 a couple of weeks ago that lines are across the highway to install traffic lights when the time comes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 29, 2013, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 23, 2013, 11:56:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 07, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
Here is the Home Page (http://www.drive49south.org/home). The I-49 South (http://www.drive49south.org/I49-south) page illustrates their "regional vision" by expressing support for a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and a new link between Texas and Mississippi
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2013, 01:32:04 PM
this is LONG overdue. If they can at least get the segments through Lafayette on to Morgan City built, I'd go for that in a heartbeat.

This March 12 article (http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20130312/HURBLOG/130319896?p=2&tc=pg) reports that some representatives in communities along the corridor suspect that Lafayette's representatives do not fully support I-49 South:

Quote
Terrebonne Parish President Michel Claudet questioned whether Lafayette representatives are interested in the project, given that they already have I-49 and I-10 running through their borders.
St. Mary Parish President Paul Naquin echoed Claudet's concern.
"If we don't get Lafayette on board then we won't get anything, and I agree with (Claudet) wholeheartedly on that,"  Naquin said.
Allain said Lafayette is engaged, but a unified message is needed to draw more attention to the project.
"Let's see how serious Lafayette is once we put this coalition together,"  Allain said. "They seem to be engaged so far. This is the Energy Corridor. We've got the pipelines, we've got the infrastructure, we've got the offshore, we've got the population – we've got everything."

Is there substantial organized opposition to I-49 South in Lafayette?

Not so much opposition as it has been so long of a wait, because the engineering studies that should have followed NEPA approval have been delayed due to a dispute between LADOTD and the Lafayette Consolidated Gov't over the degree of spacing between the elevated structures that would cross near downtown. The city wanted more open space between the freeway structures to allow for a more open environment, but the state and FHWA engineers hadn't adjusted that for a six-lane freeway..and they had to readjust the ROW takings slightly to compensate. Plus, while funding for corridor preservation continues, everything is on hold until LADOTD completes their toll study of funding the remainder of I-49 South.

The only organized opposition I see is from the neighborhoods adjorning the ROW, including Sterling Grove; they were the ones most pushing the Teche Ridge eastern bypass through St. Martin Parish back in 2001-2003. Most politicos and folk, though, still favor the project as is.

Maybe Mr. Naquin would like to actually get the opinion of Lafayette officials before shooting his mouth off about "lack of support" for I-49 South??
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 29, 2013, 10:31:26 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on March 29, 2013, 09:12:35 AM
I also saw on LA 1 a couple of weeks ago that lines are across the highway to install traffic lights when the time comes.

I noticed the same thing on US 71 north of Gilliam.

LA 538 is still closed west of US 71 (didn't have time to check construction), as is LA 169 west of 71 at Dixie.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 02, 2013, 02:40:19 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 29, 2013, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 23, 2013, 11:56:10 PM
Is there substantial organized opposition to I-49 South in Lafayette?
Not so much opposition as it has been so long of a wait .... The only organized opposition I see is from the neighborhoods adjorning the ROW...

Thanks for the Lafayette background.




Quote from: Grzrd on March 11, 2013, 12:51:45 PM
I am guessing the opening will be in late summer because it looks like an upgrade project for LA 168 in Caddo Parish is scheduled to be let on May 8 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp)... I assume LaDOTD intends to complete the LA 168 project before it opens Segments B-I of I-49 North, which leads to my guess of a late summer opening.

It looks like I was wrong with my guess insofar as using LA 168 as an indicator. After noticing that the LA 168 in Caddo Parish project has been moved back to August 28 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp), I emailed LaDOTD and asked if the delay indicated a later opening for I-49 North.  Their answer indicates that they are still looking at a "late summer to early fall" opening:

Quote
Approximately five miles remain to be constructed of the new 36-mile interstate system north of Shreveport to the Arkansas border.  DOTD anticipates opening 31 miles of I-49, between La. 1 to U.S. 71, by late summer to early fall of 2013. In December of 2012, Segment J (Martin Luther King Blvd. to La. 1) went to bid for $49.9 million and construction will begin in April of 2013 .... So to be more specific...at this time I do not anticipate any delays.

It is interesting that 26 of the 31 miles have been completed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 05, 2013, 10:07:00 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2013, 08:06:37 PM
Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.
Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets)

This TV video report (http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=316142) discusses the potential impact of the No Build Alternative on I-220, Cross Lake, and LA 3132:

Quote
The fifth option is to leave I 49 alone and improve I-220 and the interloop just as it is.
"Part of that facility is 20 years old. Some of it doesn't meet the current highway standards," Kent Rogers Executive Director NWLA Council of Governments said.
A major concern could be the Cross Lake bridge.
"It's not just as simple as adding a couple lanes. That's our drinking water below," Rogers said.

Plus a large part of the Interloop isn't up to highway standards and there is the potential to lose Linwood at 3132.
Leaving the map the way it is will be a very expensive option.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on April 05, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 05, 2013, 10:07:00 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2013, 08:06:37 PM
Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.
Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets)

This TV video report (http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=316142) discusses the potential impact of the No Build Alternative on I-220, Cross Lake, and LA 3132:

Quote
The fifth option is to leave I 49 alone and improve I-220 and the interloop just as it is.
"Part of that facility is 20 years old. Some of it doesn't meet the current highway standards," Kent Rogers Executive Director NWLA Council of Governments said.
A major concern could be the Cross Lake bridge.
"It's not just as simple as adding a couple lanes. That's our drinking water below," Rogers said.

Plus a large part of the Interloop isn't up to highway standards and there is the potential to lose Linwood at 3132.
Leaving the map the way it is will be a very expensive option.


I didn't think about losing the Linwood Ave. exit if they chose the no build option and had to beef up the Inner Loop, but they'd have to. It's a very close interchange to I-49 in both directions. I hate driving east on LA 3132 to get to I-49 south; as soon as the on ramp lane from Linwood shows up you have to scoot over fast to make it to 49. At least there isn't a lot of traffic coming from that exit.

As far as the rest of that becoming interstate standard, I'm sure the tight curve on I-220 south just before I-20 in West Shreveport is a big part. There are caution curve signs that suggest 45 mph I think. I would compare it to what I've seen pictures of on I-59 in Laurel, MS, although I haven't driven that one personally.

I really think they should just choose the least invasive of the ICC paths through those neighborhoods. It would take a lot, and I mean A LOT for those neighborhoods to come back. Other than some churches and community centers, most of that area is run down or boarded up houses as seen in the video. I-49 can't make it that much worse than it already is.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 07, 2013, 12:33:00 PM
New article today in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser updating progress on securing funding for the segment of I-49 South through Lafayette:

http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304060309

The article also features a business owner who once led the opposition to the Evangeline Thruway corridor in favor of the eastern Teche Ridge alignment through St. Martin Parish, but who has now ceded ground to reality and put his business up for sale. Strangely enough, he still has hopes that Teche Redge can be built along with I-49, probably as part of a full Lafayette loop.

Quote
For a decade or so, Ed Bulliard fought efforts to extend Interstate 49 through Lafayette along a path that roughly mirrors the Evangeline Thruway.

Bulliard was part of a vocal coalition that instead supported extending I-49 through St. Martin Parish along the Teche Ridge route.

But Bulliard, now 78 years old, is calling it quits. He put a "For Sale" sign in front of the business he's operated for 46 years on Evangeline Thruway and is awaiting an appraisal and offer from the government to buy his property.

"We're not being forced out, but we're between a rock and a hard place," he said recently.

[...]

In the meantime, property owners such as Bulliard are watching and waiting.

He still has some of his Teche Ridge signs in his business, pushing the other option. And he's watched some of his friends move some of his businesses out of the neighborhood.

But he still holds out hope that they'll build the Teche Ridge and I-49.

"Two roads are better than one," he said.


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: JON30 on April 09, 2013, 04:00:34 PM
The following was posted on the NLCOG website today.



"LATEST NEWS  April 9, 2013

I-49 North Section J ribbon cutting ceremony

LaDOTD invites you to a groundbreaking ceremony to announce the start of construction for I-49 North Segment J - Martin Luther King Boulevard to LA 1:

Friday, April 12, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
Christian Faith Worship Center Church International
5201 North Market Street
Shreveport, LA

Contact Susan Stafford at susan.stafford@la.gov or at 318-549-8402 for more information."


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 21, 2013, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 04:28:38 PM
One more mile (Segment K) to I-220.  :nod:
It's getting closer... The March 28 Agenda for the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") Transportation Policy Committee (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_03212013.pdf) includes an update presentation on the I-49 North/I-220 interchange by AFJM (http://www.afjmc.com/)

Received an email from NLCOG today with info from the AFJM presentation:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsnZ6H6X.jpg&hash=d26bfeedec0797126b534732852085143b9724d0)

Here's how the interchange will look if the Inner City Connector is built:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0ZA9Xgv.jpg&hash=9950b09d35a1bebc4b00100ee5a69ca599b27585)

And here's a look at the I-49/MLK interchange:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9mqmFJP.jpg&hash=1827c4a842889afd44dfd195c830d3cfd7fc1e96)




Quote from: Grzrd on April 02, 2013, 02:40:19 PM
Quote
DOTD anticipates opening 31 miles of I-49, between La. 1 to U.S. 71, by late summer to early fall of 2013.

Unfortunately, this slide suggests that the opening may not occur until winter:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxHUGSfy.jpg&hash=453e456164cbcd22255ea467f6b68e83657328b0)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on April 09, 2013, 05:05:24 PM
Quote from: JON30 on April 09, 2013, 04:00:34 PM
The following was posted on the NLCOG website today.



"LATEST NEWS  April 9, 2013

I-49 North Section J ribbon cutting ceremony

LaDOTD invites you to a groundbreaking ceremony to announce the start of construction for I-49 North Segment J - Martin Luther King Boulevard to LA 1:

Friday, April 12, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
Christian Faith Worship Center Church International
5201 North Market Street
Shreveport, LA

Contact Susan Stafford at susan.stafford@la.gov or at 318-549-8402 for more information."



So this is a Groundbreaking ceremony? I saw Ribbon Cutting and was thinking the road was being open to traffic.  :hmmm:
Title: I-49 Shields Coming to New Orleans?
Post by: Grzrd on April 13, 2013, 08:57:34 AM
This article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130413/NEWS01/304130029/Designs-49-project-begin) reports that Governor Jindal's Interstate 49 South Feasibility and Funding Task Force has recommended that I-49 shields be installed from the Superdome to the Westbank Expressway:

Quote
Jefferson Parish President John Young Jr. requested a commitment from the task force to push for completion of I-49 to the Port of Orleans, not just to I-310 on the west bank.
One goal for the interstate is economic development and that means completing the route to the port, Bill Fenstermaker of Lafayette said.
Part of that route already is complete and can be designated as I-49 with signs, Kam Movassaghi of Lafayette, a former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, said.
The task force voted unanimously to ask Gov. Bobby Jindal to start the process with federal highway officials to install signs from the Superdome to the Westbank Expressway designating the roadway as I-49.




Quote from: JON30 on April 09, 2013, 04:00:34 PM
The following was posted on the NLCOG website today.
"LATEST NEWS  April 9, 2013
I-49 North Section J ribbon cutting ceremony
LaDOTD invites you to a groundbreaking ceremony to announce the start of construction for I-49 North Segment J - Martin Luther King Boulevard to LA 1:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.

This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/I-49-Ground-Breaking/-/144844/19734206/-/gp56lvz/-/index.html) about the Segment J ground breaking ceremony indicates that the Segment K letting will be in December:

Quote
Bids for the last section "K" ... will start in December.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on April 13, 2013, 10:08:36 AM
My question is how much will the I-49 North folks help the I-49 South folks once I-49 North is complete (I have no doubt that the inter city connector will be done)? Completing I-49 in Arkansas and Southern Louisiana would help Shreveport and area. Not overly familiar with Louisiana politics but I do sense a bit of rancor between the two areas but I-49 should unite them into a common purpose.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on April 13, 2013, 12:07:03 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on April 13, 2013, 10:08:36 AM
My question is how much will the I-49 North folks help the I-49 South folks once I-49 North is complete (I have no doubt that the inter city connector will be done)? Completing I-49 in Arkansas and Southern Louisiana would help Shreveport and area. Not overly familiar with Louisiana politics but I do sense a bit of rancor between the two areas but I-49 should unite them into a common purpose.
I noticed that as well.  Even in culture, Northern LA is different from Southern LA, just as California is separated between Northern and Southern.  I have been to Houma a couple of times, and when I visited Shreveport it did not seem like I was in the same state.  For some apparent reason, that I could not explain, it felt much different.  Now that you mention this, maybe I sense what you feel.

Even in Texas, as big as it is, you can travel over 220 miles from Dallas to Houston, you do not get the feeling you are in another state.  Heck in even in South Texas where you have Mexican Americans over the cowboy types that the west was founded to the north, its even seems the same.  Brownsville, Laredo, Corpus Christi which ever city, it is all the same Texas as  the rest including San Antonio and even the Panhandle.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 13, 2013, 12:41:20 PM
Personally, I do think that once Shreveport does get the funds for the I-49 ICC, I do think they will be more generous with supporting finishing I-49 South. Considering that they got their section built for free, while I-49 South will probably have to be tolled to even get finished within the next 2 generations, they should count their blessings.

I do like the fact that the Acadiana delegation is now pushing hard for the full completion to the Westbank Expressway, not truncating it at I-310 as some reports had suggested. And, dropping actual I-49 shields on the WBX isn't a bad sign of commitment, either.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on April 13, 2013, 01:04:26 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 13, 2013, 12:41:20 PM
Personally, I do think that once Shreveport does get the funds for the I-49 ICC, I do think they will be more generous with supporting finishing I-49 South. Considering that they got their section built for free, while I-49 South will probably have to be tolled to even get finished within the next 2 generations, they should count their blessings.

I do like the fact that the Acadiana delegation is now pushing hard for the full completion to the Westbank Expressway, not truncating it at I-310 as some reports had suggested. And, dropping actual I-49 shields on the WBX isn't a bad sign of commitment, either.
Ditto there.  I  even think signing the West Bank Expressway as I- 49 would get locals charged up about the future project and get those politicians to get off their butts and do something!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on April 13, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Agree that it is not fair that the northern end will be built toll free but the southern end will get tolls. Does Louisiana do GARVEE bonds? Putting I-49 on the signs gives folks visual proof that I-49 is here already for southern Louisiana. My biggest want for I-49 is better evacuation routing for hurricanes. Not a matter of if a another hurricane will hit Louisiana but when. I-49 upgrades could help get ten of thousands more folks out of the way of a hurricane.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 13, 2013, 12:41:20 PM
Personally, I do think that once Shreveport does get the funds for the I-49 ICC, I do think they will be more generous with supporting finishing I-49 South. Considering that they got their section built for free, while I-49 South will probably have to be tolled to even get finished within the next 2 generations, they should count their blessings.

I do like the fact that the Acadiana delegation is now pushing hard for the full completion to the Westbank Expressway, not truncating it at I-310 as some reports had suggested. And, dropping actual I-49 shields on the WBX isn't a bad sign of commitment, either.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 13, 2013, 03:49:30 PM
More on the push for I-49 South, this time from the Acadiana bureau of the Baton Rouge Advocate:

http://theadvocate.com/home/5691777-125/more-talks-friday-in-i-49

Quote

More talks Friday in I-49 South project (http://theadvocate.com/home/5691777-125/more-talks-friday-in-i-49)


LAFAYETTE - A task force dedicated to finding money to complete I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans met Friday after a two-year hiatus, spurred by what Lafayette City-Parish President Joey Durel said seems to be a renewed interest in the project.

Durel, chairman of the state task force, said he had held off convening the group because the road project seemed so far from becoming a reality that, "I didn't know if there was a purpose for us to meet."

He noted Friday that there have been encouraging developments in recent months, despite the fact that there has yet to be any funding source identified for a project estimated at more than $5 billion.

The state Department of Transportation and Development is planning to start the design phase of the mostly elevated 6-mile stretch through Lafayette that would roughly follow Evangeline Thruway.

DOTD is also studying the feasibility of using tolls to partially fund I-49 South, and the agency plans to report its finding to legislators in August, said Bill Oliver, the DOTD administrator for the Acadiana region.

Durel said a frank discussion about tolls is critical to moving the project forward because prospects are dim for federal or state funding.

State Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, said business leaders and elected officials along the I-49 South corridor must make the project the region's top priority if it has any chance of securing major funding.

Allain is the key figure behind the recently formed I-49 South Coalition, which is working to pull together politicians, business and community leaders, and anyone else who has an interest in seeing I-49 South built.

"We are trying to create a big enough coalition that, politically, it can't be ignored," Allain said. "... The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and we want to create something that squeaks pretty loud."

The renewed push to complete I-49 South could also find a more receptive audience in the New Orleans area than past efforts, said Jefferson Parish President John Young Jr., who attended Friday's task force meeting.

"My feeling is that the mood has changed," he said.

The completion of I-49 South involves mainly upgrades along U.S. 90.

Several smaller projects to build new intersections and frontage roads have brought portions of U.S. 90 up to interstate standards, but major obstacles remain, including the elevated stretch through Lafayette and final leg into the New Orleans area.

Strangely enough, the Advocate article didn't mention the proposal to drop I-49 shields on the elevated Westbank Expressway segment...yet that could explain the new levels of excitement from the greater NOLA area.

Plus...the news that design work will soon recommence on the I-49 Connector segment is a good sign. Will that include the CSS/Joint Use study as well, I wonder?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on April 13, 2013, 09:15:36 PM
It's mentioned here!
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130413/NEWS01/304130029/Designs-49-project-begin
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on April 15, 2013, 10:22:27 AM
Why do they want to elevate the section in Lafayette? (from 1-10 to the airport) Noise? Appearance? Access thru the neighborhoods? 

Mark
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on April 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
I was thinking it was for flooding concerns but I will defer to the locals.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 15, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
Quote from: pctech on April 15, 2013, 10:22:27 AM
Why do they want to elevate the section in Lafayette? (from 1-10 to the airport) Noise? Appearance? Access thru the neighborhoods? 

Mark

The elevated segments run in the "median" between the one-way couplet of the Evangeline Thruway; that's mostly to maintain access to/from both sides of the proposed freeway. The middle section recurves briefly away from and then back to the Evangeline Thruway to serve the downtown area; that segment will be mostly at-grade, but with underpasses serving all the major cross streets (and parallel grade seperations at the adjacent rail crossings at Johnston and Second/Third Street interchanges.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on April 15, 2013, 01:14:32 PM
The existing Evangeline thru-way would became the service roads for the freeway?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 15, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: pctech on April 15, 2013, 01:14:32 PM
The existing Evangeline thru-way would became the service roads for the freeway?

Yes, that is correct....The Thruway would serve local traffic while the Connector freeway would handle the main through traffic.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on April 15, 2013, 03:21:37 PM
Too bad we didn't do that with I-10 thru Baton Rouge!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on April 15, 2013, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 15, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: pctech on April 15, 2013, 01:14:32 PM
The existing Evangeline thru-way would became the service roads for the freeway?

Yes, that is correct....The Thruway would serve local traffic while the Connector freeway would handle the main through traffic.

<rant> Elevated freeways through a densely populated urban area are a blight.  Fort Worth and Oklahoma City have torn theirs down.  Ask NOLA residents what they think about them, especially those near Claiborne Av. </rant>

rte66man
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 15, 2013, 04:47:39 PM
Quote from: rte66man on April 15, 2013, 04:28:31 PM
<rant> Elevated freeways through a densely populated urban area are a blight.  Fort Worth and Oklahoma City have torn theirs down.  Ask NOLA residents what they think about them, especially those near Claiborne Av. </rant>
rte66man

FWIW this Daily Advertiser editorial (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130414/OPINION/304140007/What-We-Think-Interstate-49-connector-net-win-city) opines that Lafayette has learned lessons from Claiborne Avenue:

Quote
When Interstate 49 finally makes its way through Lafayette, some will benefit and some will not. But when it's all added up, the elevated highway known as the "connector"  will represent a net win for the city ....
when it's done wrong, it can be devastating, as exemplified by Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans.
In planning the downtown route, city leaders have taken Claiborne Avenue as the model for everything they want to avoid in Lafayette
, Conque said.
Although some neighborhoods and businesses will be negatively affected by the new road, Conque said great care has been taken to minimize the damage to the area and to preserve as much of the local landscape as possible.
The highway will deviate from the Evangeline Thruway track to avoid negative effects to St. Genevieve Catholic Church, which was established in 1929.
To avoid casting a permanent shadow on any one area, the road will be 18 feet in height, allowing the shadows to move with the changing position of the sun.
There will be three exits leading from the connector to the downtown area, so merchants along the path can still look forward to business from passing motorists. There will also be a fourth exit at Kaliste Saloom Road ....

At the very least Lafayette is aware of the Claiborne Avenue problem.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2013, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: rte66man on April 15, 2013, 04:28:31 PMFreeways through a densely populated urban area may be thought of as a blight, especially by locals.
FTFY. Not always true. Also, depressed freeways can be just as bad.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 16, 2013, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: rte66man on April 15, 2013, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 15, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: pctech on April 15, 2013, 01:14:32 PM
The existing Evangeline thru-way would became the service roads for the freeway?

Yes, that is correct....The Thruway would serve local traffic while the Connector freeway would handle the main through traffic.

<rant> Elevated freeways through a densely populated urban area are a blight.  Fort Worth and Oklahoma City have torn theirs down.  Ask NOLA residents what they think about them, especially those near Claiborne Av. </rant>

rte66man

Ummm....not necessarily.

First off, the Claiborne Elevated was built in the 1970's, when there was little concern with context sensitive design or even how a freeway would impact a neighborhood. Today, it is standard procedure to include Context Sensitive Solutions design whenever a proposed highway goes through a sensitive area.

Secondly...Lafayette is not Fort Worth or Oklahoma City, where alternative freeways already existed when they tore down those elevated segments.

Third.....the I-49 Connector was planned and designed with the provision that the affected neighborhoods would be mitigated. A plan to include major asthetic modifications to the freeway ROW and surrounding areas was already committed to during the enviromental process, and that will be carried out during the upcoming design process. In fact, the Univ. of Louisiana-Lafayette group Community Design Workshop had already drawn up a major plan of integrated design, the "Blue Book", that has been fully integrated into the approved and mandated design plan by LADOTD through the Record of Decision. Plus, mitigation of the negative impacts for the most sensitive neighborhoods affected by the project (including the adjacent Sterling Grove Historic District) are also covered by the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement that was included in the ROD.

It should also be noted that the central portion of the Connector freeway would deviate from the Evangeline Thruway median and recurve closer to downtown, thusly avoiding more significant impacts to neighborhoods fronting the Thruway, and also providing closer and more effective access to the downtown business district.

A point of correction, though: there will be only two direct exits to downtown (Second/Third Streets and Johnston Street); the third exit (Surrey Street/E. University Avenue) will primarily serve ULL and the airport, not downtown. There's also a fourth exit at Willow Street just before I-10 for local access to Northgate Mall and parts of North Lafayette, and the Kaliste Saloom Road exit furtherest south.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on April 16, 2013, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 16, 2013, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: rte66man on April 15, 2013, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 15, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: pctech on April 15, 2013, 01:14:32 PM
The existing Evangeline thru-way would became the service roads for the freeway?

Yes, that is correct....The Thruway would serve local traffic while the Connector freeway would handle the main through traffic.

<rant> Elevated freeways through a densely populated urban area are a blight.  Fort Worth and Oklahoma City have torn theirs down.  Ask NOLA residents what they think about them, especially those near Claiborne Av. </rant>

rte66man

Ummm....not necessarily.

<snip>

Secondly...Lafayette is not Fort Worth or Oklahoma City, where alternative freeways already existed when they tore down those elevated segments.

<snip>

In both cases, the "alternative" freeways were expressly developed to take the place of the elevated sections. In the case of OKC, the elevated portion will be replaced with a boulevard.

rte66man
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 16, 2013, 01:15:02 PM
am I the only one who likes elevated freeways?

perhaps I'm biased because they tend to be fairly old, and thus exploring them yields a greater proportion of finding neat old infrastructure.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on April 16, 2013, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: rte66man on April 15, 2013, 04:28:31 PM
<rant>Ask NOLA residents what they think about them, especially those near Claiborne Av. </rant>

rte66man

<rant>Yeah, you would find that people who actually live in the area impacted by the Claiborne Expressway want the highway to stay or would rather it be replaced by a modern expressway with better access. The movement to have it torn down is being spearheaded by private developers and a small number of highly vocal "new urbanists" who don't even live in the area (probably not even from the city). The only group of people who have expressed desire for a tear down that live near the area would be VCPORA and let's say that they are known for being a thorn in the rest of the city's ass.</rant>

..back on topic, elevated freeways through an urban area can be done right for a price. New Orleans has two of them that are doing just fine.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
Hopefully the elevated freeway has shoulders on both sides.

Just thinking outside the box but would it be better to have the freeway goes below the current grade, similar to Houston's South Freeway?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 05:06:08 PM
Quote from: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
Hopefully the elevated freeway has shoulders on both sides.

Just thinking outside the box but would it be better to have the freeway goes below the current grade, similar to Houston's South Freeway?

Maybe, maybe not.  One must also remember that in south Louisiana that the water table is often just barely below the surface.  The is a very good reason why I-10 is elevated through New Orleans and not in a trench.  It's the very same reason why the cemeteries are above ground.  Dig down a couple of shovelfuls of soil and you get water.  Lots and lots of water.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 05:31:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 05:06:08 PM
Quote from: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
Hopefully the elevated freeway has shoulders on both sides.

Just thinking outside the box but would it be better to have the freeway goes below the current grade, similar to Houston's South Freeway

Maybe, maybe not.  One must also remember that in south Louisiana that the water table is often just barely below the surface.  The is a very good reason why I-10 is elevated through New Orleans and not in a trench.  It's the very same reason why the cemeteries are above ground.  Dig down a couple of shovelfuls of soil and you get water.  Lots and lots of water.

Lafayette's elevation isnt as low as New Orleans. Just to the north, in the Carencro area, there are hills.

Jefferson St. dips below to a railroad similiar to New Orleans the one between the 610 spilt and Metarie Rd exit. I wonder if it floods after heavy rains like the one in New Orleans.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on April 16, 2013, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 16, 2013, 01:15:02 PM
am I the only one who likes elevated freeways?

perhaps I'm biased because they tend to be fairly old, and thus exploring them yields a greater proportion of finding neat old infrastructure.

I like them from a visiting standpoint but I wouldn't want to live next to one. Kind of like Hoover Dam.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 16, 2013, 10:40:23 PM
Quote from: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 05:31:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 05:06:08 PM
Quote from: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
Hopefully the elevated freeway has shoulders on both sides.

Just thinking outside the box but would it be better to have the freeway goes below the current grade, similar to Houston's South Freeway

Maybe, maybe not.  One must also remember that in south Louisiana that the water table is often just barely below the surface.  The is a very good reason why I-10 is elevated through New Orleans and not in a trench.  It's the very same reason why the cemeteries are above ground.  Dig down a couple of shovelfuls of soil and you get water.  Lots and lots of water.

Lafayette's elevation isnt as low as New Orleans. Just to the north, in the Carencro area, there are hills.

Jefferson St. dips below to a railroad similiar to New Orleans the one between the 610 spilt and Metarie Rd exit. I wonder if it floods after heavy rains like the one in New Orleans.

The Jefferson St. underpass of the UP/BNSF railway has pumps to drain away water during flood events.

A depressed/cut-and-cover option was very heavily considered for the I-49 Connector project, but was rejected ultimately due to the questionable hydralics, the closure of too many cross streets, and the need to maintain the freeway as a hurricane evacuation route for Lafayette and points to the south and east.  Also, there would have to be a sharp transition between the elevated and depressed sections from around Willow St. to Mudd Avenue due to the proximity of a coulee (small bayou) that runs parallel to a railroad spur of the L&D RR that crosses the Thruway just south of Willow Street. Keeping the freeway elevated made much more sense under present circumstances.

Those "hills" are in fact the Coteau/Teche Ridge which divides the generally flat plain from the Atchafalaya/Mississippi floodplain.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 16, 2013, 10:43:40 PM
Quote from: rte66man on April 16, 2013, 11:55:43 AM
In both cases, the "alternative" freeways were expressly developed to take the place of the eleveated sections. In the case of OKC, the eleveate portion will be replaced with a boulevard.

rte66man

Except that in Lafayette, unless you plan on building either Teche Ridge or the LMX western loop, there really *IS* no alternative.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: RPParish on April 17, 2013, 10:32:35 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 16, 2013, 10:40:23 PM
Quote from: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 05:31:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 05:06:08 PM
Quote from: RPParish on April 16, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
Hopefully the elevated freeway has shoulders on both sides.

Just thinking outside the box but would it be better to have the freeway goes below the current grade, similar to Houston's South Freeway

Maybe, maybe not.  One must also remember that in south Louisiana that the water table is often just barely below the surface.  The is a very good reason why I-10 is elevated through New Orleans and not in a trench.  It's the very same reason why the cemeteries are above ground.  Dig down a couple of shovelfuls of soil and you get water.  Lots and lots of water.

Lafayette's elevation isnt as low as New Orleans. Just to the north, in the Carencro area, there are hills.

Jefferson St. dips below to a railroad similiar to New Orleans the one between the 610 spilt and Metarie Rd exit. I wonder if it floods after heavy rains like the one in New Orleans.

The Jefferson St. underpass of the UP/BNSF railway has pumps to drain away water during flood events.

A depressed/cut-and-cover option was very heavily considered for the I-49 Connector project, but was rejected ultimately due to the questionable hydralics, the closure of too many cross streets, and the need to maintain the freeway as a hurricane evacuation route for Lafayette and points to the south and east.  Also, there would have to be a sharp transition between the elevated and depressed sections from around Willow St. to Mudd Avenue due to the proximity of a coulee (small bayou) that runs parallel to a railroad spur of the L&D RR that crosses the Thruway just south of Willow Street. Keeping the freeway elevated made much more sense under present circumstances.

Those "hills" are in fact the Coteau/Teche Ridge which divides the generally flat plain from the Atchafalaya/Mississippi floodplain.


Im sure they're hydraulic pumps that can handle the task but I doubt LaDOTD could design them. I would prefer DOTD look at Dutch engineers to design these but Im sure the "Buy American Clause" prohibits this.

Only way I see to maintain the hurricane route is to build the Lafayette Loop before the 49 goes thru downtown. Easier said than done.

Im looking at the coulee and where does it flow to on the west side of Evangeline Thruway? Seems as though is goes underground. Could the water be drained away from the interstate 49?

I think they jumped the gun by throwing out the idea. It may have taken extra planning, more time and a little more engineering but it could be done. Not sure how different the cost would be but elevated freeways aren't cheap and are often built and never upgraded due to cost. The Westbank Expressway might be the best the state has and is average at best.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on April 17, 2013, 12:30:07 PM
Given Lafeyette's low water table I would think a depressed roadway would be hard to do.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on April 17, 2013, 12:36:28 PM
Coulees in Louisiana?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on April 17, 2013, 12:36:58 PM
I like overhead freeways too.  The Embarcadero was a work of art.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 17, 2013, 08:20:59 PM
Quote from: RPParish on April 17, 2013, 10:32:35 AM
Im sure they're hydraulic pumps that can handle the task but I doubt LaDOTD could design them. I would prefer DOTD look at Dutch engineers to design these but Im sure the "Buy American Clause" prohibits this.

Since I-49 would be a federal project, the federal government as well as the state would fund any upgrade of the pumps. Actally, the pumps at the Jefferson St. underpass were built and are maintained by Lafayette Consolidated Government, not LADOTD, since Jefferson St. there is not part of the state system.  Also, the pumps are pretty old; I'd assume that if the freeway was built, they would be upgraded.

QuoteOnly way I see to maintain the hurricane route is to build the Lafayette Loop before the 49 goes thru downtown. Easier said than done.

Not doable, because the Lafayette Metro Expressway west loop or Teche Ridge (East) Alternative would require at least 6 years of study, not to mention NEPA approval and engineering, and would not attract anywhere near enough traffic from the existing Evangeline Thruway to be self sufficient.

QuoteI'm looking at the coulee and where does it flow to on the west side of Evangeline Thruway? Seems as though is goes underground. Could the water be drained away from the interstate 49?

No, it doesn't flow on the west side of the Thruway; it runs parallel to and on the north side of the L&DRR spur where it crosses the Thruway just south of the Donlon Avenue/Walmart entrance road. It's not particularly deep, so there would be a major issue with bypassing the flow away via pumping.

QuoteI think they jumped the gun by throwing out the idea. It may have taken extra planning, more time and a little more engineering but it could be done. Not sure how different the cost would be but elevated freeways aren't cheap and are often built and never upgraded due to cost. The Westbank Expressway might be the best the state has and is average at best.

The impact of closing off major cross streets and more directly impacting Sterling Grove, especially the St. Genevive Catholic Church which directly fronts the northbound roadway of Evangeline Thruway, would undermine any benefit of avoiding the visual impact. In any case, the selected alignment's deviation from the thruway from Mudd Ave. to near 12th St/Taft St. effectively elimanates any option other than the elevated freeway.

The WBX doesn't have anywhere near the asthetic design coverage that the I-49 Connector will get...you're comparing apples and oranges here. And sometimes, the cheapest option isn't necessarily the best.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 17, 2013, 08:34:09 PM
This paragraph from the I-49 Connector ROD specifically addresses why the depressed/'cut-and-cover" options were ultimately rejected:

QuoteRegarding the depressed freeway, this alternative was considered by FHWA and LaDOTD as marginally feasible hydraulically. As stated in the FEIS, (Pages 2-30 to 2-31), "Upon review of the study by state and federal agencies, it was decided that while the depressed freeway may be technically feasible as indicated by the hydraulic calculations, several issues with which a level of uncertainty regarding proper performance would exist. It was concluded that these issues, coupled with the importance of the I-49 freeway as a hurricane evacuation route, were enough to make a decision that the depressed alternative for the core area should be removed from consideration."  Thus, the depressed alternative was deemed not safe or practical for the project and was rejected from further study.

Title: Re: I49 in LA: I-49 South Update...RTP posted for Design/Build
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 30, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Oh, to the BOOM!!!

The LADOTD just posted today a Notice of Intent to procure a Design-Build contract to upgrade the segment of US 90 from the Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road intersection to the southern terminus of the Ambassador Caffery Parkway.

The proposal would solicit a contractor to do both the design and construction of this segment of I-49 South, which would include the following:

1) An interchange/grade seperation at Albertsons'  Parkway/St. Nazaire Road;
2) One-way access/frontage roads from Albertsons' Parkway to the proposed Ambassador Caffery Pkwy interchange;
3) Widening of mainline US 90/I-49 South to six lanes (2x3, with reconstruction/widening of the existing UP/BNSF railroad overpass);
4) New grade-seperated crossings of the UP/BNSF rail line for the new frontage roads;
5) Incorporating LA 182 into the frontage road system for easier and more logical access/transition with US 90/Future I-49.

According to LADOTD, they expect to let the contract for the design/build by no later than January of next year. The total cost for this phase of I-49 South is listed at $75-80 million. The Ambassador Caffery interchange is not included in this, as it will be done under a seperate contract.

The pdf file announcement can be found here:

http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/contractservices/H.010620/I-49_NOI_%28May_1_2013%29.pdf

Finally!!! The end of the beginning, I hope.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on April 30, 2013, 08:01:34 PM
Good catch and great news. One project at a time. I have no doubt that it won't get done as the political will is there for it to get done. Once I-49 north gets done (including ICC) I see it as really kicking into gear. Of course I try to be optimistic. I see I-49 happening long before I-69 in LA.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 30, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Oh, to the BOOM!!!

The LADOTD just posted today a Notice of Intent to procure a Design-Build contract to upgrade the segment of US 90 from the Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road intersection to the southern terminus of the Ambassador Caffery Parkway.

The proposal would solicit a contractor to do both the design and construction of this segment of I-49 South, which would include the following:

1) An interchange/grade seperation at Albertsons'  Parkway/St. Nazaire Road;
2) One-way access/frontage roads from Albertsons' Parkway to the proposed Ambassador Caffery Pkwy interchange;
3) Widening of mainline US 90/I-49 South to six lanes (2x3, with reconstruction/widening of the existing UP/BNSF railroad overpass);
4) New grade-seperated crossings of the UP/BNSF rail line for the new frontage roads;
5) Incorporating LA 182 into the frontage road system for easier and more logical access/transition with US 90/Future I-49.

According to LADOTD, they expect to let the contract for the design/build by no later than January of next year. The total cost for this phase of I-49 South is listed at $75-80 million. The Ambassador Caffery interchange is not included in this, as it will be done under a seperate contract.

The pdf file announcement can be found here:

http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/contractservices/H.010620/I-49_NOI_%28May_1_2013%29.pdf

Finally!!! The end of the beginning, I hope.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 01, 2013, 01:37:09 PM
And, right on cue, here comes the detractors who still dream for the Teche Ridge Eastern Bypass through St. Martin Parish for I-49 South:

Quote
There's life yet in I-49 route (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130501/NEWS01/305010020/There-s-life-yet-49-route)
Resolution could revive Teche Ridge bypass


As momentum builds to complete Interstate 49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans, a state legislator wants to resurrect the less costly Teche Ridge route that would bypass Lafayette.

State Rep. Terry Landry, D-Lafayette, introduced a study resolution last week asking the state Department of Transportation and Development and the House and Senate committees on transportation, highways and public works to study the feasibility and costs of the Teche Ridge route as an alternate to I-49 South. The findings of the study would be reported during the 2014 regular legislative session.

The section of I-49 South planned through Lafayette will cost about $1 billion to build. The remainder, to the west bank of New Orleans, will cost $5 billion to $6 billion.

Neither the state nor the federal government has set aside anything more than a fraction of that amount.

Alternate routes, including Teche Ridge, were considered but rejected years ago in favor of the current plan that roughly follows Evangeline Thruway from the current terminus of I-49 in Lafayette to past Lafayette Regional Airport.

The section that skirts downtown Lafayette would be elevated and is the costliest section.

"Since 1992, we've been studying and studying and studying,"  Kam Movassaghi, a former state DOTD secretary and member of the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce's I-49 Task Force, said.

"We had looked at every alternative route. We looked at going to the east. We looked at going to the west. We looked at going through the center, and then ultimately, the choice was to go down Evangeline Thruway."

Landry said Tuesday that he supports the completion of I-49, but if it's so costly it won't ever be funded, it's time to consider alternatives that are not as expensive.

"This study is not going to stop the project or initiatives. It just says if we can't recognize the $1 billion, maybe we should look at another route,"  Landry said.

"I-49 is critical to our economy, it's critical to hurricane evacuation, and I think we ought to be looking at alternative routes."

State Rep. Mike Huval, R-Breaux Bridge, who co-sponsored the resolution, said the lack of funding is preventing the completion of I-49 from Iberia Parish to Interstate 10 in Lafayette.

The Teche Ridge route may be "a quicker solution and a better opportunity and bring about more economic development for St. Martin and Lafayette parishes,"  he said.

Movassaghi said a study cannot be completed in a year. Such studies take five to 10 years and cost several million dollars.

The Federal Highway Administration granted the current proposed route a record of decision, which means "every requirement has been satisfied,"  including environmental, social and economic requirements, he said.

State Sen. Brett Allain, R-Franklin, recently began organizing a nonprofit coalition of stakeholders interested in completing I-49 South along the existing proposed route.

The group is raising money to hire a full-time employee to lobby for the project and consider alternate funding sources.

Fortunately, this won't fly any more than when it was first proposed in 2001. Teche Ridge would still cost nearly $700-800 million to build, would require nearly 5 years of studies before even considering design and construction, would not remove any traffic from the existing Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor, and would run directly contrary to the federal statutes the clearly deleniate the I-49 South corridor as running along the Evangeline Thruway and US 90 corridors. Plus, yesterday's announcement of LADOTD initiating a Design/Build contract for US 90 from Broussard south to Ambassador Caffery Parkway basically blows the argument for Teche Ridge out of the water.

I wouldn't mind incorporating Teche Ridge into a future full Lafayette Outer Loop, along with the Lafayette Metro Expressway (LMX)..but NOT until the Connector and US 90 is completed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on May 01, 2013, 01:45:04 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 30, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Oh, to the BOOM!!!

The LADOTD just posted today a Notice of Intent to procure a Design-Build contract to upgrade the segment of US 90 from the Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road intersection to the southern terminus of the Ambassador Caffery Parkway.

The proposal would solicit a contractor to do both the design and construction of this segment of I-49 South, which would include the following:

1) An interchange/grade seperation at Albertsons'  Parkway/St. Nazaire Road;
2) One-way access/frontage roads from Albertsons' Parkway to the proposed Ambassador Caffery Pkwy interchange;
3) Widening of mainline US 90/I-49 South to six lanes (2x3, with reconstruction/widening of the existing UP/BNSF railroad overpass);
4) New grade-seperated crossings of the UP/BNSF rail line for the new frontage roads;
5) Incorporating LA 182 into the frontage road system for easier and more logical access/transition with US 90/Future I-49.

According to LADOTD, they expect to let the contract for the design/build by no later than January of next year. The total cost for this phase of I-49 South is listed at $75-80 million. The Ambassador Caffery interchange is not included in this, as it will be done under a seperate contract.

The pdf file announcement can be found here:

http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/contractservices/H.010620/I-49_NOI_%28May_1_2013%29.pdf

Finally!!! The end of the beginning, I hope.


Awesome!

Just a side note, I looked at google street maps for that interchange now to revive my memory of what it looked like. The LA 182 exit still showed older green filled Louisiana shields. Are those still there? I seem to remember that maybe those signs were clearview when I drove through there about 4 years ago so the shields definitely would have been white on the BGS
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on May 01, 2013, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 01, 2013, 01:37:09 PM
the federal statutes the clearly deleniate the I-49 South corridor as running along the Evangeline Thruway and US 90 corridors.
[citation needed]

All I see is "United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans", which is physically impossible to build. And does this mean it must cross the Huey Long Bridge and follow Jefferson-Claiborne?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 01, 2013, 06:53:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 01, 2013, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 01, 2013, 01:37:09 PM
the federal statutes the clearly deleniate the I-49 South corridor as running along the Evangeline Thruway and US 90 corridors.
[citation needed]

All I see is "United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans", which is physically impossible to build. And does this mean it must cross the Huey Long Bridge and follow Jefferson-Claiborne?

Well...the Westbank Expressway is designated as US 90 Business, and I'm guessing that the I-49 designation also includes the I-49 Lafayette Connector, which does incorporate US 90 where it runs on the Evangeline Thruway.

And, I'd hardly consider it impossible to build, since most of the US 90 corridor is already either completed or being upgraded to Interstate standards...at least, between Lafayette/New Iberia and Raceland. The Raceland to NOLA segment will  have to be built mostly on new alignment (and elevated), but that's a different issue.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on May 01, 2013, 06:56:14 PM
You're missing the point. US 90 turns west in Lafayette, with US 167 on the final bit to I-49. So if that's allowed, there's no legal reason a different connection such as a bypass would not be.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 01, 2013, 06:59:01 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on May 01, 2013, 01:45:04 PM
Awesome!

Just a side note, I looked at google street maps for that interchange now to revive my memory of what it looked like. The LA 182 exit still showed older green filled Louisiana shields. Are those still there? I seem to remember that maybe those signs were clearview when I drove through there about 4 years ago so the shields definitely would have been white on the BGS.

Considering that that segment of US 90 hasn't been upgraded as of yet (other than the 6-laning and the temporary J-turns), I'd probably assume that those old BGS's are still there as of now. Unfortunately, I haven't ridden there of late. Also, remember that Google Street Maps is sometimes kinda slow to update.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 01, 2013, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 01, 2013, 06:56:14 PM
You're missing the point. US 90 turns west in Lafayette, with US 167 on the final bit to I-49. So if that's allowed, there's no legal reason a different connection such as a bypass would not be.

Not neccesarily, since, like I said, the definition of HPC 37 may in fact incorporate the I-49 Connector into their definition of "I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana", essentially extending I-49 beyond its existing terminus at I-10. In that case, the segment of US 90 using the Evangeline Thruway would be merely an overlap.

The other issue of using Teche Ridge as a bypass is that its northern terminus would hook up with existing I-49 some 10 miles north of the current I-49/I-10 terminus. What would you do with that segment that would be removed from I-49?? Make it Business Spur I-49??

Also, you would lose the connection to the heart of Lafayette with Teche Ridge...and for what?? St. Martinville and Breaux Bridge may be awesome towns, but Lafayette is a mid-major metro area and the heart of the Acadiana oil/gas/cultural industry.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ShawnP on May 01, 2013, 08:03:58 PM
Agree on a eastern bypass as I can see a new I-49 backing up thru Lafayette but as you said the center of town needs a freeway plain and simple.

On a side note the first time I went WOW on a freeway was those I-10 bridges thru the swamps west of Baton Rouge. Went thru there in the summer right after they were done. A bus trip from Southern Florida to Southern California............oh joys but at 7 it gave me a chance to see some neat highways.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 02, 2013, 12:15:44 AM
Actually, since I-49 would serve as an addition to the existing Evangeline Thruway, there wouldn't be that much of a backup; the freeway would serve the bulk of the through and heavy traffic, while the Thruway and the access road network flanking the mainline would serve the local traffic. Only real backup would occur during major hurricane evacuations through Lafayette....and you know how that was during Andrew and Lili.

If a bypass should be built as an accompaniment to I-49, I'd much prefer the LMX western loop first, since that would set the outer urban boundary for Lafayette Parish, provide another quick route for traffic wanting a more direct link to SE LA and NOLA without going through Baton Rouge, and could possibly be useful for a realigned I-10. Teche Ridge could be added later to complete the full loop.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: msunat97 on May 06, 2013, 03:17:22 PM
When is Northern I-49 expected to be completed & open for use?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 06, 2013, 05:14:54 PM
Quote from: msunat97 on May 06, 2013, 03:17:22 PM
When is Northern I-49 expected to be completed & open for use?

I'd say around 2016-2017 for the I-220 to Texarkana segment...then, depending on funding, another 4-5 years to complete the Shreveport ICC segment. Can't say anything about the other segments.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 13, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 01, 2013, 01:37:09 PM
And, right on cue, here comes the detractors who still dream for the Teche Ridge Eastern Bypass through St. Martin Parish for I-49 South
Quote
There's life yet in I-49 route (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130501/NEWS01/305010020/There-s-life-yet-49-route)
Fortunately, this won't fly any more than when it was first proposed in 2001. Teche Ridge would still cost nearly $700-800 million to build, would require nearly 5 years of studies before even considering design and construction, would not remove any traffic from the existing Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor

This article (http://theadvocate.com/news/5941500-123/teche-ridge-route-study-sought) also reports that a couple of state legislators have introduced a resolution requesting that LaDOTD conduct another study of the Teche Ridge route, but it further notes that a formal vote need not be taken unless a legislator objects and that to date no legislator has objected; however, it does not appear that LaDOTD is eager to conduct the study:

Quote
State Rep. Terry Landry, D-Lafayette, and state Rep. Mike Huval, R-Breaux Bridge, have asked the state Department of Transportation and Development to study the so-called "Teche Ridge"  route, which would push I-49 to the east of Lafayette through mostly undeveloped rural areas in St. Martin Parish ....
"I just think we ought to have something else on the table to look at,"  Landry said. "I look at it from a practical standpoint – less expensive, less intrusive."  ....
Lafayette resident Harold Schoeffler, one of the more vocal critics of building I-49 through Lafayette, said the Teche Ridge route was mapped out to be built with minimal disruption.
"It didn't take out anybody's business. It didn't take out anybody's home,"  he said.
Representatives Landry and Huval's request for the Teche Ridge study does not require a legislative vote unless another legislator objects.
So far, no one has.

The agency is "open to conducting a feasibility study for an alternate route"  if directed to do so by the Legislature, DOTD spokeswoman Deidra Lockhart said in a written statement.
Allain said he suspects DOTD would rather avoid the study
, considering the current route has already been approved by federal highway officials and has survived a legal challenge.
"There is a lot of reluctance by them to change anything,"  he said.

A request is not a directive.  Looks like the Teche Ridge proponents will need to muster up even more legislative support.

This May 9 TV video report (http://www.katc.com/news/teche-ridge-route-study-a-second-look-/) also reports on the current efforts to have another Teche Ridge study:

Quote
"It's not just about dollars and sense, it's about common sense," St. Martin Parish President Guy Cormier said, who supports another study on a Teche Ridge roadway. Some say it may be less costly than pouring money into I-49 south ....
St. Martin Parish previously paid for a study, but had little luck with the Department of Transportation.
"They basically ignored it,"
Cormier said ....
If approved, the findings of the study would be reported during next year's legislation session.




Meanwhile, in Shreveport ...

Quote from: Grzrd on March 09, 2013, 08:05:42 PM
This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/My-way-or-the-highway/-/144844/19231406/-/pl2eerz/-/index.html) reports that the Shreveport Housing Authority is proceeding with a development that may serve as an increased condemnation cost to the Inner City Connector:
Quote
Authorities plan to break ground on the first phase as soon as October, using six and a half million dollars for the first 40 apartments. It will be funded primarily from private equity

This May 1 TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/city-housing-authority-looks-to-rebuild-old-jackson-heights-community/-/144844/19977390/-/ov7hoaz/-/index.html) reports that $6.6 million in HUD grant money will be "lost" if the development is not built by the end of 2014.  Well, is it private equity money or is it public HUD money?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
Speaking of the I-49 ICC.....there was some drama during the second round of public meetings on the proposed connector; because an outside group known as "Loop It, LLC"; attempted to crash the meetings to propose their plan to dump the ICC in favor of using I-220 and LA 3132 to carry I-49, as well as an adjustment to the southern terminus of I-49 North to connect with US 71 (the Spring/Market couplet) and create a "boulevard" which would provide access to downtown from the north.

Needless to say, tempers flared a bit, with the Loop It folk accusing both LADOTD and NLCOG (the MPO representing Shreveport/Bossier) of "heavy handed censorship" because the group got so aggressive in pushing their alternative that they were asked to take it outside....and proponents of the ICC like state Representative Roy Burrell equally upset that they were even allowed to distort the process.

The documents section (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) of the ICC website now has letters from both Rep. Burrell and Loop It stating their cases and complaining about the treatment, along with LADOTD's response to those letters. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for the links.)

The net result of all this is that LADOTD has now moved to add an LA 3132/I-220 alternative as one of the Build Alternatives in their EIS. (That was originally treated as the "No Build" scenario.) How that would affect existing I-49 between LA 3132 and I-20, and what improvements to LA 3132 would be required to meet the standards of a ful Interstate bypass, remain to be analyzed.

Stuff's getting REAL now, me thinks.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2013, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 09, 2013, 08:05:42 PM
This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/My-way-or-the-highway/-/144844/19231406/-/pl2eerz/-/index.html) reports that the Shreveport Housing Authority is proceeding with a development that may serve as an increased condemnation cost to the Inner City Connector
This May 1 TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/city-housing-authority-looks-to-rebuild-old-jackson-heights-community/-/144844/19977390/-/ov7hoaz/-/index.html) reports that $6.6 million in HUD grant money will be "lost" if the development is not built by the end of 2014.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
The documents section (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) of the ICC website now has letters from both Rep. Burrell and Loop It stating their cases and complaining about the treatment, along with LADOTD's response to those letters. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for the links.)

In Representative Burrell's January 9 letter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/110/Rep%20Burrell%20Comment%20Letter%2001092013.pdf), he links the Shreveport Housing Authority with Loop It, LLC "as steering neighborhood residents against the potential building of the ICIC* project".  Now, I understand why the Housing Authority is pushing the new housing project so hard before the ICC study is completed.

Also, Rep. Burrell's letter identifies local architect Kim Mitchell as assisting in the formation of Loop It, LLC. Mitchell is interviewed in both of the above-linked videos about the Shreveport Housing Authority housing project.

Initially identifying the LA 3132/I-220 route as a "No Build" alternative was a serious flaw in the study since NLCOG et al now maintain that substantial costs (i.e. "Build" costs) will be associated with that route.  In the long run, it is better that those costs will be studied now instead of having that issue arise years from now.

edit * "ICIC" is the acronym for "Inner City I-49 Connector".
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2013, 03:13:16 AM
Construction photos of the future interstate at three future interchanges along the route north of Shreveport.   These were taken last September, but cool shots of the roadway being built over the local roads and part of US 71.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/sets/72157633515296935/with/8752189721/
Enjoy.
Title: I-49 South Teche Ridge Study Tabled
Post by: Grzrd on May 24, 2013, 08:36:36 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
This article (http://theadvocate.com/news/5941500-123/teche-ridge-route-study-sought) also reports that a couple of state legislators have introduced a resolution requesting that LaDOTD conduct another study of the Teche Ridge route, but it further notes that a formal vote need not be taken unless a legislator objects and that to date no legislator has objected

This article (http://theadvocate.com/news/6057900-123/study-on-i-49-south-alternative) reports that not only did a legislator object, but also that the study was blocked because over over one-third of Louisiana's state senators filed written objections to the study:

Quote
A proposal by two legislators to study an alternative path for Interstate 49 South that would bypass Lafayette appears dead for this year.
State Rep. Terry Landry, D-Lafayette, and state Rep. Mike Huval, R-Breaux Bridge, had filed a legislative "study request"  this session asking the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to evaluate the so-called "Teche Ridge"  route for I-49 South, which would skirt Lafayette to the east through rural St. Martin Parish.
Legislative study requests do not require a vote but can be blocked if at least one third of the members of the House or the Senate file written objections.
The request made it out of the House, but 15 of the state's 39 senators have objected to the proposed study, according to legislative records.
....
"Next year, I'll apply for it again, especially if there is no movement with this project,"  Landry said of I-49 South ....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 24, 2013, 10:23:29 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 24, 2013, 08:36:36 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
This article (http://theadvocate.com/news/5941500-123/teche-ridge-route-study-sought) also reports that a couple of state legislators have introduced a resolution requesting that LaDOTD conduct another study of the Teche Ridge route, but it further notes that a formal vote need not be taken unless a legislator objects and that to date no legislator has objected

This article (http://theadvocate.com/news/6057900-123/study-on-i-49-south-alternative) reports that not only did a legislator object, but also that the study was blocked because over over one-third of Louisiana's state senators filed written objections to the study:

Quote
A proposal by two legislators to study an alternative path for Interstate 49 South that would bypass Lafayette appears dead for this year.
State Rep. Terry Landry, D-Lafayette, and state Rep. Mike Huval, R-Breaux Bridge, had filed a legislative "study request"  this session asking the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to evaluate the so-called "Teche Ridge"  route for I-49 South, which would skirt Lafayette to the east through rural St. Martin Parish.
Legislative study requests do not require a vote but can be blocked if at least one third of the members of the House or the Senate file written objections.
The request made it out of the House, but 15 of the state's 39 senators have objected to the proposed study, according to legislative records.
....
"Next year, I'll apply for it again, especially if there is no movement with this project,"  Landry said of I-49 South ....

Turns out that one of the senators who dropped the block on Teche Ridge happend to by my own rep, Elbert Guillory.

Quote
"For us to start over again would set the project back at least 10 years and throw away the millions of dollars that have been spent. ... That doesn't make sense to me,"  said state Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, one of the 15 senators who objected to the Teche Ridge study.

Maybe Elbert's next move might be to have Opelousas and central/southern St. Landry Parish incorporated into the Greater Acadiana MPO.  If New Iberia and St. Martinville/Breaux Bridge can be appended into the Lafayette MPO, then why not the second largest city in the Acadiana region?

Also...good to see Richard Burgess (the writer of that article and the head of the Advocate's Acadiana bureau) FINALLY get the nomenclature right with "I-49 South".
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
Unfortunately ... the opening may not occur until winter

Or, maybe this summer ....... LaDOTD has updated its I-49 North page (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/), which includes an update of an I-49 North map (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf).  The map has the estimated competion dates for Segments E,F,G and I to be Summer 2013 (the page has the completion date for Segment H to be Fall 2013 and the map has the Segment H completion date as Fall 2012; IIRC the map has the correct date).  Time will tell ...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on June 04, 2013, 11:49:02 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
Unfortunately ... the opening may not occur until winter

Or, maybe this summer ....... LaDOTD has updated its I-49 North page (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/), which includes an update of an I-49 North map (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf).  The map has the estimated competion dates for Segments E,F,G and I to be Summer 2013 (the page has the completion date for Segment H to be Fall 2013 and the map has the Segment H completion date as Fall 2012; IIRC the map has the correct date).  Time will tell ...

Grzrd, there was an aircraft flyover video posted on a facebook page (that I don't think was the main "Build I-49" FB page) from top to near bottom (or vice versa) of this Caddo Parish segment...can't find it for the life of me.  Any idea where I could locate it?  Thanks in advance.  :clap:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on June 05, 2013, 12:19:23 AM
Quote from: O Tamandua on June 04, 2013, 11:49:02 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
Unfortunately ... the opening may not occur until winter

Or, maybe this summer ....... LaDOTD has updated its I-49 North page (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/), which includes an update of an I-49 North map (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf).  The map has the estimated competion dates for Segments E,F,G and I to be Summer 2013 (the page has the completion date for Segment H to be Fall 2013 and the map has the Segment H completion date as Fall 2012; IIRC the map has the correct date).  Time will tell ...

Grzrd, there was an aircraft flyover video posted on a facebook page (that I don't think was the main "Build I-49" FB page) from top to near bottom (or vice versa) of this Caddo Parish segment...can't find it for the life of me.  Any idea where I could locate it?  Thanks in advance.  :clap:

Ask and you shall receive
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2141217667746&set=vb.173375266084410&type=2&theater
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HoxId74Ygc
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on June 05, 2013, 08:36:19 AM
Thanks, apjung...that video's now 13 1/2 months old...we'll see what happens this summer!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 07, 2013, 11:23:14 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 30, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
The LADOTD just posted today a Notice of Intent to procure a Design-Build contract to upgrade the segment of US 90 from the Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road intersection to the southern terminus of the Ambassador Caffery Parkway.
The pdf file announcement can be found here:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/contractservices/H.010620/I-49_NOI_%28May_1_2013%29.pdf

I just noticed that LaDOTD now has a H.010620 - US 90 (I-49 South) Albertson's Parkway to Ambassador Caffery (http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/contractservices/h.010620.aspx) page and it has an amended and updated schedule for the RFQ. The Short-List is scheduled to be announced on July 10.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on June 14, 2013, 11:27:47 AM
http://www1.katc.com/files/49south.JPG . Maybe this will open for you but I like the propposed projects and the the study areas.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 25, 2013, 01:01:38 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 12, 2012, 08:16:32 AM
This article (http://theadvocate.com/home/3039731-125/i-49-toll-report-coming) indicates that at least three major studies are progressing: (1) LaDOTD's study of tolling all of I-49 South, (2) the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission's study of tolling a shorter section of I-49 South in the Lafayette area, and (3) LaDOTD's study of how to lower the projected cost of the Raceland to Westbank Expressway section:
Quote
In a preliminary report last year .... DOTD estimated $5 billion worth of work remains, with most of that tied to the estimated $1.1 billion to build the partially elevated section through Lafayette and the estimated $3.7 billion for the 36-mile southern stretch from Raceland to the Westbank Expressway in Jefferson Parish.
DOTD is revisiting the plans for the stretch south of Raceland to determine if all of that portion needs to elevated.
Existing plans call for that section to be raised because of flooding concerns.
"It's desirable, but it may not be essential that it is elevated"

This article (http://eunicetoday.com/bookmark/22968421-Projected-I-49-extension-cost-drops-160-million-toll-funding-still-discussed) reports that the I-49 South Feasibility and Funding Task Force has lowered the estimated cost for the Calumet to Morgan City section (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Calumet,+LA&hl=en&ll=29.698789,-91.273727&spn=0.097519,0.209255&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.046251,13.392334&oq=calumet+la&t=h&hnear=Calumet,+St+Mary,+Louisiana&z=13) from $410 million to $250 million by redesigning the project from an elevated highway to one that is built at grade level as much as possible:

Quote
The projected cost of raising U.S. 90 to Interstate standards between Calumet and Morgan City has been lowered about 40 percent, according to state Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, at an I-49 South task force meeting at the Patterson Area Civic Center.
Completing the project is estimated at $250 million, down from $410 million. The lower cost is achieved through redesigning the project from an elevated highway to one that is built at grade level as much as possible, Allain said .... Joe Bloise of the state Highway Department of Transportation and Development made the first public disclosure Thursday morning that the state is looking at new concepts for constructing I-49 South.
The revised plans and cost estimate for Section 3, from Calumet to Morgan City, was presented to elected officials in a closed meeting a week ago in Patterson, according to Michael Tamperello, an Allain aide.
The new concept includes changing original plans to build an elevated highway through much of the stretch between Lafayette and the West Bank of New Orleans. Elected officials were briefed of these revised plans at closed door meetings in the past few weeks that took place in Jefferson, Lafourche and St. Charles parishes and Patterson.
The overall cost to complete that stretch was originally estimated at $4 billion to $5 billion.
Lowering the cost of the construction by nearly $160 million is a good thing, Lafayette City Parish-President Joey Durel, said with a caveat.
"You are always concerned when things change because you assume what was originally approved was the best way,"  Durel said after the meeting. "I hope we don't lower our standards." Durel is also the chairman of the task force.




Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 22, 2012, 11:36:02 AM
Hate to say I told you so, but...
Perhaps, the idea of extending the TIMED tax and using that to fund I-49 South will gain some favor?

You must have the ear of Sam Jones:

Quote
Finding some source of funding is critical to complete the highway construction past the Wax Lake Outlet, state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin, said on Thursday afternoon.
"I think we should consider renewing the TIMED Program that helped four-lane hundreds of miles of highways throughout the state in the past 30 years," Jones said. One of those projects was the four-laning of U.S. 90 into St. Mary Parish.
The Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development Program is the single largest transportation program in state history, according to the Louisiana Department of Transportation website.
In the program, a 4-cent gasoline tax financed a $4.7 billion improvement program, which included widening 536 miles of state highways to four lanes on 11 project corridors, and widening and/or new construction on three major bridges since 1990.
"TIMED is set to expire soon,"  Jones said. "I believe we should consider a TIMED 2. This would not be a new tax but continue what is already in place. We could fund the I-49 South as a top priority project in it."
Implementing a new TIMED Program would distribute the cost of new highway construction to everybody throughout the state and would raise greater revenue and much faster than tolls, according to Jones.




Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 20, 2012, 11:14:53 AM
Still awaiting that blasted toll study, though....

Maybe in approximately two months?:

Quote
A toll study is to be done in August, in conjunction with the new concepts the state highway department is presenting
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 27, 2013, 11:01:06 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 24, 2013, 08:36:36 AM
This article (http://theadvocate.com/news/6057900-123/study-on-i-49-south-alternative)
Quote
A proposal by two legislators to study an alternative path for Interstate 49 South that would bypass Lafayette appears dead for this year.
State Rep. Terry Landry, D-Lafayette .... "Next year, I'll apply for it again, especially if there is no movement with this project,"  Landry said of I-49 South ....

In this article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/legislators-discuss-session/article_5c89f74a-ddac-11e2-903b-0019bb2963f4.html), Rep. Landry sets forth another argument to not build the elevated I-49 Connector: it will be a "magnet for crime":

Quote
"It's no secret that I filed a resolution to study an alternative route to I-49,"  Landry said. "You would swear I had declared to be a communist."
He also said that the planned elevation of the Lafayette stretch could be a magnet for crime.

The rhetoric is heating up at the beginning of summer, too.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on June 27, 2013, 11:21:59 AM
At the very least, it is a scary thought indeed!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 27, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
The only thing scary is that Rep. Landry is lying through his teeth in order to kill I-49 through Lafayette.

This is a comment I attempted to leave the Daily Iberian article, but couldn't because they require a paid membership to post comments now:

Quote
Rep. Landry is simply WRONG regarding I-49 through Lafayette. The $1 billion cost is for the entire corridor from I-10 through LA 88, NOT just the segment through Lafayette. The actual cost of the I-49 Connector (I-10 to Lafayette Regional Airport)  is closer to $600-700 million, with the upgrade of US 90 from there southwards around $300 million.

Also...how a corriidor which will include an expansive joint use and community design program will create a "crime magnet" is a mystery to anyone.

His Teche Ridge alternative would not be a feasible alternative, would still cost pretty much the same as the proposed Connector, would not even attract enough traffic from the US 90 corridor to promote economic growth in St. Martin Parish, and would set back development of I-49 South for another 10 years. In short, the Legislature was correct to dismiss his proposal on common sense grounds.

And also,  LOL at the "communist" smack, because one of the Senators who opposed Rep. Landry's bill was Elbert Guillory...who just switched over to the Republican Party. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 01, 2013, 10:40:30 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
here's a look at the I-49/MLK interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9mqmFJP.jpg&hash=1827c4a842889afd44dfd195c830d3cfd7fc1e96)
Quote from: Grzrd on April 13, 2013, 08:57:34 AM
This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/I-49-Ground-Breaking/-/144844/19734206/-/gp56lvz/-/index.html) about the Segment J ground breaking ceremony indicates that the Segment K letting will be in December:
Quote
Bids for the last section "K" ... will start in December.

LaDOTD has posted a tentative December 11, 2013 letting date for Segment K (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp) and work on the I-49/ LA 3194 (MLK) interchange and on I-220 related to the I-49/ I-220 interchange:

Quote
Parish Caddo
Letting Date 2013-12-11
Project H.003495  455-09-0001
Route I-220, LA 3194, I-49
Project Name I-49 North (I-220-mlk Drive) Seg K
Type Improvement Conc. New Pavement (Seg K)
Estimated Cost Range $70,000,000 to $100,000,000
Length (miles) 4.30

Still on track to have a completed I-49 from I-220 to the AR/TX state line north of I-30 in the relatively near future .....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MSU John on July 02, 2013, 10:37:40 AM
Just curious, will LaDOTD be opening specific I-49 North segments to traffic as they're completed? Or will they be opening segments A-I all at once?

I haven't read anything to indicate which option they'll choose...but I do know it would be nice to have some completed segments open as relief. Those 35mph and 45mph stretches through Ida, Mira and Hosston seem to take forever when you get behind the wrong person.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 02, 2013, 11:16:27 AM
Quote from: MSU John on July 02, 2013, 10:37:40 AM
Just curious, will LaDOTD be opening specific I-49 North segments to traffic as they're completed? Or will they be opening segments A-I all at once?

Segments B-I will have a joint grand opening at some point in time from late summer to early winter (Segment A ends at the AR state line and will not open until Arkansas completes its section to the state line, currently projected to be in 2015).  Segments J and K are scheduled to open in 2016.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 03, 2013, 12:07:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 02, 2013, 02:40:19 PM
After noticing that the LA 168 in Caddo Parish project has been moved back to August 28 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp), I emailed LaDOTD and asked if the delay indicated a later opening for I-49 North.  Their answer indicates that they are still looking at a "late summer to early fall" opening:
Quote
Approximately five miles remain to be constructed of the new 36-mile interstate system north of Shreveport to the Arkansas border.  DOTD anticipates opening 31 miles of I-49, between La. 1 to U.S. 71, by late summer to early fall of 2013.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 09:01:48 PM
LaDOTD has updated its I-49 North page (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/), which includes an update of an I-49 North map (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf).  The map has the estimated competion dates for Segments E,F,G and I to be Summer 2013 (the page has the completion date for Segment H to be Fall 2013 and the map has the Segment H completion date as Fall 2012; IIRC the map has the correct date).
Quote from: Grzrd on July 02, 2013, 11:16:27 AM
Segments B-I will have a joint grand opening at some point in time from late summer to early winter

The tentative letting date for the LA 168 in Caddo Parish project has once again been pushed back, this time from August 28 to December 11 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp). I keep hoping that there is no connection between the timing of the LA 168 project and the opening for Segments B-I, but it sure seems like it would be nice to have the LA 168 project completed before it carries the temporary traffic from US 71 to I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2013, 12:55:17 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 24, 2013, 10:23:29 AM
Turns out that one of the senators who dropped the block on Teche Ridge happend to by my own rep, Elbert Guillory.
Quote
"For us to start over again would set the project back at least 10 years and throw away the millions of dollars that have been spent. ... That doesn't make sense to me,"  said state Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, one of the 15 senators who objected to the Teche Ridge study.
Maybe Elbert's next move might be to have Opelousas and central/southern St. Landry Parish incorporated into the Greater Acadiana MPO.  If New Iberia and St. Martinville/Breaux Bridge can be appended into the Lafayette MPO, then why not the second largest city in the Acadiana region?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 27, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
LOL at the "communist" smack, because one of the Senators who opposed Rep. Landry's bill was Elbert Guillory...who just switched over to the Republican Party.

Elbert Guillory's Why I am a Republican video (http://www.elbertguillory.com/) is garnering a lot of attention on the national stage ...................................... no mention of the I-49 Connector or Teche Ridge in it, though. He does mention Eisenhower, but not in the context of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

Anything unusual about the water in Opelousas? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2013, 12:44:26 AM
Ahhh....nope....our water isn't flouridated; it's processed like every other city down here. Elbert's just his own Tea Party whack.

I don't think his...ummmm, unique brand of politics had much to do with his rejection of Teche Ridge, however...common sense crosses party lines.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 07, 2013, 09:09:25 PM
According to the I-49 South Coalition website (http://www.drive49south.org/_blog/News/post/leda-releases-2013-energy-corridor-profile/), the Lafayette Economic Development Authority recently released a report entitled, Interstate 49 South - America's Energy Corridor (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1V0teGZ89bu3gUJJtPqNoJb8jy1AgpQuu2B9NSPyS1dpOwnHQOuZ90PlEH5W5/edit?pli=1). The report essentially tries to make the case that US 90 from Lafayette to the Westbank Expressway is nationally important because it is one of the top industrial corridors in the country, which in turn justifies an upgrade to I-49 South.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 08, 2013, 10:38:57 AM
In addition to what Grzz posted, there is this article from St.MaryNow.com website about how some local leaders are not to happy with some of the changes done to the Wax Lake to Berwick segment of I-49 South that would upgrade US 90 in Patterson/Bayou Vista and Berwick.

Quote

Jones: I-49 South plan needs tweaking (http://www.stmarynow.com/view/full_story/22914735/article-Jones--I-49-South-plan-needs-tweaking-?instance=secondary_stories_left_column)


PATTERSON, La. -- Parish officials were briefed on a study and tentative proposals regarding the I-49 South extension made by the Department of Transportation and Development Thursday evening at the Patterson Area Civic Center.

While details of the study have not been publicly released, State Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin, said there are several modification and changes he will insist be made because they do not meet the needs of the communities.

Jones said the study calls for an interchange on the interstate at Catherine Street in Patterson.

"The city, the people and the economics"  call for that interchange to be at Red Cypress instead, he said.

"We will have it at Red Cypress,"  Jones said unequivocally.

Patterson Mayor Rodney Grogan said he wants the interstate to be done in the best interests of Patterson.

"DOTD is listening to us on our issues,"  Grogan said. He said he expects Jones and Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, will advocate for the city and its interest.

Jones also said he wants a frontage road from Berwick to Bayou Vista on property that is already purchased for the highway. There are wetland preservation issues that will need to be addressed but Jones does not expect that to be an insurmountable obstacle.

As the region has clamored for U.S. 90 to be raised to interstate system standards, the cry has often been that this is a safety issue. Jones said that too many motor vehicle collisions occur in Patterson and that things can be done quickly to alleviate some of that danger. He said that even before an interstate system is completed, he will fight for funding to build J-turns on the highway in Patterson and Berwick.

Berwick Mayor Louis Ratcliff said this morning that the information that he received was "good"  and that he has "a good feeling we are moving in a positive direction."

St. Mary Parish was the last of four parishes that have been briefed on the study, according to Michael Tamperello, point man for the I-49 South Coalition. Jefferson, Lafourche and St. Charles parishes had already been briefed.

The concept of the study has been to try to find the most efficient way to meet the goal of bringing I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans in a way that addressees the circumstances and needs of the communities through which it passes.

"We are very happy with the direction the highway department is going to try to cut costs,"  Allain said this morning. "There is no question the plan will need plenty more local input."

Allain said he wants to be able to discuss these issues with local elected officials and determine the priorities of the communities and then to "speak with one voice"  in their conversations with the state.

"I want to work with all the concerns and do what best suits the needs of the parish and the state,"  Allain said.

Jones also said that it was important that a final plan have a full interchange in Bayou Vista at Southeast Boulevard.

The plan presented to the group Thursday has an overpass in Berwick at the intersection of South and Thorguson roads, according to Jones. He said the interstate needs to have an interchange there and not an overpass.

Tamperello said the purpose of the meeting Thursday was to hear and respond to any suggestions that local elected officials make to state engineers. He said the highway department will take the input of officials from the four parish meetings that it has held into consideration and bring back an adjusted study for consideration in about a month.

"DOTD has said from the beginning that this study is a recommendation and not an end all,"  Tamperello said this morning as he gave a brief outline of the meeting. "This is a first step and not a last step."

He said that the relationships the commission has developed with the highway department and the study engineers have been positive ones.

"They have heard what we want,"  Tamperello said. "Clearly, they are going to work with us."

Tamperello said that they will discuss more of these issues in detail and publicly when a final study is presented by the highway department.

Personally, I thought that the original plan that was approved in the ROD back in 2005 was pretty darn good as is, and should not have been truncated. That plan would have included interchanges at Red Cypress Road and Catherine/Lipari Streets in Patterson; Southeast Boulevard in Bayou Vista, and Thurgouson/Berwick South Rds in Berwick; and would have also included an elevated section near the "Atchafalaya Meander" where the one-way local access frontage road system would be transformed into an urban boulevard that would have been seperated from the BNSF railroad ROW by the elevated freeway.

This new plan would eliminate most of the interchanges and much of the elevated roadway, as a means of reducing the cost; but apparently it would do so at the expense of access. At least they are listening to the community, and the leaders there are commited to reaching a consensus on a final plan that would benefit everyone.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 09, 2013, 12:51:17 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 03, 2013, 12:07:53 PM
The tentative letting date for the LA 168 in Caddo Parish project has once again been pushed back, this time from August 28 to December 11 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp). I keep hoping that there is no connection between the timing of the LA 168 project and the opening for Segments B-I, but it sure seems like it would be nice to have the LA 168 project completed before it carries the temporary traffic from US 71 to I-49.

Without indicating a projected date for the I-49 North opening, LaDOTD recently provided me with email assurance that the letting date for the LA 168 project will not impact the I-49 North opening date:

Quote
The letting date for La. 168 will not affect the opening of the segments of I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 09, 2013, 03:51:22 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 09, 2013, 12:51:17 PM
Without indicating a projected date for the I-49 North opening, LaDOTD recently provided me with email assurance that the letting date for the LA 168 project will not impact the I-49 North opening date:
Quote
The letting date for La. 168 will not affect the opening of the segments of I-49.

I just received an email clarification from LaDOTD: LaDOTD does not intend to carry I-49 through traffic on LA 168; Segments B-D will only be open to local traffic until Arkansas opens their section to the state line:

Quote
To clarify, I-49 north from LA 168 to US 71 south of Hosston will only be open to local traffic until I-49 in Arkansas is complete.  Motorists getting on between these termini on the southbound lane will be able to continue south to LA 1 north of Shreveport. All Northbound I-49 traffic will exit at US 71 south of Hosston and have to continue on US 71 to Arkansas.

The Segments B-D local traffic section can be seen in this snip from LaDOTD's I-49 North map (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49north/map.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDyq2CpU.png&hash=5b91477c29fdf31d91c620abf1e9bcdecc015edb)

Let's hope that AHTD completes their paving project on schedule!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 19, 2013, 04:21:32 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 08, 2013, 10:38:57 AM
Personally, I thought that the original plan that was approved in the ROD back in 2005 was pretty darn good as is, and should not have been truncated. That plan would have included interchanges at Red Cypress Road and Catherine/Lipari Streets in Patterson; Southeast Boulevard in Bayou Vista, and Thurgouson/Berwick South Rds in Berwick; and would have also included an elevated section near the "Atchafalaya Meander" where the one-way local access frontage road system would be transformed into an urban boulevard that would have been seperated from the BNSF railroad ROW by the elevated freeway.

This new plan would eliminate most of the interchanges and much of the elevated roadway, as a means of reducing the cost; but apparently it would do so at the expense of access. At least they are listening to the community, and the leaders there are commited to reaching a consensus on a final plan that would benefit everyone.

St. Mary Parish legislators Senator Allain and Rep. Jones have sent a follow-up letter to LaDOTD (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1yj-utBxSEhQiVccYB1VOVLfXYARmnQYdnF10VZmu1rItGdlt4e2JTCpJT798/edit) that not only expresses overall approval by St. Mary Parish officials of the cost reductions for Section 3 of I-49 South, but also includes an attached list of recommendations for further review of the freeway portion of the US 90 upgrade:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5NSyawa.png&hash=c72471438d78f32a603e2dee2fd3bf8ee8982a87)

It's a process ..............
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 30, 2013, 11:07:07 AM
This July 24 article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/turn-styles-on/article_094453ce-f47b-11e2-b6fb-001a4bcf887a.html) reports on a current long-term I-49 South project in Iberia Parish and intermediate J-Turn safety solutions in St. Martin Parish.

I-49 South in Iberia Parish:

Quote
Deidra Druilhet, public information officer for DOTD's Lafayette office ....   
DOTD, however, currently is working on a portion of the I-49 South project by constructing three miles of frontage roads along U.S. 90 in Iberia Parish, Druilhet said.
Druilhet said the $5.8 million project, which began in August 2012 will create frontage roads along U.S. 90 from John Darnall Road to Louisiana 85.

As of Tuesday, no miles of the project have been fully complete, Druilhet said. However, 100 percent of the first layer, called the subgrade, has been completed, she said. This layer consists of 12 inches of soil mixed with cement and/or lime.
Seventy-five percent of the next layer, the base course, has been completed, she said. This layer is 8.5 inches of soil hauled on top of the subgrade and blended with cement, which is a good foundation for asphalt, Druilhet said.
Two layers of asphalt are then placed and compacted, completing the typical section of the frontage road, which is 50 percent complete, she said.
That project, which also is expected to be complete this fall
, is in the allotted contract time of 200 days, she said, because the contractor is not charged for weekends, holidays or adverse weather days.
The contractor currently is wrapping up work on the remaining pipe and drainage structures, Druilhet said ....

J-Turns in St. Martin Parish (including an implied concern that installation of the J-Turns may slow progress on I-49 South):

Quote
Commuters traveling along U.S. 90 in St. Martin Parish can expect lane closures and delays for the rest of the week as the state Department of Transportation and Development continues construction on a $4.8 million safety project to install J-turns.
The lane closures will take place between Louisiana 92 and Ambassador Caffery Parkway .... J-turns will be installed along U.S. 90 from the Billeaud overpass to Wall Road as part of the project .... 
Of the 17 proposed J-turns, none are complete
, Druilhet said. She said the roadway portions of two J-turns have been poured, but the islands have not been constructed. Drainage work has begun on some of the remaining J-turns, she said .... However, the project is expected to be complete this fall ....
Mike Tarantino, president and CEO of the Iberia Industrial Development Foundation, said J-turns are a benefit to the highway because they make highway traffic safer in congested areas, but it will be "interesting"  to see how the J-turns affect the completion of the I-49 South project.
The department currently is exploring various avenues to secure funding for the I-49 South project, Druilhet said, but until funding can be secured the J-turns will immediately address safety challenges along the corridor.




Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2013, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
The documents section (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) of the ICC website now has letters from both Rep. Burrell and Loop It stating their cases and complaining about the treatment, along with LADOTD's response to those letters. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for the links.)
In Representative Burrell's January 9 letter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/110/Rep%20Burrell%20Comment%20Letter%2001092013.pdf), he links the Shreveport Housing Authority with Loop It, LLC "as steering neighborhood residents against the potential building of the ICIC* project".  Now, I understand why the Housing Authority is pushing the new housing project so hard before the ICC study is completed.
Also, Rep. Burrell's letter identifies local architect Kim Mitchell as assisting in the formation of Loop It, LLC. Mitchell is interviewed in both of the above-linked videos about the Shreveport Housing Authority housing project ....
edit * "ICIC" is the acronym for "Inner City I-49 Connector".
Quote from: O Tamandua on July 29, 2013, 02:24:40 PM
Well, here's a fine kettle of fish...
Shreveport Times: "Residents question rebuilding housing complex in potential path of Interstate (49) expansion":
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20130728/SPECIALPROJECTS01/307280023/Residents-question-rebuilding-housing-complex-potential-path-interstate-expansion
(above quote from I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.msg235886#msg235886) thread)

The above-linked article shows that the delay caused by Loop It, Mitchell et al is allowing the Housing Authority to proceed with the housing project:

Quote
The MPC also had concerns the initial phase of "warehouse-style"  housing was not compliant with the Shreveport-Caddo Master Plan, said MPC member Dale Colvin, adding its proximity to a possible inner-city connector path was not brought up. Council minutes, likewise, show it was not discussed prior to the June 11 council vote.
Regardless if location concerns were raised, Colvin said entities such as the MPC cannot say no to a development project for that reason without a state project having reached the phase in the highway planning process that allows right of way to be bought.
The inner-city connector project was estimated to reach that point this year. However, a local citizens group filed a formal complaint on the community input process and another round of meetings must be held before a final route is selected, said Chris Petro, transportation planning manager for the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments.

Five more meetings are anticipated to be held this fall:

Quote
The Federal Highway Administration requires NLCOG — through Providence Engineering — to perform another round of five meetings to gather public input on the inner loop alternative.
Petro said dates have not been set but he anticipates the meetings will be held this fall.

It will be interesting to see if Loop It, Mitchell and the Housing Authority will be able to increase opposition to the Inner City Connector by the fall meetings.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 30, 2013, 11:59:39 PM
To take a left turn here on this forum, what is the plan for the Texas segment if I-49?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 03, 2013, 04:11:25 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2013, 11:07:07 AM
This July 24 article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/turn-styles-on/article_094453ce-f47b-11e2-b6fb-001a4bcf887a.html) reports on ... intermediate J-Turn safety solutions in St. Martin Parish.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 30, 2013, 11:59:39 PM
To take a left turn here on this forum, what is the plan for the Texas segment if I-49?

A response to your question has been posted in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg236276#msg236276).  However, in regard to taking a left turn on US 90/Future I-49 in Louisiana, this July 31 TV video report (http://www.klfy.com/story/22979009/lawmakers-businesses-push-to-complete-i-49-project), primarily about business and political leaders brainstorming about I-49 South, has footage of a US 90 J-Turn sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcAMIrXy.jpg&hash=9cffb73287c611d2a223f0e7832bfff2881d4104)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 05, 2013, 03:33:33 PM
I saw state named I-49 shields in downtown Alexandria over the weekend, but it was dark and all I had was a cell phone deep in a pocket. I'm pretty sure my jaw hit the floor when I saw them. I'll be scouring the area this week to take pictures and look for more nearby
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 07, 2013, 05:35:50 PM
These are all approaching I-49 in Alexandria on Jackson St/Business US 165:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2817%2F9462086992_c9cdccce26.jpg&hash=d656520a0470a27634c1bbf26936332b518f7164) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/9462086992/)
Jackson St (Bus US 165) @ I-49 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/9462086992/) by GeoJosh (http://www.flickr.com/people/geojosh/), on Flickr

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5488%2F9462056206_7514cb8f53.jpg&hash=ce0466e58e3b858ed97c3dc12a48b1c4657e0eac) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/9462056206/)
Bus 165 SB @ I-49 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/9462056206/) by GeoJosh (http://www.flickr.com/people/geojosh/), on Flickr

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7404%2F9462057628_7dff43a44d.jpg&hash=0867620837491ef82e4aee92ab5bf917e85c538a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/9462057628/)
Bus US 165 NB @ I-49 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/9462057628/) by GeoJosh (http://www.flickr.com/people/geojosh/), on Flickr
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 06:00:27 PM
excellent!  looks like the first state-named batches are coming out.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on August 08, 2013, 06:21:12 PM
What is that crappy font on the US167 shield?

rte66man
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: txstateends on August 08, 2013, 07:38:49 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 08, 2013, 06:21:12 PM
What is that crappy font on the US167 shield?

rte66man

Unfortunately, this isn't the only case of 'crappy font' in LA on their US shields.  Why they can't seem to find the font that most other states use (and send this one to the dumpster), I'll never know.  They seem to be doing all right with at least some of their US 90 shields (including the one above shown in that J-turn sign)--those don't give me the eye-reaction that the US 167 one does....

As for the question, I've not heard a font name for the 'crappy font', but I wouldn't think it would be one of the FHWA ones unless it's an only-in-LA variant.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 08, 2013, 07:45:15 PM
that's bog-standard Series B.

it looks better when the digits are a bit closer, and fill out the shield more nicely. 

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OH/OH19673221i1.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/LA/LA19741901i1.jpg)

helps to use a '61 spec shield.  your question shouldn't be "what is that crappy font?", but rather "what is that crappy shield shape?"
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on August 11, 2013, 03:02:45 PM
This article was back in June, but still have not seen anything on maybe doing either project on LATD yet. Ambassador Cafferty Interchange or Rail Road overpass. I guess federal money is the hold up.        http://www.klfy.com/story/22649130/task-force-discusses-progress-on-i-49-south-project
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 11, 2013, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: Gordon on August 11, 2013, 03:02:45 PM
This article was back in June, but still have not seen anything on maybe doing either project on LATD yet. Ambassador Cafferty Interchange or Rail Road overpass. I guess federal money is the hold up.        http://www.klfy.com/story/22649130/task-force-discusses-progress-on-i-49-south-project

The Ambassador Caffery interchange project on US 90 is awaiting an Environmental Assessment and review, and will be constructed along with the segment from Albertson Parkway to just N of the Amb. Caffery intersection. The latter is currently awaiting final design as part of a Design/Build project; LADOTD is currently reviewing requests for contractors for that segment.

The LDRR overpass just E of LA 85 should be next in the funding queue, right after the frontage roads between LA 85 and John Darnell Road are completed.

AFAIK, both projects are fully funded through mostly state funds.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 12, 2013, 08:41:00 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 19, 2013, 04:21:32 PM
St. Mary Parish legislators Senator Allain and Rep. Jones have sent a follow-up letter to LaDOTD (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1yj-utBxSEhQiVccYB1VOVLfXYARmnQYdnF10VZmu1rItGdlt4e2JTCpJT798/edit) that not only expresses overall approval by St. Mary Parish officials of the cost reductions for Section 3 of I-49 South, but also includes an attached list of recommendations for further review .... It's a process ..............

The I-49 South Coalition has posted LaDOTD's response to the letter (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-xiAqmL3Gr6VVdXS3QyeFo5V1U/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1), in which LaDOTD provides a positive response to many of the suggestions.  The process leading to progress .........
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on August 22, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
Grzrd, or anyone...any idea how I-49 from just above SHV to the Arkansas line is progressing (per the "finished in late summer 2013" estimates)?  Sorry, just curious.  ;-)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 22, 2013, 03:50:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 09, 2013, 03:51:22 PM
I just received an email clarification from LaDOTD: LaDOTD does not intend to carry I-49 through traffic on LA 168; Segments B-D will only be open to local traffic until Arkansas opens their section to the state line
Quote from: O Tamandua on August 22, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
any idea how I-49 from just above SHV to the Arkansas line is progressing (per the "finished in late summer 2013" estimates)?

A recent email to me from LaDOTD states that LaDOTD is currently unofficially anticipating a mid-November opening for Segments A-I.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on August 22, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 22, 2013, 03:50:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 09, 2013, 03:51:22 PM
I just received an email clarification from LaDOTD: LaDOTD does not intend to carry I-49 through traffic on LA 168; Segments B-D will only be open to local traffic until Arkansas opens their section to the state line
Quote from: O Tamandua on August 22, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
any idea how I-49 from just above SHV to the Arkansas line is progressing (per the "finished in late summer 2013" estimates)?

A recent email to me from LaDOTD states that LaDOTD is currently unofficially anticipating a mid-November opening for Segments A-I.

Any word on if this will carry a temporary designation or I-49?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 22, 2013, 10:35:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
Any word on if this will carry a temporary designation or I-49?

A signage project for Segments A-D (H.003516.6) was let in December 2012 and, as I recall, the Plan Sheets indicated that it will be signed as I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on August 22, 2013, 10:36:14 PM
Could be greened out though, like I-41.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on August 23, 2013, 01:10:11 PM
Thanks, Grzrd and all.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 25, 2013, 02:32:13 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 22, 2013, 10:36:14 PM
Could be greened out though, like I-41.

Or they could put plywood over it. lol.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_JtliNJCivlg%2FSKFNJmaj8EI%2FAAAAAAAAAB8%2FnvKbTyBG-xc%2Fs320%2FP1020858.JPG&hash=d3843b84a278bb2c606a1f320f7681807c54767e)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on August 25, 2013, 09:53:17 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 25, 2013, 02:32:13 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 22, 2013, 10:36:14 PM
Could be greened out though, like I-41.

Or they could put plywood over it. lol.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_JtliNJCivlg%2FSKFNJmaj8EI%2FAAAAAAAAAB8%2FnvKbTyBG-xc%2Fs320%2FP1020858.JPG&hash=d3843b84a278bb2c606a1f320f7681807c54767e)

Or flip the sign over  ;)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on August 28, 2013, 02:50:09 PM
Will there be a Louisiana Welcome Center on I-49 southbound?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on August 28, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on August 28, 2013, 02:50:09 PM
Will there be a Louisiana Welcome Center on I-49 southbound?

I doubt it.  I wanted to stop at one on I-20 westbound in 2008 and there was none.  LADOTD closed all the rest areas there from what I could see.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 30, 2013, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
Any word on if this will carry a temporary designation or I-49?
Quote from: NE2 on August 22, 2013, 10:36:14 PM
Could be greened out though, like I-41.

I recently received some email clarification from LaDOTD (my questions in bold with LaDOTD answers immediately following the questions):

Quote
1.    Segments E-I will be signed as I-49. Correct? Yes

2.    Since Segments B-D will basically only be open to local traffic until Arkansas completes its section to state line, will I-49 signage be uncovered on those segments and those segments will be designated as I-49? Yes

3.    Will Segment A be completely closed until the Arkansas section opens? On segment A, all traffic will be forced off at La. 168
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on August 30, 2013, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on August 28, 2013, 02:50:09 PM
Will there be a Louisiana Welcome Center on I-49 southbound?

From Google imagery there is a telltale cleared space adjacent to the future I-49 SB lanes, just south of the LA 170 interchange, that may correspond to a future rest area/potential welcome center - it looks too large to be a weigh station.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on September 12, 2013, 12:02:51 AM
I-49 state named shields are in place at La 498 (Airbase Rd exit) and PR 22/La 3265 (Woodworth) coming to the interchange from US 165. Also, a new sign has been installed northbound at the exit, with Rapides Parish 22 instead of just Parish 22.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on September 21, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
I just found an old map from the early 80's showing no I-49 in LA.  It has US 167 as a freeway from LaFayette to Opalousas, but no I-49 and the interesting part of it is that from Alexandria to Shreveport it was not US 71 that was the through route.  It shows that LA 1 is the main highway north of Alexandria with a red line, while US 71 had a black line.  South of Alexandria, LA 1 is a black line as both US 71 and US 167 were red line highways instead like you would figure they would be.

Too bad my scanner is messed up, or I would post this.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on September 22, 2013, 11:21:58 AM
I found this article about hiring a director for the I 49 south coalition. Maybe that will help securing money to I 49 South. And it would not have to compete for funds with I 49 North which is largely complete. http://theadvocate.com/news/7075381-123/i-49-south-coalition-seeking-funds
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 22, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 21, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
I just found an old map from the early 80's showing no I-49 in LA.  It has US 167 as a freeway from LaFayette to Opalousas, but no I-49 and the interesting part of it is that from Alexandria to Shreveport it was not US 71 that was the through route.  It shows that LA 1 is the main highway north of Alexandria with a red line, while US 71 had a black line.  South of Alexandria, LA 1 is a black line as both US 71 and US 167 were red line highways instead like you would figure they would be.

Too bad my scanner is messed up, or I would post this.

Sorry, but LaFayette is in Georgia. Lafayette is in Louisiana. DO NOT CAP THE F. Cajun folk don't like that. :-D

That 80's map would make sense, since it wasn't until late 1980's near 1990 that I-49 was built all the way to Alexandria, and the default route for going from Opelousas to Alexandria was US 167 through Ville Platte, Turkey Creek, and Meeker. US 71 was more preferred for those going directly to Baton Rouge while bypassing Opelousas. There was an intermin period where I-49 was built as far as the US 167 interchange south of Meeker, so that other than an 8 mile stretch of two lane, you had a clear 4-lane route between Opelousas and Alexandria (including US 71-167 from Meeker to Alex).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 23, 2013, 09:49:01 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
Speaking of the I-49 ICC.....there was some drama during the second round of public meetings on the proposed connector; because an outside group known as "Loop It, LLC"; attempted to crash the meetings to propose their plan to dump the ICC in favor of using I-220 and LA 3132 to carry I-49, as well as an adjustment to the southern terminus of I-49 North to connect with US 71 (the Spring/Market couplet) and create a "boulevard" which would provide access to downtown from the north ....
The net result of all this is that LADOTD has now moved to add an LA 3132/I-220 alternative as one of the Build Alternatives in their EIS. (That was originally treated as the "No Build" scenario.) ....
Stuff's getting REAL now, me thinks.

This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23508810/2013/09/23/students-envision-a-new-i-49-connector) reports on a class project of some Louisiana Tech students who have devised their own "boulevard" scenario:

Quote
A group of Louisiana Tech students recently pulled an all-nighter, brainstorming a new plan for the I-49 connector ....
"This is not a true interstate," student Lonnie Patrick said. "This becomes a boulevard."
Patrick says plans include a new parkway that connects 1-49 to Common Street, then to North Market and finally to I-220 ....
"It allows the city to rebuild upon itself," Patrick said. "Instead of expanding out and sending business outside of the city." ....
Things like solar energy infrastructure, bike lanes and other modern needs will be built ....
The students will continue to work on their project into the fall semester.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2013, 03:37:33 AM
No.  NO. HELL TO THE NO.

Bringing more traffic onto the Spring/Market couplet and then doubling back to existing I-49 is a disaster waiting to happen.

All of the amenities that those LA Tech students want can be had while building the ICC as well.

As if they think that looping I-49 around LA 3132 and I-220 will bring business back to downtown Shreveport??

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on September 25, 2013, 10:15:41 PM
Laugh-e-ette
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on September 27, 2013, 09:51:01 PM
Here is an article of griping of progress on Segment J of I 49 north of burning the timber being cleared for the project.http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/story/smoke-from-i-49-clearing-project-fills-sky/d/story/15G3vnhaRUuyepRi1fdI0A
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 28, 2013, 06:52:16 PM
I went to the Interstate 369 signing ceremony last Monday in Texarkana, and on they way back home I decided to drive the new Interstate 49 corridor.  I took this picture of the overpass being built south of Dodridge, AR over US 71.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-dgNE_CXbaik/UkJiUq16g1I/AAAAAAAAA5E/rjt4O7SXmpE/w740-h553-no/115.JPG)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AmYYg-NeeDI/UkJiV49YfoI/AAAAAAAAA5Q/E_FvUlZmnnI/w740-h553-no/116.JPG)

I then drove the corridor best I could through northwestern Louisiana and crossed the built but closed off sections up there:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-vKpzvZAANX0/UkJiZSF_SCI/AAAAAAAAA5k/QZmUpGYyQu4/w740-h553-no/119.JPG)
That is Ida State Line Road over Interstate 49 looking northbound.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-h5yq9uX0ZQw/UkJiavuz7RI/AAAAAAAAA5s/n1s3pN2yhsI/w740-h553-no/120.JPG)
That is the future on ramp to northbound Interstate 49 from SH 168
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on September 28, 2013, 09:04:51 PM
Haha the road looks abandoned with the grass.  Lol
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on September 29, 2013, 03:03:37 AM
Google Street View has updated these sections from their pass by in June 2013. Sections include LA 1 with I-49 construction present heading towards MLK Blvd in Shreveport.
http://goo.gl/maps/7XlIN

Also the new sections of AR 549 at the TX border has also been updated.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 29, 2013, 06:05:25 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
Speaking of the I-49 ICC..... LADOTD has now moved to add an LA 3132/I-220 alternative as one of the Build Alternatives in their EIS. (That was originally treated as the "No Build" scenario.) ....

This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/viewart/20130929/NEWS01/309290028/Federal-grant-fund-road-projects-Cenla) reports that the modified I-49 ICC environmental study will receive $1.5 million in federal funding:

Quote
The state has announced more than $22 million in federally funded road projects in Central Louisiana .... Jindal's office said 12 projects in the state have received funding through a $34.2 million federal highway grant ... $1.5 million for the ongoing environmental study for the I-49 Inner-City Connector project in Caddo Parish.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 02, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
According to the Draft District 3 FY 2014-15 Highway Plan (page 17/38 of pdf) (http://www.dotd.la.gov/press/documents/09_30_2013_SFY_14_15_Highway_Program_District_03.pdf), it looks like some planning work is scheduled to begin on the Lafayette I-49 Connector in the near future:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7JM8T9g.png&hash=288af479162dcf1eebbec2c6597b32bf14f7a05c)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on October 02, 2013, 12:50:04 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
According to the Draft District 3 FY 2014-15 Highway Plan (page 17/38 of pdf) (http://www.dotd.la.gov/press/documents/09_30_2013_SFY_14_15_Highway_Program_District_03.pdf), it looks like some planning work is scheduled to begin on the Lafayette I-49 Connector in the near future:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7JM8T9g.png&hash=288af479162dcf1eebbec2c6597b32bf14f7a05c)

$400 million for planning? Surely this refers to the entire project.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 02, 2013, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: rte66man on October 02, 2013, 12:50:04 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
According to the Draft District 3 FY 2014-15 Highway Plan (page 17/38 of pdf) (http://www.dotd.la.gov/press/documents/09_30_2013_SFY_14_15_Highway_Program_District_03.pdf), it looks like some planning work is scheduled to begin on the Lafayette I-49 Connector in the near future:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7JM8T9g.png&hash=288af479162dcf1eebbec2c6597b32bf14f7a05c)

$400 million for planning? Surely this refers to the entire project.

Nope...that's the cost for the entire project. The "Stage 1 - Planning/Environmental" is probably to complete the design studies that were temporarily shelved in 2007 due to issues with the design process.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 03, 2013, 02:47:33 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 09, 2012, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 14, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote
Lead Project: H.003453.3
Lead Federal No. : H003453
Parish(es): Lafayette
Description: I-49 CONNECTOR BUILDING DEMOLITION
Type: BUILDING DEMOLITION AND RELATED WORK
One small step for I-49 South ...
One backward step for I-49 South; the I-49 Connector building demolition project was withdrawn (and not simply postponed) (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/bidsadde/adhq20120509.asp) on May 8:
Quote
STATE PROJECT-H.003453.3
ADDENDUM NO.-01 (Proposal)
ADDENDUM/WITHDRAW DATE-4/11/2012
PROJECT STATUS (withdrawn/postponed)-Withdrawn
5/8/2012
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
According to the Draft District 3 FY 2014-15 Highway Plan (page 17/38 of pdf) (http://www.dotd.la.gov/press/documents/09_30_2013_SFY_14_15_Highway_Program_District_03.pdf), it looks like some planning work is scheduled to begin on the Lafayette I-49 Connector in the near future

Under a different project number than in 2012, a contract for some I-49 Connector building demolition work is currently scheduled to be let on December 11 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/lets8230.asp):

Quote
Parish: Lafayette
Letting Date: 2013-12-11
Project: H.011102
Route: US 90
Project Name: I-49 Connector 
Type Improvement: Bldg Demolition (Phase 1) Demolition Of Existing Buildings
Estimated Cost Range: $100,000 to $250,000
Length (miles): 0.06
Project Manager: Wedge, Ed

Maybe this letting will be around the time the toll study is released. It is a very small project but it would be a beginning.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2013, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 07, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
Here is the Home Page (http://www.drive49south.org/home). The I-49 South (http://www.drive49south.org/I49-south) page illustrates their "regional vision" by expressing support for a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and a new link between Texas and Mississippi
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 15, 2013, 02:45:03 PM
Some very interesting developments now brewing concerning I-49 South, and the newly emerging coalition to finally build the project. This is from the KATC-TV (ABC Lafayette affiliate) website:
Quote
I-49 South Coalition Stakeholders' Meeting set for March 18 (http://www.katc.com/news/i-49-south-coalition-stakeholders-meeting-set-for-march-18/)
The coalition to promotes, advocates, and identifies funding streams to ultimately complete I-49 South from I-49 in Lafayette to I-310 in Boutte ...
A secondary aspect of the project will be to fund and build a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and eventually link the new I-49 South with New Orleans through the GNO bridge.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 12, 2013, 08:41:00 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 19, 2013, 04:21:32 PM
St. Mary Parish legislators Senator Allain and Rep. Jones have sent a follow-up letter to LaDOTD (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1yj-utBxSEhQiVccYB1VOVLfXYARmnQYdnF10VZmu1rItGdlt4e2JTCpJT798/edit) that not only expresses overall approval by St. Mary Parish officials of the cost reductions for Section 3 of I-49 South, but also includes an attached list of recommendations for further review
The I-49 South Coalition has posted LaDOTD's response to the letter (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-xiAqmL3Gr6VVdXS3QyeFo5V1U/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1), in which LaDOTD provides a positive response to many of the suggestions.

Despite the beginning of the environmental process for the I-10 bridge  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3378.msg251516#msg251516) and the positive ongoing meetings regarding the I-49 South Corridor, the Lafayette-Lake Charles "super region" is still getting its act together, as reported in this Sept. 14 article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130914/BUSINESS/309140017/Slowly-pact-progresses):

Quote
More than a year into the formation of a "super region"  that links southwest Louisiana and Acadiana to promote common economic and public policy interests, that ol' devil still resides in the details.
George Swift, president and CEO of the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Council, now heads the fledgling organization, formed in February 2012, that loosely ties together 13 parishes, mostly along the Interstate 10 corridor ....
"It's about leveraging the assets of both areas,"  Swift said. Greater Lake Charles and the Lafayette areas have their own distinct business and industrial specialties – the former petrochemical, the latter offshore oil, he said ....
They also have distinct infrastructure needs: Lake Charles needs a new I-10 bridge; Lafayette needs Interstate 49 to extend to New Orleans. They need mutual support.
Their common interests were made plain during congressional redistricting talks in 2011. Then, the Legislature weighed splitting the congressional district that included Lake Charles and Lafayette, spinning off Lake Charles into a reformed district that would have included Shreveport. It became plain to both Lake Charles and Lafayette that they belonged together, not apart, in a congressional district – and perhaps in many other ways. But there are a lot of details to iron out ...

It will be interesting to see how the "super region" prioritizes the I-10 bridge and I-49 South; in other words, will it follow the I-49 South Coalition to prioritize I-49 South from Lafayette to I-310 first, with the I-10 bridge presumably second and I-49 South from I-310 to I-10 presumably third?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 10, 2013, 06:32:35 AM
IIRC, Griz, the I-49 South Coalition did include the upgrade of the Calcasieu River Bridge as one of its "megaprojects" that it would support as part of gaining statewide support for the full upgrade of US 90 to NOLA. So, I don't think that they are downgrading the Boutte to NOLA link in any way; though they may just push it to the side a bit in order to concentrate their efforts on completing the Lafayette to Morgan City portion of I-49 South first.

Interesting thing about that Lake Charles-Lafayette "super region": The Daily Advertiser article alluded to some efforts to split the Lake Charles and Lafayette areas into seperate US Congressional districts after the 2010 Census forced LA to lose a congressional district. Ultimately, they decided to keep them together...but one of the byproducts is that my own home city of Opelousas and St. Landry Parish, which is far more a part of Acadiana than Lake Charles is, got pushed into the Alexandria/Monroe Congressional district formerly represented by Rodney Alexander. (He resigned earlier this year; a special election for his replacement is up for this coming November.) So..six of one equals one-half of the other, I guess.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on October 10, 2013, 08:54:35 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 10, 2013, 06:32:35 AM
Interesting thing about that Lake Charles-Lafayette "super region": The Daily Advertiser article alluded to some efforts to split the Lake Charles and Lafayette areas into seperate US Congressional districts after the 2010 Census forced LA to lose a congressional district. Ultimately, they decided to keep them together...but one of the byproducts is that my own home city of Opelousas and St. Landry Parish, which is far more a part of Acadiana than Lake Charles is, got pushed into the Alexandria/Monroe Congressional district formerly represented by Rodney Alexander.

Part of that outcome was also due to the fact that politicians from north Louisiana wanted their region to remain included in two congressional districts (more representation that way). So in order to make the population numbers balance, the 4th and particularly the 5th district had to be extended ridiculously far to the south and east (the 5th, for example, extends east to include Washington Parish).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on October 10, 2013, 09:16:39 PM
The last section of I 49 North has been delayed by LaDOTD until 1/29/14 for bid letting. I don't think it will delay opening that section in 2016 because of the Holidays and weather in december.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 14, 2013, 12:07:35 PM
Here's a few photos my wife snagged in the car yesterday from the future interchange of LA 1 at I-49 in North Shreveport. (sorry they include some car, arm, and dash shots...if we had stopped, our 2 dogs would have ruined them worse!)

Southbound on LA 1, looking at Future southbound I-49 (Segment J?)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3784%2F10272254013_7fcb1e44d4.jpg&hash=b97bb0148721a3f69eb7770f600528ed5f2b7781) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272254013/)


Looking at the Northbound side, everything completed but the overpass. Ramps are paved, and signs are up and uncovered! I would have loved to have seen them. You can also barely see the finally completed overpass (LA 538 Old Mooringsport Rd) in the background.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7345%2F10272146875_8cbc1cccc8.jpg&hash=cc18c280044076473dcf59a92e6dd4c1ceb9ed25) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272146875/)


Pillars for Mainline 49 lanes going up
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2839%2F10272142545_ab51b81d01.jpg&hash=927fd3e861fb4cc81acb3031f8d92f4846b7f650) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272142545/)


Back to Southbound I-49 for these next 2:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7375%2F10272240373_e1582023c3.jpg&hash=33350688e331f694a27eb8e05012aa3dc6788fb9) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272240373/)



(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2880%2F10272123486_8924155732.jpg&hash=df3ffcb9c5fe44a2911b18be319827c6434aef6d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272123486/)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 20, 2013, 05:10:15 PM
^ Thanks for the pics! It's great to see the progress.




Quote from: Grzrd on June 07, 2013, 11:23:14 AM
I just noticed that LaDOTD now has a H.010620 - US 90 (I-49 South) Albertson's Parkway to Ambassador Caffery (http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/contractservices/h.010620.aspx) page

The page has a new link to LaDOTD's announcement of a public meeting about the project that was held on October 15 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/documents/I-49%20South%20-%20Albertson's%20Parkway%20to%20Ambassador%20Caffery%20Public%20Meeting.pdf).  The banner at the top of the announcement leaves little doubt that LaDOTD favors I-49 over I-6 or having the upgrade retain the US 90 designation:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKCwidFE.jpg&hash=f7d4118835f84249f0a6f15565370bb3b8b32784)

Also, this TV video (http://www.klfy.com/story/23710016/next-phase-of-i-49-south-discussed-at-open-house) reports on the October 15 hearing.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on October 20, 2013, 05:31:48 PM
Great to see some of the missing link to I-220 being taken to complete.  Even if LaDOT does not complete it through the city, at least I-49 can be temporarily routed on the I-220 & LA 3132 beltway and still be a completed freeway between Lafayette and Texarkana.  Heck even if AR does not complete I-49 between Texarkana and I-540 at Van Buren, it can still be signed as such as far north as I-30.

Pretty soon Arkansas will have to allow two different Route 49's within its boundaries because the pressure will be on them when LA completes its freeway in Cado.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on October 20, 2013, 08:40:57 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 20, 2013, 05:10:15 PM
^ Thanks for the pics! It's great to see the progress.




Quote from: Grzrd on June 07, 2013, 11:23:14 AM
I just noticed that LaDOTD now has a H.010620 - US 90 (I-49 South) Albertson's Parkway to Ambassador Caffery (http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/contractservices/h.010620.aspx) page

The page has a new link to LaDOTD's announcement of a public meeting about the project that was held on October 15 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/documents/I-49%20South%20-%20Albertson's%20Parkway%20to%20Ambassador%20Caffery%20Public%20Meeting.pdf).  The banner at the top of the announcement leaves little doubt that LaDOTD favors I-49 over I-6 or having the upgrade retain the US 90 designation:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKCwidFE.jpg&hash=f7d4118835f84249f0a6f15565370bb3b8b32784)

Also, this TV video (http://www.klfy.com/story/23710016/next-phase-of-i-49-south-discussed-at-open-house) reports on the October 15 hearing.

I never realized DOTD ever thought about it being anything other than I-49?  About 15 years ago there were Future 49 Corridor shields on US 90B where it splits with I-10.  The sign is gone, but there is one on the Westbank and several more between New Orleans and Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 20, 2013, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on October 20, 2013, 08:40:57 PM
I never realized DOTD ever thought about it being anything other than I-49?

I was half-joking. At times on different threads both I-6 and US 90 have been speculated as the eventual designation.  As far as I know (but others would know better), LaDOTD itself has been consistent about I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on October 20, 2013, 09:34:57 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 20, 2013, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on October 20, 2013, 08:40:57 PM
I never realized DOTD ever thought about it being anything other than I-49?

I was half-joking. At times on different threads both I-6 and US 90 have been speculated as the eventual designation.  As far as I know (but others would know better), LaDOTD itself has been consistent about I-49.
The last time I was in Houma there were still FUTURE I-49 shields along with US 90 ones along the freeway segment between Racine and Morgan City.  This was in 11 and I think they were still up in 12 when I was there last year.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 21, 2013, 01:55:48 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 20, 2013, 05:31:48 PM
Great to see some of the missing link to I-220 being taken to complete.  Even if LaDOT does not complete it through the city, at least I-49 can be temporarily routed on the I-220 & LA 3132 beltway and still be a completed freeway between Lafayette and Texarkana.  Heck even if AR does not complete I-49 between Texarkana and I-540 at Van Buren, it can still be signed as such as far north as I-30.

Pretty soon Arkansas will have to allow two different Route 49's within its boundaries because the pressure will be on them when LA completes its freeway in Cado.

IIRC, the plan in the intern for LaDOTD until the ICC is completed is to use I-20 west to I-220, but use LA 3132/I-220 as a temporary bypass for traffic bypassing Shreveport.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 21, 2013, 02:02:07 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 20, 2013, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on October 20, 2013, 08:40:57 PM
I never realized DOTD ever thought about it being anything other than I-49?

I was half-joking. At times on different threads both I-6 and US 90 have been speculated as the eventual designation.  As far as I know (but others would know better), LaDOTD itself has been consistent about I-49.

Yes, LaDOTD has been consistent on having no other designation other than I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 31, 2013, 05:39:02 AM
LaDOTD has now substansially updated its I-49 South document page to include all the relevant EIS, ROD, and related documentation of the NEPA approval and design process.

http://www.dotd.la.gov/planning/environ/DirListing.aspx?txtPath=/planning/environ/documents/I-49_South

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 31, 2013, 04:41:40 PM
Whether the US 90 interstate upgrade from Lafayette to New Orleans should be designated as I-49 recently came up in this Fictional Highways thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10747.msg255208#msg255208).  FHWA's response to a recent email from me clarifies that "Future I-49" is the administratively approved designation for the entire corridor, and that in regard to a theoretical LaDOTD request to redesignate I-910 as I-49, "FHWA and AASHTO would consider the particulars of the request based on current legislation."

Quote
Congress has not assigned a number to High Priority Corridor # 37, but at the request of Louisiana DOT (LaDOTD) the use of "I-49"  has been administratively approved for the corridor.  AASHTO and FHWA administratively approved that U.S. Route 90 from Lafayette to New Orleans be numbered as Future "I-49"  in two separate actions.  In regards to numbering requests, FHWA always defers to the mandates of Congress.  If LaDOTD requested to renumber I-910 as I-49, FHWA and AASHTO would consider the particulars of the request based on current legislation.
Please see the November 6, 1998 and October 1, 1999 AASHTO approvals of future "I-49"  (with FHWA concurrence) at the following links, http://route.transportation.org/Documents/1999-USRN_Cmte.pdf and http://route.transportation.org/Documents/1998-USRN_Cmte.pdf.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.  Thank you for our interest in the Interstate System.

I think the core question they would have to answer is whether MAP-21 would mandate that a LaDOTD redesignation request to I-49 would have to be approved immediately. In other words, since I-910 is a disconnected segment of the "Future I-49" corridor, does MAP-21 set forth a Congressional mandate that a request to redesignate I-910 as I-49 would have to be approved by FHWA and AASHTO?

It's interesting that the first action covered Lafayette to I-310, and then the second action covered I-310 to I-10.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 04, 2013, 06:10:09 PM
Caddo 2014-01-29 H.003495
455-09-0001 LA 3194, I-49 I-49 North (I-220-mlk Drive) Seg K Conc. New Pavement (Seg K) $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 2.06 Umeozulu, Joe      &      Caddo 2014-04-09 H.011111  I-220, I-49 I-49 North, Segment K - Phase 2 New I-49/I-220 Interchange With Roadways to Tie to Seg. J $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 4.03 Umeozulu, Joe , Looks like they have split the last section of I 49 north into 2 contracts. Is that because they cannot decide on the inter connection project thru Shreveport?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 06:58:12 PM
Considering it will likely be signed as I-49, I think Louisiana should sign I-49 as EAST/WEST like Michigan did with I-69
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 05, 2013, 01:13:57 AM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 06:58:12 PM
Considering it will likely be signed as I-49, I think Louisiana should sign I-49 as EAST/WEST like Michigan did with I-69

Nope...North/South is adequate, since most of I-49 is N/S, and New Orleans is south of Lafayette. The only double back comes between Morgan City and NOLA.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 05, 2013, 01:17:41 AM
Quote from: Gordon on November 04, 2013, 06:10:09 PM
Caddo 2014-01-29 H.003495
455-09-0001 LA 3194, I-49 I-49 North (I-220-mlk Drive) Seg K Conc. New Pavement (Seg K) $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 2.06 Umeozulu, Joe      &      Caddo 2014-04-09 H.011111  I-220, I-49 I-49 North, Segment K - Phase 2 New I-49/I-220 Interchange With Roadways to Tie to Seg. J $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 4.03 Umeozulu, Joe , Looks like they have split the last section of I 49 north into 2 contracts. Is that because they cannot decide on the inter connection project thru Shreveport?

Actually, that interchange was always planned to be phased in, with the direct connections to I-49 North with I-220 to be built now, and the future connections to the I-49 ICC defered to when the latter was ready for construction. That was the plan even before the "Loop It" folks intervened.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on November 05, 2013, 10:43:04 AM
Is DODT planning to overlap U.S. 90 over I-49  in the Lafayette-NOLA corridor? Ie. 49 south/90 east, 49 north/90 west. Assuming it's ever completed of course.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: pctech on November 05, 2013, 10:43:04 AM
Is DODT planning to overlap U.S. 90 over I-49  in the Lafayette-NOLA corridor? Ie. 49 south/90 east, 49 north/90 west. Assuming it's ever completed of course.

Yup, I-49 South will overlay US 90 between Lafayette and Allendale, then take over the Westbank Expressway to downtown NOLA. In Lafayette proper, however, a new freeway (the I-49 Connector) generally overlaying the Evangeline Thruway will carry I-49 South to connect with existing I-49 at its terminus with I-10.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: nolia_boi504 on November 06, 2013, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 12:37:23 AM
Yup, I-49 South will overlay US 90 between Lafayette and Allendale, then take over the Westbank Expressway to downtown NOLA. In Lafayette proper, however, a new freeway (the I-49 Connector) generally overlaying the Evangeline Thruway will carry I-49 South to connect with existing I-49 at its terminus with I-10.

I believe you meant Avondale.

Will I-49 South be designated as "I-49S" similar to I-69E/W/C and I-35E/W, or will it be one continuous I-49 with mile markers starting in NOLA and ending at the Arkansas border?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on November 06, 2013, 09:15:19 AM
It will be signed I-49. It has been called I-49 South to distinguish it from construction happening north of the terminus in Shreveport
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
What bassoon said. "I-49 South" is just the popular moniker used to distinguish the project from the extension from Shreveport northward ("I-49 North").
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 06, 2013, 06:55:23 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
What bassoon said. "I-49 South" is just the popular moniker used to distinguish the project from the extension from Shreveport northward ("I-49 North").

Like when I say "540 North" or "540 South" in Arkansas ;)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: nolia_boi504 on November 06, 2013, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 12:37:23 AM
Yup, I-49 South will overlay US 90 between Lafayette and Allendale, then take over the Westbank Expressway to downtown NOLA. In Lafayette proper, however, a new freeway (the I-49 Connector) generally overlaying the Evangeline Thruway will carry I-49 South to connect with existing I-49 at its terminus with I-10.

I believe you meant Avondale.

[...]

Yes, I did. Got confused with the neighborhood in Shreveport. Thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on November 06, 2013, 07:25:08 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 05, 2013, 01:13:57 AM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 06:58:12 PM
Considering it will likely be signed as I-49, I think Louisiana should sign I-49 as EAST/WEST like Michigan did with I-69

Nope...North/South is adequate, since most of I-49 is N/S, and New Orleans is south of Lafayette. The only double back comes between Morgan City and NOLA.

New Orleans is south of Lafayette the same way Port Huron is north of Lansing. I agree with PC73.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 09:21:45 PM
Latitudal wise, NOLA is still south of Lafayette.

Plus, since the majority of the proposed I-49 will go northwest/southeast, it is still very much appropriate to sign I-49 as N/S.

Now, on the sections where it overlays US 90, you could still cosign US 90 with it as E/W to satisfy cardinal direction.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2013, 10:05:17 PM
It's not confusing enough having US 90 Biz west go east out of downtown NO. Now it'll be I-49 north, turned 270 degrees from its proper direction.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on November 06, 2013, 10:17:41 PM
I'm actually to some degree willing to give a pass to routes twisted around an urban core.  It's the intercity directions that matter more to me.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 07, 2013, 05:10:53 AM
I think I-49 should be signed E/W from New Orleans to the Atchafalaya River.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on November 07, 2013, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2013, 09:21:45 PM
Latitudal wise, NOLA is still south of Lafayette.

Plus, since the majority of the proposed I-49 will go northwest/southeast, it is still very much appropriate to sign I-49 as N/S.

Now, on the sections where it overlays US 90, you could still cosign US 90 with it as E/W to satisfy cardinal direction.

Quote from: apjung on November 07, 2013, 05:10:53 AM
I think I-49 should be signed E/W from New Orleans to the Atchafalaya River.

I-69 in Michigan does switch directions (N-S to E-W), but other interstates do not.

Thinking of which, it does seem like I-44 in Wichita Falls, Texas.  Normally an East-West route, it reverses direction there.  Does anyone know how it is signed?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on November 07, 2013, 09:56:30 AM
I-44 is signed E-W in Wichita Falls in GSV
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on November 07, 2013, 03:35:39 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 05, 2013, 01:13:57 AM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 06:58:12 PM
Considering it will likely be signed as I-49, I think Louisiana should sign I-49 as EAST/WEST like Michigan did with I-69

Nope...North/South is adequate, since most of I-49 is N/S, and New Orleans is south of Lafayette. The only double back comes between Morgan City and NOLA.
Not to mention the curve back that will be way bigger than that of I-64 at its eastern end!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 07, 2013, 05:12:33 PM
I-44 is indeed signed East & West for all of its length between Oklahoma City & Wichita Falls, even though that section is more North & South (especially the stretch between Lawton & Wichita Falls).

I'm not sure how the directional signing of I-49 between New Orleans and Lafayette should be handled, at least the part between Morgan City and Gretna where I-49 South is really going East and Northeast.  It might be better to just drop the directional North/South signs and use control cities or destination points instead as the highway gets into the Westbank side of New Orleans.

On the Westbank Expressway, I-49 South could be signed using an I-49 shield and "Downtown New Orleans" on green panels. I'm not sure what control cities or points would make the most sense on the "North" direction for the Westbank expressway. It could be local points like Harvey or Westwego. I remember Raceland being a control city on US-90 since the intersection with LA-1 is there. It could be Amelia or Morgan City since those are literally the most southern points on I-49 South. Lafayette might work just as well.

Regardless of what happens, control cities are going to be a very important part of signs on I-49 where the road isn't moving North & South. Too many motorists may end up confused and lost otherwise.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on November 07, 2013, 05:58:43 PM
Putting the cat among the pigeons:  N-WEST and S-EAST (old Ohio DOT standard).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on November 07, 2013, 09:14:10 PM
I-6  :wave:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 07, 2013, 10:02:20 PM
This is all so stupid.  I-49 should be signed E/W between NOLA and Lafayette.  IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL! 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2013, 09:48:45 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 07, 2013, 10:02:20 PM
This is all so stupid.  I-49 should be signed E/W between NOLA and Lafayette.  IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL! 

Actually, it IS a big deal, because you can't sign I-49 South between Lafayette and NOLA from W to E. Milepost 0 for I-49 currently is the current I-49/I-10 interchange in Lafayette. You can't have the same interstate being signed in BOTH directions (north to Opelousas/Alexandria/Shreveport/Texarkana/etc., east to New Iberia/Morgan City/Boutte/Gretna/NOLA.

The only way you could possibly sign it W/E would be to use US 90's mileposts. But, what would you do with the I-49 Connector segment in Lafayette that doesn't use US 90??

Far better to just keep it as I-49 for continuity sake.

Now, if the Lafayette Metro Expressway loop was built from I-10 west of Scott to meet US 90 just S or Broussard, then you'd have a real case for an I-6 or a rerouted I-10, and you could keep what remains of I-49 South as a shorter extension. But, that's not happening any time soon.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2013, 10:55:22 AM
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31
QuoteRegardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.
It doesn't say that numbering must increase from west to east and south to north on every segment, only as a whole within the state.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 08, 2013, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2013, 09:48:45 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 07, 2013, 10:02:20 PM
This is all so stupid.  I-49 should be signed E/W between NOLA and Lafayette.  IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL! 

Actually, it IS a big deal, because you can't sign I-49 South between Lafayette and NOLA from W to E. Milepost 0 for I-49 currently is the current I-49/I-10 interchange in Lafayette. You can't have the same interstate being signed in BOTH directions (north to Opelousas/Alexandria/Shreveport/Texarkana/etc., east to New Iberia/Morgan City/Boutte/Gretna/NOLA.

The only way you could possibly sign it W/E would be to use US 90's mileposts. But, what would you do with the I-49 Connector segment in Lafayette that doesn't use US 90??

Far better to just keep it as I-49 for continuity sake.

Now, if the Lafayette Metro Expressway loop was built from I-10 west of Scott to meet US 90 just S or Broussard, then you'd have a real case for an I-6 or a rerouted I-10, and you could keep what remains of I-49 South as a shorter extension. But, that's not happening any time soon.

Michigan has done it with I-69. I-49 would have to renumber its exits anyway when the south portion is constructed, I wasn't talking about using different exit number schemes, just signing 49 East and West from Lafayette to New Orleans. It can be kept signed N/S, but omit the direction signs if it's cosigned along I-10 and/or US 90.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2013, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 08, 2013, 11:27:10 AM

Michigan has done it with I-69. I-49 would have to renumber its exits anyway when the south portion is constructed, I wasn't talking about using different exit number schemes, just signing 49 East and West from Lafayette to New Orleans. It can be kept signed N/S, but omit the direction signs if it's cosigned along I-10 and/or US 90.

The problem here is that numbering is usally done from west to east and south to north, but if you sign I-49 South that way, you'd be going the exact opposite of what is recommended. I-69 between Indy and Port Huron runs generally SW to NE, so that goes with the traditional flow of signage. US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA is signed in exactly the opposite direction (NW to SE) as how I-49 South would go (SE to NW).

I do think that a proper solution would be to retain the N/S directional signage, but also  keep US 90 E/W signage, as in "NORTH I-49/WEST US 90" and "SOUTH I-49/EAST US 90". Cosigning both on the concurrent sections would relieve any confusion of direction.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2013, 01:21:10 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2013, 12:35:28 PM
The problem here is that numbering is usally done from west to east and south to north, but if you sign I-49 South that way, you'd be going the exact opposite of what is recommended.
Not true - see the MUTCD section I quoted.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2013, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 08, 2013, 01:21:10 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2013, 12:35:28 PM
The problem here is that numbering is usally done from west to east and south to north, but if you sign I-49 South that way, you'd be going the exact opposite of what is recommended.
Not true - see the MUTCD section I quoted.

Let's try this again.

I-49 from Lafayette northward is signed S to N.

If you are going to extend I-49 southward and southeastward along US 90 from Lafayette to NOLA, you still have the majority of I-49 going N-S.

Milepost signage always goes S to N and W to E. (Or, along diagonal routes, NW to SE or SW to NE.)

Resetting Milepost 0 for I-49 at the I-10/Ponchatrain Expressway interchange in NO would somewhat violate that principle, but only for that short section from NOLA to around Raceland/Houma. From there onward, I-49 would comply all the way through LA (and further N ultimately to Texarkana, NWAR, and Kansas City).

I fail to see how a small segment of US 90 violating the N/S principle running concurrent w/ future I-49 South is such a big deal in the overall scheme.

If you are that heated up about it, then just redesignate I-49 South as I-6 and be done with it. Or, build the LMX, reroute I-6 through there, and keep a shorter I-49 extension that doesn't violate the standard.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on November 08, 2013, 09:02:24 PM
I'm confused just from trying to keep up, but.... Since the New Orleans CBD will still be the southern terminus of the route regardless of how convoluted it is or how many times it loops around it self, what is the issue? In the grand scheme of things it will still be numbered from S to N. I agree with the part about leaving 90 cosigned however.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2013, 10:38:42 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 08, 2013, 08:33:33 PM
Milepost signage always goes S to N and W to E. (Or, along diagonal routes, NW to SE or SW to NE.)
No it goat. Per the MUTCD, you look at the entire route within the state and pick the southernmost or westernmost point to begin at. In the case of I-49, mile 0 would be at New Orleans even if it's signed east-west there.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 09, 2013, 03:08:25 PM
The November 2013 I-49 Inner City Connector Newsletter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/34/117/489-001-001-046NG-Newsletter%20Vol%202_No%202_November%202013%20Revised.pdf) has been posted.  It indicates that official approval to include the study of a fifth build alternative was received in October 2013 and it discusses the upcoming process:

Quote
During the public involvement process the No-Build Alternative was suggested as the solution by a large number of individuals, as it utilizes LA 3132 from its interchange with I-49 as the connector. It was determined that upgrades would be necessary to consider LA 3132 a viable connector. As a result, a new build alternative, Build Alternative 5, has been added to the study. The area surrounding Build Alternative 5 will be known as the NEPA-derived study area since it falls outside the original project study area ....
Due to the addition of Build Alternative 5, a third round of Community Input Meetings has been added. This round will consist of five meetings and is anticipated to be held early in 2014. These meetings will incorporate all affected communities and will be held once the appropriate studies have been conducted on Build Alternative 5.

Here is a map showing the new study area:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fpw2Fzkw.jpg&hash=fcf50bc7789a6dd708102167b312f982fd39cd7e)

Will they choose to Loop It? Time will tell .......

edit

An interesting aspect of this process is that, as previously discussed in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.msg164210#msg164210), LaDOTD already intends for LA 3132 to "ultimately" be an interstate grade connection for I-69, I-49 and I-20.  It will be interesting to see if that ultimate intent will be a factor in the Alternative 5 analysis (of course, it is by no means a given that the southern extension of LA 3132 will ever be built).  A LOT of moving pieces .....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 10, 2013, 05:22:01 AM
Mile 0 in downtown New Orleans, whereas Mile 150 is around Lafayette, and mile 400 around the Arkansas State Line.   Everything from NO to Laf is signed E/W, and (Laf) I-10 to ARK is signed N/S.  Done.  The little rulebook will get thrown out as has been done in other parts of the country like I-69.  It's not that difficult and excruciating. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 10, 2013, 05:51:19 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 10, 2013, 05:22:01 AM
Mile 0 in downtown New Orleans, whereas Mile 150 is around Lafayette, and mile 400 around the Arkansas State Line.   Everything from NO to Laf is signed E/W, and (Laf) I-10 to ARK is signed N/S.  Done.  The little rulebook will get thrown out as has been done in other parts of the country like I-69.  It's not that difficult and excruciating. 

Again, if you sign I-49 South from Milepost 0 (NOLA) to Milepost 143 (I-10/I-49 interchange in Lafayette) you'd be going WEST, in direct OPPOSITE to how mileposts would be signed usually (ascending from W to E).

It's not particularly a big deal anyway, as long as the thing gets built.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: tdindy88 on November 10, 2013, 06:10:07 AM
I apologize if this had been brought up, just looking at this conversation, but this seems no different from say I-75 is South Florida crossing the Everglades with mile markers and exit numbers going up as the highway heads west. It's been a few years since I was on the highway and I don't remember whether or not it is marked N/S or E/W but if Florida can do it, why not Louisiana?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: tdindy88 on November 10, 2013, 06:10:07 AM
I apologize if this had been brought up, just looking at this conversation, but this seems no different from say I-75 is South Florida crossing the Everglades with mile markers and exit numbers going up as the highway heads west. It's been a few years since I was on the highway and I don't remember whether or not it is marked N/S or E/W but if Florida can do it, why not Louisiana?

Exactly, I-75 goes counts up heading west and westbound is signed as "North". I have no idea why people are really going back and forth over what direction a 60 mile stretch of a 300 mile highway should be signed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 10, 2013, 11:23:46 AM
I-75 south heads east and curves back to south. I-49 south would go east, north and then curve 270 degrees to the west. There are no valid reasons to not sign it east-west between Lafayette and NO.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on November 10, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 10, 2013, 05:51:19 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 10, 2013, 05:22:01 AM
Mile 0 in downtown New Orleans, whereas Mile 150 is around Lafayette, and mile 400 around the Arkansas State Line.   Everything from NO to Laf is signed E/W, and (Laf) I-10 to ARK is signed N/S.  Done.  The little rulebook will get thrown out as has been done in other parts of the country like I-69.  It's not that difficult and excruciating. 

Again, if you sign I-49 South from Milepost 0 (NOLA) to Milepost 143 (I-10/I-49 interchange in Lafayette) you'd be going WEST, in direct OPPOSITE to how mileposts would be signed usually (ascending from W to E).

It's not particularly a big deal anyway, as long as the thing gets built.

Exactly. It's not a big deal. You have seemed hung up on explaining this little rule violation, which others are aware of but willing to overlook, and which NE2 asserts is not even so strict as to be violated by this particular proposal.  See also: I-90 segment of NYS Thruway.  It's been done already, and the only people to question it have been roadgeeks.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 11, 2013, 08:57:28 PM
Right.  I understand the rule, but I'm also willing to overlook it as logic should prevail and not a technicality.  The traveling public couldn't give a crap either.  I'm sure most people don't even realize the numbering grid of the Interstate routes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on November 12, 2013, 06:28:37 AM
To be fair, signing this portion of I-49 as east—west has the downside of someone getting on in the middle of that segment and saying, "But which way to Shreveport?"   Of course, that question could be answered with a quick glance at even the simplest Louisiana map showing I-49...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: JON30 on November 13, 2013, 02:48:46 PM
I-49 set to open up "an 18-mile stretch from North Market Street to Highway 71 in between Hosston and Gilliam" before the end of November.  No date has been announced. 
http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on November 13, 2013, 06:32:41 PM
And we have signs!! I really like the style of the digits in that picture from the article. Most of the time they are tall and too squashed within the shield.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2013, 07:05:31 PM
no state name?  I thought they were putting those up regularly now in Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: txstateends on November 13, 2013, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: JON30 on November 13, 2013, 02:48:46 PM
I-49 set to open up "an 18-mile stretch from North Market Street to Highway 71 in between Hosston and Gilliam" before the end of November.  No date has been announced. 
http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month)

>ugh< And they're *still* saying "Canada" and "1700 miles" when referring to the completed I-49.  Obviously no roadfans work at Channel 3....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 14, 2013, 11:37:22 PM
Here is a good article from the Shreveport times about I 49.http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131114/NEWS01/131114022/I-49-projects-progressing-northern-sections-opening?nclick_check=1
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 15, 2013, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: txstateends on November 13, 2013, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: JON30 on November 13, 2013, 02:48:46 PM
I-49 set to open up "an 18-mile stretch from North Market Street to Highway 71 in between Hosston and Gilliam" before the end of November.  No date has been announced. 
http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month)

>ugh< And they're *still* saying "Canada" and "1700 miles" when referring to the completed I-49.  Obviously no roadfans work at Channel 3....

And "Palm to Pines" . That was Jefferson Highway's slogan.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on November 15, 2013, 11:02:36 AM
Quote from: Gordon on November 14, 2013, 11:37:22 PM
Here is a good article from the Shreveport times about I 49.http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131114/NEWS01/131114022/I-49-projects-progressing-northern-sections-opening?nclick_check=1

2 questions I have from this article:

"The final segment of I-49 North will be a three-tiered high-rise interchange at Interstate 20 that's estimated to cost $150 million."
Is that I-20 or I-220? I-220 @ I-49 will be the last segment for the main I-49 north project. If it really is meant to be I-20 as she says, that's assuming the downtown segment will be constructed and not the LA 3132 option. Plus, 1/2 of that interchange is already there.

"A section of the roadway in St. Mary around Franklin is designated I-49 with a 70-mph speed limit."
What?? That's the first I've heard of this! Who wants to take a picture?? I feel like it's actually signed because she followed that statement by saying the other sections have I-49 corridor signs and a 65 mph speed limit...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on November 15, 2013, 11:42:07 AM
Quote from: txstateends on November 13, 2013, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: JON30 on November 13, 2013, 02:48:46 PM
I-49 set to open up "an 18-mile stretch from North Market Street to Highway 71 in between Hosston and Gilliam" before the end of November.  No date has been announced. 
http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month)

>ugh< And they're *still* saying "Canada" and "1700 miles" when referring to the completed I-49.  Obviously no roadfans work at Channel 3....
Could it be that they like to pretend that I-29 does not exist?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2013, 12:18:39 PM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2013, 11:42:07 AM

Could it be that they like to pretend that I-29 does not exist?

or they are thinking of 49-29 as a single logical corridor.  it is, as US71 mentioned, the approximate routing of the old Jefferson Highway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 15, 2013, 03:38:29 PM
Yes and goat.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericanroadmagazine.com%2Fforum%2Fuploads%2F1311708984%2Fgallery_13589_105_30550.gif&hash=d6374092c7310b4624b6c0185cd0ddc9d0c745f1)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 15, 2013, 05:25:52 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2013, 07:05:31 PM
no state name?  I thought they were putting those up regularly now in Louisiana.

I'm hoping to be at the ribbon cutting (supposedly sometime this month), so perhaps I will have a chance to look around and see if any are named.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on November 15, 2013, 07:04:50 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on November 15, 2013, 11:02:36 AM
"A section of the roadway in St. Mary around Franklin is designated I-49 with a 70-mph speed limit."
What?? That's the first I've heard of this! Who wants to take a picture?? I feel like it's actually signed because she followed that statement by saying the other sections have I-49 corridor signs and a 65 mph speed limit...

Wouldn't LaDOTD have to submit an application to AASHTO/FHWA and obtain approval from the Route Numbering subcommittee and FHWA before installing I-49 signs (as opposed to "Future I-49" or "I-49 corridor")? I don't recall anything like this being on AASHTO's recent dockets. (I know that AASHTO approved the corridor as Future I-49 but that is only a preliminary step.)

Articles get stuff like this wrong all the time. I'd look for some official confirmation before taking a newspaper article's word for it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 15, 2013, 10:37:43 PM
 Hopefully they will decide on the Shreveport I 49 connector by April so when the interchange at I 220 is let in April it will be planned for the right path. The LA 3132 path looks like more cost and a long way around.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 15, 2013, 10:55:41 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 27, 2013, 12:39:01 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 27, 2013, 12:21:13 AM
http://www.iberianet.com/news/crossing-paths-homes-could-be-razed-for-overpass/article_30f65ed6-d0f9-11e1-98f3-0019
Quote
Of the three options being considered for the project, the one likely to be pursued involves raising U.S. 90 over Louisiana 318, which is estimated to cost about $47 million and would warrant the razing of 29 homes and seven mobile homes – including Caribbean Winds – to make way for the highway's on/off ramps.
The solution, Bourg said, is to relocate the on/off ramps on the opposite side of Louisiana 318, where there are no homes, only sugar cane fields ....

This article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/subdivision-in-the-clear-on-u-s/article_e363870e-4e13-11e3-abda-0019bb2963f4.html) reports that the environmental assessement has been completed and the Caribbean Winds subdivision will be spared:

Quote
SMHA President Lorna Bourg said the Caribbean Winds subdivision, located just off of U.S. 90 near Louisiana 318, would be averted by the plan DOTD chose after hearings last year.
She said instead of having a road go through Caribbean Winds, which could have affected 12 homes, the road will be constructed behind the subdivision ....
DOTD spokeswoman Deidra Druilet said the department has completed the environmental process for the project and just issued a notice to begin survey work. Once survey work is completed – possibly by summer – design work will begin. Druilet said DOTD expects to complete design by the end of 2014  ....
The total anticipated cost for the project is $48.9 million ....
State Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, said the overpass project is just one more piece to the puzzle.
"This project, although we keep trying to push it along, the pieces are coming together in a timely fashion,"  he said. "With the completion of 318, we'll be interstate compliant from the outskirts of Lafayette all the way to the Calumet Cut in St. Mary Parish."

A link to the Environmental Assessment - Finding of No Significant Impact can be found here (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/us90/).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 16, 2013, 02:10:51 AM
Someone might want to relay to LaDOTD that the EA/FONSI document doesn't load properly, and when I attempted to download the doc to my personal files, it turned up broken.

In any case, one more small step forward for I-49 South.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 17, 2013, 09:22:40 PM
Report from the field:

I-49 is complete from LA 1 to the LA/AR State Line. It is only signed between LA 1 and US 71 north of Gilliam (which is the section that will be opening soon).  Hopefully, I'll have at least a few photos up in the next day or two.

Oh, and sorry, Jake: No state-named I-49 shields.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on November 18, 2013, 09:44:57 AM
If you want state-named shields, just head south to Alexandria. We have plenty!

Nokia Lumia 520
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on November 18, 2013, 09:45:27 AM
If you want state-named shields, just head south to Alexandria. We have plenty!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 18, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 09, 2013, 02:02:39 PM
Despite the beginning of the environmental process for the I-10 bridge  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3378.msg251516#msg251516) and the positive ongoing meetings regarding the I-49 South Corridor, the Lafayette-Lake Charles "super region" is still getting its act together, as reported in this Sept. 14 article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130914/BUSINESS/309140017/Slowly-pact-progresses)

This article (http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20131118/ARTICLES/131119619/-1/living?Title=Areas-unite-to-create-8216-super-region-8217-) reports that a second super region, Baton Rouge, New Orleans and Houma-Thibodaux, appears to have strong support for I-49 South from its Baton Rouge contingent:

Quote
Houma-Thibodaux is increasingly being included in state economic development groups' efforts to unify southeast Louisiana into a cohesive "super region"  to be used in promotional and policy making decisions ....
Baton Rouge Economic Council President Roger Ogden, who formerly chaired the super-region committee, said that completing the long-stagnant Interstate 49 project is among the priorities. Advocates want to upgrade U.S. 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans into an I-49 corridor. That would connect Lafayette to New Orleans through Houma-Thibodaux.
Between 2004 and 2011, highway traffic between the three areas increased 11 percent. In 2004, about 8,000 people commuted daily between Houma-Thibodaux and New Orleans for business purposes. In 2010, the number was more than 11,000 ....

The Baton Rouge support for I-49 South is consistent with LaDOTD partially describing I-49 South as a Baton Rouge Bypass (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/):

Quote
The extension of I-49 will provide ... a bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10 ....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on November 18, 2013, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 18, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
The Baton Rouge support for I-49 South is consistent with LaDOTD partially describing I-49 South as a Baton Rouge Bypass (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/):

Quote
The extension of I-49 will provide ... a bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10 ....

But you would then not be able to access I-12 to bypass New Orleans, so you would either choose I-49 to I-10 and bypass BR, or choose I-10 to I-12 to bypass NO. What if you want to bypass BOTH Baton Rouge and New Orleans?

It's another argument for signing this as I-10 and signing current I-10 west of BR as an I-12 extension, but that horse has been beaten to death on here by now.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 18, 2013, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 16, 2013, 02:10:51 AM
Someone might want to relay to LaDOTD that the EA/FONSI document doesn't load properly, and when I attempted to download the doc to my personal files, it turned up broken.

I think that they have fixed the problem.  Alternative E is the Preferred Alternative (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/us90/Documents/Environmental_Assessment_-_Finding_of_No_Significant_Impact_(FONSI)_-_October_2013.pdf) (page 18/409 of pdf):

Quote
Alternative E (see Figure ES-4 above) was a combination of both Alternative B and Alternative D, but with fewer overall residential impacts. Since Alternative E achieved all of the positive benefits of either Alternative B or Alternative D but with less residential relocations, it was identified as the preferred alternative by FHWA and LADOTD. Alternative E is being added into this Preliminary Final EA for both citizens and agencies to have an opportunity to see the new build alternative compared against Alternative B and Alternative D. The selection of the preferred alternative took into consideration the environmental effects of each alternative, cost, public opinion, and a number of other factors.

Figure ES-4:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjCpEBd5.png&hash=49889ef3fa4940aedb780594999709dc18107079)



edit

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2013, 01:45:51 PM
But you would then not be able to access I-12 to bypass New Orleans, so you would either choose I-49 to I-10 and bypass BR, or choose I-10 to I-12 to bypass NO. What if you want to bypass BOTH Baton Rouge and New Orleans?

You perfectly described an Alanland Loop.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2013, 08:56:40 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2013, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 18, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
The Baton Rouge support for I-49 South is consistent with LaDOTD partially describing I-49 South as a Baton Rouge Bypass (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/):

Quote
The extension of I-49 will provide ... a bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10 ....

But you would then not be able to access I-12 to bypass New Orleans, so you would either choose I-49 to I-10 and bypass BR, or choose I-10 to I-12 to bypass NO. What if you want to bypass BOTH Baton Rouge and New Orleans?

It's another argument for signing this as I-10 and signing current I-10 west of BR as an I-12 extension, but that horse has been beaten to death on here by now.

It may also be a realization by Baton Rouge officials that they're not going to get any improvements on I-10 through that city or a loop anytime soon, and that backing I-49 South as their "bypass" might be the lesser evil.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on November 18, 2013, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2013, 01:45:51 PM
But you would then not be able to access I-12 to bypass New Orleans, so you would either choose I-49 to I-10 and bypass BR, or choose I-10 to I-12 to bypass NO. What if you want to bypass BOTH Baton Rouge and New Orleans?

The route's purpose as a bypass would be to serve the traffic originates or ends in New Orleans. This thru traffic makes up a significant chunk of Baton Rouge's congestion without contributing anything to the local area. It's even worse during large events in New Orleans or when ever there is a storm threat and 80% of the Southshore decides to evacuate to Houston, when there is plenty of places to go up the I-55 and I-59 corridors. Want to bypass both then US 190 will probably be your best bet.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2013, 02:57:00 PM
The benefits of I-49 as a bypass for traffic going to/from New Orleans are somewhat limited.

If I was driving on I-10 from, say for instance, Houston and headed to a point on or south of the Westbank, such as Westwego, Grenta or Belle Chasse then using I-49 South from Lafayette to the Westbank Expressway might make sense. This is especially true if any rush hour traffic were involved. The driving distance might be slightly longer, but there might be a net savings of time gained by avoiding traffic.

If I was driving from Houston to a point in New Orleans itself or a suburb like Kenner I would probably stay on I-10, going through Baton Rouge. Taking I-49 would be well out of the way.

Long distance through traffic going to places like Texas, Florida, California, etc. will keep going through Baton Rouge and bypassing New Orleans entirely via I-12.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 19, 2013, 05:02:21 PM
LaDOTD's I-49 North Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=534981883257078&set=a.534981579923775.1073741825.173375266084410&type=1&theater) has five photos of an Arkansas work crew "connecting" I-49 North with I-49 in Arkansas on November 14.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on November 19, 2013, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2013, 02:57:00 PM
The benefits of I-49 as a bypass for traffic going to/from New Orleans are somewhat limited.

If I was driving on I-10 from, say for instance, Houston and headed to a point on or south of the Westbank, such as Westwego, Grenta or Belle Chasse then using I-49 South from Lafayette to the Westbank Expressway might make sense. This is especially true if any rush hour traffic were involved. The driving distance might be slightly longer, but there might be a net savings of time gained by avoiding traffic.

If I was driving from Houston to a point in New Orleans itself or a suburb like Kenner I would probably stay on I-10, going through Baton Rouge. Taking I-49 would be well out of the way.

Long distance through traffic going to places like Texas, Florida, California, etc. will keep going through Baton Rouge and bypassing New Orleans entirely via I-12.

Of course people from the West Jeff suburbs and the Westbank portion of N.O. are going to consider I-49 more convenient. Now if you consider I-310 (which still has a good chance of carrying I-49 instead) and get public awareness of the route out it really won't be that far out of the way for East Jeff and Eastbank N.O. at all. There are plenty of people who schedule their trips west around BR's traffic versus traffic in leaving/entering the city. Remove the fear of traveling "back roads" and people may not have a problem. Removing BR and the Atchafalaya Basin from the equation is killing 2 birds with 1 stone. The key is public awareness.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on November 19, 2013, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2013, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 18, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
The Baton Rouge support for I-49 South is consistent with LaDOTD partially describing I-49 South as a Baton Rouge Bypass (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/):

Quote
The extension of I-49 will provide ... a bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10 ....

But you would then not be able to access I-12 to bypass New Orleans, so you would either choose I-49 to I-10 and bypass BR, or choose I-10 to I-12 to bypass NO. What if you want to bypass BOTH Baton Rouge and New Orleans?

I-10 to I-49 south to I-310 north.  I-10 west to I-55 to I-12 east.  :bigass:

Now, would any really use it?  No flipping idea.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 22, 2013, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 19, 2013, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 18, 2013, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 18, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
The Baton Rouge support for I-49 South is consistent with LaDOTD partially describing I-49 South as a Baton Rouge Bypass (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/):

Quote
The extension of I-49 will provide ... a bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10 ....

But you would then not be able to access I-12 to bypass New Orleans, so you would either choose I-49 to I-10 and bypass BR, or choose I-10 to I-12 to bypass NO. What if you want to bypass BOTH Baton Rouge and New Orleans?

I-10 to I-49 south to I-310 north.  I-10 west to I-55 to I-12 east.  :bigass:

Now, would any really use it?  No flipping idea.

LMAO!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 23, 2013, 11:41:34 AM
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20131122/UPDATES/311220044/Bond-commission-approves-I-49-funding. This article talks about selling 100 million in bonds, 80 million for I 49 North and 20 million for I 49 South. it is backed by the unclaimed property fund.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: txstateends on November 23, 2013, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 23, 2013, 11:41:34 AM
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20131122/UPDATES/311220044/Bond-commission-approves-I-49-funding. This article talks about selling 100 million in bonds, 80 million for I 49 North and 20 million for I 49 South. it is backed by the unclaimed property fund.

Is the $80 million only for the ICC (between I-220 and I-20 in Shreveport), or is part of it for expenditures for the part between I-220 and the LA/AR line?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 23, 2013, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: txstateends on November 23, 2013, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 23, 2013, 11:41:34 AM
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20131122/UPDATES/311220044/Bond-commission-approves-I-49-funding. This article talks about selling 100 million in bonds, 80 million for I 49 North and 20 million for I 49 South. it is backed by the unclaimed property fund.

Is the $80 million only for the ICC (between I-220 and I-20 in Shreveport), or is part of it for expenditures for the part between I-220 and the LA/AR line?

I would assume the I-49 North money is to complete the I-220/I-49 North interchange and for additional enviromental studies for the added alternative of upgrading LA 3132/I-220 (the "Loop It" alternative to the proposed ICC); while the I-49 South bonds would build the LA 318 interchange and the segment from Albertson Parkway to Ambassador Caffery Parkway, and complete design work for the I-49 Connector in Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 24, 2013, 04:39:52 AM
Quote
I-49 set to open up "an 18-mile stretch from North Market Street to Highway 71 in between Hosston and Gilliam" before the end of November.  No date has been announced. 
http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month)

Well?  Getting close.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 25, 2013, 05:17:49 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 24, 2013, 04:39:52 AM
Quote
I-49 set to open up "an 18-mile stretch from North Market Street to Highway 71 in between Hosston and Gilliam" before the end of November.  No date has been announced. 
http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month (http://www.ktbs.com/story/23950816/new-section-of-i-49-to-open-this-month)

Well?  Getting close.

Last I heard, it was going to be sometime this week, but given the weather, it may have been postponed.  Yesterday, I noticed the traffic signals at 71 & 49 near Gilliam have been activated, though only flashing yellow right now.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: JON30 on November 26, 2013, 02:20:02 PM
I'm assuming that is this afternoon but there aren't many details.

From the KTBS 3 website "New section of I-49 north of Shreveport to open Tuesday afternoon"

"SHREVEPORT, La. (KTBS) -
The Office of Governor Bobby Jindal confirms to KTBS 3 News a ribbon cutting to open the newest section of Interstate 49 will be held Tuesday afternoon.

RELATED ARTICLE: New section of I-49 to open this month

The ceremony is scheduled for 4pm, however its location was not disclosed at the time of this post. Governor Bobby Jindal is expected to be in attendance.

The new section of the interstate is more than 18 miles long between North Market Street (Hwy 1) and US Highway 71 between Hosston and Gilliam.

Stay with KTBS 3 News on the latest. "

http://www.ktbs.com/story/24074677/new-section-of-i-49-north-of-shreveport-to-open-tuesday-afternoon (http://www.ktbs.com/story/24074677/new-section-of-i-49-north-of-shreveport-to-open-tuesday-afternoon)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 26, 2013, 02:25:13 PM
Quote from: JON30 on November 26, 2013, 02:20:02 PM
I'm assuming that is this afternoon but there aren't many details.

This afternoon: http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/story/gov-jindal-marks-i-49-opening/d/story/1BKeBtgl3UOCOOWcsQXZpQ

Quote
It's an exciting time in Shreveport as a new section of Interstate-49 is set to open this afternoon ....
The event will take place at 4 p.m. at the Christian Faith Worship Center Church on 5201 North Market.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alex on November 26, 2013, 02:58:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 26, 2013, 02:25:13 PM
Quote from: JON30 on November 26, 2013, 02:20:02 PM
I'm assuming that is this afternoon but there aren't many details.

This afternoon: http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/story/gov-jindal-marks-i-49-opening/d/story/1BKeBtgl3UOCOOWcsQXZpQ

Quote
It's an exciting time in Shreveport as a new section of Interstate-49 is set to open this afternoon ....
The event will take place at 4 p.m. at the Christian Faith Worship Center Church on 5201 North Market.

Well I know where they got the I-49 graphic in the background:

(https://www.aaroads.com/images/i-049.gif)

https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr01.html
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 26, 2013, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 25, 2010, 11:13:13 PM
I-49 may Open in 2013

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20100725/OPINION03/7250364/30-miles-of-I-49-North-could-be-opened-in-late-2013

A 30-mile section of I-49 North between La. 1 and Louisiana Highway 168 (Segments I through B) can be opened to traffic in late 2013. The remaining two-mile segment between La. 168 and Arkansas (Segment A) can be opened after that state finishes its remaining portion of I-49 North in 2015.


close but I'll take it!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on November 26, 2013, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: Alex on November 26, 2013, 02:58:53 PM
Well I know where they got the I-49 graphic in the background:

(https://www.aaroads.com/images/i-049.gif)

That is a fairly distinctive shading effect.  I've never understood why exactly AARoads does that (versus any number of other shading options), but I guess it's effective branding.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 26, 2013, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: JON30 on November 26, 2013, 02:20:02 PM
I'm assuming that is this afternoon but there aren't many details.

From the KTBS 3 website "New section of I-49 north of Shreveport to open Tuesday afternoon"

"SHREVEPORT, La. (KTBS) -
The Office of Governor Bobby Jindal confirms to KTBS 3 News a ribbon cutting to open the newest section of Interstate 49 will be held Tuesday afternoon.

RELATED ARTICLE: New section of I-49 to open this month

The ceremony is scheduled for 4pm, however its location was not disclosed at the time of this post. Governor Bobby Jindal is expected to be in attendance.

The new section of the interstate is more than 18 miles long between North Market Street (Hwy 1) and US Highway 71 between Hosston and Gilliam.

Stay with KTBS 3 News on the latest. "

http://www.ktbs.com/story/24074677/new-section-of-i-49-north-of-shreveport-to-open-tuesday-afternoon (http://www.ktbs.com/story/24074677/new-section-of-i-49-north-of-shreveport-to-open-tuesday-afternoon)


If it wasn't for the wacky weather, I might have stayed in town for it.  :(
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alex on November 26, 2013, 04:21:49 PM
Quote from: vtk on November 26, 2013, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: Alex on November 26, 2013, 02:58:53 PM
Well I know where they got the I-49 graphic in the background:

(https://www.aaroads.com/images/i-049.gif)

That is a fairly distinctive shading effect.  I've never understood why exactly AARoads does that (versus any number of other shading options), but I guess it's effective branding.

It was a photoshop filter I used in the early 2000s, mainly for fun and to simulate a sign reflecting headlights. I abandoned using it for site graphics around ten years ago.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 26, 2013, 06:52:06 PM
Opening ceremonies
http://www.ksla.com/story/24077152/new-section-of-i49-north-now-open-in-caddo-parish


And we already have our first fatality on the new section of I-49!
http://www.ksla.com/story/24076572/1-killed-in-wreck-at-new-i49-interchange-in-caddo-paris

http://www.ktbs.com/story/24077916/fatal-accident-happens-on-day-of-i-49-opening
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 26, 2013, 09:23:32 PM
Quote from: apjung on November 26, 2013, 06:52:06 PM
Opening ceremonies
http://www.ksla.com/story/24077152/new-section-of-i49-north-now-open-in-caddo-parish


And we already have our first fatality on the new section of I-49!
http://www.ksla.com/story/24076572/1-killed-in-wreck-at-new-i49-interchange-in-caddo-paris

http://www.ktbs.com/story/24077916/fatal-accident-happens-on-day-of-i-49-opening


LA Hwy 71?   :banghead:

It figures 71/49 would have the first accident: people aren't used to the new traffic signal yet.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 27, 2013, 01:33:18 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/10927166466/in/set-72157637806872164/

US 71 East and West!!!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 27, 2013, 01:55:21 AM
By March, Jindal said, an additional 11 miles between Arkansas and Hosston will open, with Arkansas connecting to those northern segments by the summer.

The last five miles – segments J and K located nearest Interstate 220 – will be completed by 2016 or early 2017, Jindal said. Construction has started on Segment J, which will be finished by fall 2015.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131126/NEWS01/311260030/Shreveport-Hosston-now-19-mile-cruise-49
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 27, 2013, 04:03:08 AM
Wow, a California style exit tab on I-49!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/10927376953/in/set-72157637806872164/
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 27, 2013, 05:08:16 AM
Not California style. Not even close.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 27, 2013, 09:07:03 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 27, 2013, 01:55:21 AM
By March, Jindal said, an additional 11 miles between Arkansas and Hosston will open, with Arkansas connecting to those northern segments by the summer.

The last five miles – segments J and K located nearest Interstate 220 – will be completed by 2016 or early 2017, Jindal said. Construction has started on Segment J, which will be finished by fall 2015.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131126/NEWS01/311260030/Shreveport-Hosston-now-19-mile-cruise-49

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5550%2F10927360195_e52e616779_z_d.jpg&hash=a132d5761301d673b96b568a80fdd1461db72c18)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7351%2F10927409176_5d248a38c1_z_d.jpg&hash=488d39ec7dfdf7f7b4a9c4dfca7f4f56f08a50d6)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2013, 09:37:24 AM
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2013, 09:23:32 PM
Quote from: apjung on November 26, 2013, 06:52:06 PM
Opening ceremonies
http://www.ksla.com/story/24077152/new-section-of-i49-north-now-open-in-caddo-parish


And we already have our first fatality on the new section of I-49!
http://www.ksla.com/story/24076572/1-killed-in-wreck-at-new-i49-interchange-in-caddo-paris

http://www.ktbs.com/story/24077916/fatal-accident-happens-on-day-of-i-49-opening


LA Hwy 71?   :banghead:

It figures 71/49 would have the first accident: people aren't used to the new traffic signal yet.

why would there be more traffic lights if an ostensibly at-grade intersection was changed to an interchange?  I'd imagine the side street would keep the lights and the new interstate would lose them... but here is a fresh new one?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 27, 2013, 09:49:43 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2013, 09:37:24 AM
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2013, 09:23:32 PM
Quote from: apjung on November 26, 2013, 06:52:06 PM
Opening ceremonies
http://www.ksla.com/story/24077152/new-section-of-i49-north-now-open-in-caddo-parish


And we already have our first fatality on the new section of I-49!
http://www.ksla.com/story/24076572/1-killed-in-wreck-at-new-i49-interchange-in-caddo-paris

http://www.ktbs.com/story/24077916/fatal-accident-happens-on-day-of-i-49-opening


LA Hwy 71?   :banghead:

It figures 71/49 would have the first accident: people aren't used to the new traffic signal yet.

why would there be more traffic lights if an ostensibly at-grade intersection was changed to an interchange?  I'd imagine the side street would keep the lights and the new interstate would lose them... but here is a fresh new one?

The signals are at the end of the off-ramps from I-49 to US 71.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3675%2F10927104705_975b524fda_z_d.jpg&hash=c6215c7e2ca6984e30724427b335aa863cacd0a1) :pan:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on November 27, 2013, 09:50:41 AM
I-49 is on a new alignment (as opposed to the upgrade of US 90 east of Lafayette). Looks like the lights are here (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.854319,-93.863368&spn=0.029237,0.056691&t=k&z=15).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 27, 2013, 10:15:11 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2013, 09:50:41 AM
I-49 is on a new alignment (as opposed to the upgrade of US 90 east of Lafayette). Looks like the lights are here (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.854319,-93.863368&spn=0.029237,0.056691&t=k&z=15).
Correct, sir. Also at  LA 1  (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=shreveport+la&ll=32.596378,-93.832104&spn=0.014408,0.01929&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Shreveport,+Caddo,+Louisiana&gl=us&t=h&z=16)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 02, 2013, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 27, 2013, 01:55:21 AM
By March, Jindal said, an additional 11 miles between Arkansas and Hosston will open

This LaDOTD press release (http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/Release.aspx?key=2508) clarifies that the March opening will be for local traffic (I believe it will only be for Segments B-D, with Segment A having a later opening in conjunction with Arkansas opening their section in the summer:

Quote
With today's announcement, Segments E-I of the project are complete and 18.9 miles will be open to drivers. Another 11 miles, Segments A-D, are near completion and will be opened to local traffic in March 2014.

I'm sure roadgeeks will opt for the "local" route over US 71.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
Still waiting on Google to update their map with the new I-49.  They added the new I-69 in Indiana the day it opened.  Fwiw, if you turn on the traffic layer, you can see the new I-49's 19 miles. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 05, 2013, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
Still waiting on Google to update their map with the new I-49.  They added the new I-69 in Indiana the day it opened.  Fwiw, if you turn on the traffic layer, you can see the new I-49's 19 miles. 

I sent Google a message, but no idea if they will listen.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 05, 2013, 03:35:06 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
Still waiting on Google to update their map with the new I-49.  They added the new I-69 in Indiana the day it opened.  Fwiw, if you turn on the traffic layer, you can see the new I-49's 19 miles. 

Zoomed in you can still see the dotted line proposed route, too
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on December 05, 2013, 06:43:06 PM
La DOTD has a new update and plan for continued developement  of I 49 South. Here is the Anouncement, http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=2516
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 11:54:38 PM
Google is working on it!!!  All I see is one I-49 shield near Gilliam and US 71 interchange!  It disappears when you zoom in and out, but this is a clear sign of them working on it.  I expect them to have it done tomorrow.  It took them at most 12 hours to do I-69 in Indiana last year.

edit:  It's aliiiive.  IT'S ALLIIIIIIIVE.   :-D
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 06, 2013, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 11:54:38 PM
Google is working on it!!!  All I see is one I-49 shield near Gilliam and US 71 interchange!  It disappears when you zoom in and out, but this is a clear sign of them working on it.  I expect them to have it done tomorrow.  It took them at most 12 hours to do I-69 in Indiana last year.

edit:  It's aliiiive.  IT'S ALLIIIIIIIVE.   :-D

All I see are the exit ramps
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 07, 2013, 01:16:56 AM
Quote from: US71 on December 06, 2013, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 11:54:38 PM
Google is working on it!!!  All I see is one I-49 shield near Gilliam and US 71 interchange!  It disappears when you zoom in and out, but this is a clear sign of them working on it.  I expect them to have it done tomorrow.  It took them at most 12 hours to do I-69 in Indiana last year.

edit:  It's aliiiive.  IT'S ALLIIIIIIIVE.   :-D

All I see are the exit ramps

Yeah they stopped working on it last night it looks like.  If it is what most of the board wishes, I am willing to ban myself from this board for being wrong about saying Google should have I-49 added today.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alps on December 07, 2013, 08:44:04 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 07, 2013, 01:16:56 AM
Quote from: US71 on December 06, 2013, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 11:54:38 PM
Google is working on it!!!  All I see is one I-49 shield near Gilliam and US 71 interchange!  It disappears when you zoom in and out, but this is a clear sign of them working on it.  I expect them to have it done tomorrow.  It took them at most 12 hours to do I-69 in Indiana last year.

edit:  It's aliiiive.  IT'S ALLIIIIIIIVE.   :-D

All I see are the exit ramps

Yeah they stopped working on it last night it looks like.  If it is what most of the board wishes, I am willing to ban myself from this board for being wrong about saying Google should have I-49 added today.
:D
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on December 07, 2013, 10:52:15 AM
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20131206/NEWS01/131206001/I-49-South-upgrades-set-2014-16, This article talks about starting the design 60 % of the elevated connector in Layfayette between I10/ I49 interchange and Layfayette regional airport. SO they can begin to establish and obtain rights of way needed to build the project.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 07, 2013, 12:33:11 PM
The same article, this time from the Lafayette Daily Advertiser:

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20131205/NEWS01/312050028/I-49-South-upgrades-slated-2014-2016

And here's a related article discussing the prospects for funding the project:

http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013312050018

BTW...only one 'y' in Lafayette, Gordon.   :pan: :pan: :pan:

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 07, 2013, 03:59:08 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 07, 2013, 01:16:56 AM
Quote from: US71 on December 06, 2013, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 05, 2013, 11:54:38 PM
Google is working on it!!!  All I see is one I-49 shield near Gilliam and US 71 interchange!  It disappears when you zoom in and out, but this is a clear sign of them working on it.  I expect them to have it done tomorrow.  It took them at most 12 hours to do I-69 in Indiana last year.

edit:  It's aliiiive.  IT'S ALLIIIIIIIVE.   :-D

All I see are the exit ramps

Yeah they stopped working on it last night it looks like.  If it is what most of the board wishes, I am willing to ban myself from this board for being wrong about saying Google should have I-49 added today.
Not your fault the Goog is lazy ;)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 09, 2013, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on November 15, 2013, 07:04:50 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on November 15, 2013, 11:02:36 AM
"A section of the roadway in St. Mary around Franklin is designated I-49 with a 70-mph speed limit."
What?? That's the first I've heard of this!
Articles get stuff like this wrong all the time. I'd look for some official confirmation before taking a newspaper article's word for it.

I recently received an email clarification from LaDOTD; there is an interstate-grade segment in St. Mary Parish, but to date it has not received an I-49 designation:

Quote
The section of U.S. 90, between La. 318 and La. 182, was upgraded to interstate standards in August 2001. However, this section was not designated as I-49 South. This section is still considered as U.S. 90.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on December 09, 2013, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 25, 2013, 01:01:38 PM
This article (http://eunicetoday.com/bookmark/22968421-Projected-I-49-extension-cost-drops-160-million-toll-funding-still-discussed)
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 22, 2012, 11:36:02 AM
Hate to say I told you so, but...
Perhaps, the idea of extending the TIMED tax and using that to fund I-49 South will gain some favor?
You must have the ear of Sam Jones:
Quote
"I think we should consider renewing the TIMED Program that helped four-lane hundreds of miles of highways throughout the state in the past 30 years,” Jones said ... "TIMED is set to expire soon,” Jones said. "I believe we should consider a TIMED 2. This would not be a new tax but continue what is already in place. We could fund the I-49 South as a top priority project in it.”
Implementing a new TIMED Program would distribute the cost of new highway construction to everybody throughout the state and would raise greater revenue and much faster than tolls, according to Jones.

This Dec. 9 Advocate editorial (http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/7802530-123/our-views-new-plans-new) urges an extension of TIMED in order to help fund I-49 South:

Quote
It's time.
Why? In part, because the completion of TIMED projects
– the set of highway four-lane projects that connected major parts of the state over the last generation – are near to completion.
It is more easily politically to extend the program and fund new projects.

A second program of major statewide projects can certainly find useful targets for the money, but in terms of a giant advance we see I-49 as a significant contributor to the economy, just as its northern route has been in north Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on December 10, 2013, 01:43:08 PM
I would like to see a list of projects first, but I would support an extension of the TIMED program.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 10, 2013, 04:40:02 PM
I think TIMED2 is the best solution.  It's the only way we will ever chip away at the $12B shortfall. 

Off the top of my head:

I-49 South
New I-10 bridge in Lake Charles
New or seriously upgraded High Rise in New Orleans
Reconstruction of I-10/12/59 junction
Widened I-10 bridge at MS state line
New second I-10 bridge in Baton Rouge (and bridge to a rebuilt I-110 junction)

This is to say nothing of all the interstate widenings that need to be done.

Pipedream list:

New MS river bridge at Chalmette
New freeway across LA connecting Austin, TX to fort polk to Alexandria to Natchez (I-14)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on December 10, 2013, 06:26:30 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 10, 2013, 04:40:02 PM
I think TIMED2 is the best solution.  It's the only way we will ever chip away at the $12B shortfall. 

Off the top of my head:

I-49 South
New I-10 bridge in Lake Charles
New or seriously upgraded High Rise in New Orleans
Reconstruction of I-10/12/59 junction
Widened I-10 bridge at MS state line
New second I-10 bridge in Baton Rouge (and bridge to a rebuilt I-110 junction)

This is to say nothing of all the interstate widenings that need to be done.

Pipedream list:

New MS river bridge at Chalmette
New freeway across LA connecting Austin, TX to fort polk to Alexandria to Natchez (I-14)


The I-510 Mississippi River Bridge in Chalmette would require a very high clearance to accommodate the tall cruise ships.

To add to my wishlist, a 6 laned I-10 from TX border to MS border with widening improvements on the Atchafaylaya Basin Bridge and the Bonnet Carre Spillway Bridge (to the width of the I-10 Twin Span Bridge) so the speed limit could be safely increased to 70, All of I-12 would be 6 laned. Also, replace the I-12/I-55 cloverleaf interchange to flyover ramps and the same for I-10/I-49 cloverleaf.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on December 11, 2013, 10:27:32 AM
Correcting the I-10 -110 (Baton Rouge) interchange would be a priority on my list.
Southern bypass of Baton Rouge (not a complete loop) and upgrading Airline highway (US 61/190) to freeway status should be considered.
As for my "day dream wish"  Intercity passenger rail between BR/NOLA
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 11, 2013, 12:40:39 PM
My idea for a "TIMED 2" (or more appropriately, a "LA Freeway 21" (as in 21st Century) program:

1) Complete I-49 South to NOLA (including I-49 Connector in Lafayette).

2) I-49 Inner City Connector in Shreveport.

3) South Baton Rouge bypass of I-10 from Lobdell to Gonzales via Brusly/Gardere crossing of Mississippi River.

4) Upgrade Airline Highway (US 190/US 61) from LA 415 to I-12 to 6-lane Interstate freeway standards, with new Mississippi River Bridge.  Connection to I-10/South BTR Bypass optional, but extending existing LA 415 would do in a pinch.

5) Widen I-10  to 6 lanes (3 + 3) from TX state line to US 165 interchange E of Lake Charles, including new Calcasieu River bridge.

6) Widen I-10 to 6 lanes through metro Lafayette from LA 93 interchange in Scott to LA 353 interchange near Breaux Bridge.

7) Convert I-10/I-49 interchange in Lafayette to full 5-level directional stack.

8) Widen I-20 through Shreveport and Monroe to 6 lanes.

9) Fix the I-10/I-110 Split "TOTSO" by rebuilding the interchange with I-10 as the principal through movement.

Additional pipedream proposals:

1) Widen I-49 N of I-10 to US 190 interchange near Opelousas to 6 lanes; possibly convert service roads to one-way "Texas style" access roads from I-10 to at least LA 182/Ambassador Caffery Parkway North junction.

2) Extend proposed one-way access/frontage road system for I-49 South from LA 88 to LA 14 near New Iberia.

3) Upgrade US 165/US 425 to full Interstate standards as extension of proposed I-530 at least to Monroe, possibly to Alexandria (and ultimately to I-10 E of Lake Charles).

4) Upgrade Scenic Highway in BTR north of I-110 terminus to LA 10 West terminus to at least limited access.

5) Upgrade Clearview Parkway between US 90/Jefferson Hwy interchange and I-10 to at least limited access.

6) Complete Louisiana's portion of I-69, and extend LA 3132 as a freeway to connect with it near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier.

7) Remove the remaining at-grade crossovers on the Ponchatrain Causeway on both approaches, and make it a full freeway between I-10 and US 190 (ultimately using the freewayized US 190 segment to I-12).

8) Add a twin span to the BTR Mississippi River Bridge, and incorporate it into the I-10/I-110 fix. (Also improve the LA 1/I-10 interchange as well.)

9) Commuter rail between BTR and NOLA, possibly even as a circular system involving the Northshore cities (Hammond, Mandeville, Slidell) as well the I-10/US 61 corridor communities (Gonzales, LaPlace, Metarie).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 13, 2013, 06:57:47 PM
LaDOTD just announced the winning bid for the next phase of I-49 South/US 90 upgrade construction, the Albertson Parkway/Billeaud interchange/frontage roads design-build contract. It came in nearly $18-$28 million less than what was originally projected.

http://www.katc.com/news/ldot-awards-bid-for-i-49-south-corridor/

It will be built in two stages: the Albertson Parkway interchange/overpass and connections to LA 182 will be built immediately; then in the future, the one-way frontage road system would be built, which would include frontage road overpasses over the adjacent BNSF/UP rail line. Phase 2 would probably be coordinated with the Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange construction, which is currently awaiting an Enviromental Assessment/FONSI.

So, that's at least some progress.


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: brownpelican on December 13, 2013, 07:43:15 PM
I also support an extension of the TIMED program. Projects I'd like to see in addition to I-49 South and the I-10/I-110 interchange.

* A stack interchange at I-12/US 190.
* Six-laning the Bonnet Carre Spillway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 14, 2013, 01:33:41 AM
Treasurer John Kennedy was on the 990am this afternoon.  Long story short - the state is going full-bore with finding funding for I-49 south now that the north is done.  In a perfect world it would take 5-7 years if they started tomorrow to build everything (not very long). 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 17, 2013, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: Gordon on December 05, 2013, 06:43:06 PM
La DOTD has a new update and plan for continued developement  of I 49 South. Here is the Anouncement, http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=2516

And here are the related documentation of the proposed changes, now accessible at the LADOTD I-49 South public info page:

http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/

The new plan involves revisions to the Wax Lake to Berwick and Raceland to Westbank Expressway segments to reduce significantly the proposed elevated segments, and use the existing US 90 footprint as much as possible. It also includes some internim improvements in access management and intersections that could be built and developed while funding for the full freeway concept is secured.

The changes from the original Records of Decision will have to be approved though new Supplemental EIS's and Enviromental Assessments, which would be executed starting the beginning of next year.

Two changes I found interesting is that the new proposal will use the existing US 90 bridge across Bayou Des Allemands, rather than a bypass of Dufrene Ponds to the south, and that the I-310 connection will use the existing roadway extended beyond its current terminus at US 90 at Boutte, rather than a new connection just north of there.

These changes essentially cut the total cost of I-49 South by more than half...possibly even making it more feasible even without the need for toll financing.

So..that's progress.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 17, 2013, 02:35:48 PM
Those des allemands bridges are awful and probably over 50 years old.  I really hope we can get new ones up to interstate standards.  Btw, Google time to step it up with the new section open north of Shreveport. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 18, 2013, 12:43:05 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 17, 2013, 02:35:48 PM
Those des allemands bridges are awful and probably over 50 years old.  I really hope we can get new ones up to interstate standards.  Btw, Google time to step it up with the new section open north of Shreveport. 

From what I saw of the plans, the US 90 Des Allemands bridge will be upgraded to Interstate standards with wider shoulders.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on December 23, 2013, 08:46:41 AM
Google has resumed drawing in I-49 north of Shreveport.  The road is in chunks, but it looks like they are putting in the exit numbers now. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 23, 2013, 01:02:30 PM
I was in Shreveport for the weekend and I had wondered if there would be any sort of signs for I-49 in the gap now that it is disconnected. I found much more than I thought there would be:


I apologize for not getting a clear picture of these first 2 pics. This is LA 1/US 71 SB at I-220 in North Shreveport to guide those off of the new portion of I-49 around the loop. I would have preferred to leave out "TO" on Dallas and Monroe.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2874%2F11516631243_d237a365a6.jpg&hash=e2c6ece50ef855f8220e39861a0d012babdc1263) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516631243/)



(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7380%2F11516519994_76464fe562.jpg&hash=925ebd73229483b615a90d8f9c59d2366babd712) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516631243/)

The rest of these are all headed northbound. TO I-49 shields are located on I-220 in both directions at the N. Market St. (LA 1/US 71)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5476%2F11516599276_260477750b.jpg&hash=d644177a813ef48919ab47552bc674cad238f2b4) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516599276/)


LA 1/US 71 just north of I-220 at LA 3194/MLKJr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3806%2F11516514725_421fbb8bf6.jpg&hash=9f3ac621f9deee00036200331b29d4015b426d25) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516599276/)

New signs at 1 & 71 split. I bet this will still say to North I-49 even after it's completed southward.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7413%2F11516505435_ea55b3ef9d.jpg&hash=85f78c4e2b55cacf88052d998f729ca3f7704053) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516505435/)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516505435/)


I also saw plenty of dirt work and bridge approaches at Pinehill Rd and at MLK. Doesn't look like anything has started between MLK and 220 just yet. To North I-49 signs are also present at LA 3132 where it changes to I-220. The south bound conversion (I-220 to LA 3132) has always had a large sign saying "To I-49, Alexandria"
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on December 23, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 23, 2013, 01:02:30 PM
LA 1/US 71 just north of I-220 at LA 3194/MLKJr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3806%2F11516514725_421fbb8bf6.jpg&hash=9f3ac621f9deee00036200331b29d4015b426d25)[/url]

Reminds me of how freeway gaps were signed during the construction of the original Interstate highway system in some states - TO "I-xx" (arrow). I would be curious if this is similar to previous practice in Louisiana during the ca. 1956-82 era.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on December 23, 2013, 11:34:46 PM
Wait... all neutered I-49 shields? Guess I'm spoiled, since our I-49 shields around Alexandria and Pineville have the "Louisiana" on them.

By the way, all Interstate construction projects were marked with a small detour system, but never installed on BGS signs. If they were, LaDOTD has no record (viewing I-20 and I-10 construction signing details shows this). Anyone interested in the scans?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 24, 2013, 12:49:15 AM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 23, 2013, 08:46:41 AM
Google has resumed drawing in I-49 north of Shreveport.  The road is in chunks, but it looks like they are putting in the exit numbers now.

It's already been added in OSM:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/32.7188/-93.8802

Sure, could use some refinement, but that has to wait till somebody gets a GPS trace of it and all the ramps OR Bing updates their imagery showing the alignment better to properly trace it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 16, 2014, 07:44:37 PM
A small beginning for the Lafayette I-49 Connector: a letting was held on January 14 for the demolition of eight buildings and related work:

http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/highways/lettings/bidstabs/tabulations/btitems.aspx?LetId=03140114&propid=H.011102.6
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 18, 2014, 09:12:17 PM
That was small...this is just a bit bigger: LADOTD just put out an advertisement in their Consultant Contracts Section for bidders to complete the engineering and design for the I-49 Connector project. This would complete the design and engineering work that began in 2008 but was temporarily shelved due to lack of funds.

The contract does call for an evaluation of the 2003 ROD to update the status of the project, and possibly a modified ROD in case tweaks in the design are needed. Mostly, though, it follows the same route and concept as the 2003 ROD.

The deadline for submissions is Feburary 18; with the contract possibly awarded in March or April. The link to the PDF doc with all the details of the advertisement is here:

http://webmail.dotd.louisiana.gov/Agrestat.nsf/9ff2e3e9315e2f5c8625717e005516e5/d8dca9baf2c1202b86257c630055930f?OpenDocument

Update (2-22-14): The deadline for submissions was extended until Feburary 25th; and the contract proposal has been tweaked slightly to take into consideration the possibility of using tolls for funding. A toll study is ongoing by LADOTD, with a report due "within the next few weeks". Though, I'd think that tolls would be both unlikely and unpopular, due to the limited ROW and the urban character of the proposed freeway.



Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on January 19, 2014, 11:04:26 PM
Any chances for a loop of Lafayette, or some direct connector between I-49 south of Lafayette and I-10? If the hype is centered around "hurricane evacuation" then we can't possibly expect all of the traffic to go through the heart of Lafayette, can we?

And speaking of upgrades, how long until I-49 is redone between I-10 and US 190? Three lanes in each direction would be lovely, with a rebuilding of Harry Guilbeau and, I'm hoping, cable barriers. We can't build every new Interstate with just four lanes... six would be suitable for I-49 South. Now, I-49 between Opelousas and Alexandria, that's a different story - NO TRAFFIC AT ALL!!!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on January 25, 2014, 09:48:58 AM
 Has the Design-Build project, (US 90 I 49 South) Albertson's Parkway to Ambassador Caffery been let to 1 firm yet.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 25, 2014, 10:44:09 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on January 19, 2014, 11:04:26 PM
Any chances for a loop of Lafayette, or some direct connector between I-49 south of Lafayette and I-10? If the hype is centered around "hurricane evacuation" then we can't possibly expect all of the traffic to go through the heart of Lafayette, can we?

And speaking of upgrades, how long until I-49 is redone between I-10 and US 190? Three lanes in each direction would be lovely, with a rebuilding of Harry Guilbeau and, I'm hoping, cable barriers. We can't build every new Interstate with just four lanes... six would be suitable for I-49 South. Now, I-49 between Opelousas and Alexandria, that's a different story - NO TRAFFIC AT ALL!!!

There were plans for a western/southern toll loop around Lafayette (Lafayette Metro Expressway), but they have been put on ice for now in order to focus fully on getting the I-49 Connector and I-49 South funded and built. Completing Ambassador Caffery Parkway as an intermin outer artery loop is probably a bigger priority for Lafayette right now than a freeway/tollway loop.

There are still some pockets of opposition to running the I-49 Connector through Lafayette who would love to reintroduce the Teche Ridge eastern bypass as an alternative; but considering that they've lost every court case, the continuing commitment to upgrading US 90 in Lafayette Parish (as shown by the funding of the Albertson Parkway and Ambassador Caffery Pkwy South interchanges/frontage road upgrades), and the fact that LADOTD is now fully committed to completing the design process and finding funding for ultimate construction, their struggle appears to be as futile as Bloomington's failed war against I-69.

AFAIK, the plan for I-49 in Lafayette Parish is for the Connector and US 90 upgrades to be six mainlanes all the way to LA 88. They'e already widened US 90 to six lanes all the way to Albertson Parkway (with internim J-turns and 3/4 intersections), and the upgrade to Ambassador Caffery would extend the 6-lane upgrade further. I'd prefer they go all the way to New Iberia and the LA 14 or Lewis St. interchange, myself, with the one-way access road system extended along with it...but that's only me.

As far as I-49 between Lafayette and Opelousas...let's crawl before we walk, shall we? Six lanes up to the LA 182/Ambassador Caffery Pkwy North interchange w/ conversion of the frontage road system to one-way would do quite nicely....and an upgrade of the I-49/I-10 interchange to fully directional/"stack" from the existing full cloverleaf would be nice, too. Anything beyond that to Opelousas (or even to the US 167 divergence east of Nuba) would be langiappe.

Only way I'd consider a revision of the Harry Guilbeau Road interchange would be if they extended it east to connect with LA 31 (Leonville Hwy.) and/or extended it west/north as part of an arterial bypass of Opelousas up to US 167 west of Nuba. Otherwise, it's fine as is.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 25, 2014, 10:50:11 AM
Quote from: Gordon on January 25, 2014, 09:48:58 AM
Has the Design-Build project, (US 90 I 49 South) Albertson's Parkway to Ambassador Caffery been let to 1 firm yet.

LADOTD had earlier announced a preliminary winner of the bidding process, but no official announcement of the letting has been posted yet. I'm thinking, probably early Feburary for the final announcement.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on January 27, 2014, 09:34:53 AM
Was wondering if anyone took a picture lately of the sign bridge north of Shreveport at the location of the split in routes for US 71 and LA 1?  I am curious to know what the signs say now that I-49 is open from LA 1 northward for several miles. This is the sign that I am referring to.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5322%2F9672465292_785ea29e49_c.jpg&hash=2937ffa96367ff6565aad17f9a92132ce57d8987)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/9672465292/
This picture (taken 9/12) of the sign bridge at the LA 1 & US 71 split near Shreveport has Texarkana, of course, as control point for US 71.  Now with I-49, the better freeway northward, starting just a few miles north on LA 1, I would imagine that LADOTS would remove the "Texarkana" from US 71 North and sacrifice either "Vivian" or "Oil City" to place it on LA 1 bound for the new freeway as well as fitting in a I-49 shield in with LA 1 North.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on January 27, 2014, 10:21:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2014, 09:34:53 AM
Was wondering if anyone took a picture lately of the sign bridge north of Shreveport at the location of the split in routes for US 71 and LA 1?  I am curious to know what the signs say now that I-49 is open from LA 1 northward for several miles.


I will be that way sometime in March, most likely. I'll try to keep an eye out, especially since I want to do some more exploring in the area.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on January 27, 2014, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: US71 on January 27, 2014, 10:21:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2014, 09:34:53 AM
Was wondering if anyone took a picture lately of the sign bridge north of Shreveport at the location of the split in routes for US 71 and LA 1?  I am curious to know what the signs say now that I-49 is open from LA 1 northward for several miles.


I will be that way sometime in March, most likely. I'll try to keep an eye out, especially since I want to do some more exploring in the area.

How far northward is it open now?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 27, 2014, 11:58:33 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2014, 09:34:53 AM
Was wondering if anyone took a picture lately of the sign bridge north of Shreveport at the location of the split in routes for US 71 and LA 1?  I am curious to know what the signs say now that I-49 is open from LA 1 northward for several miles. This is the sign that I am referring to.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5322%2F9672465292_785ea29e49_c.jpg&hash=2937ffa96367ff6565aad17f9a92132ce57d8987)

Upthread:

Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 23, 2013, 01:02:30 PM
New signs at 1 & 71 split. I bet this will still say to North I-49 even after it's completed southward.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7413%2F11516505435_ea55b3ef9d.jpg&hash=85f78c4e2b55cacf88052d998f729ca3f7704053) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516505435/)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516505435/)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on January 27, 2014, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua on January 27, 2014, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: US71 on January 27, 2014, 10:21:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2014, 09:34:53 AM
Was wondering if anyone took a picture lately of the sign bridge north of Shreveport at the location of the split in routes for US 71 and LA 1?  I am curious to know what the signs say now that I-49 is open from LA 1 northward for several miles.


I will be that way sometime in March, most likely. I'll try to keep an eye out, especially since I want to do some more exploring in the area.

How far northward is it open now?

Officially, I-49 is open from LA 1 to US 71 near Gilliam. I've heard unconfirmed rumors it may be open to local traffic only as far as LA 168 near Ida, but I have no official intel.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on January 27, 2014, 02:29:02 PM
Thank you, US71.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on January 27, 2014, 11:26:20 PM
Thread posters - I've never been up US 71 between Shreveport and the state line, but are there no towns that US 71 services which I-49 would not be the preferred route? US 167's exit from I-49 uses Meeker, a town that barely exists... but it gives US 167 North a control city of sorts. Lecompte and Cheneyville both have their own exits, so it would make no sense to use those.

It's a pet peeve of mine, but I've always thought that every highway should have a signed destination. US 71 seems like it could have Dixie as a control city - I-49 would be about the same time as US 71, but staying on one road would make more sense.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on January 27, 2014, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on January 27, 2014, 11:26:20 PM
Thread posters - I've never been up US 71 between Shreveport and the state line, but are there no towns that US 71 services which I-49 would not be the preferred route? US 167's exit from I-49 uses Meeker, a town that barely exists... but it gives US 167 North a control city of sorts. Lecompte and Cheneyville both have their own exits, so it would make no sense to use those.

It's a pet peeve of mine, but I've always thought that every highway should have a signed destination. US 71 seems like it could have Dixie as a control city - I-49 would be about the same time as US 71, but staying on one road would make more sense.

71 could use Mira or Ida since 49 doesn't reach there yet.  Otherwise, 71 and 49 are redundant of each other from Shreveport to Texarkana (and eventually / someday Fort Smith).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 28, 2014, 10:59:51 AM
Dixie has nothing posted that lets you know you are "in" Dixie. It's actually on old US 71 on LA 3049. Belcher, Gilliam, or Hosston are the first towns with a town limit. Belcher is also mostly off of US 71, but there is a sign there. I agree that the 1/71 split should have something listed, and it doesn't have to be Texarkana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on January 28, 2014, 02:20:21 PM
If it were NJ or VA, Texarkana would have been left on it for US 71 NB and another control city of Texarkana for I-49.  However, Hosston would be a logical choice, and actually thought they would use it.

I wonder what LADOTS will use once I-49 is completed between LA 1 and I-220 when Texarkana will not be used for LA 1 & US 71 NB at Exit 7B?  If Vivian or even Oil City is used it would be redundant as the new I-49 would connect anyway  to LA 1 in shorter time at a later point along LA 1.  There really is no settlements between I-220 and the LA 1 & US 71 wye to mention.  It might be good to at least bring Hosston in even though I-49 will reach it as well.  I mean look at Monticello being used for I-10 in Florida east of Tallahassee where that place is accessible via later interchanges east of of there if heading EB on I-10.  Yet FDOT uses it for fulfillment purposes in this case even though the US 19 exit several miles east of there is the best route into Jefferson County's Seat from I-10.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on January 28, 2014, 07:07:07 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on January 28, 2014, 10:59:51 AM
Dixie has nothing posted that lets you know you are "in" Dixie. It's actually on old US 71 on LA 3049. Belcher, Gilliam, or Hosston are the first towns with a town limit. Belcher is also mostly off of US 71, but there is a sign there. I agree that the 1/71 split should have something listed, and it doesn't have to be Texarkana.

Dixie doesn't even exist on Google Maps. I typed it in and wound up with Dixie Inn along US 371 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Ffighting%2Fdope-slap.gif&hash=c1bed3f957cd9b953f3937dc7b86da71c86ad73c) (http://www.sherv.net/)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 29, 2014, 03:14:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 28, 2014, 02:20:21 PM
If it were NJ or VA, Texarkana would have been left on it for US 71 NB and another control city of Texarkana for I-49.  However, Hosston would be a logical choice, and actually thought they would use it.

I wonder what LADOTS will use once I-49 is completed between LA 1 and I-220 when Texarkana will not be used for LA 1 & US 71 NB at Exit 7B?  If Vivian or even Oil City is used it would be redundant as the new I-49 would connect anyway  to LA 1 in shorter time at a later point along LA 1.  There really is no settlements between I-220 and the LA 1 & US 71 wye to mention.  It might be good to at least bring Hosston in even though I-49 will reach it as well.  I mean look at Monticello being used for I-10 in Florida east of Tallahassee where that place is accessible via later interchanges east of of there if heading EB on I-10.  Yet FDOT uses it for fulfillment purposes in this case even though the US 19 exit several miles east of there is the best route into Jefferson County's Seat from I-10.

What I wish is that the I-220 interchange with 1/71 would change to N. Market St. Maybe add a secondary sign to say Vivian exit 7b
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on January 30, 2014, 08:35:16 AM
It really should use street names, as its an urban area.  Its probably due to US 71 all these years being a major through route.  It might end up having to do that.

To me personally, Shreveport is redundant as most people could easily figure out that all roads leading SB from I-220 (or at least to the southern direction) are for Shreveport.  Plus with it being a bypass to Shreveport for through I-20 motorists its totally irrelevant.  Plus LADOTS (if they have not already) could place a sign at both beginnings of I-220 saying the next X interchanges are for Shreveport.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on January 31, 2014, 04:21:44 AM
LA 1/TO I-49                    US 71  North
    Oil City                            Belcher
  Texarkana                          Gilliam

People using LA 1 TO I-49 are going to Texarkana and Blanchard (or Oil City). People using US 71 North are probably going to the small towns along US 71. At least, that's the way I see it. Sign US 71 with the small, important towns, and sign I-49 with a control city of Texarkana. Seems like it's more confusing to give a driver directions to Gilliam with "Take US 71 to LA 1 to I-49 to LA 170 to US 71.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 01, 2014, 11:59:59 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 09, 2013, 03:08:25 PM
The November 2013 I-49 Inner City Connector Newsletter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/34/117/489-001-001-046NG-Newsletter%20Vol%202_No%202_November%202013%20Revised.pdf) has been posted.  It indicates that official approval to include the study of a fifth build alternative was received in October 2013

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") Transportation Policy Committee has posted its November 15, 2013 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11152013.pdf) and they reflect the possibility that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake might need to be expanded (presumably a lot of $$$$$):

Quote
Mr. Rogers further discussed the I‐49 Inner City Connector (ICC) and stated Providence was currently completing field work for the economic impact analysis.  He further discussed the I‐220 alternate route for the I‐49 ICC would require the same standards as a build‐through, meaning I‐220 would need to be brought up to interstate standards, including parts of LA 3132.  Mr. Rogers stated the bridge across Cross Lake may need expansion depending on the traffic volumes over the bridge.  Mayor Walker asked if the costs of the upgrades and possible bridge expansion might cause people to go back to the inner city build‐through.  Mr. Rogers stated it might, and that more detailed study would occur on the preferred corridor.  Mayor Walker asked if there would be one intersection instead of two.  Mr. Rogers stated there would be a design exception allowing for two interchanges.  Mr. Gene Eddy with SporTran joined the committee.  There was still not a quorum as one more voting member was still needed.   
   
Mr. Rogers stated another round of community meetings for the I‐49 ICC would occur in the early spring and any remaining meetings would be at the end of the process with the formal public hearings.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 05, 2014, 01:03:43 PM
This January 19 Texarkana Gazette article (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/01/19/paved-by-perseverance-356602.php) includes two photos related to I-49 North.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 05, 2014, 08:47:21 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 04, 2013, 06:10:09 PM
Caddo 2014-01-29 H.003495
455-09-0001 LA 3194, I-49 I-49 North (I-220-mlk Drive) Seg K Conc. New Pavement (Seg K) $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 2.06 Umeozulu, Joe      &      Caddo 2014-04-09 H.011111  I-220, I-49 I-49 North, Segment K - Phase 2 New I-49/I-220 Interchange With Roadways to Tie to Seg. J $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 4.03 Umeozulu, Joe , Looks like they have split the last section of I 49 north into 2 contracts.

The Bid Results for the February 5 Letting (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/highways/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20140205.aspx) list the winning bid for Phase I coming in at approximately $31.5 million:

Quote
H.003495.6 (DBE Goal Project) I-49N, SEGMENT K - PHASE I I-220 to MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, CLASS II BASE COURSE, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER BRIDGE, AND RELATED WORK.
Parish(es): Caddo
Route(s): I-49
Federal Number: 0900(503)
Estimated Construction Cost: $34,956,473.30

Apparent Low Bidder:   Best-Yet Builders, Llc
3820 W. 70TH ST.
SHREVEPORT, LA 71108
(318)459-1125   
$31,569,922.16

The beginning of the last piece of the I-220 to I-30 section of I-49!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 22, 2014, 10:10:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2014, 08:35:16 AM
It really should use street names, as its an urban area.  Its probably due to US 71 all these years being a major through route.  It might end up having to do that.

To me personally, Shreveport is redundant as most people could easily figure out that all roads leading SB from I-220 (or at least to the southern direction) are for Shreveport.  Plus with it being a bypass to Shreveport for through I-20 motorists its totally irrelevant.  Plus LADOTS (if they have not already) could place a sign at both beginnings of I-220 saying the next X interchanges are for Shreveport.



First off...LADOTD.

Secondly, the exits on I-220 should be all local street names, with the exception of where I-49 intersects, where the controls should be Texarkana (north) and Downtown/Alexandria (or even Downtown/Alexandria/Lafayette) when the ICC is completed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on February 22, 2014, 03:33:39 PM
They need to bring I-220 to interstate standards?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 23, 2014, 09:12:19 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 27, 2013, 12:34:44 AM
they should resolve this to the benefit of everyone and get the damn thing built already.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 15, 2013, 10:55:41 PM
This article (http://www.iberianet.com/news/subdivision-in-the-clear-on-u-s/article_e363870e-4e13-11e3-abda-0019bb2963f4.html) reports that the environmental assessement has been completed ... :
Quote
The total anticipated cost for the project is $48.9 million ....
State Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, said the overpass project is just one more piece to the puzzle.
"This project, although we keep trying to push it along, the pieces are coming together in a timely fashion,"  he said. "With the completion of 318, we'll be interstate compliant from the outskirts of Lafayette all the way to the Calumet Cut in St. Mary Parish."
A link to the Environmental Assessment - Finding of No Significant Impact can be found here (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/us90/).

This Feb. 18 article (http://stmarynow.com/local/60m-i-49-project-approved) reports that the U.S. 90 interchange at La. 318 in Four Corners to an interstate-quality highway was approved Monday by the State Legislative Joint Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee, and that the project is expected to be let for bids later this year or early 2015:

Quote
An estimated $55 million to $60 million highway project to upgrade the U.S. 90 interchange at La. 318 in Four Corners to an interstate-quality highway was approved Monday by the State Legislative Joint Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee, a news release from State Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin stated ....
"As a member of the Transportation Committee I have spent considerable time developing and funding this project, a major addition to future I-49 South,"  Jones said. "Ultimately, this is part of opening up 42 miles of interstate-grade highway from Lafayette to Wax Lake."
With the U.S. 90 interchange at La. 318 project fully funded, "we can now concentrate on frontage roads and interchange projects from Wax Lake to the Atchafalaya River, some of which are already in the design phase," Jones said.
"Funding is the toughest part although this project required changes to accommodate residents, farmers and industry,"  Jones said. The project is expected to be let for bids later this year or early 2015 ....
"The piece of the puzzle that was just done has been in planning for a while,"  Allain said. "We're trying to get as much done from the Calumet Cut and Lafayette."
After the section between the Calumet Cut and Lafayette is finished, the next step will be the planning and construction at Red Cypress Road in Patterson continuing through east St. Mary Parish
, Allain said. The most dangerous section of U.S. 90 with the most fatalities per capita is between the Calumet Cut and the U.S. 90 bridge in Morgan City, Allain said. "We have to address that, and that will be the push that we do next after we get La. 318 done."

Slow, yet steady, progress.....................
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2014, 05:52:48 AM
Essentially, once the LA 318 interchange is competed, the only hurdle to US 90 being full Interstate grade between LA 88 in New Iberia and the Calumet intersection just west of Wax Lake Outlet/Calumet Cut would be building an overpass of the L&DRR rail spur just south of the LA 85 interchange near Jeanerette, and the completion of frontage roads between LA 85 and LA 668. Maybe then, LADOTD could pull a TXDOT and ask for I-49 shields??

As for the Patterson/Bayou Vista/Berwick segment of I-49 South, though...I'm not too happy with the downsized proposal that LADOTD now has. The original setup that was approved in the 2008 ROD included an extended elevated section through Patterson/Idlewild/Bayou Vista which allowed for easy access for neighborhoods S of US 90 and the BNSF railline. The current proposal is basically an at-grade conversion of the existing highway, with only Red Cypress Road and Cotten Road as access points between north and south Patterson (via an elevated interchange for Red Cypress and an grade-seperated overpass for Cotten). I know they wanted to save $$$, but I still think they could have done better than that. I think I'll create a new thread later on and elaborate more on this.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2014, 06:08:12 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 22, 2014, 03:33:39 PM
They need to bring I-220 to interstate standards?

I meant "intersects" to be relatively speaking, not literally intersecting at grade. Of course, they will meet as a directional interchange.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
An email from LaDOTD indicates that Segments B-D of I-49 North will open to local traffic on March 1:

Quote
Q: I seem to remember that, back in November, the thought was that Segments B-D of I-49 North would be opened to local traffic in March.  Is that still the plan?  If so, has a ribbon-cutting been scheduled for the opening?

A: They are slated to open March 1 but there will be no ceremony associated with the opening.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on February 25, 2014, 01:38:59 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2014, 05:52:48 AM
Essentially, once the LA 318 interchange is competed, the only hurdle to US 90 being full Interstate grade between LA 88 in New Iberia and the Calumet intersection just west of Wax Lake Outlet/Calumet Cut would be building an overpass of the L&DRR rail spur just south of the LA 85 interchange near Jeanerette, and the completion of frontage roads between LA 85 and LA 668. Maybe then, LADOTD could pull a TXDOT and ask for I-49 shields??

According to Google maps, the frontage roads exist between LA 85 and 668 but the side roads still have at-grade intersections with US 90 - this is also true of the next segment to the east, between 668 and 318. Is there a planned project in the works to eliminate those at-grades?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 25, 2014, 09:08:33 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on February 25, 2014, 01:38:59 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2014, 05:52:48 AM
Essentially, once the LA 318 interchange is competed, the only hurdle to US 90 being full Interstate grade between LA 88 in New Iberia and the Calumet intersection just west of Wax Lake Outlet/Calumet Cut would be building an overpass of the L&DRR rail spur just south of the LA 85 interchange near Jeanerette, and the completion of frontage roads between LA 85 and LA 668. Maybe then, LADOTD could pull a TXDOT and ask for I-49 shields??

According to Google maps, the frontage roads exist between LA 85 and 668 but the side roads still have at-grade intersections with US 90 - this is also true of the next segment to the east, between 668 and 318. Is there a planned project in the works to eliminate those at-grades?

Google Maps is notorious for their lack of timely updates.

The frontage roads between the LA 85 and LA 668 interchanges must still be under construction. Once they are finished, the direct connections to the US 90 mainline will be severed. The same thing will happen for the segment between LA 668 and LA 318 when the Four Corners (LA 318) interchange is built.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 02, 2014, 08:38:52 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 25, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
An email from LaDOTD indicates that Segments B-D of I-49 North will open to local traffic on March 1:
Quote
Q: I seem to remember that, back in November, the thought was that Segments B-D of I-49 North would be opened to local traffic in March.  Is that still the plan?  If so, has a ribbon-cutting been scheduled for the opening?
A: They are slated to open March 1 but there will be no ceremony associated with the opening.

In December 2013, LaDOTD let a dowel bar retrofit project (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/engineering/lettings/bidsadvn/includes/ntcItems.aspx?Let=04131219&Prop=H.011161.6&Purp=P) for Segment A.  The Wikipedia article on dowel bar retrofits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowel_bar_retrofit) speaks in general terms about this process being used on older sections of highway.  However, one of US71's I-49 North Sneak Preview (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10921.msg259793#msg259793) photos (found in his linked flickr account page) shows an apparent dowel bar retrofit south of Hosston (somewhere in the Segments E-I section):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlWD0oSF.jpg&hash=09fbf26f2d67633766960fd581b99f0aba2ee835)

Any ideas on why the retrofits have been needed so early in the game for I-49 North?

Also, good news from LaDOTD that the Segment A retrofit has been completed and they are ready for AHTD to complete its section:

Quote
Yes, they have completed the retro fit for segment A.  I am "hearing"  Arkansas should be ready in June.  However, I have not confirmed that rumor.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on March 03, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 02, 2014, 08:38:52 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 25, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
An email from LaDOTD indicates that Segments B-D of I-49 North will open to local traffic on March 1:
Quote
Q: I seem to remember that, back in November, the thought was that Segments B-D of I-49 North would be opened to local traffic in March.  Is that still the plan?  If so, has a ribbon-cutting been scheduled for the opening?
A: They are slated to open March 1 but there will be no ceremony associated with the opening.

In December 2013, LaDOTD let a dowel bar retrofit project (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/engineering/lettings/bidsadvn/includes/ntcItems.aspx?Let=04131219&Prop=H.011161.6&Purp=P) for Segment A.  The Wikipedia article on dowel bar retrofits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowel_bar_retrofit) speaks in general terms about this process being used on older sections of highway.  However, one of US71's I-49 North Sneak Preview (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10921.msg259793#msg259793) photos (found in his linked flickr account page) shows an apparent dowel bar retrofit south of Hosston (somewhere in the Segments E-I section):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlWD0oSF.jpg&hash=09fbf26f2d67633766960fd581b99f0aba2ee835)

Any ideas on why the retrofits have been needed so early in the game for I-49 North?

Also, good news from LaDOTD that the Segment A retrofit has been completed and they are ready for AHTD to complete its section:

Quote
Yes, they have completed the retro fit for segment A.  I am "hearing"  Arkansas should be ready in June.  However, I have not confirmed that rumor.

Dig it #2.  :D

The giant pincers of I-49 are slowly closing in on western Arkansas...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 03, 2014, 10:59:24 AM
I didn't use my GPS, but my educated guess is this is the LA/AR State Line. The pavement is complete to this point, but there are no shoulders beyond here. There is also a slight "bump" where the pavement changes. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3731%2F10927243014_302d06ee18_c_d.jpg&hash=58982d0aaaf422f1ee8d87267644e4a11531be24)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3701%2F10927112775_1f5233fa4d_c_d.jpg&hash=22681c9b7c4ecd3f2613d02692295a101ec8ef8c)


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: O Tamandua on March 03, 2014, 02:05:58 PM
You ROCK, US71.  Thank you!  (And wishing the perfect pizza somewhere.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: texaskdog on March 03, 2014, 09:40:22 PM
Well if they built it together there wouldn't have been any bumps!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 05, 2014, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2014, 05:52:48 AM
As for the Patterson/Bayou Vista/Berwick segment of I-49 South, though...I'm not too happy with the downsized proposal that LADOTD now has. ... I know they wanted to save $$$, but I still think they could have done better than that. I think I'll create a new thread later on and elaborate more on this.
Please do.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 07, 2014, 12:42:22 AM
I just got to drive the new Interstate 49 section open north of Shreveport.  It was totally awesome and a beautiful road!!

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gBHvlUtciXs/UxlajI8cH_I/AAAAAAAAA8E/i1vJxrpRoMs/w983-h553-no/DSCN1138.JPG)
Shield off Interstate 220 East(north)bound
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T25PkknhPN0/UxlanlTWg5I/AAAAAAAAA8w/JnvnNTAMrmE/w983-h553-no/DSCN1145.JPG)
First Northbound reassurance shield
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 17, 2014, 07:07:41 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 07, 2014, 12:42:22 AM
I just got to drive the new Interstate 49 section open north of Shreveport.  It was totally awesome and a beautiful road!!

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gBHvlUtciXs/UxlajI8cH_I/AAAAAAAAA8E/i1vJxrpRoMs/w983-h553-no/DSCN1138.JPG)
Shield off Interstate 220 East(north)bound
[img width=800 height=450]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T25PkknhPN0/UxlanlTWg5I/AAAAAAAAA8w

I drove it today: there are trailblazers for North and South 49 between the I-49/I-20 junction and the LA 1/I-49 junction.

There are also tralblazers for I-220 from the LA1/I-49 junction down to the US 71/I-220 junction.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on March 19, 2014, 12:13:29 AM
Quote from: US71 on March 17, 2014, 07:07:41 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 07, 2014, 12:42:22 AM
I just got to drive the new Interstate 49 section open north of Shreveport.  It was totally awesome and a beautiful road!!

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gBHvlUtciXs/UxlajI8cH_I/AAAAAAAAA8E/i1vJxrpRoMs/w983-h553-no/DSCN1138.JPG)
Shield off Interstate 220 East(north)bound
[img width=800 height=450]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T25PkknhPN0/UxlanlTWg5I/AAAAAAAAA8w

I drove it today: there are trailblazers for North and South 49 between the I-49/I-20 junction and the LA 1/I-49 junction.

There are also tralblazers for I-220 from the LA1/I-49 junction down to the US 71/I-220 junction.
I thought about it today, but instead clinched about 1/5 of the parish roads in Bienville Parish today. At the same time, I realized US 371 is forgotten, with street signs and addresses still referring to it as LA 7, and green and white signs EVERYWHERE!!!

Does US 371 officially go to I-49, or is it just signed as such?

Nexus 7

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 19, 2014, 12:41:32 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on March 19, 2014, 12:13:29 AM

Does US 371 officially go to I-49, or is it just signed as such?


It's signed NB beginning at I-49, but SB appears to end at LA 1, judging by the signs I have seen.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on March 21, 2014, 10:00:18 AM
AASHTO (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/U.S.RouteNumberDatabase%28Dec2009%29.aspx) sez "Projected from U.S. 84 to I-49. Route ends" (whatever that means) at 82.7 mi from the Arkansas State Line.

Strangely, their mileage numbers seem a little low. Have a look at what Mr. Google has to say (https://maps.google.com/?q=33.018596%C2%B0,%20-93.467066%C2%B0%20to%2031.963122%C2%B0,%20-93.450179%C2%B0), and drag around the point B marker. See what I mean?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 21, 2014, 11:23:35 AM
Quote from: yakra on March 21, 2014, 10:00:18 AM
AASHTO (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/U.S.RouteNumberDatabase%28Dec2009%29.aspx) sez "Projected from U.S. 84 to I-49. Route ends" (whatever that means) at 82.7 mi from the Arkansas State Line.

Strangely, their mileage numbers seem a little low. Have a look at what Mr. Google has to say (https://maps.google.com/?q=33.018596%C2%B0,%20-93.467066%C2%B0%20to%2031.963122%C2%B0,%20-93.450179%C2%B0), and drag around the point B marker. See what I mean?

That is strange. 82.7 puts it just further along LA 177, not at the US 84/LA 1 junction. And there isn't anywhere that the route has been changed on an alignment. It never followed into Minden since it's been US 371. If it were a straighter shot and not backtracking, I would follow US 371 from I-49 across the Red River the few times I've needed to go that way. Too much zig zag if you're coming from the south.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on March 21, 2014, 11:37:06 AM
US 371 was never built between I-49 and LA 1.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9uWGDnO.png&hash=38ae9aef9b34028c8d00c1446ff6cb64e47703c8)

Quote from: bassoon1986 on March 21, 2014, 11:23:35 AM
If it were a straighter shot and not backtracking, I would follow US 371 from I-49 across the Red River the few times I've needed to go that way. Too much zig zag if you're coming from the south.
What do you use, LA 174?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 22, 2014, 02:55:09 PM
Yep. My dad lives in south Bossier and coming up I-49, I thought if I crossed the US 84/US 371 bridge over the Red River by taking LA 174 to LA 1 I could shave some time rather than going around Bert Kouns and over the Jimmie Davis Bridge to Bossier City. That's the busiest part of Shreveport and it feels like forever once you exit I-49 until you get to Bossier City.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on March 26, 2014, 10:18:15 PM
So US 70 from De Queen to the Oklahoma line is also US 371....interesting.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 26, 2014, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 26, 2014, 10:18:15 PM
So US 70 from De Queen to the Oklahoma line is also US 371....interesting.

Proposed, but never made official. Then again, there are NO 371 signs at all on 71/59 until you get to Lockesburg
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on March 26, 2014, 10:42:59 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 26, 2014, 10:18:15 PM
So US 70 from De Queen to the Oklahoma line is also US 371....interesting.
No - note the left column.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 31, 2014, 11:06:06 AM
KEEL NewsRadio 710 is conducting a poll asking whether I-49 should go through the inner city of Shreveport (http://710keel.com/should-i-49-go-through-the-innercity-of-shreveport/), in addition to featuring the topic with various dignitaries this week.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: JON30 on April 02, 2014, 04:55:22 PM
There is a story on ShreveportTimes.com talking about the new housing development in Allendale in the path of I-49. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140402/NEWS01/304020034/Proposed-housing-complex-same-site-potential-49-route (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140402/NEWS01/304020034/Proposed-housing-complex-same-site-potential-49-route)

"I-49 Inner-City Connector

Providence Engineering, a Baton Rouge consultant firm, is completing its study of a no-build alternative to the inner-city segment. The segment would utilize the existing inner loop (I-220 and Highway 3132) to connect the two sections of I-49.
A preferred route was expected to be finalized last year. However, a local citizens group, Loop It, raised concerns about the community input process. And its formal complaint led to the loop option being studied to meet the same design standards as the other alternatives.
Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, which oversees area transportation projects, said the study is expected to be finished in late spring or early summer with the public meetings to occur this summer.
A draft environmental impact would be completed in the fall with a final route selected by the end of the year, he said.
The firm released preliminary findings on the loop option this month. Its analysis showed, among other things, the economic impact of an inner city connector would be greater than than of using the loop. The firm found the economic impact of constructing the inner city connector would be $802 million annually compared to $445 million annually for the loop option.
State Rep. Roy Burrell said that economic boom alone could help revitalize deteriorating communities throughout Shreveport and central Bossier City.
Timeline:
The Housing Authority of the City of Shreveport's Executive Director Richard Herrington Jr said the Renaissance of Allendale has an aggressive construction schedule.
» Groundbreaking on phase one will take place April 8.
» The housing application process could begin as early as October or November of 2014.
» The project is expected to be completed and the 40 units of phase one should be leased by April 2015.
» The housing authority and the Michaels Development Company are obligated to finish construction of phase one by December 2015."


This link discusses some of the improvements needed for 3132 and Cross Lake bridge should they choose that route.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/pdf/D922050441.PDF (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/pdf/D922050441.PDF)

Some examples include:
1. additional lane in each direction for the Cross Lake bridge
2. higher railings for the bridge
3. realignment of the interstate near I-20 and I-220 where there is a sharp turn

They are still working on cost estimates of these improvements.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on April 02, 2014, 10:09:16 PM
Quote from: JON30 on April 02, 2014, 04:55:22 PM
There is a story on ShreveportTimes.com talking about the new housing development in Allendale in the path of I-49. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140402/NEWS01/304020034/Proposed-housing-complex-same-site-potential-49-route (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140402/NEWS01/304020034/Proposed-housing-complex-same-site-potential-49-route)

"I-49 Inner-City Connector

Providence Engineering, a Baton Rouge consultant firm, is completing its study of a no-build alternative to the inner-city segment. The segment would utilize the existing inner loop (I-220 and Highway 3132) to connect the two sections of I-49.
A preferred route was expected to be finalized last year. However, a local citizens group, Loop It, raised concerns about the community input process. And its formal complaint led to the loop option being studied to meet the same design standards as the other alternatives.
Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, which oversees area transportation projects, said the study is expected to be finished in late spring or early summer with the public meetings to occur this summer.
A draft environmental impact would be completed in the fall with a final route selected by the end of the year, he said.
The firm released preliminary findings on the loop option this month. Its analysis showed, among other things, the economic impact of an inner city connector would be greater than than of using the loop. The firm found the economic impact of constructing the inner city connector would be $802 million annually compared to $445 million annually for the loop option.
State Rep. Roy Burrell said that economic boom alone could help revitalize deteriorating communities throughout Shreveport and central Bossier City.
Timeline:
The Housing Authority of the City of Shreveport's Executive Director Richard Herrington Jr said the Renaissance of Allendale has an aggressive construction schedule.
» Groundbreaking on phase one will take place April 8.
» The housing application process could begin as early as October or November of 2014.
» The project is expected to be completed and the 40 units of phase one should be leased by April 2015.
» The housing authority and the Michaels Development Company are obligated to finish construction of phase one by December 2015."


This link discusses some of the improvements needed for 3132 and Cross Lake bridge should they choose that route.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/pdf/D922050441.PDF (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/pdf/D922050441.PDF)

Some examples include:
1. additional lane in each direction for the Cross Lake bridge
2. higher railings for the bridge
3. realignment of the interstate near I-20 and I-220 where there is a sharp turn

They are still working on cost estimates of these improvements.

Why build a housing project in the middle of a highway corridor?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on April 03, 2014, 10:09:02 AM
Build up the value for when you sell it to the state, fnord?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on April 03, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
It's beyond stupid to build something near or in the proposed path of a major highway. I feel like the stuff and the red tape that keeps coming up in the way of the ICC is just out of spite. Why did we build I-49 into Shreveport to connect to I-20 in the first place if we weren't going to finish it northward to connect at I-220?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on April 03, 2014, 12:01:38 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on April 03, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
It's beyond stupid to build something near or in the proposed path of a major highway. I feel like the stuff and the red tape that keeps coming up in the way of the ICC is just out of spite. Why did we build I-49 into Shreveport to connect to I-20 in the first place if we weren't going to finish it northward to connect at I-220?

Welcome to Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on April 03, 2014, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 03, 2014, 12:01:38 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on April 03, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
It's beyond stupid to build something near or in the proposed path of a major highway. I feel like the stuff and the red tape that keeps coming up in the way of the ICC is just out of spite. Why did we build I-49 into Shreveport to connect to I-20 in the first place if we weren't going to finish it northward to connect at I-220?

Welcome to Louisiana.

This is Louisiana-specific?  NO other state does stupid things like this?  Seriously?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on April 03, 2014, 04:01:49 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on April 03, 2014, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 03, 2014, 12:01:38 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on April 03, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
It's beyond stupid to build something near or in the proposed path of a major highway. I feel like the stuff and the red tape that keeps coming up in the way of the ICC is just out of spite. Why did we build I-49 into Shreveport to connect to I-20 in the first place if we weren't going to finish it northward to connect at I-220?

Welcome to Louisiana.

This is Louisiana-specific?  NO other state does stupid things like this?  Seriously?
It has been done before. Remember, during the freeway-building craze of the 1950s and 60s, the big cities demolished hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses for various projects, most of which never came to fruition.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on April 03, 2014, 04:55:58 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on April 03, 2014, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 03, 2014, 12:01:38 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on April 03, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
It's beyond stupid to build something near or in the proposed path of a major highway. I feel like the stuff and the red tape that keeps coming up in the way of the ICC is just out of spite. Why did we build I-49 into Shreveport to connect to I-20 in the first place if we weren't going to finish it northward to connect at I-220?

Welcome to Louisiana.

This is Louisiana-specific?  NO other state does stupid things like this?  Seriously?

I didn't say this is Louisiana-specific, but it certainly is an issue here.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 03, 2014, 06:15:47 PM
I've been highly suspicious of this apartment building project from the first time I heard about it. Whether the developers are saying it or not, they have some kind of ulterior motive for pursuing this.

The developers could have some kind of anti freeway political axe to grind. There's no shortage of such people; those political types would see dead ending a freeway as a kind of victory.

More likely: it's about money. Any number of angles could get played, be it lawsuits and lucrative out of court settlements to clear the way for I-49 or the developers build the property and even more money gets spent clearing the way for I-49.

If logic was allowed to prevail there's no way that housing project would have been allowed to go anywhere even in the planning stages.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on April 03, 2014, 09:58:05 PM
I thought the City of Shreveport or the State would have Building permits that they could put on hold until the inner-city connector study is finished.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 11, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 25, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
An email from LaDOTD indicates that Segments B-D of I-49 North will open to local traffic on March 1:
Quote
Q: I seem to remember that, back in November, the thought was that Segments B-D of I-49 North would be opened to local traffic in March.  Is that still the plan?  If so, has a ribbon-cutting been scheduled for the opening?
A: They are slated to open March 1 but there will be no ceremony associated with the opening.
Quote from: US71 on April 10, 2014, 11:46:17 PM
I took out a part about US 71 to LA 168 being open to local traffic (it's not)
(above quote from I-49 Coming to Missouri (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3239.msg292044#msg292044) thread)

I recently emailed LaDOTD and asked for an update about Segments B-D. The response:

Quote
Unfortunately, we have a contractor still signing that area.  We were going to open the segments up in March, but now it looks like May.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on April 11, 2014, 02:24:09 PM
Wow, a two-month delay! It must've been all that bad winter weather that was going on down there.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on April 14, 2014, 12:30:25 PM
Is it me or did Google feeewaytize more of US 90?  Maybe someone with more knowledge of this area can confirm. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on April 14, 2014, 08:02:20 PM
DOTD has completed another stretch of frontage roads on US 90/future I-49 south, between John Darnall Road and LA 85. The freeway continues to be slowly extended....

http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=4708
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on April 19, 2014, 09:07:51 AM
Hopefully I 49 getting in the news will help getting more funds to complete it. Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana needs congress and the federal Highway administration to see the need for this Interstate.
http://www.ktbs.com/story/25279026/us-transportation-secretary-visits-i-49-north-in-caddo-parish
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Duke87 on April 21, 2014, 12:58:39 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on April 03, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
It's beyond stupid to build something near or in the proposed path of a major highway. I feel like the stuff and the red tape that keeps coming up in the way of the ICC is just out of spite. Why did we build I-49 into Shreveport to connect to I-20 in the first place if we weren't going to finish it northward to connect at I-220?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't I-49 originally intended to permanently end at I-20? If there were no plans interstate heading north out of town, there would be no reason to provision for one.

QuoteThe firm released preliminary findings on the loop option this month. Its analysis showed, among other things, the economic impact of an inner city connector would be greater than than of using the loop. The firm found the economic impact of constructing the inner city connector would be $802 million annually compared to $445 million annually for the loop option.
State Rep. Roy Burrell said that economic boom alone could help revitalize deteriorating communities throughout Shreveport and central Bossier City.

...did he really just argue that plowing a freeway through a city would "revitalize deteriorating communities"? :wow: This is 2014, not 1954, right?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: richllewis on April 21, 2014, 05:30:43 AM
The Transportation secretary had the same message in Jackson, MS a few days ago.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: RBBrittain on April 23, 2014, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2014, 12:58:39 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on April 03, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
It's beyond stupid to build something near or in the proposed path of a major highway. I feel like the stuff and the red tape that keeps coming up in the way of the ICC is just out of spite. Why did we build I-49 into Shreveport to connect to I-20 in the first place if we weren't going to finish it northward to connect at I-220?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't I-49 originally intended to permanently end at I-20? If there were no plans interstate heading north out of town, there would be no reason to provision for one.

QuoteThe firm released preliminary findings on the loop option this month. Its analysis showed, among other things, the economic impact of an inner city connector would be greater than than of using the loop. The firm found the economic impact of constructing the inner city connector would be $802 million annually compared to $445 million annually for the loop option.
State Rep. Roy Burrell said that economic boom alone could help revitalize deteriorating communities throughout Shreveport and central Bossier City.

...did he really just argue that plowing a freeway through a city would "revitalize deteriorating communities"? :wow: This is 2014, not 1954, right?
The I-49/I-20 interchange was designed to handle a northern extension of I-49; those ramps are currently an "exit" to surface streets. (And that was in the 1990's, not 1954.)

Evidently someone still thinks a freeway could help inner-city Shreveport; that's why they keep bringing it up even after I-49 North was initially approved for LA 3132 & I-220.  Personally, I think the "freeway revolts" were stupid; I wish someone would have kept track of exactly how many people died in traffic accidents on I-40 in Memphis thanks to the treehuggers of Overton Park. (Burns Park in North Little Rock, AR was made, not destroyed, by building I-40 thru it.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 23, 2014, 03:13:41 AM
See my response to the previous thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg294442#

Other than some developers who want to revive the Allendale low-income housing projects that were abandoned as a ruse to kill the ICC, and some New Urbanist advocates who oppose inner-city freeways on general principle, most folk in Shreveport do favor the ICC.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on April 23, 2014, 08:22:22 AM
Quote from: RBBrittain on April 23, 2014, 02:54:06 AM

Evidently someone still thinks a freeway could help inner-city Shreveport; that's why they keep bringing it up even after I-49 North was initially approved for LA 3132 & I-220.  Personally, I think the "freeway revolts" were stupid; I wish someone would have kept track of exactly how many people died in traffic accidents on I-40 in Memphis thanks to the treehuggers of Overton Park. (Burns Park in North Little Rock, AR was made, not destroyed, by building I-40 thru it.)

Every community is different. I have observed, though, that TDOT seems to always be fixing the 40/240 junctions. I was there in March and it appears EB 40 may finally be getting a real exit as opposed to the "squeeze into one narrow ramp and crawl".

Then again I-55 at Crump Blvd is a real clusterduck.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on April 23, 2014, 11:43:28 AM
I-49 north of Shreveport now shown on Google Streetview! 

Images taken December 2013.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on April 23, 2014, 12:12:37 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on April 23, 2014, 11:43:28 AM
I-49 north of Shreveport now shown on Google Streetview! 

Images taken December 2013.

The satellite view misses the section south of LA 1 that's under construction (FWIW)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on April 23, 2014, 12:16:10 PM
Ok.  But I was talking about Streetview that the Google Truck drives.  Fresh meat. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 30, 2014, 11:35:50 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 05, 2014, 08:47:21 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 04, 2013, 06:10:09 PM
Caddo 2014-01-29 H.003495
455-09-0001 LA 3194, I-49 I-49 North (I-220-mlk Drive) Seg K Conc. New Pavement (Seg K) $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 2.06 Umeozulu, Joe      &      Caddo 2014-04-09 H.011111  I-220, I-49 I-49 North, Segment K - Phase 2 New I-49/I-220 Interchange With Roadways to Tie to Seg. J $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 4.03 Umeozulu, Joe , Looks like they have split the last section of I 49 north into 2 contracts.
The Bid Results for the February 5 Letting (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/highways/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20140205.aspx) list the winning bid for Phase I coming in at approximately $31.5 million ....
The beginning of the last piece of the I-220 to I-30 section of I-49!

The Bid Results from the April 30 letting (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/engineering/lettings/bidsresl/brhq20140430.aspx) list an apparent winning bid for Phase II coming in at approximately $138 million:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmAVtSbG.jpg&hash=bcdb2c2f3e965bbbc28135c7565dd867831a6b7f)

Let the work on the I-49/I-220 interchange begin!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 07:33:52 PM
Quote from: US71 on April 23, 2014, 08:22:22 AM
Then again I-55 at Crump Blvd is a real clusterduck.
Always has been.  Crump was the original surface street leading to the Memphis & Arkansas Bridge; but rather than feed I-55 directly to the bridge, TDOT ran I-55 into a cloverleaf at Crump just shy of the bridge and rebuilt the last few blocks of Crump as I-55.  AHTD at least managed to feed I-55 directly into the bridge even though it meant upgrading the old causeway from West Memphis, parts of which were originally built in the late 1920's to reach the Harahan Bridge auto decks.  (Speaking of which, Memphis is converting one of the Harahan decks into a bicycle & pedestrian bridge, which is necessary since I-40 & I-55 are the only highway bridges at Memphis.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 08, 2014, 02:11:16 AM
For what it's worth, I noticed a while back that most frontage roads along I-49 in Natchitoches Parish are signed as parish roads, with JCTs, arrows, and those three digit wide parish pentagons. They look very nice, too, unlike the LA 547 shield. Yuck!

PR 620 is at the Natchez exit, PR 829 is at LA 119, and PR 820 is at LA 490.

Edit: I noticed just now that on the Flatwoods exit, "Zimmerman" is blanked out, but also, LA 8's West plate is on a green out. Also, LA 478's entire shield is a green out.

Double edit: Here's some photos of I-49 at LA 478 (formerly Parish Road XX), and the Zimmerman green out.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9Z5iFCOl.jpg&hash=51eef0386548b6c648a4f673cca6e6e774eb12e7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2JWp5lRl.jpg&hash=6da33f2bed426e10329ba0c265f23260bca506c4)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 10, 2014, 08:37:24 PM
Quote from: txstateends on December 06, 2011, 05:38:58 PM
Are there plans at all for welcome centers on I-49 for either side (or both) of the state line?
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on August 30, 2013, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on August 28, 2013, 02:50:09 PM
Will there be a Louisiana Welcome Center on I-49 southbound?
From Google imagery there is a telltale cleared space adjacent to the future I-49 SB lanes, just south of the LA 170 interchange, that may correspond to a future rest area/potential welcome center - it looks too large to be a weigh station.

This May 9 article (http://www.ktbs.com/story/25477884/louisiana-welcome-center-planned-for-i-49-north) reports that a twelve-month study has begun to determine the best location for a welcome center along southbound I-49 North in Louisiana, no farther south than just below Ida:

Quote
A continual ribbon of I-49 concrete will soon transport visitors out of Arkansas into Shreveport. Now a study is under way for a new roadside welcome center.
The 12-month study will review the best location along the southbound lanes of Interstate 49. The visitor center would be located no farther south than just below Ida.

The Coordinating & Development Corporation that helps finance a number of government construction projects will conduct the study.
Once a site is located and designed, a state appropriation would have to be sought through the Department of Transportation and Development. DOTD would construct and maintain the center. Staffing would fall under the tourism arm of the lieutenant governor's office.
In addition to welcoming tourists, the visitors information center would be important as part of a designated Hurricane Evacuation Route once I-49 is completed through Lafayette and beyond.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on May 11, 2014, 06:32:57 PM
Great news!  I was hoping these wouldn't go the way of rest areas.  I hope rest areas come back one day, esp. in rural areas.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: txstateends on May 11, 2014, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on May 11, 2014, 06:32:57 PM
Great news!  I was hoping these wouldn't go the way of rest areas.  I hope rest areas come back one day, esp. in rural areas.

Any state that has tourist bureaus (state line or not) would be dumb to get rid of them.  If they want to promote their state to the driving public, it's a perfect way to do it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 08:13:27 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on May 11, 2014, 06:32:57 PM
I hope rest areas come back one day, esp. in rural areas.

Not going to happen. Not with the plethora of modern travel centers that are both trucker- and non-trucker friendly. Not with these businesses competing for the family dollar with restrooms that they actually clean. Mayyybeeee in some isolated areas where services are few and far between for hundreds of miles, but let's face it, are there really that many such places left?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on May 11, 2014, 08:31:11 PM
I understand that.  Especially in the East where you'll see a Pilot or TA regularly it doesn't make much sense for the government to spend tax dollars on them.   I am REALLY surprised Mississippi just refurbished the rest area near Mile 57 on I-10.  There are plenty of cities along I-10 and the state is only 77 miles wide on I-10 anyway. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on May 11, 2014, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 08:13:27 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on May 11, 2014, 06:32:57 PM
I hope rest areas come back one day, esp. in rural areas.

Not going to happen. Not with the plethora of modern travel centers that are both trucker- and non-trucker friendly. Not with these businesses competing for the family dollar with restrooms that they actually clean. Mayyybeeee in some isolated areas where services are few and far between for hundreds of miles, but let's face it, are there really that many such places left?

That is why OK never had many rest areas to begin with.  The few on I35 have all been Closed or converted to "parking" areas (with the exception of the Welcome Centers at Thackerville and Blackwell.  I40 only has the one just east of Shawnee and I suspect it will be closed soon.  I was told by someone who knew the history that the local towns were anxious to divert traffic down into the towns for rest stops and had the political muscle to see that no rest areas were ever built.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: rte66man on May 11, 2014, 09:30:21 PM
I was told by someone who knew the history that the local towns were anxious to divert traffic down into the towns for rest stops and had the political muscle to see that no rest areas were ever built.

There's economic wisdom to that.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on May 12, 2014, 12:16:48 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: rte66man on May 11, 2014, 09:30:21 PM
I was told by someone who knew the history that the local towns were anxious to divert traffic down into the towns for rest stops and had the political muscle to see that no rest areas were ever built.

There's economic wisdom to that.

Did they build public rest areas in the towns then?

Rest areas are a vital resource for drivers who need a nap or a bathroom break.  A business that welcomes only paying customers, and only during certain hours, is no substitute for this resource.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 12, 2014, 12:45:17 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 12, 2014, 12:16:48 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: rte66man on May 11, 2014, 09:30:21 PM
I was told by someone who knew the history that the local towns were anxious to divert traffic down into the towns for rest stops and had the political muscle to see that no rest areas were ever built.

There's economic wisdom to that.

Did they build public rest areas in the towns then?

Rest areas are a vital resource for drivers who need a nap or a bathroom break.  A business that welcomes only paying customers, and only during certain hours, is no substitute for this resource.
I agree 100%. I stop at the rest areas along I-20 between Ruston and Monroe, and they're ALWAYS packed! An abandoned rest area ramp thing sits along I-49 between Natchitoches and Alexandria, near Lena, and would be an amazing asset if it's ever built.

Here's the kicker - I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria only killed Boyce. Coushatta is a parish seat and serves US 71 and 371, while Natchitoches is still a destination. There's not any towns to divert the traffic to, and plus, you can't send traffic 10 minutes off of the Interstate just to take a break. The more rest areas, the better, in my opinion.

Does a welcome center count as a rest area, though?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on May 12, 2014, 02:38:55 PM
These are valid points. However, public rest stops cost money to maintain and for security. That money has to come from somewhere.

For the record, I can support the state owning a service plaza with gas, food, etc. that pays for itself with the services rendered. Even on a freeway, in a remote area where even towns are some distance from the road. (Also on tollways in urban areas. I'm still a fan of the Chicagoland oases even though I have no reason to go there any more.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on May 12, 2014, 06:40:40 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 12, 2014, 02:38:55 PM
These are valid points. However, public rest stops cost money to maintain and for security. That money has to come from somewhere.

For the record, I can support the state owning a service plaza with gas, food, etc. that pays for itself with the services rendered. Even on a freeway, in a remote area where even towns are some distance from the road. (Also on tollways in urban areas. I'm still a fan of the Chicagoland oases even though I have no reason to go there any more.)

As long as motorists can nap and/or expel waste there without buying something or being made to feel guilty about not buying something, I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on May 12, 2014, 08:30:45 PM
I see LADOTD is planning a Welcome Center  (http://www.ktbs.com/story/25477884/louisiana-welcome-center-planned-for-i-49-north) for the Ida area.

I wonder if AHTD will follow suit around Doddridge?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on May 13, 2014, 11:08:14 AM
I have no problem with a public-private arrangement with rest areas, but they would have to provide some amenities without charge. Parking, access to bathrooms and water,perhaps access to wifi.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on May 13, 2014, 11:30:50 AM
At Cove Fort, UT they actually have private owned Rest Stops off the interstates accessible from both I-15 and I-70.  Maybe this should tell other states what to do like NJ who hates rest areas totally!  Get some private business to allow to operate a rest area off an interchange and the State put up signs like UT does.

BTW, is the one Travel Plaza on I-95 in Baltimore private or public?  This one too counts as a good type of rest area full with hotel and a Greyhound Bus Terminal.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: pctech on May 13, 2014, 11:08:14 AM
I have no problem with a public-private arrangement with rest areas, but they would have to provide some amenities without charge. Parking, access to bathrooms and water,perhaps access to wifi.

We call it a service area.  Unfortunately, the fucking feds won't allow service areas to be built on non-toll interstates.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on May 14, 2014, 08:23:15 AM
Well when the interstates were began, they were envisioned as examples of a grand scale example of the what public works could be. It was a different time, the U.S. was flush with money for public projects, people thought differently about taxes for projects that benefited the public good and so forth.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on May 14, 2014, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 04:38:28 PM
Unfortunately, the fucking feds won't allow service areas to be built on non-toll interstates.

Unnecessary bureaucracy. Who cares whether the highway is toll or not if it pays its way.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: pctech on May 14, 2014, 08:23:15 AM
Well when the interstates were began, they were envisioned as examples of a grand scale example of the what public works could be. It was a different time, the U.S. was flush with money for public projects, people thought differently about taxes for projects that benefited the public good and so forth.

The maximum tax rate on the very wealthy was 90% under Eisenhower (a Republican and one of the best presidents of the 20th century) and that is part of the reason the economy was booming.  We need a new Ike.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 11:47:40 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 14, 2014, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 04:38:28 PM
Unfortunately, the fucking feds won't allow service areas to be built on non-toll interstates.

Unnecessary bureaucracy. Who cares whether the highway is toll or not if it pays its way.

Pretty much.  I am more likely to stop at convenient service plazas than I am to exit off the highway and hope that I can find the place I'm looking for then worrying about traffic and stoplights.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 15, 2014, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 11, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
I recently emailed LaDOTD and asked for an update about Segments B-D. The response:
Quote
Unfortunately, we have a contractor still signing that area.  We were going to open the segments up in March, but now it looks like May.

It looks like another delay for opening Segments B-D to traffic (and that AHTD is now looking at a late August/ early September opening for their I-49 state-line section):

Quote
We had a conference call with Arkansas DOT yesterday and they advised they are shooting for the end of August or early September to open their portion of I-49.  Our administrator has made the decision to keep the four northern sections (A-D) closed until their portion is complete.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on May 15, 2014, 03:17:13 PM
Makes sense in a way, though Louisiana folks won't be happy.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 15, 2014, 04:41:17 PM
Does anyone know if I-49 North will be dealing with the same thing that was done with pieces of the highway below Shreveport, as in, a ban on billboards? We have desolate stretches, and I heard that no billboards were to be put up along the highway. It does make it quite boring...

Also, as a quick question, why didn't the state build the highway WITH cable barriers? You have a brand new highway, and you wouldn't have to deal with lane closures. If I-49 North was built in Texas, the cable barriers would already be there.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 15, 2014, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2014, 04:41:17 PM
I-49 North .... Also, as a quick question, why didn't the state build the highway WITH cable barriers? You have a brand new highway, and you wouldn't have to deal with lane closures. If I-49 North was built in Texas, the cable barriers would already be there.

This February 2014 article/ video report (http://www.ksla.com/story/24717519/cable-barirers-5-months-and-waiting) provides an explanation:

Quote
Federal officials suggest any interstate or highway median that is 60 feet or less in width, would be a good candidate for cable barriers ....
Worth noting, the brand new stretch of I-49 being built in north Caddo Parish does not include cable barriers. However the median there is much larger, 90 feet across, well in excess of federal guidelines for barriers.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on May 15, 2014, 09:20:40 PM
Thanks! I knew that I-49's wide median would allow for a 75 MPH speed limit to be posted, but I never thought that it could go without the cable barrier.

Are there any plans to talk with Arkansas about making I-49 from the state line to Texarkana as a 75 MPH speed limit?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2014, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: english si on May 30, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
LA I-49 extension (I-220 - Arkansas)
(above quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12521.msg302814#msg302814) thread)

I-49 North is now "AASHTO legal". :-P  The designation includes the I-220 to LA 1 segments under construction:

Quote
The route begins at mile point 206.880 at the intersection of the I-220 Interchange.  The route travels north to the Louisiana/Arkansas State Line and continues north to Texarkana, Arkansas.  The route travels over the new alignment to I-220 in Shreveport where the urban extension from the existing I-49 in Shreveport will be constructed in the future.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: english si on May 30, 2014, 03:56:48 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 14, 2014, 11:46:01 AMThe maximum tax rate on the very wealthy was 90% under Eisenhower (a Republican and one of the best presidents of the 20th century) and that is part of the reason the economy was booming.
Ask the French whether a high top bracket is good for the economy. I guess it is - for London's economy as the top earners all move across La Manche...

Or compare California with Texas...

Correlation doesn't not equal causation. You've said "Eisenhower had a 90% tax rate" and "the economy was booming then" and that somehow the former is part of the reason for the latter. I don't think it did.

There's tons of reasons why the 50s was great for the American economy:
- the global economy was coming out of the massive long dip of the Great Depression and World War Two
- American, unlike most of the developed world, hadn't been blown to smithereens in the first half of the 40s
- due to a lack of competition (as Europe was still rebuilding its manufacturing sector), and (unlike the late 40s) people had just about enough money to buy stuff, American sold lots of stuff to everyone else
- America was the world's bank - elsewhere had near bankrupted themselves with the war effort. As such, America made a tidy profit off loan repayments for the rebuilding of Europe and Japan.

But given the poor showing of the economy in other high top-rate tax regimes, it's hard to see how the 90% top tax rate is one of the reasons. Arguably it's a 'despite that 90% rate...'
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 03, 2014, 09:26:14 AM
Some news on I-49 South to break up the Arkansas monotomy....  :) :D :) :D :)

1) LADOTD is currently in the process of finalizing their long awaited update to their Statewide Transportation Plan, and the completion of some segments of I-49 South are included in the final plan for "megaprojects". The segment through Lafayette from I-10 to near the Lafayette Regional Airport (aka, the I-49 Connector) is classified as a Priority A project, as in warranting immediate funding for construction; as is a segment upgrading US 90 between the LA 1/Bayou Lafouche crossing/LA 308 interchange and just west of Des Allemands across the Barataria Basin to Interstate-grade freeway standards.

The segment upgrading US 90 between Wax Lake and the Atchafalaya River Bridge at Berwick/Morgan City, and the segment completing the Westbank Expressway elevated section of Business US 90 on the west bank of Metro New Orleans, is classified as Priority B, which would still be funded under the financing scenario assumed by LADOTD.

The remaining segments of US 90 being upgraded to I-49 South would be placed in Priority C, outside of the existing funding structure, but could still be funded if suitable sources could be found. (It should be said, though, that a section of US 90 south of Lafayette between Albertsons' Parkway and the southern terminus of Ambassador Caffery Parkway will be constructed starting later this year under a Design-Build project; and the interchange of US 90 and LA 318 in Four Corners between Jeanerette and Baldwin in St. Mary Parish is scheduled to be let for construction next year.)

A full list of the Draft Megaprojects (still to be finalized) can be found here:
http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Transportation_Plan/Policy_Meeting_2/06%20Draft%20List%20of%20Megaprojects%20%E2%80%93%20April%2024%202014.pdf (PDF document, requires Adobe)


2) The City of Lafayette MPO has officially applied for a USDOT TIGER Regional Planning Grant of $500,000 to fund their portion of planning for the I-49 Connector through Lafayette. According to the application, the grant money would be used to both compliment and supplement LADOTD/FHWA design/engineering work towards construction of the Connector freeway, as well as integrate innovative methods in rejuvinating and connecting adjacent neighborhoods and downtown through Context Sensitive Solutions design, alternative means of transport (bike lanes, multi-use trails, etc.), and encouraging more economic development of abutting neighborhoods.

The text of the TIGER grant request can be found here at the Lafayette MPO page:

http://mpo.lafayettela.gov/TIGER/Application/LCGTIGERApp.pdf

Seems like things are now moving at a bit more than snail's pace....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on June 08, 2014, 03:16:27 AM
Is this where I-49 will go thru in Boutte?
http://goo.gl/maps/fhVgV

If you zoom in, some of the houses on Gregory Dr have been demolished. I assume this is where I-49 would go thru and there is ample ROW just East of Peterson Canal.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 08, 2014, 08:52:27 AM
Nope.....according to the latest revisions and adjustments provided through the December 2013 Implementation Study, I-49 South will miss that area well to the west, crossing US 90 right over its intersection with LA 52 (Paul Malliard Road) and running on the north side of the BNSF rail line on the north side of Boutte, only crossing over to rejoin US 90 on its ROW near the current LA 3060 (Barton Avenue) intersection.

Here is a sketch plate of the proposed alignment of I-49 South on the west side of Boutte, including the proposed interchanges with the extension of I-310 and the ultimate interchange proposed between I-49, I-310, and US 90, via the Implementation Study document:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi61.tinypic.com%2F2vbplr8.jpg&hash=80cab18beb5b7acabfef5e5f773834b5b5e3c830)

There were frequent attempts by St. Charles Parish officials to run I-49 South clear to the south of Boutte and Mosella as a full bypass of US 90, but that was ultimately rejected by the Feds due to the impact to the wetlands.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on June 08, 2014, 09:38:55 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 03, 2014, 09:26:14 AM
Some news on I-49 South to break up the Arkansas monotomy....  :) :D :) :D :)

1) LADOTD is currently in the process of finalizing their long awaited update to their Statewide Transportation Plan, and the completion of some segments of I-49 South are included in the final plan for "megaprojects". The segment through Lafayette from I-10 to near the Lafayette Regional Airport (aka, the I-49 Connector) is classified as a Priority A project, as in warranting immediate funding for construction; as is a segment upgrading US 90 between the LA 1/Bayou Lafouche crossing/LA 308 interchange and just west of Des Allemands across the Barataria Basin to Interstate-grade freeway standards.

The segment upgrading US 90 between Wax Lake and the Atchafalaya River Bridge at Berwick/Morgan City, and the segment completing the Westbank Expressway elevated section of Business US 90 on the west bank of Metro New Orleans, is classified as Priority B, which would still be funded under the financing scenario assumed by LADOTD.

The remaining segments of US 90 being upgraded to I-49 South would be placed in Priority C, outside of the existing funding structure, but could still be funded if suitable sources could be found. (It should be said, though, that a section of US 90 south of Lafayette between Albertsons' Parkway and the southern terminus of Ambassador Caffery Parkway will be constructed starting later this year under a Design-Build project; and the interchange of US 90 and LA 318 in Four Corners between Jeanerette and Baldwin in St. Mary Parish is scheduled to be let for construction next year.)

A full list of the Draft Megaprojects (still to be finalized) can be found here:
http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Transportation_Plan/Policy_Meeting_2/06%20Draft%20List%20of%20Megaprojects%20%E2%80%93%20April%2024%202014.pdf (PDF document, requires Adobe)


2) The City of Lafayette MPO has officially applied for a USDOT TIGER Regional Planning Grant of $500,000 to fund their portion of planning for the I-49 Connector through Lafayette. According to the application, the grant money would be used to both compliment and supplement LADOTD/FHWA design/engineering work towards construction of the Connector freeway, as well as integrate innovative methods in rejuvinating and connecting adjacent neighborhoods and downtown through Context Sensitive Solutions design, alternative means of transport (bike lanes, multi-use trails, etc.), and encouraging more economic development of abutting neighborhoods.

The text of the TIGER grant request can be found here at the Lafayette MPO page:

http://mpo.lafayettela.gov/TIGER/Application/LCGTIGERApp.pdf

Seems like things are now moving at a bit more than snail's pace....


So is there a plan for funding these Priority A projects? Does LaDOTD have a funding plan in place for these projects?

Some of the projects further down the list, especially Priority C, seem like pipe dreams to me, but at least they are prioritizing projects.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 08, 2014, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 08, 2014, 09:38:55 AM
So is there a plan for funding these Priority A projects? Does LaDOTD have a funding plan in place for these projects?

Some of the projects further down the list, especially Priority C, seem like pipe dreams to me, but at least they are prioritizing projects.

Not yet, IIRC...I think they are still waiting on the Feds to resolve that Highway Trust Fund deficiency thing.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 08, 2014, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2014, 09:20:40 PM
Thanks! I knew that I-49's wide median would allow for a 75 MPH speed limit to be posted, but I never thought that it could go without the cable barrier.

Are there any plans to talk with Arkansas about making I-49 from the state line to Texarkana as a 75 MPH speed limit?

Are you fucking high?  A 75 MPH speed limit in Arkansas?  When hell freezes over, maybe.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 08, 2014, 07:24:57 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 08, 2014, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2014, 09:20:40 PM
Thanks! I knew that I-49's wide median would allow for a 75 MPH speed limit to be posted, but I never thought that it could go without the cable barrier.

Are there any plans to talk with Arkansas about making I-49 from the state line to Texarkana as a 75 MPH speed limit?

Are you fucking high?  A 75 MPH speed limit in Arkansas?  When hell freezes over, maybe.
Well, I hope that a cold front does come through hell. It would make sense to keep the speed limit at 75 MPH when you enter Arkansas from Louisiana, at least to the US 71 interchange, where it could drop to 70 MPH.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on June 09, 2014, 07:18:31 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 08, 2014, 07:24:57 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 08, 2014, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2014, 09:20:40 PM
Thanks! I knew that I-49's wide median would allow for a 75 MPH speed limit to be posted, but I never thought that it could go without the cable barrier.

Are there any plans to talk with Arkansas about making I-49 from the state line to Texarkana as a 75 MPH speed limit?

Are you fucking high?  A 75 MPH speed limit in Arkansas?  When hell freezes over, maybe.
Well, I hope that a cold front does come through hell. It would make sense to keep the speed limit at 75 MPH when you enter Arkansas from Louisiana, at least to the US 71 interchange, where it could drop to 70 MPH.

The 4-Lane north of Texarkana on 71/59 is 70mph in Texas, but drop to 65 as soon as you cross into Arkansas, so I am skeptical about having a 75mph road in Arkansas. It could happen, I suppose, but I am skeptical.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:23:33 AM
Well maybe with Texas having US 71 as 70 MPH, and Louisiana having I-49 as 75, it would urge Arkansas to raise their speed limit. Or, if I was Texas or Louisiana, I would move the speed drop to inside our own state lines, and write all the tickets ourselves.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:23:33 AM
Well maybe with Texas having US 71 as 70 MPH, and Louisiana having I-49 as 75, it would urge Arkansas to raise their speed limit. Or, if I was Texas or Louisiana, I would move the speed drop to inside our own state lines, and write all the tickets ourselves.

Not gonna happen.  I think it would take an act of the Arkansas state legislature to raise the maximum speed limit in the state to 75, and if that happened then it wouldn't happen just on AR 549.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:43:41 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:23:33 AM
Well maybe with Texas having US 71 as 70 MPH, and Louisiana having I-49 as 75, it would urge Arkansas to raise their speed limit. Or, if I was Texas or Louisiana, I would move the speed drop to inside our own state lines, and write all the tickets ourselves.

Not gonna happen.  I think it would take an act of the Arkansas state legislature to raise the maximum speed limit in the state to 75, and if that happened then it wouldn't happen just on AR 549.
Does every state require an act of the legislature to raise the speed limit on a road? I know that Texas has some crazy speed limits, and we can't raise the speed of a 2-laner to anything above 55 MPH.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on June 10, 2014, 05:01:47 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:43:41 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:23:33 AM
Well maybe with Texas having US 71 as 70 MPH, and Louisiana having I-49 as 75, it would urge Arkansas to raise their speed limit. Or, if I was Texas or Louisiana, I would move the speed drop to inside our own state lines, and write all the tickets ourselves.

Not gonna happen.  I think it would take an act of the Arkansas state legislature to raise the maximum speed limit in the state to 75, and if that happened then it wouldn't happen just on AR 549.
Does every state require an act of the legislature to raise the speed limit on a road? I know that Texas has some crazy speed limits, and we can't raise the speed of a 2-laner to anything above 55 MPH.

Usually not on any individual road, but most states have statutory maximum speed limits set by law, which the DOT can't override.  If the highest speed limit in a state is 65 MPH, that's probably because the law doesn't allow the DOT to set a higher limit.  It would then indeed require an act of the legislature to increase this maximum speed limit, in order for the DOT to apply a higher speed limit on one or more stretches of road.  But then, depending on the specifics of the law, the DOT could theoretically assign the same higher limit to other roads later without another act of the legislature, so long as those roads are eligible for the higher speed limit as provided by the law.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on June 10, 2014, 08:23:24 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:43:41 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:23:33 AM
Well maybe with Texas having US 71 as 70 MPH, and Louisiana having I-49 as 75, it would urge Arkansas to raise their speed limit. Or, if I was Texas or Louisiana, I would move the speed drop to inside our own state lines, and write all the tickets ourselves.

Not gonna happen.  I think it would take an act of the Arkansas state legislature to raise the maximum speed limit in the state to 75, and if that happened then it wouldn't happen just on AR 549.
Does every state require an act of the legislature to raise the speed limit on a road? I know that Texas has some crazy speed limits, and we can't raise the speed of a 2-laner to anything above 55 MPH.

2-Lane roads in Texas are mostly 70 mph, now.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 04:35:16 PM
Mostly... US 190 goes from 55 MPH on Louisiana to 70 MPH on Texas, then up to 75 MPH. At least, according to GSV.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2014, 04:43:46 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 10, 2014, 08:23:24 AM
2-Lane roads in Texas are mostly 70 mph, now.

isn't this geographically based?  from what I recall, some counties have a 70mph max, and others a 75mph max, based on population, of all roads that meet a few basic criteria of ruralness, sight lines, etc... and on top of these laws, there are provisions for 80mph and 85mph for certain high-quality roads. 

as one data point: I remember US-62/180 being 75mph for most of its length approaching El Paso in May, 2012, despite being two or occasionally three lanes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 10, 2014, 05:22:29 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2014, 04:43:46 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 10, 2014, 08:23:24 AM
2-Lane roads in Texas are mostly 70 mph, now.
isn't this geographically based?

Indeed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2014, 10:41:06 AM
Well...another small step ahead for I-49 South today.

LADOTD just announced at their website (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5308) that they will be constructing the US 90/LA 318 interchange near Four Corners just west of Baldwin/Franklin as a Design/Build project, and they are seeking bidders for a contract for construction to begin no later than June of next year.

Quoting from the press release posted today at the LADOTD website:

Quote
JEANERETTE, La. — Today, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Secretary Sherri H. LeBas announced plans to move forward with the construction of I-49 South by pursuing a design-build contract for the construction of the U.S.90/La. 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish.

"The completion of I-49 South is a priority for the state,"  said Secretary LeBas. "With the support of Governor Jindal, we're able to pursue innovative ways, such as the design-build method, to move us one step closer to achieving our goal of upgrading U.S. 90 to interstate standards."

Earlier today, DOTD issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) seeking a design-build firm to construct the next section of I-49 South, the U.S. 90/La. 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish. The NOI can be viewed on DOTD's website.

The proposed project includes upgrading the existing U.S. 90 and La. 318 signalized intersection to a full control of access, grade-separated interchange including the reconstruction of the U.S. 90 frontage roads to provide local access to La. 318. As part of the plan, the project would improve connectivity for industrial and freight transport to the sugar mill and port-related industries, as well as increase capacity and improve overall mobility.

The estimated project cost is $55M - $65M and will be funded by a combination of federal and state funds. The contract is expected to be executed in June, 2015 and completed in three years.

The Notice of Intent requesting bidders for the DB project can be found here (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Design_Build/DesignBuild%20Manuals/Notice%20of%20Intent%20-%20U.S.%2090-La.%20318%20Interchange%20Design-Build%20Project.pdf) (PDF document):



The press release also makes note of another "design-build" project along the future I-49 South/US 90 corridor in Lafayette Parish.

Quote
Additionally, in December 2013, DOTD announced the winning bid for another I-49 South design-build project in Lafayette Parish. The $57.1 million project will widen U.S. 90 along the U.S. 90/I-49 South corridor from north of Ambassador Caffery Parkway to Albertson's Parkway in Lafayette Parish. The contract was executed in February 2014. The project is estimated to begin construction by the end of this month and completed in three years.

That is the project that will also include the interchange at Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182, frontage roads extending across LA 182 and the BNSF/UP rail line, and ultimately the South Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange (although the latter will be a seperate standalone project with its own funding).

Slowly, but steadily...

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2014, 10:41:06 AM
The press release also makes note of another "design-build" project along the future I-49 South/US 90 corridor in Lafayette Parish.

Quote
Additionally, in December 2013, DOTD announced the winning bid for another I-49 South design-build project in Lafayette Parish. The $57.1 million project will widen U.S. 90 along the U.S. 90/I-49 South corridor from north of Ambassador Caffery Parkway to Albertson's Parkway in Lafayette Parish. The contract was executed in February 2014. The project is estimated to begin construction by the end of this month and completed in three years.

That is the project that will also include the interchange at Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182, frontage roads extending across LA 182 and the BNSF/UP rail line, and ultimately the South Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange (although the latter will be a seperate standalone project with its own funding).

What will this project do with the existing bridges over the rail line and LA 182? Replace them, modify them or leave them alone? Your statement suggests that new bridges will be built for the frontage roads. This seems a bit unnecessary unless they're putting a Texas-style interchange or C/D interchange in there. Also makes me wonder if the Sonic at the Evangeline/Albertsons intersection is doomed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 07, 2014, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2014, 10:41:06 AM
The press release also makes note of another "design-build" project along the future I-49 South/US 90 corridor in Lafayette Parish.

Quote
Additionally, in December 2013, DOTD announced the winning bid for another I-49 South design-build project in Lafayette Parish. The $57.1 million project will widen U.S. 90 along the U.S. 90/I-49 South corridor from north of Ambassador Caffery Parkway to Albertson's Parkway in Lafayette Parish. The contract was executed in February 2014. The project is estimated to begin construction by the end of this month and completed in three years.

That is the project that will also include the interchange at Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182, frontage roads extending across LA 182 and the BNSF/UP rail line, and ultimately the South Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange (although the latter will be a seperate standalone project with its own funding).

What will this project do with the existing bridges over the rail line and LA 182? Replace them, modify them or leave them alone? Your statement suggests that new bridges will be built for the frontage roads. This seems a bit unnecessary unless they're putting a Texas-style interchange or C/D interchange in there. Also makes me wonder if the Sonic at the Evangeline/Albertsons intersection is doomed.
Also, what is the deal with the inability to go straight across US 90 from Albertsons to Walmart? You have to turn right, take the St Martinville exit, loop under the bridge, and hit the next left and get back on US 90. However, if you come from Walmart to Albertsons, you can go straight across. Is it because of how close LA 182 is?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2014, 09:12:03 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2014, 10:41:06 AM
The press release also makes note of another "design-build" project along the future I-49 South/US 90 corridor in Lafayette Parish.

Quote
Additionally, in December 2013, DOTD announced the winning bid for another I-49 South design-build project in Lafayette Parish. The $57.1 million project will widen U.S. 90 along the U.S. 90/I-49 South corridor from north of Ambassador Caffery Parkway to Albertson's Parkway in Lafayette Parish. The contract was executed in February 2014. The project is estimated to begin construction by the end of this month and completed in three years.

That is the project that will also include the interchange at Albertsons' Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182, frontage roads extending across LA 182 and the BNSF/UP rail line, and ultimately the South Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange (although the latter will be a seperate standalone project with its own funding).

What will this project do with the existing bridges over the rail line and LA 182? Replace them, modify them or leave them alone? Your statement suggests that new bridges will be built for the frontage roads. This seems a bit unnecessary unless they're putting a Texas-style interchange or C/D interchange in there. Also makes me wonder if the Sonic at the Evangeline/Albertsons intersection is doomed.

The existing US 90 bridges over LA 182/BNSF railroad will be replaced and widened to six lanes; and the frontage roads will cross over the rail line.

The frontage roads will be built within the US 90 ROW, which was originally built to accomodate frontage roads to begin with. And, they will be built ultimately as one-way, Texas-style, to accomodate local traffic and essentially "extend" Evangeline Thruway once the mainline US 90 is converted to freeway.

Here's a mark up of the ultimate setup for this project.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F2yl1jjk.jpg&hash=1babfe22554f077acaea7c891ea84f0887552047)

And, here's the markup for the "initial build" Phase 1 of the project, which would build the Albertsons' Parkway interchange first:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2Fwwdn5g.jpg&hash=ea691cb198823444d47e5ba56f1f918e7d109239)

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 10, 2014, 12:08:28 AM
Does anyone have any idea if a sign for Mora/Flatwoods ever existed? Someone mentioned it to me, and I can't point where it was anywhere... maybe on I-49 at LA 490?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 10, 2014, 05:11:54 PM
Would Mora have been on an I-49 sign? The community appears to be on Mora Flatwoods Road north and west of LA 8. There's not an exit off 49 that serves it. LA 490 doesn't cross Pierre Bayou to reach it. The Flatwoods exit for LA 8 west has had a green cover-up for years, but I've heard you guess before that Zimmerman may have been the other destination.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 10, 2014, 08:39:44 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on July 10, 2014, 05:11:54 PM
Would Mora have been on an I-49 sign? The community appears to be on Mora Flatwoods Road north and west of LA 8. There's not an exit off 49 that serves it. LA 490 doesn't cross Pierre Bayou to reach it. The Flatwoods exit for LA 8 west has had a green cover-up for years, but I've heard you guess before that Zimmerman may have been the other destination.
Maybe not on I-49, but on LA 28?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: RBBrittain on July 12, 2014, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: vtk on June 10, 2014, 05:01:47 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:43:41 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on June 10, 2014, 12:23:33 AM
Well maybe with Texas having US 71 as 70 MPH, and Louisiana having I-49 as 75, it would urge Arkansas to raise their speed limit. Or, if I was Texas or Louisiana, I would move the speed drop to inside our own state lines, and write all the tickets ourselves.

Not gonna happen.  I think it would take an act of the Arkansas state legislature to raise the maximum speed limit in the state to 75, and if that happened then it wouldn't happen just on AR 549.
Does every state require an act of the legislature to raise the speed limit on a road? I know that Texas has some crazy speed limits, and we can't raise the speed of a 2-laner to anything above 55 MPH.

Usually not on any individual road, but most states have statutory maximum speed limits set by law, which the DOT can't override.  If the highest speed limit in a state is 65 MPH, that's probably because the law doesn't allow the DOT to set a higher limit.  It would then indeed require an act of the legislature to increase this maximum speed limit, in order for the DOT to apply a higher speed limit on one or more stretches of road.  But then, depending on the specifics of the law, the DOT could theoretically assign the same higher limit to other roads later without another act of the legislature, so long as those roads are eligible for the higher speed limit as provided by the law.
Not in Arkansas.  State law here gives the Highway Commission complete & total authority to set speed limits on state highways, with no minimum or maximum. (Some statutes seem to set maximum speed limits, but they predate the present law; those are routinely ignored.) The only limit on the Highway Commission's power is where the legislature has set a specific speed limit in later law (i.e., 25 mph in school zones).  Cities & counties cannot set lower limits, though they can petition the Highway Commission to reduce them.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Wayward Memphian on July 12, 2014, 11:12:55 PM
The problem in Arkansas and I guess elsewhere is that 40 and 30 is so truck heavy. It is especially troublesome between LR and Memphis. Traffic will come to near abrupt stops when a governed truck swings into the left lane in front of oncoming, close and faster traffic to pass another governed truck doing a fraction of a MPH slower and take nearly 2 miles to complete it and heaven help the car driver if they are passing two or more. That can happen when two trucks from the same company are the slower ones.

The ASP already allows a defacto speed limit of 75. I have passed a Trooper doing between 75 and 79 (and back when it was 65 mph between 70 and 74) literally hundreds of times and yet to be ticketed on I 40.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 17, 2014, 08:28:35 AM
In this July 16 News Release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5393), LaDOTD announces that construction has started on the "last mile" of I-49 North, Segment K, and that completion of all of I-49 North is anticipated by "2016/2017":

Quote
Today, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development announced that work on Segment K, the final segment of I-49 North, is underway. Segment K is a one-mile stretch from I-220 to Martin Luther King Boulevard in Caddo Parish.
Construction has been divided into two phases. Phase one, which began in May 2014, includes clearing land, utility relocation, roadway improvements along Martin Luther King Boulevard, and construction of service roads and bridges. The $31.5 million project was awarded to Best Yet Builders.
The second phase will begin this fall. Construction activities will include the I-49/I-220 interchange structures and the other roadways that will tie into Phase 1. The $137.7 million project was awarded to PCL Construction.
The entire $670 million I-49 North Corridor project covers a 36-mile stretch from the Arkansas State line to I-220 in Shreveport. DOTD anticipates the completion of the I-49 North Corridor by 2016/2017.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 17, 2014, 09:16:34 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 17, 2014, 08:28:35 AM
In this July 16 News Release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5393), LaDOTD announces that construction has started on the "last mile" of I-49 North, Segment K, and that completion of all of I-49 North is anticipated by "2016/2017":

Quote
Today, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development announced that work on Segment K, the final segment of I-49 North, is underway. Segment K is a one-mile stretch from I-220 to Martin Luther King Boulevard in Caddo Parish.
Construction has been divided into two phases. Phase one, which began in May 2014, includes clearing land, utility relocation, roadway improvements along Martin Luther King Boulevard, and construction of service roads and bridges. The $31.5 million project was awarded to Best Yet Builders.
The second phase will begin this fall. Construction activities will include the I-49/I-220 interchange structures and the other roadways that will tie into Phase 1. The $137.7 million project was awarded to PCL Construction.
The entire $670 million I-49 North Corridor project covers a 36-mile stretch from the Arkansas State line to I-220 in Shreveport. DOTD anticipates the completion of the I-49 North Corridor by 2016/2017.

Well, hopefully not the absolute last mile of 49 north in Louisiana. Just those pesky 3-4 miles between I-20 and I-220 now...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 22, 2014, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 17, 2014, 08:28:35 AM
In this July 16 News Release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5393), LaDOTD announces that construction has started on the "last mile" of I-49 North, Segment K, and that completion of all of I-49 North is anticipated by "2016/2017"

This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20140722/NEWS01/307220025/Interstate-49-North-slowly-progressing-Shreveport), primarily about the Segment K grubbing work near Shreveport, reports that LaDOTD has completed its section of I-49 North from Hosston to the state line, that Arkansas expects to complete its last four miles to the state line "by August", and that the joint opening might happen in mid-September:

Quote
For Gard Wayt, executive director of the I-49 International Coalition, the next hurdles are to get funding for I-49 from Fort Smith to Texarkana in Arkansas, and to finish the last Louisiana segment of I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans.
"There has been some progress made in that area,"  he said.
I-49 North in Caddo Parish is mostly done, except for the MLK-area work and the last bit to the state line. "It"˜s complete from Highway 1 to the Arkansas line, though it's not open for traffic beyond Hosston," he said.
There's the roughly four-mile stretch on Inner City connector from I-20 to I-220 that is mired in local politics and construction of a housing project in Allendale, as well as other home construction in the central Shreveport neighborhood. Until that's resolved, I-49 traffic will have to use I-20 west to travel north on I-220 to I-49.
"We're ready to go,"  he said. "Arkansas is pushing their contractor on those four miles from Doddridge. They're supposed to be finished by August. The two departments of Transportation are talking about a mid-September opening."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on July 22, 2014, 05:44:48 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 22, 2014, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 17, 2014, 08:28:35 AM
In this July 16 News Release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5393), LaDOTD announces that construction has started on the "last mile" of I-49 North, Segment K, and that completion of all of I-49 North is anticipated by "2016/2017"

This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20140722/NEWS01/307220025/Interstate-49-North-slowly-progressing-Shreveport), primarily about the Segment K grubbing work near Shreveport, reports that LaDOTD has completed its section of I-49 North from Hosston to the state line, that Arkansas expects to complete its last four miles to the state line "by August", and that the joint opening might happen in mid-September:

Quote
For Gard Wayt, executive director of the I-49 International Coalition, the next hurdles are to get funding for I-49 from Fort Smith to Texarkana in Arkansas, and to finish the last Louisiana segment of I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans.
"There has been some progress made in that area,"  he said.
I-49 North in Caddo Parish is mostly done, except for the MLK-area work and the last bit to the state line. "It"˜s complete from Highway 1 to the Arkansas line, though it's not open for traffic beyond Hosston," he said.
There's the roughly four-mile stretch on Inner City connector from I-20 to I-220 that is mired in local politics and construction of a housing project in Allendale, as well as other home construction in the central Shreveport neighborhood. Until that's resolved, I-49 traffic will have to use I-20 west to travel north on I-220 to I-49.
"We're ready to go,"  he said. "Arkansas is pushing their contractor on those four miles from Doddridge. They're supposed to be finished by August. The two departments of Transportation are talking about a mid-September opening."

We're getting a different message from our resident AHTD employee in the Texarkana thread:
Quote from: AHTD on July 22, 2014, 04:07:42 PM
Current estimates are closer to November. We have, however, begun meeting with our friends at LADOTD to coordinate a ribbon cutting at the state line.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on July 23, 2014, 01:20:27 AM
Question... With the Youngsville Hwy being a hyphenated route now, would LaDOTD consider making Ambassador Caffery the only interchange to get to Youngsville instead of LA 92-1? Or, would a realignment of 92-1 be in order?

Noticed how close the two intersections are, and the amazing North and West signs, with arrows, and no shields at the roundabouts.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on July 23, 2014, 09:00:12 AM
Quote from: jbnv on July 22, 2014, 05:44:48 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 22, 2014, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 17, 2014, 08:28:35 AM
In this July 16 News Release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5393), LaDOTD announces that construction has started on the "last mile" of I-49 North, Segment K, and that completion of all of I-49 North is anticipated by "2016/2017"

This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20140722/NEWS01/307220025/Interstate-49-North-slowly-progressing-Shreveport), primarily about the Segment K grubbing work near Shreveport, reports that LaDOTD has completed its section of I-49 North from Hosston to the state line, that Arkansas expects to complete its last four miles to the state line "by August", and that the joint opening might happen in mid-September:

Quote
For Gard Wayt, executive director of the I-49 International Coalition, the next hurdles are to get funding for I-49 from Fort Smith to Texarkana in Arkansas, and to finish the last Louisiana segment of I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans.
"There has been some progress made in that area,"  he said.
I-49 North in Caddo Parish is mostly done, except for the MLK-area work and the last bit to the state line. "It"˜s complete from Highway 1 to the Arkansas line, though it's not open for traffic beyond Hosston," he said.
There's the roughly four-mile stretch on Inner City connector from I-20 to I-220 that is mired in local politics and construction of a housing project in Allendale, as well as other home construction in the central Shreveport neighborhood. Until that's resolved, I-49 traffic will have to use I-20 west to travel north on I-220 to I-49.
"We're ready to go,"  he said. "Arkansas is pushing their contractor on those four miles from Doddridge. They're supposed to be finished by August. The two departments of Transportation are talking about a mid-September opening."

We're getting a different message from our resident AHTD employee in the Texarkana thread:
Quote from: AHTD on July 22, 2014, 04:07:42 PM
Current estimates are closer to November. We have, however, begun meeting with our friends at LADOTD to coordinate a ribbon cutting at the state line.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate"
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2014, 09:30:04 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 23, 2014, 01:20:27 AM
Question... With the Youngsville Hwy being a hyphenated route now, would LaDOTD consider making Ambassador Caffery the only interchange to get to Youngsville instead of LA 92-1? Or, would a realignment of 92-1 be in order?

Noticed how close the two intersections are, and the amazing North and West signs, with arrows, and no shields at the roundabouts.

The proposal that is currently on the books regarding LA 92/92-1 is to essentially have a "split interchange" using the frontage roads as Texas-style feeders betwen Youngsville Hwy. (LA 92 West/LA 92-1) and a realigned LA 92 East that would connect with existing LA 92 west of Cade.

A profile of the proposal (from the I-49 South LRA-LA 88 FEIS/ROD):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2Fvevuae.jpg&hash=acf5ebc367a8832508a3674efd35e322126dbad4)



Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on July 23, 2014, 09:57:41 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2014, 09:30:04 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2Fvevuae.jpg&hash=acf5ebc367a8832508a3674efd35e322126dbad4)

The lower map shows a possible future extension of Young St. (LA 92 to Youngsville). That could be extended to Duchamp Road and provide another route to St. Martinville (via Duchamp Rd. and LA 96).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 06, 2014, 09:46:40 PM
Well...the first phase of completing I-49 South in Lafayette Parish is now underway; today was the groundbreaking ceremony for the start of construction of the upgrade of US 90 from Albertson Parkway to Ambassador Caffery Parkway. This press release from LADOTD has all the details:

http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5551

Some snippage:

Quote
BROUSSARD, LA — Today, Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) Secretary Sherri H. LeBas was joined by state and local officials to kick-off the start of the I-49 South project from Ambassador Caffery to Albertsons Parkway along U.S. 90. The event was held at Billeaud Companies, located in Broussard.

Secretary LeBas said, "This project not only demonstrates DOTD's commitment to completing the I-49 South corridor, but also our continued commitment to improving our state's infrastructure and promoting economic growth."

This $57.1 million project involves widening U.S. 90 to six-lanes from Albertson Parkway to north of Ambassador Caffery, constructing a new overpass over Albertson Parkway and new railroad overpass structures, and frontage roads.

The I-49 South corridor project will facilitate economic growth, improve access, reduce future traffic congestion, and improve connectivity throughout the state's transportation system. Completion of the project will improve the daily commute for workers by decreasing travel time and increasing safety by providing an unhindered flow of traffic. Additionally, these enhancements will allow local governments to evacuate residents easier in the event of a natural disaster.

The state pursued the design-build process to construct the project, which is a particular procurement and contracting method in which the design and construction services are combined and performed by a single entity, "design builder."  

Between this and the start of the design/engineering process for the I-49 Connector portion in Lafayette, things are about to get very busy here.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on August 07, 2014, 09:38:59 PM
Great to see they have started construction. Let us know how progress is going.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2014, 11:35:24 PM
In other news regarding I-49 South, LADOTD has now created it's own standalone website dedicated to chronicling the progress of design and construction of the entire 150 mile project.

http://www.geauxsouth49.com/

It's initial use will be to alert the public on the progress of the Albertsons' Parkway-Ambassador Caffery Parkway segment now beginning construction, but will be updated as more segments come into place as well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on August 11, 2014, 09:36:39 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2014, 11:35:24 PM
http://www.geauxsouth49.com/

That graphic of I-49 tearing up US 90 is hideous. Also, we need a bill banning state agencies from using the word "geaux."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 11, 2014, 11:12:12 AM
Personally, I kinda like "geaux".....makes us Louisianians sound different. Could care less about the logo as long as they build the darn thing, at least close to my lifetime.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on August 12, 2014, 05:55:23 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 11, 2014, 11:12:12 AM
Personally, I kinda like "geaux".....makes us Louisianians sound different.

I would hope that our food, music, hospitality and history would be enough to set us apart from the rest of the country. Our habit of coming in low on good things and high on bad things sets us apart in the wrong way. But "eaux"verkill just gets old.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on August 12, 2014, 07:04:24 PM
"Geaux" reminds me of asshole LSU fans who pick fights with fans of other teams, spit on them and pour beer on them, and go around saying "tiger bait" to everyone.  They need to remember that they used to suck and will suck again.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on August 12, 2014, 08:31:50 PM
"Geaux" just perpetuates stereotypes. Why we can't try to be serious for a change - especially regarding something as important as transportation? Louisiana is already well known for its unique attributes both good and bad.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 12, 2014, 11:57:30 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 12, 2014, 07:04:24 PM
"Geaux" reminds me of asshole LSU fans who pick fights with fans of other teams, spit on them and pour beer on them, and go around saying "tiger bait" to everyone.  They need to remember that they used to suck and will suck again.

I'm not saying spitting on other fans is right or just a cultural thing here, but I wouldn't point fingers at Louisiana teams and sports fans. There are plenty of ignorant fans and jerks in every state.

I agree with the others that "geaux" is fun cultural thing that I will always associate with Louisiana. It's kind of laid back and fun here.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on August 13, 2014, 07:53:36 AM
I would point my finger at LSU fans.  Most SEC teams' fanbases agree that LSU has the worst fans in the SEC.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on August 13, 2014, 02:04:13 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 13, 2014, 07:53:36 AM
I would point my finger at LSU fans.  Most SEC teams' fanbases agree that LSU has the worst fans in the SEC.

I was in a church retreat, of all things, where some LSU students made a skit mocking the other schools represented. To this day I do not support LSU athletics, even when they're on the verge of championships.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 18, 2014, 01:15:09 PM
How would I-49 enter and go through NOLA? I know there are pushes to tear down I-10 through downtown (610 becomes 10 in that case). That would require either terminating it at I-310 or a new bypass near Chalmette to reach I-510.

I also think that a new Interstate designation, say I-349, should be built for the LA-1 expressway (twinned and upgraded) to Port Fourchon.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: TheStranger on August 18, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 18, 2014, 01:15:09 PM
How would I-49 enter and go through NOLA?

Wouldn't it follow the existing Business US 90/unsigned I-910 into town?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on August 18, 2014, 06:46:24 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 18, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 18, 2014, 01:15:09 PM
How would I-49 enter and go through NOLA?

Wouldn't it follow the existing Business US 90/unsigned I-910 into town?
I think it would, and would follow the Pontchartrain Expressway through NOLA to the 10/610 junction. The talk about tearing down 10 is only on the Claiborne Expressway segment, between the Superdome and 610.

I think that if you remove I-10 between the Pontchartrain Expressway and where it meets 610 again, and upgrade short pieces of Franklin and Almonaster to freeways, it would calm traffic down coming into the Quarter, and speed it up to get it on 10.

Also, what about taking South Clearview and upgrading the piece between the HPL and Earhart as an expressway? Just curious if you can make that I-49 Business.

By taking I-10 between the 'Dome and Metairie, and making it I-49, you would still have an Interstate, with the ability to eliminate the crazy quilt that exists where 10 turns east. I'm more focused on taking I-49 and temporarily moving it to the I-310 segment while the Westbank Expressway is being upgraded from the HPL to the actual start of the expressway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 18, 2014, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 18, 2014, 01:15:09 PM
How would I-49 enter and go through NOLA? I know there are pushes to tear down I-10 through downtown (610 becomes 10 in that case). That would require either terminating it at I-310 or a new bypass near Chalmette to reach I-510.

I also think that a new Interstate designation, say I-349, should be built for the LA-1 expressway (twinned and upgraded) to Port Fourchon.

The plan to eliminate the Claiborne Elevated portion of I-10 is still that....a plan. Hopefully, a plan that will not happen.

I-49 South will terminate at the Claiborne/I-10/Ponchatrain Expy. interchange near the Mercedes Benz Superdome. Though, if the Claiborne Elevated is eliminated, you could extend it along the Ponchatrain northward to Metarie to the original I-10/I-610 interchange.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on August 24, 2014, 11:46:32 AM
  News about I 49, Where is this building along the projected route in LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) - A 19th-century building set to be demolished to make way for a planned Interstate 49 interchange in downtown Lafayette is being researched as a possible nominee for the National Register of Historic Places But state transportation officials say they are still moving forward with plans to level the two-story brick structure despite the research work.

DOTD officials say no date has been set for the building to come down.Believed to have been built in 1885, The Advocate reports the structure is one of the oldest buildings in a downtown Lafayette.Jacques Berry, spokesman for the Lieutenant Governor's Office, says the state's historic preservation staff has begun research on whether the building might be a candidate for the National Register of Historic Places.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 24, 2014, 06:58:17 PM
Quote from: Gordon on August 24, 2014, 11:46:32 AM
  News about I 49, Where is this building along the projected route in LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) - A 19th-century building set to be demolished to make way for a planned Interstate 49 interchange in downtown Lafayette is being researched as a possible nominee for the National Register of Historic Places But state transportation officials say they are still moving forward with plans to level the two-story brick structure despite the research work.

DOTD officials say no date has been set for the building to come down.Believed to have been built in 1885, The Advocate reports the structure is one of the oldest buildings in a downtown Lafayette.Jacques Berry, spokesman for the Lieutenant Governor's Office, says the state's historic preservation staff has begun research on whether the building might be a candidate for the National Register of Historic Places.

There is an article in the Acadiana Advocate on the Colburn's Building and its potential impact on the I-49 Connector project:

http://theadvocate.com/home/10056070-123/research-underway-on-structure-in

It should be noted that the building is not directly in the freeway ROW, but would be taken by the proposed interchange/railroad grade seperation between I-49 and the Second/Third Street couplet.

(Caveat: Yes, the Advocate is based in Baton Rouge, but they do have an Acadiana/Lafayette bureau that sometimes covers Lafayette better than even the home-based Advertiser.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on August 24, 2014, 08:57:14 PM
Local historical societies should be more on the ball. If the building's worthy of being on the register of historic places, why did they wait for a highway project to threaten it before starting the process?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on August 24, 2014, 10:06:10 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 24, 2014, 08:57:14 PM
Local historical societies should be more on the ball. If the building's worthy of being on the register of historic places, why did they wait for a highway project to threaten it before starting the process?

One word..... money (or lack thereof)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 25, 2014, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 24, 2014, 08:57:14 PM
Local historical societies should be more on the ball. If the building's worthy of being on the register of historic places, why did they wait for a highway project to threaten it before starting the process?

First....it is outside the immediate I-49 ROW, so it wasn't given quite the scrutiny when the original EIS was developed around 1998-2003.

Second...the original process that produced the 2003 Final EIS/ROD called for updated archeological/historical investigations for any properties that would potentially be affected by the ultimately selected alternative. That's really how the Colburn's building escaped scrutiny the first time. Plus, it hadn't reached the 50-year old threshold that would render it eligible for NRHP protection.

The design process will take a couple or three years to complete, so there is ample time to investigate whether the building meets NRHP standards. But, even if it does, chances are more than likely it will still be ultimately demolished, with documentation and preservation of the facade and some other artifacts for posterity. LADOTD is committed to constructing the project once funds are found.....and they're (along with the Feds) are paying the bill. I'd be very surprised if this ends up even delaying the project, heaven forbid killing it.

Though, I'm sure the Teche Ridge groupies are already sharpening their steely knives for a second attempt to kill the project.


UPDATE (8-27-14):

The Acadiana Advertiser just posted a follow-up article (http://theadvocate.com/news/10100439-123/preservation-officials-tour-doomed-lafayette) saying that state Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism officials did a tour of the Coburn's Building earlier this week, and that a preliminary determination for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places could be made as early as next week. For their part, LADOTD still plans to demolish the structure, citing the earlier determination of non-eligibility via the 2003 EIS/ROD, though no timeline has been set. Supporters of saving the building are hoping that a determination of eligibility for the NRHP would persuade LADOTD to reconsider tweaking the Second/Third interchange design.

I've added a layout of the proposed 2nd/3rd Street SPUI and the proposed layout for I-49 downtown, adding a circle for where the Coburn's Building is in relationship to the proposed interchange (original image from the I-49 Connector 2003 FEIS, as modded by me using GIMP):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi61.tinypic.com%2Fo5nq80.jpg&hash=867c448c0b976283b97d746d9d42a45d22bd79be)

Remember that Second and Third Streets are supposed to be depressed to cross under the BNSF/UP rail line, rather than at-grade at present.

There's also this story, also at the Acadiana Advocate:

http://theadvocate.com/news/9922748-123/lafayette-officials-seek-to-spare

In the comment section of that article, I respond to comments from one of the sponsors of the drive to save the Coburn's Building, who apparently sees it as his opening to kill the entire project and presumably bring back the failed Teche Ridge Eastern Bypass proposal. Let's see how that exchange goes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 16, 2014, 07:36:37 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 25, 2014, 10:12:45 AM
The design process will take a couple or three years to complete, so there is ample time to investigate whether the building meets NRHP standards. But, even if it does, chances are more than likely it will still be ultimately demolished, with documentation and preservation of the facade and some other artifacts for posterity. LADOTD is committed to constructing the project once funds are found.....and they're (along with the Feds) are paying the bill. I'd be very surprised if this ends up even delaying the project, heaven forbid killing it.

This article (http://www.klfy.com/story/26539920/mobile-oilfield-learning-units-visit-arnaudville-students) reports a LaDOTD spokeswoman as saying that LaDOTD expects to "go into" (as opposed to "complete"?) the design phase of the I-49 connector project "in about five years".  Maybe a long wait is becoming even longer:

Quote
The future of a 130 year old Lafayette building is still uncertain and the state department of transportation and development states they are going to reassess the historical value of the merchant wholesale grocery building at the intersection of Cypress and Second Street.
DOTD spokeswoman Deidra Druilhet says "Tearing down the building was part of the plan to build the future I-49 connector."
About 1,800 buildings, including the merchant wholesale building, underwent an historical assessment in 2003 and only 8 buildings, not including the merchant whole sale building, got the official designation.
"Regardless of the building's future,"  Druilhet says, "DOTD expects to go into the design phase of the I-49 connector project in about five years."

edit

Oh well, the five-year time frame should allow for plenty of time to complete the TIGER grant study (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/TIGER14_Project_FactSheets.pdf) associated with the I-49 connector (page 27/80 of pdf):

Quote
TIGER will fund a corridor plan for the Interstate 49 Southern Corridor, alongside the I-49 connector, a 5.5 mile, elevated highway that will pass through the urban core of Lafayette. The plan seeks to prepare for improvements in the corridor concurrently with the planning of the connector. Specifically, the Corridor Plan will focus on connecting disadvantaged populations in the corridor with employment centers, expanding transit, and promoting economic development. Local partners will work with the Louisiana Department of Transportation to develop corridor plans concurrently with those of the connector, with the goal of preventing the need to fix problems created by the structure after it is built ....
The plan has high levels of partnership from public and community groups, and builds on previous planning efforts, including the Blue Book designed by the University of Louisiana, an Action Plan created by the Lafayette City-Parish Council in partnership with local, state, and federal government, and an Economic Redevelopment plan. The corridor plan will take advantage of land use and transportation infrastructure to do so. It will tie plans to potential funding, and utilize innovative funding mechanisms. This will help mitigate potential issues of community disruption and isolation associated with the elevated freeway ....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 17, 2014, 03:22:54 AM
Considering, Grzzd, that LADOTD just announced last July that they selected Stantec as the chief consultant for the I-49 Connector design process, and that an official contract would probably be delivered by no later than the end of this year, me thinks that that spokesperson is a bit late.

The timeline (http://mpo.lafayettela.gov/TIGER/doc/BudgetTimeline.pdf) that was given as part of the sucessful bid for the TIGER grant by LCG is dependent highly on running concurrently with LADOTD's design process, and they list most of the work of design for the corridor as occuring during late summer 2015 and summer of 2016. An RFP for a consultant to execute the local plan for LCG is scheduled to be formally introduced next month, with selection and execution of said contract completed by spring of 2015.

At any rate, they still have to find the money to construct the thing, and that will possibly take some time. So, no rush.

In the meantime, LADOTD is flying with the commitments on the remaining segments of I-49 South. The Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange is in the design stage and about to begin construction; a design/build contract has been executed on the US 90/LA 318 interchange with construction currently slated for 2016; design work is scheduled to begin on the segments of US 90 from Ambassador Caffery Parkway to LA 88 (beginning with frontage road work from Captain Cade Road to Ambassador Caffery, not sure if that will also include the LA 92/LA 92-1 grade seperations), and for the frontage road work from Albertsons' Parkway north to Southpark Road (LA 89), not including the Southpark Rd. interchange. Also, the overpass for the L&DRR crossing near Jeanerette just east of LA 85 is scheduled for construction around 2016, too.  And....RFP's are forthcoming for the Verot School Road interchange w/ US 90 and the Supplemental EIS for changes for the I-49 segments between Raceland and Westwego.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dariusb on September 24, 2014, 03:44:39 PM
This is a bit off topic but is the Lafayette area experiencing or expected to experience a big construction boom/jump in population due to I-49?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on September 24, 2014, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: dariusb on September 24, 2014, 03:44:39 PM
This is a bit off topic but is the Lafayette area experiencing or expected to experience a big construction boom/jump in population due to I-49?
It's already experiencing population growth and construction. Has been for much of the century. I-49 is an upgrade of an existing highway, but the upgrade could make areas south of Lafayette more attractive for businesses and residents. As it is, the fastest-growing part of the Lafayette area is Youngsville, which is right along US 90 and will benefit tremendously from the upgrade.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 25, 2014, 12:07:58 PM
Speaking thereof...LADOTD has now made public their much awaited study on the feasibility of using tolls for funding the I-49 South project.

Turns out, tolls would only go so far as fund from 26 to 51 percent of the project, even under the rosiest scenarios, and other means of "innovative funding" would be required to complete the project.

The study basically compared 4 scenarios: three of which involved constructing and funding with tolls a section of I-49 South, and the other tolling the entire 144 mile project.

One of the scenarios involved slapping tolls on the segment of US 90 between Morgan City and Raceland; that one came up most feasible for using tolls for completion. The fact that that segment is already fully complete and running as a freeway apparently didn't come up for discussion, nor the obvious outcry from residents who probably would not like paying tolls on a highway they've already funded for free thanks to the TIMED program.

The Lafayette Daily Advertiser has the full report available as both an embedded page (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/louisiana/2014/09/24/i49-south-feasibility-report/16162909/) and a downloadable (via Google Drive) pdf file (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.theadvertiser.com/assets/pdf/DG222935924.PDF&chrome=true).

They also posted a supporting article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/acadiana/2014/09/23/tolls-possible-complete-interstate-south/16106833/) there yesterday with comments from supporters of I-49 South who were somewhat "disappoi nted" with the outcome of the study.

Quote
Discussions of tolls are in the early stages, but advocates for pushing forward I-49 South said the study shows that a mix of toll revenue with federal and state money could pave the way for the road.

"Tolls are probably going to have to be an integral part of getting I-49 done, as long as people are getting what they are paying for," said state Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, the main force behind the recent formation of the I-49 South Coalition, a group of politicians, business owners and economic development officials trying to push the project forward.

Allain and others said they were disappointed Monday that the feasibility study didn't find the toll revenue could pay for a bigger chunk of I-49 South.

"We realize this is not necessarily the best of news," said Dennis Decker, assistant secretary of multimodal planning for Department of Transportation and Development.

[...]

The numbers should not be discouraging, said Michael Copeland, a planner with consultant CDM Smith, the company that did the toll feasibility study.

"It's very rare for a facility nowadays to completely pay for itself," he said.

The toll study looked at the financial feasibility of tolling the entire 145-mile stretch from Lafayette to New Orleans or tolling only segments within that stretch, with tolls collected in each segment supporting work only in that segment.

The study found that tolls collected along the entire 145-mile route could pay from 26 percent to 51 percent of the project.

The numbers were similar – 27 percent to 53 percent – if tolls were collected only on the portion from I-10 stretching 59 miles south to the Wax Lake outlet.

The figures looked better for a 50-mile stretch about midway between Lafayette and New Orleans – toll funding could pay for 54 percent to 106 percent of the project – but most of that portion is already complete.

The study assumes tolls starting at a rate of 18 cents a mile and rising over 15 years to 25 cents a mile.

Personally, I don't think this will fly very well, since this will be the only segment of the entire I-49 expansion to Kansas City even considering tolling, and that I-49 from Shreveport north was built using "free" funding. Better to explore non-toll innovative funding or simply bite the bullet and call for a "TIMED2"/TIFF/inflation-indexed gas tax increase to fund this project.


UPDATE: The Lafayette/Acadiana edition of the Baton Rouge-based Advocate just dropped an Op-Ed not opposing the idea of tolls for partially funding I-49 South, but with concerns about how it would sell with the locals, as well as calling for more funding sources, with or without tolls. Full opinion is here (http://theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/10348555-123/our-views-i-49-tolls-tough).



Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on September 26, 2014, 04:42:03 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 25, 2014, 12:07:58 PM
One of the scenarios involved slapping tolls on the segment of US 90 between Morgan City and Raceland; that one came up most feasible for using tolls for completion. The fact that that segment is already fully complete and running as a freeway apparently didn't come up for discussion, nor the obvious outcry from residents who probably would not like paying tolls on a highway they've already funded for free thanks to the TIMED program.
If they don't like the tolls, they can use the old highway (now LA 182) to get to/from Morgan City, Houma, Raceland, etc.

People will have to realize that tolled limited-access highways are the future. There's simply no way around it, not if you want to actually use the highway in your lifetime. Making the interstate system free was a big mistake.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 27, 2014, 12:52:25 AM
Not the point...that segment of US 90 was completed in the 1990's with state public funds (via the TIMED program). The locals may feel that they've already paid enough to fund it in the first place, so why tack on an addition toll there just to pay for upgrading other segments of US 90?

If you are going to be consistent with that position, why not simply convert ALL of Louisiana's Interstate highways to tollways, then?

Personally, I think they've reduced the cost of I-49 South significantly enough that tolls may not be necessary. But, we shall see.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on September 27, 2014, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 27, 2014, 12:52:25 AM
If you are going to be consistent with that position, why not simply convert ALL of Louisiana's Interstate highways to tollways, then?

I would do that. I think the Atchafalaya Basin bridge should be tolled with all of the transnational and commercial traffic that crosses it. (Very few people, pretty much all locals, would go to US 190 to avoid the tolls.) Maybe if we had had tolls on our interstates from the beginning, they wouldn't have gotten as bad as they did.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on September 28, 2014, 06:01:47 PM
An initial lack of tolling isn't a fault with the Interstate System. The problem is a lack of political will to keep the gas tax where is was at the time of the system's construction, as inflation chips away at it. If we had that, there would be no need for tolls.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on September 29, 2014, 09:00:15 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 28, 2014, 06:01:47 PM
An initial lack of tolling isn't a fault with the Interstate System. The problem is a lack of political will to keep the gas tax where is was at the time of the system's construction, as inflation chips away at it. If we had that, there would be no need for tolls.
With all due respect, I oppose the idea of taxing one thing to pay for something else. By tolling the interstates, those who use them pay for them. That's my idea of fairness.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on September 30, 2014, 06:40:42 AM
What guarantee is there that any method of collecting revenue, whether it be from gas taxes or tolls, won't be diverted to pay for something else? That is part of what is happening now, especially at the state and local levels.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on September 30, 2014, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: bugo on August 12, 2014, 07:04:24 PM
"Geaux" reminds me of asshole LSU fans who pick fights with fans of other teams, spit on them and pour beer on them, and go around saying "tiger bait" to everyone.  They need to remember that they used to suck and will suck again.
Geaux reminds me of
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoneykins.com%2FPatterns%2Fproduct_images%2Fr%2F388%2FPhillies_Lies_tn__92447_thumb.png&hash=9227ddaa0eef286e855e99cc1ab3f82fb276dfe3)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 30, 2014, 11:31:04 AM
One thing is certain: the gas tax model isn't working for covering road funding needs. Not even by a long shot.

Inflation has badly eroded its value. The federal gasoline tax hasn't risen from its current 18.4¢ per gallon level since 1993. Since then road building and maintenance costs have skyrocketed, due in large part to materials cost inflation. Steel, concrete, asphalt, aluminum and various plastics all cost a whole lot more now than they did 20 years ago. Vehicles are now significantly more fuel efficient than they were 20 years ago, which lowers the value of that gasoline tax even further.

Various states have bumped up what they add to fuel taxes over the years, but proportionately speaking fuel taxes make up a far smaller percentage of the price of a gallon of gasoline than they did back in the early 1990s.

If the federal government and individual states can't find the political will to raise fuel taxes they're going to be forced to do other things, like putting up toll gates on many new roads. And not just superhighways either. At the rate we're going I would not be surprised to see various cities start tolling surface streets. RFID tags are already pretty common for toll roads, but license plate tag reading technology is getting better.

People have to pay for the building and maintenance of infrastructure. It does not magically build and maintain itself for free. If taxpayers don't want to pay for it then they have zero right to gripe about crumbling infrastructure. They can put a smile on their face when they need to buy new shocks and get other parts of their vehicle's suspension and drive train repaired from deteriorating highways and streets. And then they can smile when they're forced to walk or ride a bike. A taxpayer can do that for free.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 02, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 09, 2013, 03:08:25 PM
The November 2013 I-49 Inner City Connector Newsletter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/34/117/489-001-001-046NG-Newsletter%20Vol%202_No%202_November%202013%20Revised.pdf) has been posted.  It indicates that official approval to include the study of a fifth build alternative was received in October 2013

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08152014.pdf), which provide some detail on what improvements would need to be made to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5 in order for it to be designated as I-49 (page 2/4 of pdf):

Quote
1. I‐49 Inner City Connector
The environmental data necessary for analysis has been gathered in order to compare Build Alternative 5 to Build Alternatives 1‐4. Alternative 5 is LA3132 / I-220. Providence has been working on the construction cost estimate for Build Alternative 5 based on interstate standards, traffic, and connectivity. Mayor Walker asked when common sense takes over that this route is more expensive than others. Mr. Rogers stated this has been a lengthy process to ensure that all costs are defensible, since it is reasonable to assume the Loop It group will challenge the EIS. Relative to traffic, one lane in each direction will need to be added to existing LA 3132 and I‐220 from the I‐49/LA 3132 interchange to the future I‐49/I‐220 interchange. This includes the Cross Lake Bridge. The flow of the interstate at LA 3132 is in question due to the existing rampage. The connection between existing I‐ 220 and LA 3132 at I‐20 will need to be reconstructed to remove curve for free flow purposes. A meeting was held on Wednesday August 13, 2014 to review the design configurations with LaDOTD and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Several comments were received on the interchange configurations at the three major interchanges: existing I‐49 @ LA3132, existing I‐20@ I‐220/LA3132, and future I‐49 North @ I‐220. The next round of public meetings will likely be held after the New Year starts.

This time around, NLCOG is anticipating a lawsuit from Loop It.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 03, 2014, 10:08:11 AM
Given these findings, I'd say that Loop It has about as much a chance of success as the folks in Lafayette who attempted a lawsuit to challenge the I-49 Connector FEIS/ROD in 2004. Which is to say, not a chance.

There's also the essential fact that without the Inner City Connector, there's no effective direct connection between I-49 north of Shreveport and downtown, and the angle of the proposed I-49 North/I-220 interchange would make it a bit difficult to build such a direct connection to existing US 71 (the Spring/Market couplet). You could take I-220 east to the existing US 71 interchange, but that would be quite indirect.

I'm wondering, though, that an alternative might be to reroute I-49 along the LA 3132/I-220 loop, but also build a hybrid "connector" using the ICC ROW, but with only a freeway up to Ford St, then evolving into a one-way couplet using Pete Harris and Allen Avenues, using the existing connection to current I-49 at the I-20 interchange. Then, make the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 and this new "hybrid" either Business I-49 or LA 1049 (or whatever). You'd still have to redesign the interchanges along LA 3132 at I-49 (south of Shreveport), and at I-20, and there's still the problem with keeping the Linwood Ave. interchange due to interchange spacing rules...but you probably would then not have to widen to 6 lanes.

Common sense and $$$$'s favor the original ICC proposal, and I'd much prefer that to a bypass in any extent.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 03, 2014, 02:57:57 PM
I hope the I-49 connector gets built straight through with no silly out of the way turns onto LA-3132 and I-220.

I also think if the connector only gets partially built there won't be any upgrading it past wherever it ends, be it at Ford Street or some other point between I-20 and I-220. It would be like so many other inner city dead ends.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 15, 2014, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08152014.pdf), which provide some detail on what improvements would need to be made to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5 in order for it to be designated as I-49 (page 2/4 of pdf)
Quote
1. I‐49 Inner City Connector
... The connection between existing I‐ 220 and LA 3132 at I‐20 will need to be reconstructed to remove curve for free flow purposes ...

NLCOG has posted its October 3, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10032014.pdf) and, in regard to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5, they contain some discussion about improvements that would need to be made to the existing I-49/ LA 3132 interchange at the southern end of the potential LA 3132 section of the Inner City Connector:

Quote
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the diagram of the potential new interchange at I‐49 and LA 3132 if Alternate 5 is chosen as the preferred alignment. He stated a minimum of two (2) through lanes for I‐49 needed to continue carrying traffic at interstate speeds. FHWA, LaDOTD, and EPA stated the study must look at bringing LA 3132 to the same interstate standards as the build‐through options. Mr. Rogers stated a modification to the existing interchange will be needed to avoid creating nightmare for future traffic and there is a possibility that the Linwood Avenue exit would be closed.

I could not find the interchange diagram as an attachment to the Draft Minutes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: texaskdog on October 15, 2014, 07:13:23 PM

Quote from: bugo on August 12, 2014, 07:04:24 PM
"Geaux" reminds me of asshole LSU fans who pick fights with fans of other teams, spit on them and pour beer on them, and go around saying "tiger bait" to everyone.  They need to remember that they used to suck and will suck again.

And youre saying that and they come from the conference with Alabama fans?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: texaskdog on October 15, 2014, 07:15:15 PM
Quote from: jbnv on September 27, 2014, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 27, 2014, 12:52:25 AM
If you are going to be consistent with that position, why not simply convert ALL of Louisiana's Interstate highways to tollways, then?

I would do that. I think the Atchafalaya Basin bridge should be tolled with all of the transnational and commercial traffic that crosses it. (Very few people, pretty much all locals, would go to US 190 to avoid the tolls.) Maybe if we had had tolls on our interstates from the beginning, they wouldn't have gotten as bad as they did.

I don't hate tolls.  I hate that toll roads (at least in Austin) are overpriced and the money goes to Spain.  And the people who work there are worthless trolls.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 16, 2014, 09:50:29 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 15, 2014, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08152014.pdf), which provide some detail on what improvements would need to be made to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5 in order for it to be designated as I-49 (page 2/4 of pdf)
Quote
1. I‐49 Inner City Connector
... The connection between existing I‐ 220 and LA 3132 at I‐20 will need to be reconstructed to remove curve for free flow purposes ...

NLCOG has posted its October 3, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10032014.pdf) and, in regard to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5, they contain some discussion about improvements that would need to be made to the existing I-49/ LA 3132 interchange at the southern end of the potential LA 3132 section of the Inner City Connector:

Quote
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the diagram of the potential new interchange at I‐49 and LA 3132 if Alternate 5 is chosen as the preferred alignment. He stated a minimum of two (2) through lanes for I‐49 needed to continue carrying traffic at interstate speeds. FHWA, LaDOTD, and EPA stated the study must look at bringing LA 3132 to the same interstate standards as the build‐through options. Mr. Rogers stated a modification to the existing interchange will be needed to avoid creating nightmare for future traffic and there is a possibility that the Linwood Avenue exit would be closed.

I could not find the interchange diagram as an attachment to the Draft Minutes.

Also interesting within those minutes:

1) A new interchange for Barksdale Air Force Base along I-20. I wonder if it would be located between the Industrial Drive exit (23) and I-220 exit (26) or if this was meant as an I-220 southward extension?

2) The Jimmie Davis Bridge will be closed for a year beginning in January of 2015???
YIKES! The only thing I'd heard recently about that bridge was that it was slated to be repainted (purple IIRC). If it's being closed to rebuild as 4 lanes, that needs to happen, but I haven't seen anything regarding that lately. That would cause a good bit of traffic woes for south Bossier especially.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 16, 2014, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 16, 2014, 09:50:29 AM

1) A new interchange for Barksdale Air Force Base along I-20. I wonder if it would be located between the Industrial Drive exit (23) and I-220 exit (26) or if this was meant as an I-220 southward extension?

FWIW, it's supposed to be an southern extension of I-220, what was originally planned as a full I-220 loop.

Quote2) The Jimmie Davis Bridge will be closed for a year beginning in January of 2015???
YIKES! The only thing I'd heard recently about that bridge was that it was slated to be repainted (purple IIRC). If it's being closed to rebuild as 4 lanes, that needs to happen, but I haven't seen anything regarding that lately. That would cause a good bit of traffic woes for south Bossier especially.

I wish it was rebuilt as 4 lanes...but according to the LA State Transportation Plan updated megaprojects list, it's only repairing the existing 2-lane bridge.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 17, 2014, 10:58:40 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 03, 2014, 10:08:11 AM
Given these findings, I'd say that Loop It has about as much a chance of success as the folks in Lafayette who attempted a lawsuit to challenge the I-49 Connector FEIS/ROD in 2004. Which is to say, not a chance.

Nevertheless, Loop It is working the local political process and recently held a forum, in which this October 9 TV video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/26751680/loop-it-holds-forum-for-shreveport-city-council-candidates-discuss-inner-city-connector) reports that only two of four city council candidates for the district seat showed up and the video itself indicates that attendance was sparse:

Quote
The I-49 inner city connector has long been an issue for residents in the Allendale-Ledbetter neighborhoods. Thursday night, they got to hear what city council candidates for their district had to say about it.
Only two of the four candidates for the District A candidates showed at tonight's forum. It was held by the group Loop-It, which wants I-49 to follow along 3132 to I-49 North instead of cutting through Allendale-Ledbetter.




Quote from: Grzrd on February 24, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
The Community Input Meetings (Round 2) December 11-13, 2012 Event Summary (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/106/Public%20Meeting%20Summary%20V6_Final%20Reduced.pdf) has been posted on the Inner City Connector website ....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQeZpwr6.jpg&hash=95f6a5872cd50f418b7312f9b08dfab27ce960ce)
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 24, 2013, 05:57:58 PM
^ Isn't that supposed to be US 71 and not US 171?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 22, 2013, 04:26:09 PM
Any group that confuses US 71 with US 171 can hardly be called "professional".

The video indicates that Loop It has at least corrected the US 171 mistake:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeCR8mMB.jpg&hash=52b2a119b3a357f01adcf05dbd4f37688e3dcbf0)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 17, 2014, 11:25:52 PM
Taking I-49 around the west adds 3-4 miles for whatever traffic is going from I-49 north of Shreveport to I-49 south of Shreveport, the majority of which is probably long-distance 100+ mile trips for which 3-4 miles is a poo in the bucket. No other movements are lengthened, including Texarkana to downtown Shreveport as long as a connection is built in the LA 3194 area.

PS: do locals call Market "1-71"? If so, that explains the error.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2014, 11:25:52 PM
Taking I-49 around the west adds 3-4 miles for whatever traffic is going from I-49 north of Shreveport to I-49 south of Shreveport, the majority of which is probably long-distance 100+ mile trips for which 3-4 miles is a poo in the bucket. No other movements are lengthened, including Texarkana to downtown Shreveport as long as a connection is built in the LA 3194 area.

PS: do locals call Market "1-71"? If so, that explains the error.

Most of the traffic using LA 3132 from I-49 to I-20 is traffic headed to/from Dallas/OKC/points westward to/from South Louisiana. I've not heard of any rush of traffic using I-220 further north to reach US 71.

I'd still say that even if there is increased bypass traffic when I-49 is ultimately extended to Texarkana, the majority of traffic will still want a more direct route though Shreveport, or at least direct access to the core downtown area.  The Loop It proposal doesn't provide much, other than an indirect route of I-220 east to US 71. Plus, there is still the issue of what to do with existing I-49 between I-220 and I-20. (I-249?? Business Spur I-49?? Downgrade it to a surface expressway and make it LA 1049??)

3 to 4 miles might not seem important in a long 100+ trip, but when a more direct route saves minutes and allows direct access to downtown venues, that has to be taken into consideration.

In any case, the expense of modifying major interchanges, widening 3132 and 220, and the possible elimiation of the Linwood Ave. interchange, more than likely makes the Loop It! proposal a moot issue and DOA. The original ICC proposal remains the better and cheaper alternative.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 18, 2014, 01:11:13 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 12:40:00 AM
Plus, there is still the issue of what to do with existing I-49 between I-220 and I-20. (I-249?? Business Spur I-49?? Downgrade it to a surface expressway and make it LA 1049??)
Numbering issues are always a deal breaker. Oh wait, they're a tertiary issue at best.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 12:40:00 AM
3 to 4 miles might not seem important in a long 100+ trip, but when a more direct route saves minutes and allows direct access to downtown venues, that has to be taken into consideration.
If you want to visit downtown venues, take the surface route into downtown.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 12:40:00 AM
In any case, the expense of modifying major interchanges,
What needs modifying? I-49/I-220 isn't built yet. I-49/LA 3132 might need a second lane on the connections, but most traffic is local, so it would probably need it whether or not the ICC is built.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 12:40:00 AM
widening 3132 and 220, and the possible elimiation of the Linwood Ave. interchange, more than likely makes the Loop It! proposal a moot issue and DOA. The original ICC proposal remains the better and cheaper alternative.
Cheaper to build a whole new freeway than widen an existing one my ass.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 01:49:04 AM
Picking fights again, I see??

Taken from Grzrd's earlier post in this thread:

Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08152014.pdf), which provide some detail on what improvements would need to be made to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5 in order for it to be designated as I-49 (page 2/4 of pdf)
Quote
1. I‐49 Inner City Connector
... The connection between existing I‐ 220 and LA 3132 at I‐20 will need to be reconstructed to remove curve for free flow purposes ...

NLCOG has posted its October 3, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10032014.pdf) and, in regard to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5, they contain some discussion about improvements that would need to be made to the existing I-49/ LA 3132 interchange at the southern end of the potential LA 3132 section of the Inner City Connector:

Quote
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the diagram of the potential new interchange at I‐49 and LA 3132 if Alternate 5 is chosen as the preferred alignment. He stated a minimum of two (2) through lanes for I‐49 needed to continue carrying traffic at interstate speeds. FHWA, LaDOTD, and EPA stated the study must look at bringing LA 3132 to the same interstate standards as the build‐through options. Mr. Rogers stated a modification to the existing interchange will be needed to avoid creating nightmare for future traffic and there is a possibility that the Linwood Avenue exit would be closed.


That's not me talking; that's FHWA and LADOTD, who will actually have to fund the dang thing.

The I-49/I-220 North interchange is actually now fully funded and under construction to be completed in around 2017. It also includes future ROW and ramp stumps for the future ICC extension.

Sorry, NE2, but reality dictates that adding lanes and upgrading major interchanges to LA 3132 and adding lanes to I-220 would indeed be considerably more expensive than building the 6-mile ICC. It's not just a matter of moving I-49 signs from one road to another.

But please, by all means, do continue to impose your opinions on the people who actually have to live the outcomes of these proposals.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 18, 2014, 01:55:59 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 01:49:04 AM
But please, by all means, do continue to impose your opinions on the people who actually have to live the outcomes of these proposals.
But fuck the people who live next to the ICC alignment. They're all hep cats.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 02:17:32 AM
Ummm....other than the boosters of the Allendale housing project and some NIMBYs who just don't like freeways in inner cities, most of the people who actually live in Shreveport favor the ICC. The state representative who reps the district there also strongly favors the ICC, as well as the entire city council of Shreveport, the mayor of the city of Shreveport, and the MPO representing that area (NLCOG).

But, screw them, because it's so much better to route major highways away from downtown areas and force traffic wanting to reach such areas to endure surface streets not made for that purpose, amirite??

Please proceed, nevertheless, NE2.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 18, 2014, 03:06:14 AM
Most of the people who live in Shreveport don't live next to the ICC. Keep pooing. And not in the cool way.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 06:02:02 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 18, 2014, 03:06:14 AM
Most of the people who live in Shreveport don't live next to the ICC. Keep pooing. And not in the cool way.

Most of the people in Shreveport elect their own leaders to represent them. Are you claiming to represent the people of Allendale better than Roy Burrell, the state representative for that region who favors the ICC as originally proposed?

Furthermore, if there was such rampant opposition to the ICC and such a groudswell of support for Loop It, then why was their presentation so sparsely attended? Why did only two council members attend their meeting? Why hasn't NLCOG given any support to their position? For that matter, where were they in 1980 when the original proposal for what became I-49 was put forth? They could have easily chosen to use LA 3132/I-220 at that time, but they chose the downtown route for obvious reasons.

Even the I-49 Connector in Lafayette had stronger and better opposition than this, and look where it got them.

You're simply digging yourself a deeper privvy there. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to change the facts.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 18, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
Same reasons as 8664: people are afraid of going against the current political winds.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 18, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
Same reasons as 8664: people are afraid of going against the current political winds.

Or, more likely, like 8664, they understand that the option of removing capacity merely for the sake of hating on automobiles and highways has real disadvantages.

It's one thing to oppose bad development of freeways in inner city areas where it goes wrong. It's another thing altogther to oppose efforts to get it right. The more direct route is still the best, and if it allows passers by to take advantage of what inner cities and downtowns have to offer, so much the better.

I'm always for better economic development and more sustainable ecologically friendly cities....but so sorry, people aren't going to give up their cars and SUV's any time soon. No bit of looping or deliberate obstruction for political or financial gain will change that fact.

But, you have your opinion, and I respect it. I just happen to disagree.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on October 20, 2014, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2014, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 18, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
Same reasons as 8664: people are afraid of going against the current political winds.

Or, more likely, like 8664, they understand that the option of removing capacity merely for the sake of hating on automobiles and highways has real disadvantages.

It's one thing to oppose bad development of freeways in inner city areas where it goes wrong. It's another thing altogther to oppose efforts to get it right. The more direct route is still the best, and if it allows passers by to take advantage of what inner cities and downtowns have to offer, so much the better.

I'm always for better economic development and more sustainable ecologically friendly cities....but so sorry, people aren't going to give up their cars and SUV's any time soon. No bit of looping or deliberate obstruction for political or financial gain will change that fact.

But, you have your opinion, and I respect it. I just happen to disagree.

Plus, isn't this going through a mostly industrial area between I-20 and I-220 with minimal disruption to residences?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 20, 2014, 06:02:22 PM
From N. Hearne Ave north to the 220 interchange there's nothing at all in the way. The industrial section up there is on the east side of 12 Mile Bayou.


And for NE2's question further up, many people do say some variation of 1-71. I've always just said Hwy 1 or "1 & 71."  1 always took precedence I guess because it's the through route in Shreveport, and probably because hwy 1 north of the split with 71 still carries N. Market
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on October 23, 2014, 10:44:11 AM
I recently flew from New Orleans to Denver CO.  As the plane headed north and then turned to the north-west I could see a interstate highway that was under construction. (no vehicles in site, pavement looked new) I'm guessing that we were over the Ark-La-Tex area at that point. (really just a guess) What was I looking at? I-49? !-69? none of the above?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 23, 2014, 03:39:48 PM
If the project is in the tri-state LA/TX/AR area it would have to be I-49. It's the only road of any consequence under construction (and nearing completion) in that region.

There's no much of anything going on with I-69 in that same region, just a couple little pieces of it under construction in Arkansas and other work happening farther South in Texas. Gotta get close to Houston for the nearest actual work going on with I-69 in Texas.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQeZpwr6.jpg&hash=95f6a5872cd50f418b7312f9b08dfab27ce960ce)

That is without a doubt one of the ugliest maps I've ever seen actually published in a distributed document. Horrible. It looks like somebody's 6-year old kid put it together with some magic markers.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2014, 11:48:22 PM
Also...noted something about the Loop It! graphic.

It implies that Market St. (US 71/LA 1) would become a "boulevard" that could directly connect to I-49 at the I-220 interchange. Their original graphic actually moved the I-49/I-220 interchange east to connect directly w/ Market St.

Sorry, but that's not quite true, since the angle of which I-49 approaches I-220 (SW/NE) would not allow for any direct connection, nor would any "boulevard" connection be feasible. The only way for traffic from their to access Market St. would be I-220 east to the existing Market St. interchange.

These guys make the Teche Ridge folk look like professionals.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 23, 2014, 11:59:08 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2014, 11:25:52 PM
as long as a connection is built in the LA 3194 area.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 24, 2014, 01:48:57 AM
Hearne Avenue??  Really?? Read a map, NE2....if you extended I-49 among its current trajectory south of I-220, you'd still have to double back on Hearne Ave. just to reach Market St. If you simply terminated I-49 at I-220, no connection to Hearne Ave would shorten access to Market Street. I-220 east to US 71 would remain the only feasible route.

The only other true means of keeping a connection to downtown Shreveport without building the ICC as originally planned is the idea I put forth earlier: a "hybrid" extension of I-49 using the ICC proposal as far south as Ford/Murray Sts., evolving into a one-way couplet using Allen and Pete Harris, transitioning into existing I-49 at the I-20 interchange. And you STILL would not resolve the issue of having to modify the I-49/LA 3132 interchange, or eliminating the Linwood Ave. interchange, or modifying the I-20/I-220 West/LA 3132 interchange, OR widening LA 3132 to 6 lanes from I-49 to I-20. Once again, the ICC wins as the cheaper, more direct, and most feasible alternative.

But, by all means, do continue to carry Loop It!'s and the Allendale developer's lobbying water for them.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 24, 2014, 02:12:01 AM
3194, dumb shit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCscjUH1.png&hash=790faafb2c31456897ba77994abd8cbda774a866)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 24, 2014, 02:53:02 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2014, 02:12:01 AM
3194, dumb shit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCscjUH1.png&hash=790faafb2c31456897ba77994abd8cbda774a866)

OK...so I forgot about Martin Luther King Drive. My bad.

But.....close, NE2, but still no cigar.

You are cutting right through a direct exit ramp from US 71 to I-220 just to build a direct connecton to I-49? Not to mention, you still force traffic wanting to access Market Street to use the MLK exit and roll underneath I-49 just to get to your US 71 access road??

Then, you sever MLK from your "access road" to Market St. and force traffic from Market to manuvoer (sp??) through your newly wacked Market/I-220 interchange just to get back to MLK Drive??

Not to mention all the weaving issues with adding new and completely unnecessary traffic movements to the Market/220 interchange?

And still with all that, nothing about 3132's issues.

You were better off sticking with I-220 to Market Street. Stop digging, please.

(And notice, too: I'm debunking your proposals without personal insults.)

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 24, 2014, 03:54:46 AM
Keep grasping at straws to satisfy your IYBY thirst.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on October 24, 2014, 07:32:26 AM
Build the fucking connector and ignore the NIMBYs, Creek Turnpike style.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 24, 2014, 07:43:26 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2014, 03:54:46 AM
Keep grasping at straws to satisfy your IYBY thirst.

At least my straws are connected to facts and common sense evidence. You just can't accept that. It's not a matter of "If you build it"; it's a matter of the most effective means of connecting two already existing corridors and serving the city of Shreveport's downtown and inner neighborhoods in the best manner.

Since we now know our positions all too well....next issue, please.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on October 24, 2014, 07:58:27 AM
:bigass:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2014, 02:22:04 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCscjUH1.png&hash=790faafb2c31456897ba77994abd8cbda774a866)

That's a recipe for a major traffic clusterf**k. That interchange between LA-1 and I-220 would have to be completely re-built with a different configuration to incorporate movements between it and I-49. Not to mention the exit with I-49 would need serious work (additional ramps/lanes of longer length) to not interfere with I-49/I-220 interchange traffic.

I'm firmly with the "build the connector" crowd. Those apartment developers knew they were putting up a structure in the future freeway's ROW when they did it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on October 24, 2014, 05:14:50 PM
YHBT
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on October 26, 2014, 01:13:57 AM
Quote from: pctech on October 23, 2014, 10:44:11 AM
I recently flew from New Orleans to Denver CO.  As the plane headed north and then turned to the north-west I could see a interstate highway that was under construction. (no vehicles in site, pavement looked new) I'm guessing that we were over the Ark-La-Tex area at that point. (really just a guess) What was I looking at? I-49? !-69? none of the above?

You could search your flight number and date on FlightAware and see the exact flight path
http://flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=KMSY&destination=KDEN
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 27, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 16, 2014, 11:55:19 AM
The October 15, 2014 Texarkana Gazette (behind paywall) (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/10/15/ribbon-cutting-slated-to-open-last-leg-o-939596.php) reports that the ribbon-cutting will occur at noon, November 10, at the state line ...
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg2013766#msg2013766) thread)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted it October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10172014.pdf) and the Draft Minutes confirm that there will be a November 10 ribbon-cutting; also, the work order date for the I-220 to LA 1 section of I-49 is set for November 3:

Quote
Ribbon cutting is set for noon on November 10 at the Louisiana — Arkansas state line. Both governors are expected to attend. I‐49 North will then be open from LA 1 near Blanchard, LA to Texarkana, AR. The final two segments (J and K) are under construction with anticipated opening in Fiscal Year 2016‐2017. Dr. Wilson asked when the I‐220 to LA 1 segment would be under construction. Mr. Bruce Easterly stated the work order date is November 3 and the consultant is prepping now. Mr. Rogers stated the I‐220 to LA 1 segment is divided into three separate projects and that clearing and grubbing is occurring at the interchange at MLK. Dr. Wilson asked when that segment would open. Mr. North stated approximately three (3) years.




The Draft Minutes also seem to indicate that the I-220/ LA 3132 Alternative 5 for the Inner City Connector would be more expensive than the "new build" alternatives (I think Rogers is saying that it would be more expensive, and not an oversimplification to say that it would be more expensive; however, the wording is ambiguous) and that cost data should be available for public review in January, 2015:

Quote
Completed Stage 0 in process of Stage 1 (NEPA). Following the round of public meetings last year there was a formal request to determine what it would take to use I‐220 and LA 3132 as I‐49 loop around the city (Alternative 5). In addition, there was a request to perform an economic impact analysis on the two basic options (new build vs. I‐220/LA3132). The consulting team has been working with FHWA/DOTD to determine the needs for the Loop‐It option. Initial indications are that there is a need for additional lanes the whole direction (including the Cross Lake Bridge), there will need to be some reworking of the I‐20/I‐220/LA 3132 interchange to smooth the curve, most of LA 3132 will have to be redone and there will be significant changes to the I‐49/LA 3132 interchange. Mayor Walker asked if it would be an oversimplification to say Alternative 5 is more expensive than any of the other options. Mr. Rogers stated that is the case, the alternative is creating issues with adding lanes to the bridge and ramp configurations at I‐49 North. These issues include adding lanes and more pilings to the lake. Mayor Walker asked when official information would be available to the public. Mr. Rogers stated after the New Year there would be public meetings. Mayor Walker asked when the cost data would be available. Mr. Rogers stated early January 2015.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 07, 2014, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 27, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted it October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10172014.pdf) and the Draft Minutes confirm that there will be a November 10 ribbon-cutting
Quote from: Grzrd on November 05, 2014, 01:49:05 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 16, 2014, 11:55:19 AM
The October 15, 2014 Texarkana Gazette (behind paywall) (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/10/15/ribbon-cutting-slated-to-open-last-leg-o-939596.php) reports that the ribbon-cutting will occur at noon, November 10, at the state line.
Ceremony Time Change Alert!  For those thinking of attending the ribbon-cutting ceremony, this AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2014/NR%2014-316.pdf) states that the ceremony is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. and not noon:
Quote
WHAT: Dedication event to celebrate completion of the final section of Interstate 49 between Texarkana, AR and Shreveport, LA ....
WHEN: Monday, November 10 at 1:00 p.m.
WHERE:
The event will take place at the Arkansas-Louisiana state line on the new location of I-49. To access the event area travel I-49 north from Shreveport or I-49 south from Texarkana to the new section. A ribbon cutting will take place across the new lanes.
(bottom quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg2018206#msg2018206) thread)

Here's LaDOTD's version of the announcement:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCEonmqQ.png&hash=252baf3e0c00e4e37f5814bb6552f9d3fe6441a2)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: txstateends on November 07, 2014, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 07, 2014, 02:12:14 PM

Here's LaDOTD's version of the announcement:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCEonmqQ.png&hash=252baf3e0c00e4e37f5814bb6552f9d3fe6441a2)


I wonder what the Bella Vista bypass state line ribbon cutting announcement will look like....  :confused:  ;-)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dfwmapper on November 07, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: txstateends on November 07, 2014, 04:24:50 PM
I wonder what the Bella Vista bypass state line ribbon cutting announcement will look like....  :confused:  ;-)
Good topic for the aaroads.com topics in 2064 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13777.0) thread. Thanks, Missouri :pan:.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 08, 2014, 05:27:58 AM
I-49 will finally become a true Interstate highway starting on Monday!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on November 08, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: apjung on November 08, 2014, 05:27:58 AM
I-49 will finally become a true Interstate highway starting on Monday!
As opposed to 2012 when Missouri opened its converted US 71? Oh - you mean actually connecting two states...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on November 08, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on November 08, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: apjung on November 08, 2014, 05:27:58 AM
I-49 will finally become a true Interstate highway starting on Monday!
As opposed to 2012 when Missouri opened its converted US 71? Oh - you mean actually connecting two states...

For a while, Louisiana was one of a very small number of states that had two 2dIs completely contained within its borders. (12 and 49.) Oh well, I knew that wouldn't last.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: SquonkHunter on November 09, 2014, 12:15:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on November 08, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
For a while, Louisiana was one of a very small number of states that had two 2dIs completely contained within its borders. (12 and 49.) Oh well, I knew that wouldn't last.

Eh, we have three. 27, 37 and 45.  ;-)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DAL764 on November 09, 2014, 05:56:52 AM
Quote from: SquonkHunter on November 09, 2014, 12:15:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on November 08, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
For a while, Louisiana was one of a very small number of states that had two 2dIs completely contained within its borders. (12 and 49.) Oh well, I knew that wouldn't last.

Eh, we have three. 27, 37 and 45.  ;-)
Four, don't forget I-2. Besides, at least Texas has the excuse of being pretty damn huge area-wise. Louisiana doesn't really have that excuse
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: SquonkHunter on November 09, 2014, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: DAL764 on November 09, 2014, 05:56:52 AM
Quote from: SquonkHunter on November 09, 2014, 12:15:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on November 08, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
For a while, Louisiana was one of a very small number of states that had two 2dIs completely contained within its borders. (12 and 49.) Oh well, I knew that wouldn't last.

Eh, we have three. 27, 37 and 45.  ;-)
Four, don't forget I-2. Besides, at least Texas has the excuse of being pretty damn huge area-wise. Louisiana doesn't really have that excuse

Forgot about the newest one. But then I remember when we only had the one - I-45.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Brandon on November 10, 2014, 03:01:09 PM
Quote from: SquonkHunter on November 09, 2014, 12:15:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on November 08, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
For a while, Louisiana was one of a very small number of states that had two 2dIs completely contained within its borders. (12 and 49.) Oh well, I knew that wouldn't last.

Eh, we have three. 27, 37 and 45.  ;-)

Illinois used to have three as well (39, 72, 88), but we had two of them infect other states (39, 72).  I-57 barely goes into Missouri for that matter.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 10, 2014, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 10, 2014, 04:22:20 PM
It's  official (http://www.arkansasmatters.com/story/d/story/i-49-opens-between-texarkana-and-shreveport/31221/Y-h5RW7NakuvnzKpuYRNwg) : I-49 is now open at the AR/LA State Line.
(above quote from I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2019308#msg2019308) thread)

LaDOTD has issued a press release about the ribbon cutting (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=6197) that describes Gov. Jindal as the "highlight" of the grand occasion:

Quote
Today, Governor Bobby Jindal highlighted the opening of ten miles of I-49 North from U.S. 71 to Arkansas' state line.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 10, 2014, 08:26:06 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 10, 2014, 04:30:49 PM
LaDOTD has issued a press release about the ribbon cutting (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=6197)

This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/story/27348536/new-section-of-i-49-opens-connects-shreveport-to-texarkana) contains footage from the ribbon cutting, including Sherri LeBas commenting on the shift of focus to I-49 South now that funding for I-49 North is complete:

Quote
... now Louisiana officials change their focus to a different part of the state.
"We have a lot of work still to do on I-49 South, which is now turning to be our priority since now we have I-49 North funded,"  said Sherri LeBas, Louisiana Secretary of Transportation.
I-49 South would run south from Lafayette and veer east, connecting to the Westbank Expressway in New Orleans.
As for a Shreveport inner city segment: it is not listed on the Louisiana Department of Transportation's website as part of the I-49 North project, however, the i-49 coalition would like to see it done.




Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on November 08, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: apjung on November 08, 2014, 05:27:58 AM
I-49 will finally become a true Interstate highway starting on Monday!
As opposed to 2012 when Missouri opened its converted US 71? Oh - you mean actually connecting two states...

State Treasurer John Kennedy makes a similar observation in the video:

Quote
The opening gives the roadway its name sake. according to Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy.
"Interstate means from one state to another, and I-49 has been an intrastate until today: we became an interstate," he said.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 11, 2014, 12:10:26 AM
Here's a great article on the AR/LA segment ribbon cutting and opening
http://txktoday.com/news/49-ribbon-cutting-ceremony-opens-49-shreveport/

Nice aerial drone footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUQ3_DIe2pM
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2014, 01:22:01 AM
How is I-49 signed in Shreveport? Is it signed along that 4 digit LA loop (I can't remember the number...3132?) or all the way to I-20? Are there TO I-49 signs along US 71?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alex on November 11, 2014, 10:18:58 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 11, 2014, 01:22:01 AM
How is I-49 signed in Shreveport? Is it signed along that 4 digit LA loop (I can't remember the number...3132?) or all the way to I-20? Are there TO I-49 signs along US 71?

When we were there in May, it was signed with a handful of trailblazers at the north end at I-20, and along LA 3132 and I-220. There was a sign replacement project about to get underway along I-220, so they may have added more signage pointing toward US 71 north for I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 11, 2014, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: Alex on November 11, 2014, 10:18:58 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 11, 2014, 01:22:01 AM
How is I-49 signed in Shreveport? Is it signed along that 4 digit LA loop (I can't remember the number...3132?) or all the way to I-20? Are there TO I-49 signs along US 71?

When we were there in May, it was signed with a handful of trailblazers at the north end at I-20, and along LA 3132 and I-220. There was a sign replacement project about to get underway along I-220, so they may have added more signage pointing toward US 71 north for I-49.

There are trailblazers along US 71 up to LA 1, as well, plus a new overhead at the 1-71 Split. There are a couple signs along LA 1, as well. But no 49 signs on 71 north of LA 1. I am hoping to get down there in a few weeks and do some more looking around.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3676/13407599423_27dcb835d4_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on November 14, 2014, 01:09:49 AM
Google Maps has updated I-49, now waiting for the updated satellite maps. It still looks so beautiful to see I-49 as one continuous stretch from Texarkana to Shreveport.
http://goo.gl/maps/9G0nC
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on November 14, 2014, 10:06:05 AM
Quote from: Alex on November 11, 2014, 10:18:58 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 11, 2014, 01:22:01 AM
How is I-49 signed in Shreveport? Is it signed along that 4 digit LA loop (I can't remember the number...3132?) or all the way to I-20? Are there TO I-49 signs along US 71?

When we were there in May, it was signed with a handful of trailblazers at the north end at I-20, and along LA 3132 and I-220. There was a sign replacement project about to get underway along I-220, so they may have added more signage pointing toward US 71 north for I-49.

I-49 northbound at exit 201 for LA-3132 loop still says: To Dallas To Texarkana, with no reference to taking the loop to reconnect to I-49 north.

At I-49's northern terminus at I-20, you are directed to take I-20 west (To I-49 North trailblazers, not on BGS). There are a few trailblazers on I-20 west for getting to I-49 north, then again at exit 11 for following I-220 east. It's marked at the US 71/LA 1 exit north, when you exit, and on the 1/71 split on the BGS in the picture shown above. So there's a good bit of good signage, although a convoluted detour. I'm guessing they don't want to sign the detour along a state highway (3132) although it's faster. All the more ammo to try and build the 49 connector between 20 and 220.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 29, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
Here is a news item If hasn't been posted somewhere about the Shreveport I 49 Connector. Sounds like they are trying there best to block it thru downtown. http://www.ksla.com/story/27458428/ksla-news-12-editorial-i-49-road-block 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on November 29, 2014, 02:51:27 PM
All he is is the station's general manager.  His only job seems to be making these "opinion columns" to put at the end of some news broadcasts.  My opinion of the S'port Housing Authority:  they are building these housing units now so the state has to purchase all of this property for the R.O.W. at a higher price.  I bet they really don't plan on having anyone move in to these units.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on December 17, 2014, 02:38:31 AM
Any idea if I-49 will be 6 lanes from LA 1 to I-220?

Also, Google Maps is getting way ahead of themselves with that section.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 17, 2014, 10:05:16 AM
If they model the southern end, the six lanes would only be within the loop. Part of me says I-49 could use 6 lanes from LA 1 southward because of commuters from the Blanchard area and a few towns north but it's not that built up yet.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 18, 2014, 09:23:33 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 17, 2014, 10:05:16 AM
If they model the southern end, the six lanes would only be within the loop. Part of me says I-49 could use 6 lanes from LA 1 southward because of commuters from the Blanchard area and a few towns north but it's not that built up yet.

You could make a decent case right now for 6 lanes (3 + 3) and auxillaries between MLK Drive and I-20.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 18, 2014, 01:14:47 PM
Quote from: apjung on November 14, 2014, 01:09:49 AM
Google Maps has updated I-49, now waiting for the updated satellite maps. It still looks so beautiful to see I-49 as one continuous stretch from Texarkana to Shreveport.
http://goo.gl/maps/9G0nC

They still need to update Mira-Myrtis Rd to Parish Rd 16
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10614324_10152871634108624_6051618547846893364_n.jpg?oh=7c1f0107419c1830224072aa4208298f&oe=550798CE&__gda__=1429911930_d90a49f0819aedba3fd7843015bb87dd)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dfwmapper on December 18, 2014, 06:09:55 PM
Is there a single sign anywhere not on I-49 that actually refers to it as that?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 18, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
I doubt it. There's very few parish shields in Caddo Parish. And many roads outside of Shreveport are designated parish roads.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on December 19, 2014, 06:47:44 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 18, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
I doubt it. There's very few parish shields in Caddo Parish. And many roads outside of Shreveport are designated parish roads.

Bossier Parish is the same way, but Goodwill Rd. has parish signs at the interstate ramps (but not on the BGSs) and I think a faded sign at its junction with US 79/80.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 19, 2014, 01:02:58 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on December 18, 2014, 06:09:55 PM
Is there a single sign anywhere not on I-49 that actually refers to it as that?

Yes, on US 71 approaching it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 12, 2015, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 27, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted it October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10172014.pdf) and the Draft Minutes .... seem to indicate that the I-220/ LA 3132 Alternative 5 for the Inner City Connector would be more expensive than the "new build" alternatives

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11212014.pdf), which reflect that initial analysis indicates that the cost of the I-220/ LA 3132 alternative would be "substantially more" than the other options:

Quote
Mr. Rogers stated that the packets included a factsheet on the I‐49 Inner City project provided by Providence Engineering. Mr. Rogers explained that the consulting team was doing a very detailed analysis of the Loop‐It alternative. Contrary to information being spread by a coalition of folks the Inner Loop/I‐220 option is not a no cost option. Initial analysis is showing that it will be substantially more than the build thru option. The primary locations of concern are the bridge over Cross Lake and the Inner Loop @ I‐49 interchange. Most of this interchange will need to be completely reconstructed to allow for free flow interstate travel.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on January 23, 2015, 07:35:33 AM
The Goog has the wrong exit numbers for 237 and 241. Most likely they took them from Wikipedia, which took them from Froggie (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/fictional/future/i49la-ar-exits.htm) (who the fuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_49_in_Louisiana&diff=prev&oldid=591173359) uses a fictional exit list as a source?).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: I-39 on January 25, 2015, 05:52:02 PM
When will the I-49 extension to New Orleans get underway?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on January 25, 2015, 07:38:49 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on January 25, 2015, 05:52:02 PM
When will the I-49 extension to New Orleans get underway?
Depends on how you define "underway." The process of converting US 90 to interstate standards has been ongoing for many years now. But the construction of certain parts of interstate grade is still unfunded and unscheduled.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 26, 2015, 05:04:16 AM
It's actually been underway for quite some time.


The segment of US 90 between Morgan City and Raceland (LA 1/Bayou Lafourche/LA 308) had already been built to Interstate standards during the 80's and 90's as part of the TIMED projects. US 90 from LA 88 to Wax Lake has been slowly upgraded piece by piece from then to the present. The segment from just south of Lafayette to LA 88 is just now beginning to be upgraded; the segment in Lafayette is just about to start engineering and ROW work; and the remaining sections to New Orleans is awaiting enviromental approval for the changes in alignment due to the 2014 study to cut costs. Construction of the rest, though, are dependent on ultimate funding.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2015, 04:33:17 PM
Kind of showing my age in posting this, but I remember back when I was a kid living in Gretna watching parts of the elevated Westbank Expressway start to come together. My family moved away from the New Orleans area at the end of 1982, so I didn't get to see the parts of it they completed until ten years later on a road trip through there.

Even back then, more than 30 years ago, there were plans to get one or more Westbank loop highways built. To this day none are completed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 10, 2015, 08:35:52 PM
Quote from: Gordon on November 04, 2013, 06:10:09 PM
Caddo 2014-01-29 H.003495 ...
Segment K - Phase 2 New I-49/I-220 Interchange With Roadways to Tie to Seg. J $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 4.03

This TV video (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/story/d/story/road-construction-driving-business-away/15237/BwNOyZ035EOZE6Te5V_veg), primarily about short-term disruptions to local businesses caused by the closing of Russell Road as part of the Phase 2 construction, has some good footage of the construction.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 11, 2015, 01:50:48 PM
This approximately 8.5 minutes video report (http://www.ksla.com/story/28078367/filling-the-gap-will-i-49-go-through-shreveport-or-around) provides a good update on the Inner City Connector, including a good visual of how each of the four "through" routes would impact the Shreveport Housing Authority's Renaissance development.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 18, 2015, 08:13:56 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 02, 2014, 10:09:16 PM
Why build a housing project in the middle of a highway corridor?
Quote from: Grzrd on February 11, 2015, 01:50:48 PM
This approximately 8.5 minutes video report (http://www.ksla.com/story/28078367/filling-the-gap-will-i-49-go-through-shreveport-or-around) provides a good update on the Inner City Connector, including a good visual of how each of the four "through" routes would impact the Shreveport Housing Authority's Renaissance development.

This February 15 KSLA News 12 Editorial (http://www.ksla.com/story/28114982/ksla-news-12-editorial-unanswered-questions) questions the motives of the Shreveport Housing Authority in building the Renaissance complex directly in the path of the through route alternatives, and expresses a hope that the Authority will be "transparent" about its motives during upcoming meetings in March:

Quote
... Here are my questions:
- Why not take the most direct route, the least expensive route, the quickest route to complete?
- What is the long-term economic impact of the various paths? In other words, which route would make the most sense for future economic development?
- Which path does the mayor and city council of Shreveport support, and why?
- Why is the Shreveport Housing Authority building a multi- million dollar apartment complex directly in the path of the possible highway?
Over the next few months, public hearings will be held on this. I hope answers to these questions are forthcoming. Everyone involved needs to be transparent in their decision making
and think of what's best for Shreveport.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on February 18, 2015, 02:52:18 PM
Why were the  new sections of I-49 north of Shreveport built with asphalt emergency shoulders? The norm seems to be concrete on new construction around here. I assume it has less maintenance/wear issues.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on February 18, 2015, 03:04:08 PM
Quote from: pctech on February 18, 2015, 02:52:18 PM
Why were the  new sections of I-49 north of Shreveport built with asphalt emergency shoulders? The norm seems to be concrete on new construction around here. I assume it has less maintenance/wear issues.

They're not, unless there was a patch job (there is some shoulder & pavement patching near Hosston).  Arkansas, on the other hand DOES have asphalt shoulders on 49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2015, 11:26:31 PM
This Feb. 23 video (http://klfy.com/2015/02/23/klfy-special-report-the-future-of-i-49/) provides a good status report on the progress with I-49 South, and it also provides a link to a map that summarizes the current status of I-49 South (https://mgtvklfy.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/i49-map-overview.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZ7AHMwH.jpg&hash=03a47de8296265cbc9106321c6138d0f7ad68eaa)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 26, 2015, 02:42:38 AM
The best news there is that it seems that they have come to their senses and will NOT impose tolls on any part of this project. Quoting from the attached article from the KLFY website:


Quote
So how will this huge project be funded? LeBas said a study found making it a toll road wouldn't work. She said vehicle sales tax money will go into the state transportation trust fund in 2019. That's expected to generate $400 million a year. Some of that money could be used. There's also hope the federal government will put some money into the project.


Since LADOTD is now fully committed to constructing the segments, the chances of this project getting special funding as a High Priority Corridor is greatly increased....once Congress gets off its collected duffs and passes a long-term transportation spending bill.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mcdonaat on March 05, 2015, 08:35:15 PM
Quote from: pctech on February 18, 2015, 02:52:18 PM
Why were the  new sections of I-49 north of Shreveport built with asphalt emergency shoulders? The norm seems to be concrete on new construction around here. I assume it has less maintenance/wear issues.
US 167 between Dodson and Jonesboro, along with Hodge to Quitman, is built the same way. My assumption is that asphalt is cheaper, so instead of concreting the whole road, you  just do travel lanes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on March 06, 2015, 09:42:16 PM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of a completed I-49 on the Arkansas/Louisiana border. I do see that a section between Hosston and LA 168 has asphalt shoulders and a lot of concrete patchwork.
http://goo.gl/maps/p63Rz
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on March 07, 2015, 10:23:32 AM
Quote from: apjung on March 06, 2015, 09:42:16 PM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of a completed I-49 on the Arkansas/Louisiana border. I do see that a section between Hosston and LA 168 has asphalt shoulders and a lot of concrete patchwork.
http://goo.gl/maps/p63Rz

I haven't driven on the new northern stretch of I-49 yet, but one of my guesses of the "patchwork" is possibly grinding work.  I actually pushed a profilograph machine on I-530 between US 79 and Old Warren Rd in Pine Bluff.  If the graph hits a certain point, the road needs to be ground smooth.  I wonder if this is grinding work?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 08, 2015, 09:05:44 PM
Quote from: apjung on March 06, 2015, 09:42:16 PM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of a completed I-49 on the Arkansas/Louisiana border. I do see that a section between Hosston and LA 168 has asphalt shoulders and a lot of concrete patchwork.
http://goo.gl/maps/p63Rz
There is a lot of patchwork ("doweling") on the whole road between Shreveport and the AR-LA State Line.  Grzrd and I noticed that when we did our pre-drive, though the asphalt repave didn't exist at that time.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on March 12, 2015, 10:19:45 AM
More high quality DODT supervised work?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 12, 2015, 10:41:31 AM
Quote from: pctech on March 12, 2015, 10:19:45 AM
More high quality DODT supervised work?

Most likely

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5483/10927425093_0b62bd628c_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 06, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 18, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
The Baton Rouge support for I-49 South is consistent with LaDOTD partially describing I-49 South as a Baton Rouge Bypass (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/i49south/):
Quote
The extension of I-49 will provide ... a bypass around Baton Rouge for east-west traffic on I-10 ....
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on November 19, 2013, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2013, 02:57:00 PM
The benefits of I-49 as a bypass for traffic going to/from New Orleans are somewhat limited.
If I was driving on I-10 from, say for instance, Houston and headed to a point on or south of the Westbank, such as Westwego, Grenta or Belle Chasse then using I-49 South from Lafayette to the Westbank Expressway might make sense. This is especially true if any rush hour traffic were involved. The driving distance might be slightly longer, but there might be a net savings of time gained by avoiding traffic.
If I was driving from Houston to a point in New Orleans itself or a suburb like Kenner I would probably stay on I-10, going through Baton Rouge. Taking I-49 would be well out of the way.
Long distance through traffic going to places like Texas, Florida, California, etc. will keep going through Baton Rouge and bypassing New Orleans entirely via I-12.
Of course people from the West Jeff suburbs and the Westbank portion of N.O. are going to consider I-49 more convenient. Now if you consider I-310 (which still has a good chance of carrying I-49 instead) and get public awareness of the route out it really won't be that far out of the way for East Jeff and Eastbank N.O. at all. There are plenty of people who schedule their trips west around BR's traffic versus traffic in leaving/entering the city. Remove the fear of traveling "back roads" and people may not have a problem. Removing BR and the Atchafalaya Basin from the equation is killing 2 birds with 1 stone. The key is public awareness.

Since I posted the above LaDOTD link, LaDOTD has moved its I-49 South section to its Geaux South 49 website (http://www.geauxsouth49.com/), which describes I-49 South's Baton Rouge bypass function as follows:

Quote
The importance of the Geaux South program
... The new I-49 South ...  will provide ... an I-10 alternative for east-west traffic that by-passes the already congested Baton Rouge metropolitan area ...

Here is a snip from a LaDOTD graphic illustrating the potential bypass function (I-12 is not included):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNieU4Rp.png&hash=c02cd41705e5c84ff0823e70724a902ce4513b9d)

Above said, in this April 6 Ask the Advocate mailbag (http://theadvocate.com/news/11805300-123/ask-the-advocate-readers-suggest), LaDOTD indicates that, at best, I-49 South will serve as a bypass for regional traffic, but will not have a noticeable effect on local traffic during peak traffic hours:

Quote
QUESTION: I wonder why no one from the DOTD (or anyone else) ever mentions the completion of Interstate 49 from Lafayette to New Orleans as a solution to our I-10/12 traffic congestion here in Baton Rouge? This would be the fastest solution since it is obviously past the planning/design stage and would be heavily federally funded. This could eliminate many of the big trucks and cars that are headed to and from New Orleans.
ANSWER: Lauren Lee, public information officer with the state Department of Transportation and Development, gives us this simple answer:
"The vast majority of traffic in Baton Rouge, including during peak periods, is local traffic, not through traffic. Further, most of the through traffic comes from I-10 to I-12.
"While the future I-49 South corridor may be a viable option for travelers wishing to bypass Baton Rouge, it will not have a noticeable impact on local traffic congestion during peak hours."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 06, 2015, 01:46:19 PM
About time for an I-49 South update here...it's been a while.

The main justification for this project is less a bypass of Baton Rouge and more of serving the Oilpatch businesses and major South Louisiana ports, as well as serving Lafayette, Morgan City and the Houma/Thibodeaux/WestbankNOLA area with a freeway-caliber system. There may be some who would use that corridor to bypass the clusterwhack of I-10 through BTR, but that's what the Baton Rouge Loop is proposed to do, right? Most traffic wanting to bypass NOLA will use I-10 to I-12, and LA 415 to Airline Highway (US 190/61) could be an even more effective alternative if the BUMP proposal for a tollway/freeway along that corridor is realized. The proposal for a West Side Expressway along the LA1/LA 3127 corridor from Port Allen to Boutte, with connections to the Sunshine Bridge and a new bridge between Addis and St. Gabriel, could help, too. Direct improvements to I-10, including fixing the bottleneck of the 10-110 Split interchange, would be far more effective, IMHO.


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on April 09, 2015, 09:22:54 PM
Drove up I-49 from Lafayette to Shreveport en route to Dallas for a weekend family vacation. I noticed that there are Clearview BGSs north of Opelousas that have FHWA numerals in the exit tabs. Furthermore, one of the BGSs for LA 8 - LA 1200 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.379971,-92.660527,3a,37.5y,260.73h,83.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfzstoMeoLjOP4oApt7FDYA!2e0) has FHWA for the exit numerals... and Clearview in the shields.  :banghead:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on April 13, 2015, 06:37:23 AM
Here's a story put out in yesterday's paper about the I-49 ICC: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/21/environmental-process-inner-city-connector-underway/25163103/ (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/21/environmental-process-inner-city-connector-underway/25163103/)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on April 13, 2015, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: jbnv on April 09, 2015, 09:22:54 PM
Drove up I-49 from Lafayette to Shreveport en route to Dallas for a weekend family vacation. I noticed that there are Clearview BGSs north of Opelousas that have FHWA numerals in the exit tabs. Furthermore, one of the BGSs for LA 8 - LA 1200 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.379971,-92.660527,3a,37.5y,260.73h,83.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfzstoMeoLjOP4oApt7FDYA!2e0) has FHWA for the exit numerals... and Clearview in the shields.  :banghead:

Yep, I see that one a lot. There's one or two for the Natchitoches exit with a clearview LA 6 numeral, too.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on April 13, 2015, 10:02:33 AM
Pretty soon I will be adding some to my flickr page of signs around Alexandria of these said signs.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 14, 2015, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:52:18 PM
Here is another link to the same opinion piece, but this publication has a model of the I-49 Connector through Lafayette:
http://www.theind.com/news/9716-guest-editorial-public-private-route-for-i-49-south?tmpl=component&layout=default&page=
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTSDGu.jpg&hash=c2db412d5767dc34949a06e8bef5615447a53648)
Quote from: Grzrd on September 16, 2014, 07:36:37 PM
This article (http://www.klfy.com/story/26539920/mobile-oilfield-learning-units-visit-arnaudville-students)
Quote
DOTD spokeswoman Deidra Druilhet says ... "DOTD expects to go into the design phase of the I-49 connector project in about five years."
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 17, 2014, 03:22:54 AM
Considering, ... that LADOTD just announced last July that they selected Stantec as the chief consultant for the I-49 Connector design process, and that an official contract would probably be delivered by no later than the end of this year, me thinks that that spokesperson is a bit late.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 23, 2012, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 23, 2012, 02:23:29 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 19, 2012, 12:36:23 PM
John Norquist needs to keep his sorrry butt our of our business .... Jackass.
I have a feeling that it is only a matter of time before Norquist turns his attention from the Shreveport I-49 ICC and other projects to the elevated I-49 Connector, too.
The people of the Sterling Grove neighborhood (just east of the proposed ROW for the I-49 Connector) might beat Norquist to the punch on that one.
Quote from: cjk374 on April 13, 2015, 06:37:23 AM
Here's a story put out in yesterday's paper about the I-49 ICC: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/21/environmental-process-inner-city-connector-underway/25163103/ (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/21/environmental-process-inner-city-connector-underway/25163103/)

John Norquist is quoted extensively in the article linked by cjk374 with comments about the Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector that could also apply to the Lafayette I-49 Connector:

Quote
Those who've studied the impact of highways on inner city neighborhoods aren't convinced of the proposed connector's promise.
Some, such as former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, equate the hope supporters have for the economic benefits of inner city connector in Shreveport to false confidence.
"I don't know of any situation in any urban area that has benefited from putting a road in," said Norquist, who also is the former president and CEO of the Congress of New Urbanism, a nonprofit that promotes walkable, mixed-used communities.
CNU has partnered with the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration.
The organization was among a group of activists and planners – including New Orleans-based architecture and planning firm Waggonner & Ball Architects and Smart Mobility Inc. – that produced a 2010 study about the restoration of the Claiborne Avenue corridor in the Big Easy.
Much like the I-49 connector, construction of Interstate 10, or the Claiborne Avenue expressway, more than 50 years ago brought with it the promise of easy, high-speed access to would help keep inner city New Orleans energized and vibrant.
But when the state built the elevated 3.9-mile highway in the 1960s through the Claiborne Avenue corridor – a black commercial district described in reports, books and other publications as once being lively and lined with oaks – the end result was a decaying community ....
Urban and cities planners say what happened to the Claiborne Avenue corridor isn't uncommon. Across the country, the construction of interstates destroyed neighborhoods they sliced ....
Norquist argues that constructing a four-lane street with sidewalks, establishing a more efficient permitting process and developing infrastructure that serves existing streets would be more beneficial to Allendale than the connector ....
Norquist, a Wisconsin mayor from 1988 to 2004, said interstates are not made to do much for cities except funnel traffic through.
"A freeway might give you a couple of gas stations, but even then the gas stations won't usually go into a neighborhood that is otherwise deteriorated," he said.
If the proposed connector revitalizes Allendale the way local and state officials hope, Norquist said it would be the first for a highway project to do so.
"They don't work in the middle of a city. All they do is concentrate traffic and create more resolve," Norquist said.

He points to Detroit as another example of an urban area hollowed out by an interstate.
"You've got to build it back organically," Norquist said of the Allendale. "Think small. Look for opportunities to build on. There's not a magic solution."

New Orleans .................... Shreveport ........................ Has LaDOTD made much progress on the design phase for Lafayette's I-49 Connector?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 14, 2015, 01:30:23 PM
To put it simply, Norquist doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to Louisiana.


The I-49 Connector project design process in Lafayette comes complete with an Urban Design plan for development of the entire Evangeline Thruway corridor that will be funded by the recent TIGER grant. That will ensure that the community will be involved.


And...the severe impact of taking down as important an artery as the Claiborne Elevated portion of I-10 in NOLA far outweighs the benefits of tearing it down just to please his "New Urbanist" ideology.


Either way, he's way too little and much too late to the process: the costs of re-routing I-49 around LA 3132 and I-220 render the "Loop It" proposal DOA. The current Inner City Connector proposal is still the more prefered. He'd be better off convincing the naysayers in Allendale to work with LADOTD to make the project work better rather than obstructing.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 14, 2015, 01:34:16 PM
Oh....and as far as the design phase for I-49? LADOTD will probably begin the design phase this summer; they couldn't start until the Lafayette MPO added the TIGER grant money and I-49 Corridor Design Study to their Transportation Improvement Plan last Feburary. Things should really start moving in the design process by this fall, if not winter.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on April 14, 2015, 01:50:13 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 14, 2015, 01:30:23 PM
The I-49 Connector project design process in Lafayette comes complete with an Urban Design plan for development of the entire Evangeline Thruway corridor that will be funded by the recent TIGER grant. That will ensure that the community will be involved.

Notice the buildings depicted in the  I-49 Connector model (which was actually made as a 3D model). They do not exist at present.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTSDGu.jpg&hash=c2db412d5767dc34949a06e8bef5615447a53648)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 14, 2015, 10:50:26 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 14, 2015, 01:50:13 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 14, 2015, 01:30:23 PM
The I-49 Connector project design process in Lafayette comes complete with an Urban Design plan for development of the entire Evangeline Thruway corridor that will be funded by the recent TIGER grant. That will ensure that the community will be involved.


Notice the buildings depicted in the  I-49 Connector model (which was actually made as a 3D model). They do not exist at present.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTSDGu.jpg&hash=c2db412d5767dc34949a06e8bef5615447a53648)

That markup is from the 2007-2008 charettes developed by the ULL Community Design Workshop to initialize ideas on corridor development and ultimate design and asthetics. Totally irrelevant to the upcoming design/corridor study process.

Though, the idea of a pedestrian overpass over the freeway/railroad right around where Sixth Street/Lee Avenue used to cross sounds exciting.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 15, 2015, 12:08:43 AM
QuoteAnd...the severe impact of taking down as important an artery as the Claiborne Elevated portion of I-10 in NOLA far outweighs the benefits of tearing it down just to please his "New Urbanist" ideology.

I'm all for improving walk-ability and accommodating bicyclists, but tearing down existing freeways especially when they're a major route is a non-starter. Urban designers need to think a little more creatively with improving walk-ability around things like major traffic corridors. A good example is the intersection with North High Street and I-670 near downtown Columbus, Ohio. The bridge over the Interstate was altered so the street could be flanked on both sides with some new shops, like bars, a steak house, a coffee shop. It filled a gap in a trendy, night life oriented part of the city. The freeway bridge seemed like a barrier before, but now it's hardly visible to any of the foot traffic crossing that bridge.

I think it is a big stretch for new urbanists to blame the Claiborne Elevated for that part of New Orleans going into the toilet. That part of New Orleans turned into a freaking combat zone. That's why the businesses vanished. I've been to some of the most dangerous parts of New York City back in the late 80's and early 90's when NYC was averaging 2000 murders yearly in the five boroughs. None of those places scare me quite as much as Iberville.

There are other parts of New Orleans spanned or bisected by freeways and they didn't devolve into a nightmare. The Westbank Expressway didn't ruin Gretna, Harvey and Marrero.

With Shreveport, the I-49 Inner City Connector isn't going to ruin anything because most of that neighborhood was already in ruin. If anything I-49 could help revitalize it. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on April 15, 2015, 06:47:37 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 15, 2015, 12:08:43 AM
QuoteAnd...the severe impact of taking down as important an artery as the Claiborne Elevated portion of I-10 in NOLA far outweighs the benefits of tearing it down just to please his "New Urbanist" ideology.

I'm all for improving walk-ability and accommodating bicyclists, but tearing down existing freeways especially when they're a major route is a non-starter. Urban designers need to think a little more creatively with improving walk-ability around things like major traffic corridors. A good example is the intersection with North High Street and I-670 near downtown Columbus, Ohio. The bridge over the Interstate was altered so the street could be flanked on both sides with some new shops, like bars, a steak house, a coffee shop. It filled a gap in a trendy, night life oriented part of the city. The freeway bridge seemed like a barrier before, but now it's hardly visible to any of the foot traffic crossing that bridge.

Now that is cool. I have heard of some older bridges in England or somewhere that have shops and things on it that span rivers. It would be harder to completely disguise the freeway in New Orleans since it is elevated, but you could easily put shops and such directly underneath I-10. Of course, that area isn't exactly trendy.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 16, 2015, 11:49:56 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 14, 2015, 01:30:23 PM
To put it simply, Norquist doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to Louisiana.

This Letter to the Editor published in the April 15 Shreveport Times (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/04/16/clark-ask-right-questions-allendale/25820291/) by a Shreveport resident suggests that the existing I-49 interchange with the Bert Kouns Industrial Loop in the Shreveport area provides a more pertinent comparison with Allendale than does the elevated I-10/ Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans, and it also suggests that Norquist does not know what he is talking about when it comes to Allendale and Shreveport in general:

Quote
Reading the "I-49 Connector Welcome to Allendale"  article started me to think of why some would indicate doom for the project without looking at some very close successes.
It is a question I ask myself of why did Interstate 49 work for Bert Kouns, but not 70th Street? The Claiborne Avenue corridor (New Orleans) was chosen as an example of why interstate corridors fail to produce the improvements that such communities desire. Allendale is not Claiborne Avenue and whatever the stated failures of Claiborne Avenue (families and businesses leaving over time) should be noted and plans/policies put into place that would produce the opposite effect, the Bert Kouns effect. It appears that there was a commitment to invest in the Bert Kouns/I-49 interchange and support for those businesses continues.
Allendale should not be looked at as an island of a community, but as part of the overall commitment to redevelop downtown. The proximity of Allendale to downtown is indisputable and when plans are made for access to downtown off of I-49, businesses, housing and government services should also be factored in for Allendale ....
Economic development in Shreveport via above minimum-wage jobs would help in securing incomes that are capable of investing in medium-ranged priced homes. The Lofts success is a prime example of how millennial lifestyles can generate new energy downtown. But a determination would have to be made for what type of community renewal Allendale should receive. Former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist looks at present day Allendale and only sees an interstate and a few gas stations. When the real question should be is what kind of investments can be generated for a planned futuristic community?

It's fun to read an opinion of someone with local knowledge.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mwb1848 on April 17, 2015, 11:48:02 AM
I'm a lifelong road geek and an accredited member of the Congress for the New Urbanism.

I encourage us to embrace the really fascinating challenges which can come along with the removal of obsolete freeways like the Claiborne Expressway. It becomes a really interesting discussion of how to re-sign, how to re-route, how to reimagine infrastructure.

Same for I-49. While I love the theoretical continuity of building I-49 right through the heart of Lafayette, it's so much more important that Lafayette be allowed to be a place... not just a background for a freeway.

I'm sure there's little disagreement that the Evangeline Thruway fails at any mission. It doesn't successfully convey thru-traffic, and the one-way couplets (as they have any many American cities) don't allow for the creation of a human-scaled environment.

Important things don't belong under freeways; pedestrians don't use pedestrian bridges if there's not a compelling reason to walk among walkable environments.

New Urbanists aren't anti-freeway, just as roadgeeks aren't anti-pedestrian.  Freeways should be awesome freeways; city streets should be awesome city streets. We've just got to figure out what really belongs where.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on April 17, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
Quote from: mwb1848 on April 17, 2015, 11:48:02 AM

I encourage us to embrace the really fascinating challenges which can come along with the removal of obsolete freeways like the Claiborne Expressway. It becomes a really interesting discussion of how to re-sign, how to re-route, how to reimagine infrastructure.

Is Claiborne Expressway really obsolete?  I can't say I have driven there, but...it's I-10.  If I'm wrong, please lemme know.

Quote
Same for I-49. While I love the theoretical continuity of building I-49 right through the heart of Lafayette, it's so much more important that Lafayette be allowed to be a place... not just a background for a freeway.

Lafayette is a place...it is the capital of cajun country!  It has its own personality.  It's the people who live in any city or town that give the personality...or ambiance...to a city or town. A highway is there to get people in and out efficiently and quickly.

Quote
Important things don't belong under freeways; pedestrians don't use pedestrian bridges if there's not a compelling reason to walk among walkable environments.

Pedestrians uses pedestrian bridges so that they may live and continue to walk in their environments.

Quote
New Urbanists aren't anti-freeway, just as roadgeeks aren't anti-pedestrian.  Freeways should be awesome freeways; city streets should be awesome city streets. We've just got to figure out what really belongs where.

I didn't know anyone was confused about where to put highways, walkways, and everything in between.  Again, it is the people who create the environment that will create jobs & a walkable environment.  It is also the people who can create a decaying neighborhood that will not create jobs or anything positive about the community.  It is up to the people of the community to determine what kind of environment they live in.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on April 17, 2015, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on April 17, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
Quote from: mwb1848 on April 17, 2015, 11:48:02 AM
While I love the theoretical continuity of building I-49 right through the heart of Lafayette, it's so much more important that Lafayette be allowed to be a place... not just a background for a freeway.

Lafayette is a place...it is the capital of cajun country!  It has its own personality.  It's the people who live in any city or town that give the personality...or ambiance...to a city or town. A highway is there to get people in and out efficiently and quickly.

And this particular highway will serve to move people who are already going somewhere else. I'd actually favor an approach that makes I-49 an express route through town and directs all local traffic onto Evangeline Thruway.

The corridor that will take I-49 through Lafayette already needs redevelopment. Lafayette already has a "black-white" divide that almost corresponds to the I-49 corridor (I'd put it at University Ave). I-49 won't create what is already there. And yes, the corridor can benefit from a revitalization. If such a renewal fails to happen, it won't be because I-49 was built.

Quote from: cjk374 on April 17, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
I didn't know anyone was confused about where to put highways, walkways, and everything in between.  Again, it is the people who create the environment that will create jobs & a walkable environment.  It is also the people who can create a decaying neighborhood that will not create jobs or anything positive about the community.  It is up to the people of the community to determine what kind of environment they live in.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 17, 2015, 09:55:48 PM
I respect your opinion as I do your right to state it, mwb, but I have to disagree with some of your points.


First off, while removing freeways from inner cities to promote economic development and infill might sound like a wonderful idea from an asthetic viewpoint, you still have to deal with how the people who actually use those freeways will have to adjust. It's not nearly as simple as plopping a light rail line along a surface street and calling it a day.


I'd hardly call the Claiborne Elevated "obsolete"; it is the main artery connecting downtown NOLA, the French Quarter, and the Superdome to the eastern portions of NOLA, Slidell, and points eastward. Over 100K people use it for commuting every day. Imagine that on a 4-lane surface Claiborne Blvd, and you'll see why I'm opposed to removing the freeway.


Secondly...the I-49 Connector mostly avoids downtown; it runs on the Evangeline Thruway corridor for most of its length, separated from downtown by the BNSF/UP rail line. In fact, the proposed freeway will improve access between downtown and the eastern sections of Lafayette by converting at least three at-grade rail crossings to grade separations, along with improvements to the existing Jefferson St. underpass as well.


Finally, the I-49 Corridor Study funded by the TIGER grant serves the very purpose of avoiding exactly the avoidance of local neighborhood concerns that have typically come with freeway construction in inner cities. It is actually possible to successfully integrate an elevated freeway with the community if proper concerns and standards are met, and the communities are actively involved.


I really don't think that Lafayette will be any less the Capital of Cajun Country, or ULL will lose any status, if the Connector is built. The positives far outweighs the negatives here.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 28, 2015, 03:12:01 PM
New article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/louisiana/2015/04/27/south-making-progress/26471559/) today in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser updating the status and probable future funding of I-49 South between Lafayette and New Orleans:

Quote
Interstate 49 south efforts are making incremental progress, with a favorable bid received for reworking an intersection in St. Mary Parish and design plans progressing on the route that will link Shreveport to New Orleans, mostly along U.S. Highway 90.
But the big money for executing the project from Lafayette to New Orleans, the southern portion of the route in Louisiana, may not show up until 2020, when the department hopes to capitalize on additional funding scheduled to be gained through the Vehicle Sales Tax.

In response to a question from state Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, Secretary of Transportation and Development Sherri LeBas told the Senate Finance Committee on Monday that bids were taken for work at the intersection of U.S. 90 and La. 318 in St. Mary Parish, along the route. The low bid of about $55 million came in about $4 million under the projection; a contract may be signed by May or June.
LeBas said that St. Mary project would leave an intersection at U.S. 90 and Ambassador Caffery in Lafayette and an intersection of U.S. and La. 88 in St. Martin Parish as the lone projects remaining for I-49 south below the Lafayette airport to St. Mary. The remainder of the route between those points meet standards for interstate highways.

LeBas said a consultant is at work on the Lafayette Connector, which would run from Interstate 10 to Pinhook Road.

The good news, she said, is that design work is progressing and will be well along when the Vehicle Sales Tax money – she said it would provide around $400 million a year – becomes available, probably in 2020. The Lafayette Connector alone will cost about $750 million.


I'll ignore the obvious mistakes of not uppercapping "South" in "I-49 South"; in missing the southern terminus of the I-49 Connector (Kaliste Saloom Road, NOT Pinhook Road); and ignoring the segments still remaining to be upgraded between Lafayette Regional Airport and Wax Lake Outlet even after the US 90/LA 318 interchange is ultimately built (overpass of the L&DRR spur south of LA 85; LA 92 interchange; Verot School Rd., Southpark Rd., and Morgan Ave. interchanges between Lafayette and Broussard).


The main point here is that the vehicle sales tax, especially if combined with a new long-term federal transportation authorization bill, could provide the funding necessary to complete at least the Lafayette to Morgan City segment of I-49 South, and perhaps even ultimately the whole shebang all the way to New Orleans.


In addition, LeBas also announced that a consultant has been selected to begin the preliminary design work for the I-49 Connector segment in Lafayette; that should ramp up later this summer. The Corridor Plan that was funded by the TIGER grant will run concurrently with the design work, so the two will coordinate with each other in offering a final plan for the freeway and its surroundings by the time the money starts to kick in.


Slow but steady progress as she goes, I guess.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on April 29, 2015, 01:44:27 PM
That's very good news! I now have a reason to believe that I-49 from New Orleans to Texarkana will be completed by midcentury, if not sooner than that. (Of course, that depends on the Allendale scenario, but anything goes.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 09, 2015, 12:48:32 PM
Today, the Lafayette Advertiser (and their little brothers in the Gannett news chain, the Opelousas Daily World), ran an article on the possibility of funding the remainder of the I-49 South extension project (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/acadiana/2015/06/08/can-feds-find-funds-energy-corridors-finish/28708511/). Mostly, the news wasn't so good. Excerpting from the article:


Quote
The road from Lafayette to New Orleans is paved with good intentions.

Paving it with asphalt will take more than that.

About 100 people attended a U.S. Senate small business committee meeting Monday at the South Lafayette Library that quickly turned into a discussion of U.S. Interstate 49, the final leg of which will extend from New Orleans through Lafayette before continuing through Shreveport and into America's midsection.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-Metairie, hosted the meeting, joined by U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette, and conversation quickly turned to the final, 160-mile leg of the interstate that runs along what is now U.S. Highway 90. I-49 work in Louisiana from Shreveport to Lafayette is virtually completed to Interstate 10; while much of the remainder of the intended route from Lafayette to New Orleans is up to interstate standards, expensive portions through the city of Lafayette and from Raceland to New Orleans remain undone. One federal official estimated it would take $5 billion to complete the I-49 project.

Vitter, Boustany and members of the public noted that completing I-49 is crucial for the trade corridor that route represents – many of the state's inland ports are located near I-49 – as a hurricane evacuation route – half the state would evacuate and for safety reasons. That stretch of road is known as the "Energy Corridor"  because so many oil and gas products are transported on that route.
"I-49 is the top priority for us,"  said Boustany, who serves on the House Ways & Means Committee, which has much authority over trade, Medicare, Social Security and other money matters. He said the highway connects the nation's heartland to Louisiana's ports and noted that his own 3rd Congressional District was said to be the eighth-most active congressional district for trade, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

"If we don't do this,"  he said of the I-49 completion, "We are going to languish."

But funding the interstate's completion won't be easy. Vitter and Boustany noted that federal gasoline tax collections have diminished over the years as gas mileage has improved, and federal Highway Bill funding has hobbled along with only short-term extensions for funding.

David Kim, an assistant administrator for policy affairs at the federal Department of Transportation, said it would be difficult to complete I-49 if the federal government stays at level funding in the Highway Bill. He suggested – so did the elected leaders – that the nation needs a longterm highway bill with robust and reliable funding.

Terry Baugh of D&J Construction in Ouachita Parish suggested that funds might be raised with a sales tax on vehicles. He likened that to a user tax, and said that heavier vehicles, which cause more strain on the highways, ought to pay more.

Vitter suggested Louisianians ought to be open to imposition of a toll on U.S. 90 as a way to raise funds and quicken the pace of the I-49 completion.

Kam Movassaghi of Lafayette, former secretary of the state Department of Transportation and Development, said that oil and gas will continue to be the principal source of fuel for the country, and pipelines here serve as the "aorta"  for oil and gas in the country. He said there are 1,200 oil and gas-related businesses in the area, most located on or near U.S. 90, and that the Energy Corridor is vital to the nation.

Locals cannot fund the project, he said; the federal government must do its part.

Vitter suggested that the state has not always spent its federal road funds wisely; Boustany noted a $12 billion backlog for road and bridge projects in Louisiana.

Discussion also included highway congestion in Lafayette. Don Hargroder of Courtesy Automotive said clogged roadways cost his businesses time and money because it takes hired hands excessive time to do mundane tasks like picking up vehicle parts or transporting customers to their home or work.

Missy Rogers of Noble Plastics said traffic congestion not only makes travel difficult, but she said she also routes visiting prospective customers away from unsightly roadways like the Evangeline Thruway. She said potential clients could think ill of Lafayette because of those areas.


I suppose that I shouldn't be so surprised that Vitter revived the previously rejected option of tolling US 90...but I still say that's a non-starter.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 09, 2015, 01:59:57 PM
QuoteI-49 work in Louisiana from Shreveport to Lafayette is virtually completed to Interstate 10

It's been completed for many years now, or am I reading this wrong?

Why not go ahead and sign the completed portions as US 90/I-49?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 09, 2015, 03:11:14 PM
They would first have to commit funding for and begin constructon of the I-49 Connector segment in Lafayette, since that's the connection between US 90 and the existing I-49 north of I-10. (Remember, US 90 doesn't directly connect to I-10/I-49; it breaks from the Evangeline Thruway alignment at Mudd Avenue/Cameron Street.)

Once that is done, and the Westbank Expressway freeway in NOLA is extended to US 90 south of the Huey P. Long Bridge, then they can do what Texas has done for I-69 and gradually slap I-shields on the completed sections as time develops.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 10, 2015, 11:45:26 PM
Better idea: Decommission the useless LA 49 designation on Williams Blvd. in Kenner, and designate the entire I-49 corridor as LA 49. Everything south of the current I-49 terminus at I-10 can be signed as LA 49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
BAD IDEA, because most of the I-49 South corridor is already designated in the NHS as a US highway (US 167/US 90/US 90B) save for the segment in Lafayette not fronting the Evangeline Thruway. Plus, what do you have against Williams Blvd. being a state highway?


Just do as Texas is doing with the I-69 system and slap I-49 shields on the completed segments as you go along.


Also...you create a serious wrong-way designation issue with moving LA 49: A mostly east-west route going from SE to NW???
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 11, 2015, 01:35:48 PM
US 90 is sufficient and useful in the current form.  I don't see the need for I-49 to sweep along a dog leg.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2015, 01:04:37 AM
Sufficient??? A highway that was originally designed to be a fully controlled access freeway, built to 70 mph design speeds, yet goes through a decent sized city as a 4-lane one-way couplet/at-grade expressway??


Useful?? You mean, all those efforts to add interchanges and frontage roads on US 90 should be all for naught, since you believe that a surface expressway is "useful"??


Thankfully, people here in South Louisiana don't share your concept of "sufficiency" or "usefulness".


Whether it's I-49 South, I-10S or LA 1049, a freeway along the US 90 corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans, combined with the I-49 Connector through Lafayette, was, is, and will be needed. Whether some folk like it or not, it's getting built.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on June 12, 2015, 01:47:37 AM
In before he says "waste of tax payer money" like that's some trump card to win a discussion.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2015, 11:56:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 12, 2015, 01:47:37 AM
In before he says "waste of tax payer money" like that's some trump card to win a discussion.

Waste of taxpayer money was not used here.  I do not know the taxing structure of the area that well.  I do see that I-10 already serves New Orleans and Lafayette.  Sure put a couple of ramps up no big deal, however, a full fledged dog leg I-49, I just don't see why.  I did drive US 90 and found it sufficient.  The route was already moved way out of the way of Houma.  Now Houma is left out in the cold.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on June 12, 2015, 12:12:54 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2015, 11:56:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 12, 2015, 01:47:37 AM
In before he says "waste of tax payer money" like that's some trump card to win a discussion.

Waste of taxpayer money was not used here.  I do not know the taxing structure of the area that well.  I do see that I-10 already serves New Orleans and Lafayette.  Sure put a couple of ramps up no big deal, however, a full fledged dog leg I-49, I just don't see why.  I did drive US 90 and found it sufficient.  The route was already moved way out of the way of Houma.  Now Houma is left out in the cold.

Lafayette is the big bottleneck for evacuees that would need to leave New Orleans in the event of a hurricane.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: intelati49 on June 12, 2015, 12:17:18 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 12, 2015, 12:12:54 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2015, 11:56:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 12, 2015, 01:47:37 AM
In before he says "waste of tax payer money" like that's some trump card to win a discussion.

Waste of taxpayer money was not used here.  I do not know the taxing structure of the area that well.  I do see that I-10 already serves New Orleans and Lafayette.  Sure put a couple of ramps up no big deal, however, a full fledged dog leg I-49, I just don't see why.  I did drive US 90 and found it sufficient.  The route was already moved way out of the way of Houma.  Now Houma is left out in the cold.

Lafayette is the big bottleneck for evacuees that would need to leave New Orleans in the event of a hurricane.

Plus the crash rates are awful? I haven't seen them for myself, but I have heard bad things about the stretch.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on June 12, 2015, 01:20:56 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 11, 2015, 01:35:48 PM
US 90 is sufficient and useful in the current form.  I don't see the need for I-49 to sweep along a dog leg.
Indeed! That would've worked better as an I-10 reroute anyway (or I-6).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2015, 02:59:02 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2015, 11:56:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 12, 2015, 01:47:37 AM
In before he says "waste of tax payer money" like that's some trump card to win a discussion.

Waste of taxpayer money was not used here.  I do not know the taxing structure of the area that well.  I do see that I-10 already serves New Orleans and Lafayette.  Sure put a couple of ramps up no big deal, however, a full fledged dog leg I-49, I just don't see why.  I did drive US 90 and found it sufficient.  The route was already moved way out of the way of Houma.  Now Houma is left out in the cold.

The reason US 90 was moved out of downtown Houma was to equalize access between Houma and Thibodeaux. I'd hardly say that either of those cities were and are "out of the cold".

Plus...that segment of US 90 between Morgan City and Raceland is already an Interstate grade freeway, and most of US 90 between Lafayette and Morgan City are either completed or being converted to Interstate grade. Why should the Evangeline Thruway and the non-upgraded segments of US 90 and Westbank Expressway be denied the same upgrades? Just because you drove it once and said so??

Also...it doesn't matter whether it's an extension of I-49 or I-10S as far as I'm concerned; it needs to be completed for economic, safety, and hurricane evacuation reasons.

(BTW, hurricane evacuation isn't necessarily for NOLA, but mostly for the cities fronting US 90 in South Louisiana (Morgan City, Patterson, New Iberia, Houma/Thibodeaux) that could experience catastropic storm surge in the event of a Category 3 or higher hurricane approach. Tell these folks that I-49 South isn't needed.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2015, 03:09:25 PM
Also...that "dog leg" argument doesn't wash, because that segment will be only a small portion of I-49 once it is completed all the way to Kansas City. Plus, relatively speaking, New Orleans is south of Lafayette, so even that "dog leg" fits a N/S orientation in general, despite the initial "wrong way" segment from NOLA to Morgan City.

But by all means, Av, do tell us more about why we don't need this highway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Zeffy on June 12, 2015, 03:16:12 PM
I-95 in between Wilmington, Delaware and Baltimore, Maryland has a diagonal alignment. Or, as a better example, I-85 from Charlotte, North Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia is much more east/west than it is north/south! There's not even much precedent for Interstates following the grid or directional parity any more, so at this point, it'd make just as much sense as to extend I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 12, 2015, 09:11:51 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
BAD IDEA, because most of the I-49 South corridor is already designated in the NHS as a US highway (US 167/US 90/US 90B) save for the segment in Lafayette not fronting the Evangeline Thruway.

I'd also truncate US 167 at Pineville and make Johnston St./Louisiana Ave./etc. a separate state highway, but I bet you wouldn't like that idea either. US 90 BUS will go away anyway once I-49 is finished; might as well let that happen now.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
Plus, what do you have against Williams Blvd. being a state highway?

It doesn't go anywhere. It's just a major city artery. By your argument, Veterans Blvd, Clearview Blvd, and Causeway Blvd. should all be promoted to state highways.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
Just do as Texas is doing with the I-69 system and slap I-49 shields on the completed segments as you go along.

Not that I mind telling the feds what they can do with themselves, but this is more of a "bad idea" than my LA 49 idea.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
Also...you create a serious wrong-way designation issue with moving LA 49: A mostly east-west route going from SE to NW???

The "completed" I-49 is going to have that problem anyway, bending from NW-SE to W-E to a northbound hook. In New Orleans, "northbound" traffic will go south and west for several miles before it starts truly going north. Numbering the miles and exits on that thing is going to be fun too. No matter which end the numbers start, they'll be going "backwards" for a long stretch.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 13, 2015, 10:09:21 AM
Quote from: jbnv on June 12, 2015, 09:11:51 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
BAD IDEA, because most of the I-49 South corridor is already designated in the NHS as a US highway (US 167/US 90/US 90B) save for the segment in Lafayette not fronting the Evangeline Thruway.

I'd also truncate US 167 at Pineville and make Johnston St./Louisiana Ave./etc. a separate state highway, but I bet you wouldn't like that idea either. US 90 BUS will go away anyway once I-49 is finished; might as well let that happen now.

That's a decision for LADOTD, AASHTO, and the FHWA, not for you or me....and I'm guessing that they are not going to demote the Westbank Expressway to a state highway. They will revive hidden I-910 before they ever approve moving LA 49. US 90B is probably going to be delisted, I agree, when the rest of the Westbank Expy. is upgraded.

Quote
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
Plus, what do you have against Williams Blvd. being a state highway?

It doesn't go anywhere. It's just a major city artery. By your argument, Veterans Blvd, Clearview Blvd, and Causeway Blvd. should all be promoted to state highways.

No, I am NOT arguing that those roadways should be promoted (well, you could make a strong case for Clearview Parkway since it connects US 90 at the Huey P. Long Bridge with I-10); only that LA 49 should NOT be used as a designation for I-49 South.

Quote
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
Just do as Texas is doing with the I-69 system and slap I-49 shields on the completed segments as you go along.

Not that I mind telling the feds what they can do with themselves, but this is more of a "bad idea" than my LA 49 idea.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to disagree...and since it's the Feds who will be mostly funding I-49 South with 80% funding, they are just as entitled to take what you tell them with a pound of salt.

Quote
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 11, 2015, 01:04:02 AM
Also...you create a serious wrong-way designation issue with moving LA 49: A mostly east-west route going from SE to NW???

The "completed" I-49 is going to have that problem anyway, bending from NW-SE to W-E to a northbound hook. In New Orleans, "northbound" traffic will go south and west for several miles before it starts truly going north. Numbering the miles and exits on that thing is going to be fun too. No matter which end the numbers start, they'll be going "backwards" for a long stretch.

Only for the brief section from NOLA to near Houma...after that it is all either SE to NW or S to N. I don't think that 30 miles of "wrong-way" routing out of a nearly 140 mile project should disqualify a designation. Especially when the ultimate extension to Kansas City will take on nearly 1,400 miles, 30 miles of "wrong way" routing is like a minor speed bump, not a "long stretch".

Also, for local traffic using I-49 South from NOLA to Houma-Thibodeaux-Morgan City, it will be more of a east-west than north-south route. Long term traffic from Lafayette or New Iberia to NOLA will understand perfectly the general N-S orientation, since last time I checked, Lafayette was still NW of NOLA.


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on June 13, 2015, 05:44:34 PM
You could change the signed cardinal direction to East-West at some point and then there would be no "wrong way" section.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: aboges26 on June 13, 2015, 10:45:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2015, 05:44:34 PM
You could change the signed cardinal direction to East-West at some point and then there would be no "wrong way" section.

I agree, the 0 mile point could still be in New Orleans but sign I-49 as east-west between Lafayette and N.O., the world won't stop just because prevailing instances have east-west highways with their 0 mile point in the west.

I-69 switches from N-S to E-W at the northern interchange with its concurrency with I-96, even though it could conceivably stay signed as N-S to I-75 in Flint.  I cannot think of a precedent on the interstate system where an E-W highway has its 0 mile point in the east, but in Ontario the MTO did not hesitate to start 417 in the east.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on June 15, 2015, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: aboges26 on June 13, 2015, 10:45:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2015, 05:44:34 PM
You could change the signed cardinal direction to East-West at some point and then there would be no "wrong way" section.

I agree, the 0 mile point could still be in New Orleans but sign I-49 as east-west between Lafayette and N.O., the world won't stop just because prevailing instances have east-west highways with their 0 mile point in the west.

I-69 switches from N-S to E-W at the northern interchange with its concurrency with I-96, even though it could conceivably stay signed as N-S to I-75 in Flint.  I cannot think of a precedent on the interstate system where an E-W highway has its 0 mile point in the east, but in Ontario the MTO did not hesitate to start 417 in the east.
I can live with I-49 being east/west from New Orleans to Lafayette. After all, I-69 north (or east) of Lansing holds the sole precedent.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 15, 2015, 01:16:26 PM
I-49 is intended (among other things) to be a hurricane evacuation route from NOLA to points north, so it's absolutely appropriate to be signed N-S. US 90 is signed E-W and runs along I-49 so it can be the E-W highway along the corridor.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on June 15, 2015, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: aboges26 on June 13, 2015, 10:45:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2015, 05:44:34 PM
You could change the signed cardinal direction to East-West at some point and then there would be no "wrong way" section.

I agree, the 0 mile point could still be in New Orleans but sign I-49 as east-west between Lafayette and N.O., the world won't stop just because prevailing instances have east-west highways with their 0 mile point in the west.

I-69 switches from N-S to E-W at the northern interchange with its concurrency with I-96, even though it could conceivably stay signed as N-S to I-75 in Flint.  I cannot think of a precedent on the interstate system where an E-W highway has its 0 mile point in the east, but in Ontario the MTO did not hesitate to start 417 in the east.

Don't forget I-75 west of Miami where it is east-west.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on June 15, 2015, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 15, 2015, 01:38:28 PM
Don't forget I-75 west of Miami where it is east-west.
Not on most signs.

I-76 in Nebraska is signed north-south.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vtk on June 17, 2015, 07:16:58 PM
Quote from: aboges26 on June 13, 2015, 10:45:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2015, 05:44:34 PM
You could change the signed cardinal direction to East-West at some point and then there would be no "wrong way" section.

I agree, the 0 mile point could still be in New Orleans but sign I-49 as east-west between Lafayette and N.O., the world won't stop just because prevailing instances have east-west highways with their 0 mile point in the west.

I cannot think of a precedent on the interstate system where an E-W highway has its 0 mile point in the east

New York State Thruway says hi.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on June 18, 2015, 02:28:18 AM
Its 0 mile point is in the *south*, is it not? ;)

Yeah yeah, okay, I-90. :D
Though, how are the Albany and Berkshire Spur bits mileposted?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on June 18, 2015, 04:05:17 AM
IMHO I-49 should be signed E/W from NOLA to Morgan City at the Atchafaylaya River Bridge where signs would mention the change to N/S.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2015, 07:24:55 AM
Since I-49 South is expected to remain cosigned with US 90 and US 90Z (formerly US 90 Business) for most of its entire length, I'm guessing that the W-E orientation of US 90 will be covered by adding US 90 shields on the highway. Still, I'm guessing that unless they are using US 90 mileposts from south of Lafayette to Westwego, they will simply reset milepost 0 at the Claiborne Ave/I-10/Ponchatrain Expy interchange in NOLA (or, as I call it, the "MBWD" Interchange, as in, Mercedes Benz-WhoDat in honor of the Superdome nearby), and add 143 to the exit counts for existing I-49. Since US 90 is itself a major multistate US highway, I hardly think it will be truncated any time soon.....though I would make a decent case for realigning it on its old route on which is now LA 182/Old Spanish Trail.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 18, 2015, 09:56:30 AM
US 90Z? When did this happen? Is the road fully signed as US 90Z?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
Actually, the Westbank Expressway is currently signed as US 90 Business or US 90B....but in official LADOTD documents, it's designated as US 90Z, with a silent cosign as I-910.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2015, 11:25:08 AM
It's just Anthony being incorrectly anal.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 18, 2015, 09:41:38 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
silent cosign

If it's cosigned, it's not silent.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2015, 10:09:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 18, 2015, 11:25:08 AM
It's just Anthony being incorrectly anal.

I meant a hidden designation as I-910. What the hell ever, NE2.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2015, 10:34:00 PM
"US 90Z (formerly US 90 Business)" is total bullshit.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Rothman on June 18, 2015, 10:55:18 PM
Quote from: jbnv on June 18, 2015, 09:41:38 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
silent cosign



If it's cosigned, it's not silent.

Maybe it's a silent cotangent.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 19, 2015, 03:22:41 AM
Quote from: jbnv on June 18, 2015, 09:41:38 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
silent cosign

If it's cosigned, it's not silent.

Is it silent but deadly?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 18, 2015, 10:34:00 PM
"US 90Z (formerly US 90 Business)" is total bullshit.

I'll toss that statement to LADOTD; they made the designation, not me.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on June 19, 2015, 11:20:07 AM
Toss that statement in the rubbish bin. US 90 Business is not former.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 19, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Why US 90 Business in the first place?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on June 19, 2015, 03:14:00 PM
You lot are tossers. :bigass:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2015, 04:35:23 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 19, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Why US 90 Business in the first place?

Because US 90 was already routed through the Huey P. Long Bridge, Jefferson Highway, Claiborne Avenue, and Broad Street; and some designation was needed for the Westbank Expressway in order to give US highway mileage to the Westbank connection to downtown NOLA.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 20, 2015, 02:44:24 AM
Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome that US 90B exists as a freeway, but wouldn't a bypass US 90 be more appropriate?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on June 20, 2015, 09:20:18 AM
Or, just flip the designations around since US 90 Business makes more sense on the route that current US 90 takes?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 25, 2015, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 20, 2015, 09:20:18 AM
Or, just flip the designations around since US 90 Business makes more sense on the route that current US 90 takes?
Or just move US 90 onto the Westbank Expressway, the CCC, the Pontchartrain(?) Expressway and I-10 to Chef Menteur, and decommission the route on the surface streets.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: kendancy66 on June 26, 2015, 10:48:58 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2015, 07:24:55 AM
Since I-49 South is expected to remain cosigned with US 90 and US 90Z (formerly US 90 Business) for most of its entire length, I'm guessing that the W-E orientation of US 90 will be covered by adding US 90 shields on the highway. Still, I'm guessing that unless they are using US 90 mileposts from south of Lafayette to Westwego, they will simply reset milepost 0 at the Claiborne Ave/I-10/Ponchatrain Expy interchange in NOLA (or, as I call it, the "MBWD" Interchange, as in, Mercedes Benz-WhoDat in honor of the Superdome nearby), and add 143 to the exit counts for existing I-49. Since US 90 is itself a major multistate US highway, I hardly think it will be truncated any time soon.....though I would make a decent case for realigning it on its old route on which is now LA 182/Old Spanish Trail.
What does the Z in US 90 represent?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on June 27, 2015, 01:48:14 AM
ZOUNDS!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DeaconG on June 27, 2015, 08:30:47 AM
ZYDECO!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 27, 2015, 06:17:30 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 17, 2014, 08:28:35 AM
In this July 16 News Release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5393), LaDOTD announces that construction has started on the "last mile" of I-49 North, Segment K, and that completion of all of I-49 North is anticipated by "2016/2017":
Quote
DOTD anticipates the completion of the I-49 North Corridor by 2016/2017.

This June 25 TV video (http://www.ksla.com/story/29406238/finish-line-in-sight-for-i-220-i-49-connection) includes some footage of work on I-220 related to construction of the I-49/I-220 interchange and reports that the interchange appears to be on track for a Summer 2017 opening, although recent delays caused by the heavy rains and flooding may push that date back:

Quote
A project connecting I-49 and LA Hwy 1 to I-220 is one step closer to being completed.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development closed I-220 a few weekends ago to install barriers. However, the rain stopped them from completing the work.
DOTD is now working on fixing and switching the westbound lanes. That will take 6 months to complete.
Once that's done, traffic will be moved to the eastbound side as they finish westbound lanes.
I-49 and LA Hwy 1 are expected to both be connected to I-220 by Summer 2017, weather permitting.
DOTD says they have already seen major delays this year because of the weather, and they expect that it could be pushed back even further.




Quote from: kendancy66 on June 26, 2015, 10:48:58 PM
What does the Z in US 90 represent?

I don't have the official LaDOTD answer; all I know is that when I think about Ninety Z (http://www.southeastroads.com/la_us_highways.html) I start thinking of Channel Z:



I am driving on Ninety Z !!!  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 27, 2015, 09:03:14 PM
I didn't invent the term, I just saw it on LADOTD's website. I plead innocence in this one.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on June 28, 2015, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 27, 2015, 09:03:14 PM
I didn't invent the term, I just saw it on LADOTD's website. I plead innocence in this one.

I get LaDOTD's e-mails about projects around the state. I saw that designation in one of them recently and wondered how it got that designation also.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on June 28, 2015, 03:29:05 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 17, 2014, 08:28:35 AM
In this July 16 News Release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=5393), LaDOTD announces that construction has started on the "last mile" of I-49 North, Segment K, and that completion of all of I-49 North is anticipated by "2016/2017":
Quote
DOTD anticipates the completion of the I-49 North Corridor by 2016/2017.

What is the latest scoop on the part of I-49 between there and I-20?

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on June 28, 2015, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2015, 03:29:05 PM
What is the latest scoop on the part of I-49 between there and I-20?

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee May 8, 2015 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_05082015.pdf), which indicate that the "Loop It" alternative does not appear to meet the Purpose and Need of the Inner City Connector ("ICC") project, and that there may be several public meetings in July regarding the ICC:

Quote
Mr. Rogers gave a brief update regarding the I‐49 Inner City Connector. He stated there was a meeting the previous week with FHWA, the consultant, and NLCOG to discuss planning the upcoming public meetings and the timeframe for holding those. He stated there would be 4‐5 meetings held in the study area. Mayor Tyler asked if the fifth alternative was the "loop it"  alternative; Mr. Rogers stated that the fifth alternative was the "loop it"  idea: to use I‐220 and LA 3132 along with local streets by making improvements. He stated this does not meet the purpose and need. Mr. Rogers stated the next round of public meetings would be in summer 2015, most likely in July. Mayor Walker asked what the construction around the landfill on I‐220 was. Mr. Rogers stated that it is part of I‐49 North. Mr. North stated it is sections J, K1 and K2 that is currently under construction with about six months left.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 28, 2015, 08:48:24 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 28, 2015, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2015, 03:29:05 PM
What is the latest scoop on the part of I-49 between there and I-20?

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee May 8, 2015 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_05082015.pdf), which indicate that the "Loop It" alternative does not appear to meet the Purpose and Need of the Inner City Connector ("ICC") project, and that there may be several public meetings in July regarding the ICC:

Quote
Mr. Rogers gave a brief update regarding the I‐49 Inner City Connector. He stated there was a meeting the previous week with FHWA, the consultant, and NLCOG to discuss planning the upcoming public meetings and the timeframe for holding those. He stated there would be 4‐5 meetings held in the study area. Mayor Tyler asked if the fifth alternative was the "loop it"  alternative; Mr. Rogers stated that the fifth alternative was the "loop it"  idea: to use I‐220 and LA 3132 along with local streets by making improvements. He stated this does not meet the purpose and need. Mr. Rogers stated the next round of public meetings would be in summer 2015, most likely in July. Mayor Walker asked what the construction around the landfill on I‐220 was. Mr. Rogers stated that it is part of I‐49 North. Mr. North stated it is sections J, K1 and K2 that is currently under construction with about six months left.

Looks pretty good for the ICC. It would be a good freeway that could be a viaduct, below grade with possible park caps, or a tunnel entirely if you want to go overkill. I would choose below grade with a few caps.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on June 29, 2015, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: yakra on June 27, 2015, 01:48:14 AM
ZOUNDS!
Or, to borrow a legendary game show term, ZONK!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 29, 2015, 06:30:34 PM
Or for all you Norville Rodgers fans out there: Zoinks!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on June 29, 2015, 09:29:33 PM
June 29, 2015) "The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development announces today that it has signed a design-build contract, as part of the Geaux South program, for the construction of the U.S. 90 (future I-49 South) at La. 318 interchange project in St. Mary Parish. The design-build contractor is Gilchrist Construction Co., who has selected Stantec as its lead designer. The project will involve upgrading the existing U.S. 90 and La. 318 signalized intersection to a full control of access, grade-separated interchange including the reconstruction of the U.S. 90 frontage roads to provide local access to La. 318. As part of the plan, the project would improve connectivity for industrial and freight transport to the sugar mill and port-related industries, as well as increase capacity and improve overall mobility. The $56 million project will be primarily funded with unclaimed property funds. Work is estimated for completion in just over two years. The Geaux South program is a $3 billion program dedicated to upgrading U.S. 90 to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 29, 2015, 09:37:11 PM
Quote from: Gordon on June 29, 2015, 09:29:33 PM
June 29, 2015) "The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development announces today that it has signed a design-build contract, as part of the Geaux South program, for the construction of the U.S. 90 (future I-49 South) at La. 318 interchange project in St. Mary Parish. The design-build contractor is Gilchrist Construction Co., who has selected Stantec as its lead designer. The project will involve upgrading the existing U.S. 90 and La. 318 signalized intersection to a full control of access, grade-separated interchange including the reconstruction of the U.S. 90 frontage roads to provide local access to La. 318. As part of the plan, the project would improve connectivity for industrial and freight transport to the sugar mill and port-related industries, as well as increase capacity and improve overall mobility. The $56 million project will be primarily funded with unclaimed property funds. Work is estimated for completion in just over two years. The Geaux South program is a $3 billion program dedicated to upgrading U.S. 90 to interstate standards.

One step closer to I-49 in Louisana!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 30, 2015, 07:48:53 PM
Will Interstate 49 South be completed within our lifetimes? It seems like it will be a long time before one can travel nonstop between Lafayette and New Orleans on an Interstate other than Interstate 10.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DeaconG on July 01, 2015, 11:47:46 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 30, 2015, 07:48:53 PM
Will Interstate 49 South be completed within our lifetimes? It seems like it will be a long time before one can travel nonstop between Lafayette and New Orleans on an Interstate other than Interstate 10.

You'll see it before I-49 completed in Arkansas!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on July 01, 2015, 04:05:16 PM
Just a quick update on the I-49/I-220 interchange project:  I saw this morning that the west bound lanes have now been moved over onto the east bound side.  All of the concrete west bound lanes have been removed down to the dirt. So far the project seems to be moving along slowly due to the extremely wet year we have had so far.

And despite the sign replacement project taking place on all of I-220, the 2 overhead signs mounted on the overpasses over US 71/LA1 with the state outline shields for LA 1 are still hanging in there!!!   :clap: :clap: But I don't know for how much longer though. The other overpass overhead sign at the other exits are all new (and all of the new signs are clearview).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: pctech on July 02, 2015, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on July 01, 2015, 11:47:46 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 30, 2015, 07:48:53 PM
Will Interstate 49 South be completed within our lifetimes? It seems like it will be a long time before one can travel nonstop between Lafayette and New Orleans on an Interstate other than Interstate 10.

You'll see it before I-49 completed in Arkansas!
A better question, will we live long enough to see the I-10/110 interchange disaster and the I-10 river bridge in Baton Rouge rebuilt?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on July 02, 2015, 07:36:10 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 28, 2015, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 27, 2015, 09:03:14 PM
I didn't invent the term, I just saw it on LADOTD's website. I plead innocence in this one.

I get LaDOTD's e-mails about projects around the state. I saw that designation in one of them recently and wondered how it got that designation also.

I just read another e-mail from DOTD talking about a lane closure on LA 1X from North Hancock to LA 494 in Natchitoches Parish. Another weird DOTD designation.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 03, 2015, 02:03:41 PM
The X must be an internal designation for business routes. Sounds like the US 90Z thing from earlier.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on July 03, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Business route was my first thought also, but I wasn't sure.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Darkchylde on July 08, 2015, 09:20:57 PM
It'd make sense, there is a US 190X and 190Y in the eastern part of the state that corresponds to business routes there.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on July 15, 2015, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: US71 on March 08, 2015, 09:05:44 PM
Quote from: apjung on March 06, 2015, 09:42:16 PM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of a completed I-49 on the Arkansas/Louisiana border. I do see that a section between Hosston and LA 168 has asphalt shoulders and a lot of concrete patchwork.
http://goo.gl/maps/p63Rz
There is a lot of patchwork ("doweling") on the whole road between Shreveport and the AR-LA State Line.  Grzrd and I noticed that when we did our pre-drive, though the asphalt repave didn't exist at that time.

This TV video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/29534951/patch-problems-already-for-i-49-north) reports on the asphalt patch and LaDOTD's contention that it is not a result of contractor negligence:

Quote
The drive from Shreveport to Texarkana got a whole lot easier and quicker when I-49 North opened up.
The ribbon cutting was only about 9 months ago, but, something unexpected has developed.  Right between mile marker 226 and 227 near the town of Belcher is a big patch of black asphalt where repairs have been made recently. Kind of surprising, especially when you consider the road is less than a year old.  It's been built up and repaired with asphalt because the road is sinking and cracking.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development says
"This is an unusual situation for which DOTD is proactively working to find a solution." ....
This spot has already been worked on twice by DOTD, so who do you think pays for that work?  YOU DO!  In the form of your tax dollars.
That's because DOTD says this is not a case of contractor negligence. "The failure is not in the product; it is in the earth below the product."
There are some plans in the works in terms of long term solutions, but first they have to figure out exactly what the problem is, until then it will be patchwork.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on July 15, 2015, 11:29:52 AM
That TV reporter used to work at WAAY-TV here in Huntsville....

If the soil conditions were the culprit, then I would think that should have been captured in the design. If it was due to very bad clay soil, then that should have been captured and dealt with in the design. Maybe they didn't do a boring in that location? I'm not sure how closely spaced soil borings are on large road projects since I deal with soil borings for buildings in my line of work.

If it was a spring that sprung up, causing a sinkhole or subsidence, then that would be harder to detect using traditional soil borings.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on July 15, 2015, 07:05:18 PM
I drove the whole stretch from Shreveport to Texarkana a couple of weeks ago. The ENTIRE road in Louisiana, both directions, is lumpy. The concrete work US71 mentioned above looks to me like the dowel bars inside the concrete may have been breaking the original concrete apart, then they went and patched it up with new concrete (my opinion only...  I have no facts to base my opinion on). Most of the land I-49 sits on was growing cotton just a few years ago. It just seems to me that the contractors didn't mix the soil with enough lime (or cement)...or may not have been packed enough with a sheepfoot roller and a smooth roller to the correct proctor percentage.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on July 15, 2015, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 15, 2015, 07:05:18 PM
I drove the whole stretch from Shreveport to Texarkana a couple of weeks ago. The ENTIRE road in Louisiana, both directions, is lumpy. The concrete work US71 mentioned above looks to me like the dowel bars inside the concrete may have been breaking the original concrete apart, then they went and patched it up with new concrete (my opinion only...  I have no facts to base my opinion on). Most of the land I-49 sits on was growing cotton just a few years ago. It just seems to me that the contractors didn't mix the soil with enough lime (or cement)...or may not have been packed enough with a sheepfoot roller and a smooth roller to the correct proctor percentage.

It may have been a bad design all together. Generally, you don't want to use a rigid pavement under soil that is notorious for slow, differential settlement.  Treating the subgrade with lime would help, though. If there was a lot of leftover organic material that went down several feet, then I bet it was too expensive to try and dig it all up to get to more suitable material. From what the video shows and what you describe, it sounds like unanticipated settlement that is causing the concrete pavement to crack since it can't flex with the sinking soil under it.

It would be neat to see the plans for the project to see how the soil was prepared.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on July 15, 2015, 10:08:07 PM
When I worked road construction (Pine Bluff, AR), these were the steps in building a road (simplified and based on then-AR standards blue book):

1. Build up the roadbed to desired height 1' at a time. Roll each layer until it compacts to a 95% proctor reading to be determined by a Troxler density gauge. No other layers can be added until the 95% reading is achieved. Location of density check to be determined by an AHTD inspector. Also, a random side-by-side check will be performed with the contractor and inspector.

2. After the desired height is achieved and density tests pass, the top (number of inches escape me) will be mixed with either lime or cement (predetermined and approved in the beginning of the planning) using a mixer and water, then packed with a roller. IIRC, a 95% proctor rating is needed to pass.

3.  In AR, they would then add a layer of SB2 rock on top of the treated dirt subgrade.  It would be mixed with water and compacted with a roller. A 98% proctor rating is required for the tests to pass.

4.  Put down an oil known as prime on top of the rock layer.

5.  Pave the road with 18" of concrete.

It has been almost 20 years since I did that work. Can't believe I still remembered that much.   :pan:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on July 16, 2015, 07:26:43 AM
Did they have a standard procedure for bridging over difficult soils, such as fat clays or organic material?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on July 16, 2015, 09:17:51 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 16, 2015, 07:26:43 AM
Did they have a standard procedure for bridging over difficult soils, such as fat clays or organic material?

If they did I never came across it. I read the spec book mostly where it pertained to the tests that dealt with.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 01, 2015, 11:30:16 AM
This July 31 article (https://www.businessreport.com/politics/top-100-news-i49the-lost-highway) provides a status report on I-49 South:

Quote
The signs are still there, strung along U.S. 90 in Lafayette, hinting at an impending interstate that will someday connect the Hub City to the Crescent City. "Future I-49 Corridor,"  they read.
These signs are nothing new. I-49 South has been in the works since 1987. So after all these years, what is the status of the proposed interstate corridor? Has the initiative died off or is it still moving forward?
The Department of Transportation and Development says the project is, in fact, alive and well. Over the years, I-49 South has gradually progressed piece by piece. Today the future corridor is more than 50% complete, and several groups, businesses and legislators have gotten behind the push to finish the project ....
David Mann, chairman of the I-49 South Coalition, a group of business owners who advocate for the funding and completion of the corridor ....
Mann and other proponents say the future corridor will significantly benefit not only Acadiana, but the entire state, by enhancing economic development, increasing safety, reducing travel times and providing an alternate hurricane evacuation route.
"Safety is number one,"
says Doug Place, executive vice president of Dupre Logistics, a trucking services company based in Lafayette with locations around the country.
Place says the company's truck drivers often travel from I-10 in Lafayette to New Iberia, where a number of accidents occur. Having an interstate to travel on, instead of U.S. 90 with traffic and stoplights, would greatly reduce risks and provide a safer, more efficient commute.
Another justification for I-49 South is that it gives commuters driving from Lafayette to New Orleans another route to take instead of I-10, which is infamous for its traffic delays on the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge and when entering Baton Rouge. Place also stressed the importance of I-49 as an alternate hurricane evacuation route ....
The entirety of I-49 South will cost an estimated $3 billion, says Deidra Druilhet, a spokeswoman at the DOTD. But that price is just half of what the project was originally expected to cost.
"Funding plays a significant role. That's the ultimate thing,"  Druilhet says. "We are strategically placing the funds we do have in the right areas for the project. But of course, it's a $3-billion project. We're also looking for alternative sources."
Several separate sections make up I-49 South. Most have been completed and some are currently being worked on, such as the U.S. 90 Interchange at Ambassador Caffery in Broussard, where the road will be widened to six lanes.
DOTD will also soon award a design-build contract for the U.S. 90 Interchange at LA 318 in St. Mary Parish, expected to begin in late 2015 or early 2016. A number of smaller projects, like creating frontage and service roads, have also been completed over the years.
One of the major sections left is the $750-million Lafayette Connector, which will run from I-10 to Pinhook Road, just past the Lafayette Regional Airport. Druilhet said design work for the connector is set to begin this summer. The other major project is the route from Raceland to the West Bank Expressway, which is in the initial planning stage.
Although a final completion date for I-49 South has not been set, DOTD is fully committed to seeing the project through.

Here is a snip of a graphic accompanying the article:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPRjmXj9.jpg&hash=c57084d0aaf9091fa6bb710966bc7d362b842c5a)

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 01, 2015, 04:29:47 PM
Ugh...that article mistakes the current work on the Albertsons Parkway/St. Nazaire Road interchange and BNSF/UP overpass  in Broussard for the Ambassador Caffery South interchange. The former is now under construction; the latter is still in the design stage, and hasn't even been funded for construction as of yet. In fact, the LA 92-1 (Young St. in Youngsville) proposed interchange/widening is further along in design and construction than Ambassador Caffery South is; with design work scheduled to begin by the end of this year.

Also...the design-build contract for the LA 318 interchange has already been awarded.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 07, 2015, 04:24:27 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 01, 2015, 04:29:47 PM
the design-build contract for the LA 318 interchange has already been awarded.

This article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/acadiana/2015/08/06/kennedy-bond-rating-helps-louisiana-push-forward-funding/31231849/) reports that the LA 318 interchange now has a definite funding source, primarily because Moody's Investors Services has given Louisiana a favorable Aa3 rating on $73.7 million in unclaimed property revenue bonds:

Quote
Moody's Investors Services has given Louisiana a favorable Aa3 rating on $73.7 million in unclaimed property revenue bonds that will be used to continue work on completing Interstate 49 South, State Treasurer John Kennedy said in an issued statement Thursday.
Kennedy said he intends to sell some $70 million to $80 million in bonds, probably within the next few weeks ....
The upcoming bond sale will be used to match federal funds to finance U.S. 90 from Albertson Parkway in Broussard to just north of Ambassador Caffery and the U.S. 90/LA 318 interchange project in St. Mary Parish. The projects are part of a multi-year effort to convert 160 miles of the current U.S. 90 corridor from Lafayette to New Orleans into Interstate 49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 08, 2015, 11:16:39 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2015, 04:24:27 PM
This article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/acadiana/2015/08/06/kennedy-bond-rating-helps-louisiana-push-forward-funding/31231849/) reports that the LA 318 interchange now has a definite funding source, primarily because Moody's Investors Services has given Louisiana a favorable Aa3 rating on $73.7 million in unclaimed property revenue bonds

This TV video (http://klfy.com/2015/08/07/state-treasurer-john-kennedy-now-is-the-time-to-finish-i-49-south-project/) includes an interview with State Treasurer John Kennedy discussing the importance of I-49 South and the sale of the bonds:

Quote
... Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy says now is the time to finish I-49 South ....
"I-49 North and South are the single most important infrastructure projects in the state of Louisiana. Bar none."
says John Kennedy ....
Kennedy says the state will kick in $80 million to get things moving. "We are going to be issuing bonds, backed by our unclaimed property program. I think we'll probably issue about 80-million dollars. That money is going to be used exclusively for I-49 South."  ....
Sandie Grossie is a mother and wife ... "It's long over due in Lafayette. As you can see the congestion we have here is unreal in Lafayette.
The people who were suppose to design the highways really didn't do it the right way."  ....
Kennedy says the bonds wont be enough to complete the entire project. He's just hoping it will help address the elephant in the room. "We're not getting much help from the federal government. They have problems of their own so we have to do it ourselves. The way we decided to handle I-49 South was kind of like eating an elephant was just one bite at a time. We aren't trying to eat the whole thing at one time, but we are making progress."

One step at a time ...........
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on August 10, 2015, 02:24:48 PM
Something tells me that I-49 South will be completed within the next 25 years...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2015, 03:57:50 PM
If we're lucky.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 10, 2015, 09:22:49 PM
If the Feds can get their issues settled and pass a more permanent transportation bill, I can see at least the segments from Lafayette to Morgan City (including the I-49 Connector through Lafayette) at least under construction if not completed by around 2020-2025. The segment from Raceland to NOLA would probably take a bit longer...I'd say probably 2025 at the earliest.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Rothman on August 10, 2015, 10:25:43 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 10, 2015, 09:22:49 PM
If the Feds can get their issues settled and pass a more permanent transportation bill, I can see at least the segments from Lafayette to Morgan City (including the I-49 Connector through Lafayette) at least under construction if not completed by around 2020-2025. The segment from Raceland to NOLA would probably take a bit longer...I'd say probably 2025 at the earliest.

You seem to be assuming that there will be more money to be had if a new bill is passed.  At least the last time around with MAP-21, despite the restructuring of funds (e.g., funds already existing that were merely re-packaged and sold, like the variety that were crammed into the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)), in essence federal funding use remained fairly flat.

Don't believe the hype. ;D
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 11, 2015, 03:18:27 PM
IIRC, the federal gasoline tax hasn't risen since the early 1990's. Since then road building cost inflation has skyrocketed like mad. This is at the very core on why the road funding mechanism is broken. There's very little chance of the gasoline tax getting any sort of increase with the Presidential campaign cycle getting into full swing.

One thing that could help get more projects, like those along the I-49 South corridor, built: a serious downturn in building materials cost. There is some hope for that to happen. The oil market is in the toilet thanks to a giant glut in supply and low demand. Sanctions being lifted on Iran will flood the market with a whole lot more oil. BTW, those sanctions are going to get lifted by Europe and China regardless if the US goes along with it. It takes petroleum products to make steel, plastics and other building materials. China devalued the Yuan overnight, signaling their economy is hitting an even bigger downturn than previously estimated. The US Dollar will get stronger due to that.

How long will it take current market conditions, particularly commodity prices, to affect the costs of steel, concrete, etc? Just how fast could the federal government, state governments and construction companies take advantage of lower prices and get more miles of road built/repaired? Obviously shovel-ready projects would be in the best position to benefit. Others in the planning stages may miss out on a pricing downturn.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2015, 05:16:09 PM
Despite oil prices dropping and expectations that material prices will drop accordingly, I hear a big headscratcher in NY is wondering why bids on projects are actually coming in higher than expected so far this calendar year.

Pretty darned bizarre.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 12, 2015, 10:44:03 AM
I guess it's typical for government funded projects. The folks involved just keep cranking up prices as if they're entitled to huge pay raises by way of taxpayers. If there's any actual savings taking place the taxpayers sure aren't seeing any of it. The difference is pocketed away for profit.

The situation has me wondering how freight rail companies, like BNSF, are doing so well and actually building/improving a lot of rail infrastructure. Meanwhile something as simple as a "light rail" line, which doesn't look much more elaborate than a glorified cable car system, can easily cost billions of dollars.

A lot of what this nation built 50 or 100 years ago would be completely impossible today thanks to all the greed, corruption and mountains of red tape involved.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 13, 2015, 04:33:15 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2015, 10:25:43 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 10, 2015, 09:22:49 PM
If the Feds can get their issues settled and pass a more permanent transportation bill, I can see at least the segments from Lafayette to Morgan City (including the I-49 Connector through Lafayette) at least under construction if not completed by around 2020-2025. The segment from Raceland to NOLA would probably take a bit longer...I'd say probably 2025 at the earliest.

You seem to be assuming that there will be more money to be had if a new bill is passed.  At least the last time around with MAP-21, despite the restructuring of funds (e.g., funds already existing that were merely re-packaged and sold, like the variety that were crammed into the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)), in essence federal funding use remained fairly flat.

Don't believe the hype. ;D

Considering the newly found priority that LADOTD is now giving I-49 South, which was absent while I-49 North was being built, I'm thinking that the Feds will find some way to complete the funding. Also, there has been some movement to even give a bit on raising the gas tax to fund completion, although there is plenty of resistance due to the fact that the original TIMED projects still have to be paid out due to bonding overruns.

Between I-49 South, the I-49 Shreveport ICC, I-10 in Baton Rouge (or the Baton Rouge Loop/Westbank Corridor), I-10 in Lake Charles, and possibly removing the Claiborne Elevated in NOLA, there's plenty of need for increased highway spending which will motivate people.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 21, 2015, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2015, 04:24:27 PM
This article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/acadiana/2015/08/06/kennedy-bond-rating-helps-louisiana-push-forward-funding/31231849/) reports that the LA 318 interchange now has a definite funding source, primarily because Moody's Investors Services has given Louisiana a favorable Aa3 rating on $73.7 million in unclaimed property revenue bonds:
Quote
The upcoming bond sale will be used to match federal funds to finance U.S. 90 from Albertson Parkway in Broussard to just north of Ambassador Caffery and the U.S. 90/LA 318 interchange project in St. Mary Parish.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 08, 2015, 11:16:39 AM
This TV video (http://klfy.com/2015/08/07/state-treasurer-john-kennedy-now-is-the-time-to-finish-i-49-south-project/) includes an interview with State Treasurer John Kennedy discussing the importance of I-49 South and the sale of the bonds:
Quote
... Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy says now is the time to finish I-49 South ....
"I-49 North and South are the single most important infrastructure projects in the state of Louisiana. Bar none." says John Kennedy ....
Kennedy says the state will kick in $80 million to get things moving. "We are going to be issuing bonds, backed by our unclaimed property program. I think we'll probably issue about 80-million dollars.

This August 20 article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/louisiana/2015/08/20/louisiana-borrows-money-south-work-acadiana/32064811/) reports that $76 million in bonds were recently sold for the work on I-49 South:

Quote
Louisiana has borrowed $76 million to pay for work on Interstate 49 South projects in Broussard and Jeanerette.
State Treasurer John Kennedy announced Wednesday that the state sold bonds to investors this week, to generate the money. The debt will be paid off over 20 years with a 3.79 percent interest rate.

Slow, but steady .........
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 22, 2015, 08:44:34 PM
This August 21 article (http://www.heraldguide.com/details.php?id=15962) reports that a public meeting regarding a two-mile flyover ramp from eastbound US 90 to northbound I-310 will soon be scheduled:

Quote
Area residents will get to comment on a proposed I-310 flyover ramp aimed at easing traffic congestion on U.S. Highway 90 in St. Charles Parish.
The Regional Planning Commission (RPC), which begins the process to set the estimated $22.8 million project in motion with the state Department of Transportation and Development (LOTD) and Federal Highway Administration, will soon reschedule an open house to review project plans, said RPC Deputy Director Jeff Roesel.
The meeting was announced and then postponed to more thoroughly study the impact of I-49 corridor with the project, Roesel said.
Plans currently call for reconstructing the Highway 90 — I-310 Interchange or building a new two-mile flyover ramp. Councilman Paul Hogan, who said he initiated the ramp project in 2008 to ease congestion, called it "unfortunate that it's been years since I passed that first resolution."  Hogan added, "It'll be many years before we'll ever see it built."  ....
Current RPC plans offer three alternatives, although Roesel said they are being reviewed and could change as more project details are gathered.
The first alternative involves studying the feasibility of a ramp connecting eastbound traffic on U.S. 90 with northbound traffic on I-310, which would eliminate the existing left turn. Additional improvements would be planned at the intersections of U.S. 90 with Tiger Drive and Paul Maillard Road - Magnolia Ridge Road, as well as changes in median openings.
The second alternative is similar to the first option but with the addition of an access road connecting Tiger Drive with U.S. 90 at a point about 3,000 feet to the west of Tiger Drive on the south side of U.S. 90 in Masella. The access road would ease additional traffic on Tiger Drive created by closing the intersection of U.S. 90 and First Street.
The last alternative or "no-build alternative"  is basically improvements to the roadways on the west bank of St. Charles Parish without the ramp.

Here is a snip of an illustration of the proposed ramp accompanying the article;

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBTy53B8.jpg&hash=9dc1d04eeba72003c4da51c360237cea3ab1c310)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on August 22, 2015, 09:01:23 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 22, 2015, 08:44:34 PM
This August 21 article (http://www.heraldguide.com/details.php?id=15962) reports that a public meeting regarding a two-mile flyover ramp from eastbound US 90 to northbound I-310 will soon be scheduled: [snip]

Here is a snip of an illustration of the proposed ramp accompanying the article;

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBTy53B8.jpg&hash=9dc1d04eeba72003c4da51c360237cea3ab1c310)

Interesting. Consider that I-49 will not follow the current route of US 90 at this intersection but lie some ways to the south, to bypass multiple communities. I-310 won't end at this point but continue southward to I-49. Meanwhile, this stretch of US 90 won't be serving through traffic any more, just local traffic. Will this flyover ramp still be needed then?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 22, 2015, 11:37:19 PM
Quote from: jbnv on August 22, 2015, 09:01:23 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 22, 2015, 08:44:34 PM
This August 21 article (http://www.heraldguide.com/details.php?id=15962) reports that a public meeting regarding a two-mile flyover ramp from eastbound US 90 to northbound I-310 will soon be scheduled: [snip]

Here is a snip of an illustration of the proposed ramp accompanying the article;

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBTy53B8.jpg&hash=9dc1d04eeba72003c4da51c360237cea3ab1c310)

Interesting. Consider that I-49 will not follow the current route of US 90 at this intersection but lie some ways to the south, to bypass multiple communities. I-310 won't end at this point but continue southward to I-49. Meanwhile, this stretch of US 90 won't be serving through traffic any more, just local traffic. Will this flyover ramp still be needed then?

I would think that traffic from Hahnville High School and Mosella and Paradis would still need that offramp in order to access I-310 North and vice versa; so even if I-49 South was fully built, the directional flyover would still be necessary.

For the sake of posterity, here's the proposed ultimate buildout for that segment, including both I-49 South and the extended I-310 interchange/connection with US 90 (also from the I-49 South Implementation Study of 2014).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F35begdg.jpg&hash=2439aec7e09876de050f290203879929503ba33a)


It's actually a major improvement over the original proposal that was approved in the 2008 Record of Decision, which would have created a new connection between I-49 South and I-310 independent of the current terminus at US 90.


I am wondering, though, whether a SPUI between I-310/LA 3137 and US 90 would be more cost-efficient here, eliminating the need for that flyover. At least, you could build 1/2 of the SPUI now as a temporary connection to existing US 90, and then the other half when the remaining I-49 South/extended I-310 interchange is built.


UPDATE (8-29-15): OK, I see now why a SPUI probably wouldn't work here: it would create an excessive grade issue for the on-ramp to northbound I-310 from eastbound US 90 due to the proximity of the BNSF Railway overpass. The flyover is much more efficient because it evens the grade much better, and provides a smoother connection.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 29, 2015, 07:10:44 AM
It should also be noted here that the alignment for proposed I-49 South between Des Allemands and Boutte has undergone some major changes since the ROD was approved in 2008, due to the initiative to reduce the costs of construction. To break down the changes, which were announced in January 2014 based on the Implementation Study completed then:


1) The ROD alignment would have bypassed Des Allemands well to the south, crossing Dufrene Ponds and Bayou Des Allemands on an elevated viaduct which would have bisected the swampland south of Des Allemands and Paradis. The revised alignment now uses the existing US 90 corridor through Des Allemands and the current US 90 Bayou Des Allemands bridge, only upgrading the bridge to modern Interstate standards with wider right shoulders, then utilizing a short bypass south of East Des Allemands. An interchange with a realigned LA 632 is provided for local access.


2) The ROD alignment would have passed well south of Paradis, only approaching US 90 at its closest point near the LA 635 intersection; an interchange with an extension of LA 635 would have provided access to both Paradis and East Des Allemands. Now, the alignment not only is closer to US 90, but actually takes over the US 90 corridor for a brief distance between Des Allemands and Bayou Gauche Road. Access would be completely severed for local traffic by dead-ending the existing US 90 at both ends of the concurrence and cutting off the existing LA 635 intersection. The proposed alignment would then divert from the US 90 corridor to the south again to bypass Paradis and cross the protection levee; an interchange with Bayou Gauche Road is planned for direct access to Paradis.


Naturally, this change has pissed off locals the most; and they are petitioning FHWA/LADOTD to at least allow a frontage road on that segment to maintain local access and the continuity of US 90. Personally, I'd prefer they simply just leave US 90 alone and build a standalone ROW immediately paralleling US 90, thusly seperating local from Interstate traffic.


3) The 2008 ROD alignment would then have crossed over to the north side of US 90 just before Mosella/Hahnville High School in order to create a more direct interchange with I-310, using new connection ramps. The existing I-310 connection would have been downgraded to a mere extension of LA 3127, and would have lost its control of access between the direct connection with existing I-310/LA 3127 and US 90. A local interchange with the old connection would have been integrated into the full system interchange between 310 and 49 for local access to Mosella and Boutte.


The new alignment radically differs in that it keeps I-49 South on the south side of US 90 until Boutte, and instead simply extends I-310/LA 3127 south of the existing terminus to a system interchange, while also retaining the proposed flyover from eastbound US 90 to northbound I-310/LA 3127. A full interchange is also included with US 90 for access to Boutte and Mosella, with typical diamond interchange ramps completing the movements. I-49 would then recurve to the northeast to pass over US 90 at the intersection with Paul Malliard Road/Magnolia Ridge Road to run parallel to the BNSF rail
line for the pass through of Boutte. The BNSF rail line is also scheduled now to be realigned slightly northward through Boutte in order to allow the I-49 ROW to remain to its south, avoiding two unnecessary rail crossings.


A Supplemental EIS is in the works to analyze the changes in alignment and design for this portion of proposed I-49 South; another SEIS will be done for the Ricohoc (formerly Wax Lake Outlet) to Berwick segment going through Patterson/Bayou Vista/Berwick due to similar modifications in design. There are some major issues on that segment, too....but that's another thread.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 10, 2015, 04:24:31 AM
Here's an article from the Lafayette Daily Advertiser (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2015/09/09/city-planners-eye-south-impact-downtown-historic-neighborhoods/71935836/) on the selection of a consultant team for the I-49 Connector Corridor Plan, which would involve mitigation of impacts to the neighborhoods affected by the proposed I-49 Connector freeway through Lafayette.


This is the plan development that is being funded by the TIGER Grant that was won last Feburary, and will run parallel and simultaneously with LADOTD's design work for the actual freeway ROW.


Some snippage from that article:


QuoteIt has been exactly one year since parish officials returned from Washington, D.C., and U.S. lawmakers announced a $304,250 federal grant to begin the planning stages of the proposed 5.5-mile connector. The elevated interstate would begin near the intersection of Interstate 10 and I-49, skirt downtown Lafayette and end south of Lafayette Regional Airport.

Last week, LGC conducted interviews for five city planning consultants, a list that will be trimmed to three before being presented to Lafayette City-Parish President Joey Durel.

"We will tabulate the score and then send those to the Professional Services Review committee, which is our normal process for service contracts,"  LCG Public Works Direct Kevin Blanchard said. "The meeting for that will be in mid-September."

Consultants interviewed were Philadelphia-based firm Wallace Roberts & Todd; Pond & Co. of Metairie; Lafayette-based Design Workshop; Gateway Planning of Fort Worth, Texas; and local firm Architects Southwest.

The $304,250 federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant, or TIGER grant and roughly $400,000 of local dollars are going toward the planning process of the I-49 South connector.

Lafayette Consolidated Government is expected to approve the winning bidder by mid-September.




Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: KamKam on September 13, 2015, 06:40:18 PM
Looks like a lot of work for Interstate 49 going through the City of Lafayette
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 22, 2015, 07:34:57 AM
And, that work is about to get seriously cranked up very soon. LADOTD just dropped this press release (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=8667) announcing the official beginning of the design and planning stages for the I-49 Connector through Lafayette. Quoting from their press release:


Quote

(LAFAYETTE, La.) — The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), along with federal, state, regional and local partners, recently began the next phase of the I-49 Lafayette Connector project. Over the next 18 months, the public and various government, business and community stakeholders will be invited to participate in a collaborative decision-making process to complete the planning and conceptual design for the Selected Alternative for construction of the I-49 Lafayette Connector on the alignment selected and approved in the 2003 FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) along the Evangeline [Thruway] between I-10 and Lafayette Regional Airport.

To kick off the project, DOTD will host a Public Launch Event at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 6, at the Rosa Parks Transportation Center. Following remarks by DOTD Secretary Sherri H. LeBas, Lafayette City-Parish President Joey Durel and others, an overview of the scope of activities planned for the next 18 months will be presented. Immediately following will be a Public Information Meeting (also at Rosa Parks) from 4-7 p.m. The public is encouraged to attend this open-house format to learn more about the project and provide comments. (The public comment period continues until Oct. 16.)


The I-49 Lafayette Connector, part of DOTD's Geaux South program, is a future 5.5-mile segment of highway that is a critical transportation link for Lafayette and the state as a whole. Recognizing the significance of this project, DOTD has initiated a planning and conceptual design study to complete the Functional Plan for the Connector utilizing a Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) approach.


The CSS approach is designed to fulfill 21 commitments established by the I-49 Lafayette Connector ROD. This will include addressing key project-related features where mitigation and other measures to minimize impact need to be considered. The goal is to achieve a project design that's affordable, acceptable to all key stakeholders and will become a valued community asset. The project team is working closely with local government and city officials to ensure that the project is successful and meets the needs of the community.


Comprehensive communications, public relations, community involvement and stakeholder outreach programs are being developed for the I-49 Lafayette Connector so that all members of the Lafayette Community (residents, businesses, property owners, civic and service organizations) have a variety of opportunities to participate in the CSS process. This will include working community and technical committees, focus groups, stakeholder interviews, design charrettes, neighborhood walkabouts, educational forums and other public meetings and workshops, as well as a website, e-newsletters, a project office and social media.


Along with the CSS and public outreach program, this phase of the project will also include engineering work such as topographic surveys and aerial photography, soil borings, traffic studies and bridge design studies. An environmental re-evaluation will address any relevant laws or regulations, new information or changes in circumstances that might affect the project.


"Completing I-49 South is a top priority for DOTD,"  said Secretary LeBas. "We're committed to completing the Functional Plan for the I-49 Lafayette Connector, as we work to improve our infrastructure and support economic development throughout the state."


DOTD's Geaux South program is a $3 billion, multi-year construction initiative to convert approximately 160 miles of the current U.S. 90 corridor to Interstate 49 South. When completed, I-49 will extend from the current terminus at I-10 in Lafayette to the West Bank Expressway in New Orleans. Geaux South will support economic growth, improve access, reduce traffic congestion, and improve connectivity throughout the state's transportation system.






I am assuming that the Lafayette Consolidated Government's I-49 Corridor Plan, which involves the adjacent neighborhoods affected by this project, will be coordinated with LADOTD's design process.


Also....the business group One Acadiana, formerly the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, has opened up their own I-49 South website (http://www.oneacadiana.org/#!i49southmain/c12id), which aims to sell important people on the need to finish the entire project ASAP. This excellent graphic shows how the project has progressed, and what needs to be done to finish it...and how much it would cost.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi61.tinypic.com%2F2yulnw0.jpg&hash=56255c65e325b7c8c2b493d468666ca4ab24a04f)


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on September 25, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of most of the I-49 construction in Shreveport at I-220 and LA 3194. The aerials appear to be around the time when the Red River was at flood stage a couple of months ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/gLy3s6AW6z42
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 26, 2015, 06:37:41 PM
Quote from: apjung on September 25, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of most of the I-49 construction in Shreveport at I-220 and LA 3194. The aerials appear to be around the time when the Red River was at flood stage a couple of months ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/gLy3s6AW6z42

I don't see a connection from westbound I-220 to northbound I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: txstateends on September 27, 2015, 11:20:54 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on September 26, 2015, 06:37:41 PM
Quote from: apjung on September 25, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of most of the I-49 construction in Shreveport at I-220 and LA 3194. The aerials appear to be around the time when the Red River was at flood stage a couple of months ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/gLy3s6AW6z42

I don't see a connection from westbound I-220 to northbound I-49.

It is still under construction, but the worksite corridor does show on the aerial just west of US 71 on I-220.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on September 27, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on September 26, 2015, 06:37:41 PM
I don't see a connection from westbound I-220 to northbound I-49.
Maybe it'll be just north of Phelps Rd, in order to get around the pond?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 27, 2015, 01:02:34 PM
Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on September 26, 2015, 06:37:41 PM
I don't see a connection from westbound I-220 to northbound I-49.
Maybe it'll be just north of Phelps Rd, in order to get around the pond?

Unless the plans have dramatically changed, that should be the case:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsnZ6H6X.jpg&hash=d26bfeedec0797126b534732852085143b9724d0)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on September 28, 2015, 02:11:58 AM
The image shows it going south of Phelps, north of Hersey Wilson. And cutting across the pond I see in Google...
Why go to all that trouble, having to mess around with landfill, when they coulda just..... eh!  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on September 28, 2015, 12:58:42 PM
Pretty much what I expected anyway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: I-39 on September 28, 2015, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2015, 01:02:34 PM
Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on September 26, 2015, 06:37:41 PM
I don't see a connection from westbound I-220 to northbound I-49.
Maybe it'll be just north of Phelps Rd, in order to get around the pond?

Unless the plans have dramatically changed, that should be the case:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsnZ6H6X.jpg&hash=d26bfeedec0797126b534732852085143b9724d0)

I-49 connector status?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 29, 2015, 12:15:21 AM
Quote from: I-39 on September 28, 2015, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2015, 01:02:34 PM
Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on September 26, 2015, 06:37:41 PM
I don't see a connection from westbound I-220 to northbound I-49.
Maybe it'll be just north of Phelps Rd, in order to get around the pond?

Unless the plans have dramatically changed, that should be the case:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsnZ6H6X.jpg&hash=d26bfeedec0797126b534732852085143b9724d0)

I-49 connector status?

I-49 Shreveport Inner City Connector is still under environmental study/review, with an Draft EIS due by probably next summer. Still some people hoping for the "Loop It" bypass option of LA 3132/I-220, but LADOTD and FHWA have already rejected it as unfeasible and too expensive.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on October 05, 2015, 09:24:10 PM
Quote from: apjung on September 25, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of most of the I-49 construction in Shreveport at I-220 and LA 3194. The aerials appear to be around the time when the Red River was at flood stage a couple of months ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/gLy3s6AW6z42

This September 26 video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/30189944/aerial-view-of-i-49-construction-at-i-220) provides an aerial view of the I-49 construction at I-220.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on October 05, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 05, 2015, 09:24:10 PM
Quote from: apjung on September 25, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Google Maps now has updated aerials of most of the I-49 construction in Shreveport at I-220 and LA 3194. The aerials appear to be around the time when the Red River was at flood stage a couple of months ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/gLy3s6AW6z42

This September 26 video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/30189944/aerial-view-of-i-49-construction-at-i-220) provides an aerial view of the I-49 construction at I-220.

Somebody typoed the caption underneath the video screen calling it I-40 construction instead of I-49.   :banghead: :pan:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on October 05, 2015, 11:06:26 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on October 05, 2015, 10:48:02 PM

Somebody typoed the caption underneath the video screen calling it I-40 construction instead of I-49.   :banghead: :pan:

You simply can't get good help these days ;)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 07, 2015, 01:06:10 AM
Well....LADOTD had their kickoff meeting and presser today in Lafayette for the launch of the I-49 Lafayette Connector Freeway Conceptual Design and Connectivity Study. The 18-month long process will be used to develop ideas and a working manual that will be used in the later Final Design stage leading up to ultimately construction of the Connector freeway within Lafayette.


This article from the Lafayette Daily Advertiser (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2015/10/06/overpass-through-downtown-call--49-south-connector/73448276/) pretty much describes the main issues and hopes for the project.


They have also opened up a detailed website to chronicle the entire process: http://www.lafayetteconnector.com (http://www.lafayetteconnector.com).


There is still some bit of grumbling, of course, from long time opponents of the project who still would prefer I-49 South to bypass Lafayette to the east via the old Teche Ridge alignment near St. Martin Parish, as well as from the usual anti-freeway types such as the local branch of the Sierra Club, and the John Norquist types who argue that elevated freeways are by nature destructive and racist. I'm sure that they will try at some point to kill the process, but given that they lost the first time around, it would be an uphill battle even more today.


Obviously, more developments as the process continues.

ADDENDUM: A similar article (http://theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/13631800-123/officials-promise-the-proposed-elevated) about hopes and concerns about the Lafayette Connector project was just posted for the Acadiana Advocate.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on October 15, 2015, 09:06:50 PM
Some guy named Connor McManus, who claims that he is 24 years old and he grew up in Lafayette, wrote an "open letter to Lafayette residents, the DOTD and the I-49 Lafayette Connector" (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205395135617053&set=a.1392414649603.2052845.1209240100&type=3&theater) rehashing the same old arguments against the Connector.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: noelbotevera on October 15, 2015, 09:08:42 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 05, 2015, 11:06:26 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on October 05, 2015, 10:48:02 PM

Somebody typoed the caption underneath the video screen calling it I-40 construction instead of I-49.   :banghead: :pan:

You simply can't get good help these days ;)
"Have you ever tried turning it off and on again?"
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 16, 2015, 01:44:14 AM
Quote from: jbnv on October 15, 2015, 09:06:50 PM
Some guy named Connor McManus, who claims that he is 24 years old and he grew up in Lafayette, wrote an "open letter to Lafayette residents, the DOTD and the I-49 Lafayette Connector" (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205395135617053&set=a.1392414649603.2052845.1209240100&type=3&theater) rehashing the same old arguments against the Connector.

To which, I just posted an Open Letter in response:

https://www.facebook.com/anthonyjkenn6319/posts/10153756016188783 (https://www.facebook.com/anthonyjkenn6319/posts/10153756016188783)

Quote
My Open Letter In Defense Of The I-49 Lafayette Connector In Response To Connor McManus

To the citizens of Lafayette, the Federal Highway Administration, the Louisiana DOTD, and Lafayette Consolidated Government:

Today, I was able to read a Facebook entry by Mr. Connor McManus (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205395135617053&set=a.1392414649603.2052845.1209240100&type=3&theater) in which he, citing evidence about the supposedly destructive impact of elevated freeways on communities, gave his opposition to the Interstate 49 Lafayette Connector freeway project. The project is the final link in the overall I-49 South project that would extend the current I-49 from its terminus at the I-10/I-49 interchange further south through the Evangeline Thruway corridor, and then along the length of US Highway 90 to the Westbank Expressway in metropolitan New Orleans.

While I acknowledge his passion and respect his right to oppose the project, I must just as respectfully disagree with his analysis against the Connector freeway.

Mr. McManus cites the history of elevated highways going through downtown neighborhoods -- in particular, the history of the Claiborne Elevated section of I-10 through the Treme neighborhood in New Orleans -- as the prototype for the damage he claims the I-49 Connector project will do to neighborhoods in Lafayette. (There is an plan emerging to remove the Claiborne Elevated section of I-10 and replace it with a surface-level boulevard, and reroute I-10 away from downtown using the current I-610 "bypass".)

What Mr. McManus ignores, however, is that unlike the original construction of I-10 through Treme, where there was no input or even concern about the impacts of building the highway through the neighborhood; the proposed Connector freeway project includes one of the most detailed and prolific mitigation studies on reducing the impacts of the project. When I-10 was built in NOLA, there was no concept of Context Sensitive Design, and no concern about asthetics or integrating greenspace or hardscaping or joint useage within the right-of-way of that project.

By contrast, the Connector project will not only have those aspects built into their upcoming engineering and design study, but will also include detailed analysis of the surrounding neighborhoods in order to provide means of reconnecting and enhancing accessibility along the proposed ROW. There will be nearly a year and a half of evaluation and review of design techniques and features even before the final design for the project is developed. There will also be more than enough venues for direct public input from all the neighborhoods and the Downtown Lafayette area that will be directly and indirectly affected by this project.

Obviously, those who feel most affected by this project have the right to object to it, but there are those like me who feel that for all its impacts, it is still the best choice for Lafayette.

The popular alternative of a loop around Lafayette (or an eastern bypass such as the Teche Ridge Alternative promoted so often by Connector opponents) may seem like a cheaper and more cost effective alternative to the Evangeline Thruway corridor.....but, a closer and more detailed analysis proves otherwise. Given the current progressive rate of the US 90 freeway upgrade to I-49 South that is ongoing (as in the construction of the Albertsons' Parkway interchange and frontage road bridges over the BNSF railroad in Billeaud/Broussard), as well as the future commitments of upgrades forthcoming, it is obvious that a bypass would not attract enough traffic from the existing US 90/Evangeline Thruway (EVT) corridor to justify its construction. The overwhelming majority of traffic on the Thruway is traffic destined for orgins within Lafayette; such as ULL, downtown, Lafayette Regional Airport, and the surrounding neighborhoods. The idea that a bypass adding nearly 20 miles of travel to the 15% of through traffic currently on the EVT corridor will remove the noise and traffic impacts of the existing Thruway is simply deep denial. In addition, a bypass will simply add additional costs and impacts to rural farmland and wetlands, and even promote the very byproducts of urban sprawl that many opponents of inner city freeways say they are opposed to.

To put it bluntly, the most direct path between Carencro and Broussard is not through Breaux Bridge and St. Martinville...especially when existing I-49 and the Evangeline Thruway still exist. Even if Teche Ridge or the Lafayette Regional Xpressway western loop is built, most heavy traffic will continue to use the Evangeline Thruway to reach their destinations. Why not simply improve the most direct route, especially if also given one shot to get it right and mitigate the most hazardous impacts while you can?

Furthermore, the degree of "divisiveness" alleged by Connector opponents is vastly overrated. The Connector freeway will not actually touch downtown due to the already divisive ROW of the BNSF/UP railroad line. It will certainly impact neighborhoods like Ballard Subdivision and to a lesser extent Sterling Grove (though impacts there will be mitigated through detailed commitments spelled out in the Memorandum of Agreement signed during the environmental process and Record of Decision). However, the alternative approved in the ROD and which will be further developed in the upcoming design actually improves accessibility between neighborhoods by retaining access underneath the freeway for all of the major and even a few minor arterials. In addition, some current at-grade crossings of the BNSF/UP railroad will be converted to grade-separated underpasses, further enhancing and improving access to downtown. The study period will allow for even further analysis of means to improve connectivity between both sides of the freeway project.

Finally....in stating my defense of the I-49 Connector project, I am not denying in any way that there are genuine impacts of elevated freeways across neighborhoods. I certainly do cede Mr. McManus' points about how the Treme neighborhood was indeed devastated by the Claiborne Elevated portion of I-10. However, I don't agree that construction of the highway was the sole source of Treme's development issues (lack of overall financial resources and emphasis on local job creation played as much a role); nor do I agree that merely demolishing a vital corridor that serves downtown New Orleans is the optimal solution. That issue needs to be evaluated by the people of New Orleans who would be most affected by that objective; not only the people of Treme but also those who use the Claiborne Elevated as their prime corridor. Correspondingly, it should be the people of Lafayette -- not just some outsiders or "new urbanist" experts -- who should be involved in making the final decision on how the I-49 Lafayette Connector is ultimately constructed and what final impacts it will have on the city.

The Functional Plan and Corridor Connectivity Study is the best means of debating and discussing and mitigating those impacts. Since the Federal Government, the LADOTD, and Lafayette Consolidated Government is fully committed to ultimate construction of this project along the current corridor, I feel that the best means for those truly concerned about its impact is to fully engage with the process, provide their input, and help make this project the best it can be. Mere obstructionism and carping about "mistakes" will do nothing to enhance Lafayette like building the Connector freeway the right way will.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on October 16, 2015, 08:25:47 AM
Good job.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on October 17, 2015, 01:46:25 AM
BOOM.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 14, 2015, 01:26:02 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 16, 2015, 01:44:14 AM
Quote from: jbnv on October 15, 2015, 09:06:50 PM
Some guy named Connor McManus, who claims that he is 24 years old and he grew up in Lafayette, wrote an "open letter to Lafayette residents, the DOTD and the I-49 Lafayette Connector" (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205395135617053&set=a.1392414649603.2052845.1209240100&type=3&theater) rehashing the same old arguments against the Connector.
To which, I just posted an Open Letter in response:
https://www.facebook.com/anthonyjkenn6319/posts/10153756016188783 (https://www.facebook.com/anthonyjkenn6319/posts/10153756016188783)
Quote
My Open Letter In Defense Of The I-49 Lafayette Connector In Response To Connor McManus
.... Furthermore, the degree of "divisiveness" alleged by Connector opponents is vastly overrated. The Connector freeway will not actually touch downtown due to the already divisive ROW of the BNSF/UP railroad line ....
Quote from: yakra on October 17, 2015, 01:46:25 AM
BOOM.

Anthony, you may need to mark December 3 on your calendar because this article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2015/11/13/grassroots-effort-growing-reconsider--49-through-lafayette/75707388/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=) reports that the Sierra Club will hold a meeting on that date "to discuss the issues, costs and consequences of building the elevated highway through the historic urban core of Lafayette":

Quote
.... a grassroots effort is organizing to rethink how or even if the 5.5-mile stretch of elevated Interstate 49, called the I-49 South Connector, should cut through Lafayette.
Two Facebook pages have been created – Build a Better 49 and Sierra Club's Y-49 – to rally supporters around the call for a change. The Sierra Club is hosting a Y-49 Community Meeting at 6 p.m. Dec. 3 at the main public library in downtown Lafayette to discuss the issues, costs and consequences of building the elevated highway through the historic urban core of Lafayette.

Also, in relation to McManus being 24, the Build a Better 49 Facebook page was created by the 705, a group of professionals under 40.  Apparently (and perhaps in an effort to build the foundation for a lawsuit), they argue that, because of their youth, they were left out of the process leading to the I-49 Connector Record of Decision:

Quote
The 705, a non-profit group of professionals under 40, met Friday to create an I-49 task force so the younger generation that didn't have a voice in planning the project can have one now. That may include rethinking the elevated interstate all together.
The 705 wrote on its Facebook page this week, "This is not a done deal. It is not too late. This conversation is the most important discussion our generation is facing and is the biggest infrastructure investment proposal Lafayette has ever seen."
"Our generation will have to fund this project and manage any social or economic implications that this connector brings to our community and we should have a voice," the 705 Facebook post states.
It continues, "The goal of this task force is to inform, engage and connect our members on the I-49 Connector project and aid other groups in getting involved, such as the neighborhoods directly impacted by the connector. We want to understand the issues and opportunities that this exciting process presents so that we can be responsible participants in its outcome."

Hmmmmm ...... will they aid Norquist and the CNU in getting involved?  It looks like there are still a lot of discussions to be had in Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 14, 2015, 02:49:46 PM
I wish I was wrong in this, but this sounds like Sierra Club and the Teche Ridge advocates trying one more time to kill the Connector freeway proposal with even another lawsuit.


The problem with all this is that there really is no desirable alternative to the current proposal. An eastern bypass (the Teche Ridge proposal) would still take over 3-5 years of environmental study just to get to the design stage, and still probably would not attract enough traffic to even be close to being as cost-effective as the Connector freeway proposal. An at-grade freeway is simply out of the question as being even more divisive and with more displacements than the elevated concept. A depressed or capped freeway? Not even possible due to the water table and the absolute expense and destruction of downtown.


Addendum: it does appear that the 705 group is not in opposition to the Connector per se, but simply wants to get younger people involved in the design and development process.

Also, this whole notion of "we weren't involved in the process, therefore our views were not considered" meme doesn't wash with me. The Connector freeway's opposing views were indeed considered throughout the 20-year process of environmental study; and they were mitigated and resolved (at least, the more reasonable concerns). The rest is just the usual combination of NIMBYism from people who just don't want this freeway where it's proposed, and the usual anti-freeway "urbanists" who don't and will never understand the concept of freeways serving core inner cities. Some people do not want to take long loop bypasses around cities; they want access to downtown, the airport, and other places. Lafayette is not Houston or Dallas, but it isn't Port Barre either.


I'm not challenging at all Sierra Club's right to oppose this project; they're simply doing their mission. In this case, though, if they fulfill their threat of another lawsuit and team with Norquist to attempt to strongarm people into blocking this vital freeway connection, it won't just be Jesus weeping.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on November 14, 2015, 08:21:48 PM
The involvement of the Sierra Club is laughable. Let's bypass a developed urban corridor and route a highway through a swampland, in the name of the environment. More likely they're just hopping on the social justice bandwagon.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 16, 2015, 04:53:03 PM
To be fair to the Sierra Club, the Teche Ridge proposal wouldn't necessarily cross through swampland, but would utilize the edge of the Teche/Coteau Ridge that runs just to the west of the Atchafalaya plain, generally paralleling LA 31 and Bayou Teche just west of Breaux Bridge, Parks, and St. Martinville, before turning back westward to meet US 90/I-49.


The main issues remains, though, that Teche Ridge would still go through plenty of farmland and some wetlands, would also ram through some new development of oil/petrochemical-based businesses en route to US 90, and would still not relieve that much traffic from the US 90/Evangeline Thruway corridor such as to make it a cost-effective alternative to the Connector freeway. The upgrades currently ongoing to the Thruway and US 90 are a direct signal that both the state and the city have essentially locked in the Connector alignment as the only alternative for extending I-49 though Lafayette, and that any alternative alignment has been rendered moot. There's no reason to build the Albertson's Parkway, Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Young Street, and Verot School Road interchanges and upgrade the frontage roads if you are still going to consider a bypass of Lafayette through St. Martin Parish (or a western bypass via the LRX) as a replacement for the Connector.


That leaves only the current alternative.....and any other design other than the approved elevated freeway alignment brings impacts that are simply worse than and unacceptable as compared to the current proposal. An at-grade freeway is out of the question because it would really sever Lafayette in half and much more directly impact neighborhoods. A depressed or capped freeway is not viable due to the coulee that crosses the Thruway before the L&DRR rail spur, and due to excessive vertical grades in transition. Also, a depressed freeway would become a flooding trap and would be a nightmare in construction and displacement for all the neighborhoods.


And don't get me started on "but they're tearing down elevated highways because eyesores and development!!!" I don't see Alexandria calling for tearing down I-49 or moving it out of downtown; or Baton Rouge tearing down I-110 to open up Spanish Town or Mid City. Freeways need to serve downtown and inner cities, not bypass them.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 16, 2015, 07:58:43 PM
I have learned out in California, that if the Sierra Club pushes for an alternate route as opposed to outright killing the project, it means they already have someone lined up to file a lawsuit against there pitched alternative.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 17, 2015, 04:10:13 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 16, 2015, 07:58:43 PM
I have learned out in California, that if the Sierra Club pushes for an alternate route as opposed to outright killing the project, it means they already have someone lined up to file a lawsuit against there pitched alternative.

Well, the Sierra Club of Acadiana was one of the main claimnants (along with the residents of the Sterling Grove Historic District which stands adjacent to where the proposed Connector freeway ROW is) in the last lawsuit filed against LADOTD and FHWA regarding the Connector freeway back in 2004. That lawsuit was shot down in flames by Federal Judge Tucker Melancon in October 2004; his ruling was sustained by the US Fifth Appealate Circuit in January of the following year.

Unless something quite drastic has happened since then, I hardly think they would be successful this time around, either.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bayoubill on November 20, 2015, 01:35:04 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 17, 2015, 04:10:13 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 16, 2015, 07:58:43 PM
I have learned out in California, that if the Sierra Club pushes for an alternate route as opposed to outright killing the project, it means they already have someone lined up to file a lawsuit against there pitched alternative.

Well, the Sierra Club of Acadiana was one of the main claimnants (along with the residents of the Sterling Grove Historic District which stands adjacent to where the proposed Connector freeway ROW is) in the last lawsuit filed against LADOTD and FHWA regarding the Connector freeway back in 2004. That lawsuit was shot down in flames by Federal Judge Tucker Melancon in October 2004; his ruling was sustained by the US Fifth Appealate Circuit in January of the following year.

Unless something quite drastic has happened since then, I hardly think they would be successful this time around, either.

A lot more people in Lafayette are paying attention to this issue now than they were 10-15 years ago, including me.

I'm just now starting to look at the project and all its implications.

As I understand it (and I admit that I need to verify this information), it will, among other things, cause the airport to spend tens and maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars to rework its runways in order to accommodate the I-49 Connector as it is currently proposed.

There's also the issue of the old Southern Pacific rail yard and roundhouse site that, as I understand it, is loaded with scores-old toxic waste that is currently contained in a stable state in the ground's 30'-deep clay layer, but which would be disturbed and at risk of migrating into the underlying water-bearing sands once piles started to be driven for the elevated highway, thus the site would have to be remediated at no small cost.

For these reasons (and a few others that I imagine I'll get into later), I'm skeptical of the I-49 Connector plan as currently proposed, but I consider myself open-minded and willing to listen and consider all sides and points of view.

For the moment, I just want to get as much background information as possible on this issue.


btw, hello, I'm new here... :-')

I found this site while researching the I-49 Connector.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 20, 2015, 02:34:25 AM
Welcome in, bayoubill....as someone who has followed the Connector project since its conception, and as someone who strongly supports this project, allow me to attempt to answer some of your questions.

Quote from: bayoubill on November 20, 2015, 01:35:04 AM
A lot more people in Lafayette are paying attention to this issue now than they were 10-15 years ago, including me.

I'm just now starting to look at the project and all its implications.

As I understand it (and I admit that I need to verify this information), it will, among other things, cause the airport to spend tens and maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars to rework its runways in order to accommodate the I-49 Connector as it is currently proposed.

Lafayette Regional Airport is already in the process of a multimillion dollar rehabiltation of its facilities, which will include adding an additional two gates to its terminals, improving its runway striping and lighting system, and other improvements. The displacement of one of its runways to meet the air spacing clearances for the Connector freeway project (350' closed off the SE end of Runway 4R and appended to the NW end) would be required, but that would be funded through the FHWA/LADOTD final construction of the freeway. No additional local funds would be needed or required for the LRA displacement. A small bit of wetlands would also be taken by the displacement/extension, but that would not impact the general wetland area.

QuoteThere's also the issue of the old Southern Pacific rail yard and roundhouse site that, as I understand it, is loaded with scores-old toxic waste that is currently contained in a stable state in the ground's 30'-deep clay layer, but which would be disturbed and at risk of migrating into the underlying water-bearing sands once piles started to be driven for the elevated highway, thus the site would have to be remediated at no small cost.

The approved alternative alignment for the Connector has the freeway at grade in the area between Jefferson Blvd. and Johnston Street, where the former roundhouse/railyard site is located. The original plans were to retain the 22' elevated segment for the entirity of the segment through that area, but concern about penetrating the railyard site did prompt LADOTD to present this alternative, which lessens the risk of threatening the water table sands. The only risks would be for the off-ramps that would be required for the Johnston St. and Second/Third St. interchanges; those ramps would be necessarily below grade due to the proximity of the BNSF/UP rail line and the need for grade separation of those former at-grade crossings. Since fewer pilings would be necessary, the risks would be greatly reduced.

Also....I would assume that if there is need for more serious mitigation of the former rail yard/roundhouse, the costs would be built into the final construction costs for the Connector freeway.

Quote
For these reasons (and a few others that I imagine I'll get into later), I'm skeptical of the I-49 Connector plan as currently proposed, but I consider myself open-minded and willing to listen and consider all sides and points of view.

For the moment, I just want to get as much background information as possible on this issue.


btw, hello, I'm new here... :-')

I found this site while researching the I-49 Connector.

I most certainly respect your concerns and would never disrespect your right to question this project; I most certainly would do so if it affected my home and family directly. I do think, though, that with all its faults, this alignment and design is the best that could be done; and the most feasible and reasonable alignment for I-49...especially since much of the rest of I-49 South is now fully committed through either design or construction. At least you are willing to keep an open mind and let the process build upon itself. I'm open to any alternatives that can mitigate any concerns....as long as they are NOT bypasses or at-grade freeways that would be even more divisive, and as long as they do not delay the progress in completing this project.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bayoubill on November 20, 2015, 02:56:26 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 20, 2015, 02:34:25 AM
Welcome in, bayoubill....as someone who has followed the Connector project since its conception, and as someone who strongly supports this project, allow me to attempt to answer some of your questions.

Quote from: bayoubill on November 20, 2015, 01:35:04 AM
A lot more people in Lafayette are paying attention to this issue now than they were 10-15 years ago, including me.

I'm just now starting to look at the project and all its implications.

As I understand it (and I admit that I need to verify this information), it will, among other things, cause the airport to spend tens and maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars to rework its runways in order to accommodate the I-49 Connector as it is currently proposed.

Lafayette Regional Airport is already in the process of a multimillion dollar rehabiltation of its facilities, which will include adding an additional two gates to its terminals, improving its runway striping and lighting system, and other improvements. The displacement of one of its runways to meet the air spacing clearances for the Connector freeway project (350' closed off the SE end of Runway 4R and appended to the NW end) would be required, but that would be funded through the FHWA/LADOTD final construction of the freeway. No additional local funds would be needed or required for the LRA displacement. A small bit of wetlands would also be taken by the displacement/extension, but that would not impact the general wetland area.

QuoteThere's also the issue of the old Southern Pacific rail yard and roundhouse site that, as I understand it, is loaded with scores-old toxic waste that is currently contained in a stable state in the ground's 30'-deep clay layer, but which would be disturbed and at risk of migrating into the underlying water-bearing sands once piles started to be driven for the elevated highway, thus the site would have to be remediated at no small cost.

The approved alternative alignment for the Connector has the freeway at grade in the area between Jefferson Blvd. and Johnston Street, where the former roundhouse/railyard site is located. The original plans were to retain the 22' elevated segment for the entirity of the segment through that area, but concern about penetrating the railyard site did prompt LADOTD to present this alternative, which lessens the risk of threatening the water table sands. The only risks would be for the off-ramps that would be required for the Johnston St. and Second/Third St. interchanges; those ramps would be necessarily below grade due to the proximity of the BNSF/UP rail line and the need for grade separation of those former at-grade crossings. Since fewer pilings would be necessary, the risks would be greatly reduced.

Also....I would assume that if there is need for more serious mitigation of the former rail yard/roundhouse, the costs would be built into the final construction costs for the Connector freeway.

Quote
For these reasons (and a few others that I imagine I'll get into later), I'm skeptical of the I-49 Connector plan as currently proposed, but I consider myself open-minded and willing to listen and consider all sides and points of view.

For the moment, I just want to get as much background information as possible on this issue.


btw, hello, I'm new here... :-')

I found this site while researching the I-49 Connector.

I most certainly respect your concerns and would never disrespect your right to question this project; I most certainly would do so if it affected my home and family directly. I do think, though, that with all its faults, this alignment and design is the best that could be done; and the most feasible and reasonable alignment for I-49...especially since much of the rest of I-49 South is now fully committed through either design or construction. At least you are willing to keep an open mind and let the process build upon itself. I'm open to any alternatives that can mitigate any concerns....as long as they are NOT bypasses or at-grade freeways that would be even more divisive, and as long as they do not delay the progress in completing this project.

Many thanks for the reply, Anthony.

I'd like to get into this a bit more with you, but I'm going to have to sign off soon, so I'll have to save it for later...

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bayoubill on November 20, 2015, 02:59:35 AM
btw, Anthony, I tried to send you a PM...

not sure if it went through or not... I'm new to this forum and the way it works.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 20, 2015, 03:40:17 AM
Quote from: bayoubill on November 20, 2015, 02:59:35 AM
btw, Anthony, I tried to send you a PM...

not sure if it went through or not... I'm new to this forum and the way it works.

I saw it and read it....when I have time, I will respond soon.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 24, 2015, 11:16:37 AM
Meanwhile, here's some news of some progress downstream of Lafayette.


LADOTD just released the Final Supplemental EA/FONSI for the proposed interchange between US 90 and LA 318 near Four Corners, west of Franklin. This supersedes and replaces the original EA/FONSI that was approved in October of 2013.


The main reason that a Supplemental EA was needed was due to changes in the design of the interchange prompted to reduce ROW acquisition costs and offer a better design for heavy trucks and sugar cane harvesters. The project is being built under a Design-Build contract.


Here is the original design that was approved under the Oct. 2013 EA/FONSI:


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F29bhttd.jpg&hash=f528e4e6f706e6897d20c08c46291cc48a96f50a)


As you see, due to the proximity of the subdivision in the northeast quadrant, a loop ramp was added to provide access to US 90 west/Future I-49 north. Also, note how the east frontage road is behind the subdivision, and the old frontage road is converted to a local access road which dead-ends at a cul-de-sac near the grade separation.


However, the designers wanted to retain a more traditional diamond interchange for better traffic movement; so they came up with this alternative design, which was ultimately approved in the Supplemental EA/FONSI.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Ftzlg.jpg&hash=92349fcdbdde60c98a9e88a8dccf5a39993eebbb)


In this alternative, the loop ramp is eliminated in favor of a tighter straight "urban diamond" design, where the onramp to US 90 westbound is squeezed between the access road and the elevated mainlines.  It allows also for less required takings of ROW for the east frontage road.


Construction should now be able to proceed; with completion scheduled for some time in 2018. When finished, this would essentially eliminate one of the final gaps in freeway grade for US 90 between LA 88 and Ricohoc/Wax Lake Outlet. (An overpass of a railroad spur near Jeanerette is scheduled to begin construction next year.)


Slow progress, but progress nevertheless.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 05, 2016, 04:22:17 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 29, 2015, 12:15:21 AM
Quote from: I-39 on September 28, 2015, 10:03:39 PM
I-49 connector status?
I-49 Shreveport Inner City Connector is still under environmental study/review ...

The I-49 Inner-City Connector-Shreveport website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/) has been updated to to announce six Community Input Meetings scheduled for January 19-21.  Here is the Public Notice (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/29/115/Round%203%20CIM%20Public%20Notice.pdf) for the meetings, in case anyone is interested in attending.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2016, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08152014.pdf), which provide some detail on what improvements would need to be made to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5 in order for it to be designated as I-49 (page 2/4 of pdf):
Quote
1. I‐49 Inner City Connector
... this has been a lengthy process to ensure that all costs are defensible, since it is reasonable to assume the Loop It group will challenge the EIS.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 14, 2015, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on April 13, 2015, 06:37:23 AM
Here's a story put out in yesterday's paper about the I-49 ICC: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/21/environmental-process-inner-city-connector-underway/25163103/ (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/21/environmental-process-inner-city-connector-underway/25163103/)
John Norquist is quoted extensively in the article linked by cjk374 with comments about the Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector that could also apply to the Lafayette I-49 Connector:
Quote
Those who've studied the impact of highways on inner city neighborhoods aren't convinced of the proposed connector's promise.
Some, such as former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, equate the hope supporters have for the economic benefits of inner city connector in Shreveport to false confidence.
"I don't know of any situation in any urban area that has benefited from putting a road in," said Norquist, who also is the former president and CEO of the Congress of New Urbanism, a nonprofit that promotes walkable, mixed-used communities ....
"A freeway might give you a couple of gas stations, but even then the gas stations won't usually go into a neighborhood that is otherwise deteriorated," he said ....
"They don't work in the middle of a city. All they do is concentrate traffic and create more resolve," Norquist said.
Quote from: Grzrd on January 05, 2016, 04:22:17 PM
The I-49 Inner-City Connector-Shreveport website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/) has been updated to to announce six Community Input Meetings scheduled for January 19-21.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its November 20, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11202015.pdf) and those Draft Minutes reflect considerable discussion about Context Sensitive Soutions ("CSS") for the I-49 ICC, including the possibility of maximizing the amount of at-grade roadway, and whether the water table limits options for depressing the roadway:

Quote
Members Present
Mr. Bill Altimus — Bossier Parish Police Jury
Mayor Lo Walker — City of Bossier City
Mayor Ollie Tyler — City of Shreveport
Mr. Mark Sweeney — Shreveport MPC
Mr. Eric England — Port of Shreveport — Bossier
Mr. Dinero Washington — SporTran
Others Present
Ms. Anna O'Neal — Legal Counsel for NLCOG
Mr. Kent Rogers — NLCOG ....
Mr. Rogers introduced Ms. Jolie Maberry with Providence Engineering to give an update of the I-49 ICC. Ms. Maberry stated the ICC is still in Stage 1 of the DOTD process. She stated this is due to adding a fifth build alternative and the study required on the improvements needed along LA 3132 to bring it up to interstate standards. She stated a lane would need to be added along with some interchanges closed. She reviewed the other four alternatives. Ms. Maberry stated they were also updating the costs due to increases over the years ....
meetings would be January 19-22, 2016 ....
After the meetings, the selection process for the preferred alternative can begin ....
Mr. Sweeney stated with the four alternatives there are elevated portions and that there is some consideration now to have some at-grade. Ms. Maberry stated Providence is putting together an estimate and that the grade would fall between the bayou. Mr. Sweeney stated the key is that as much as possible to make it grade-level to make it more connected to the neighborhood. Ms. Maberry stated originally all of the area was considered wetlands and that has now changed. Mr. Sweeney stated another issue is that as much as possible the road can be at-grade, the route that is selected a key component is how it is designed. He stated that as much as possible relating it to the adjacent neighborhoods, designing it aesthetically pleasing so that it becomes a signature road and a benefit to the neighborhood. He said the reality is how the road is built and the design element is what the area has to live with for the next 50 years and how it impacts the community. Mr. Sweeney stated it is his hope that this committee will discuss those issues as we get closer to development. Mr. Rogers stated that in the public meetings over the span of this project was for the community to look at Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) and fitting in green spaces in the area. He stated that as we get further into the project, we can look more detailed into this issue. Mr. Rob Williams with Providence] stated that once a preferred alternative is selected, they will be able to dig deeper into CSS and what they community would like to see. He stated they have already done a small-scale study, but once they get closer to a preferred alternative they will be able to look more closely at CSS and alternative methods to keep the area open. Mr. Sweeney asked if any option or consideration to go below grade to create less of an impact. He asked if there were any obstacles such as the water table. Mr. Williams stated the water table is an issue and early on they did look at that as an option. Mr. Sweeney stated that in some cases depressing the roadway even a bit can create a more connected pedestrian and local roadway going over the top.

I am interested in which "wetlands" are no longer considered "wetlands"; also, I have a feeling that the "lengthy process" that will continue with the upcoming meetings will evolve into an "extremely lengthy process".
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 11, 2016, 09:41:39 PM
Sounds like Shreveport needs to make some calls to Lafayette and get some views of the I-49 Lafayette Connector Corridor Study that's now ongoing.

Considering the one-way couplet of Pete Harris Avenue and Allen Avenue that currently carries traffic from existing I-49 south of I-20 to the neighborhoods, I think that transitioning to an at-grade or even depressed/capped I-49 ICC  up to near Cross Bayou would be an excellent idea...especially since they've abandoned the railroad line that used to run parallel to Pete Harris. It would be similar to what Alexandria did with I-49 through Ninth and Tenth Streets.

CSS should be as involved with the ICC in Shreveport as it is in Lafayette.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2016, 04:11:06 PM
I assume the Interstate 49 extension from Interstate 20 to Interstate 220 has no construction date as of yet. Am I correct?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 12, 2016, 04:34:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2016, 04:11:06 PM
I assume the Interstate 49 extension from Interstate 20 to Interstate 220 has no construction date as of yet. Am I correct?

Correct...right now, it's just in the Enviornmental Impact Statement stage of development. Earliest we could see a ROD would be late this year or early 2017.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on January 13, 2016, 08:39:35 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2016, 12:38:10 PM

I am interested in which "wetlands" are no longer considered "wetlands"; also, I have a feeling that the "lengthy process" that will continue with the upcoming meetings will evolve into an "extremely lengthy process".

I learned...from a screw up performed by my employer...that according to the rules set forth by the Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality, if land lowers a certain amount per some distance (I can't find the numbers), the land is officially a wetland.

But if a new wetland is built, then you can use the original land as you wish.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: JON30 on January 20, 2016, 11:03:48 AM
http://www.ksla.com/story/31005112/final-round-of-i-49-public-hearings-underway (http://www.ksla.com/story/31005112/final-round-of-i-49-public-hearings-underway)

Final rounds of public hearings are now underway for the 3.5 mile I-49 Shreveport Inner-City connector.  Hopefully a decision about this will be made soon.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Buck87 on January 20, 2016, 11:25:04 AM
How are things progressing on the LA 1 to I-220 section?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: JON30 on January 20, 2016, 02:59:59 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on January 20, 2016, 11:25:04 AM
How are things progressing on the LA 1 to I-220 section?

Drove on 220 by the construction site this past weekend.  Looks like it is progressing well.  I believe construction on the portion from LA1 to MLK drive(LA 3194) is completed; however, I'm not sure on the signage and striping portion.  Where the interchange at 49-220 is, they have a few bridge segments set aside (looks like they are making those on site).  They should be on schedule to finish late this year or early next.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 22, 2016, 10:05:39 AM
Quote from: JON30 on January 20, 2016, 02:59:59 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on January 20, 2016, 11:25:04 AM
How are things progressing on the LA 1 to I-220 section?

Drove on 220 by the construction site this past weekend.  Looks like it is progressing well.  I believe construction on the portion from LA1 to MLK drive(LA 3194) is completed; however, I'm not sure on the signage and striping portion.  Where the interchange at 49-220 is, they have a few bridge segments set aside (looks like they are making those on site).  They should be on schedule to finish late this year or early next.

I think signage is up between MLK and LA 1. Driving on Pinehill Rd, you can see an exit sign for N. Market. St/ LA 1 for the unopened I-49 northbound.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 23, 2016, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 14, 2016, 03:21:12 AM
Quote from: jbnv on January 13, 2016, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 13, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
Also, no mention of I-49 South as a mega project?
Welcome to Louisiana politics. The northern and southern halves of the state might as well be separate states. Every region focuses on their own needs.
Welp, North Louisiana will just have to wait their turn, just as South Louisiana had to wait until I-49 North from Shreveport to the Arkansas state line was completed. I-49 South is the main emphasis now, and will be until at least the I-49 Connector in Lafayette and the segments from Lafayette to Morgan City are fully funded and completed. They will get theirs for the I-49 ICC and I-69 ultimately.
(above quote from I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.msg2119636#msg2119636) thread)

At least one North Louisiana businessman, in a Shreveport Times Letter to the Editor (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2016/01/22/business-community-needs-support--49-expansion/79184040/), takes a holistic view of both I-49 and Louisiana's interstates:

Quote
As a business owner of a local manufacturing company in north Shreveport and a resident of northern Caddo Parish, I strongly support the completion of Interstate 49 through Shreveport. The completion of I-49 through the most direct route from Interstate-20 to Interstate-220 is exactly what Shreveport needs to help us grow as a city and region ....
I have personally spoken to many business owners, managers and business organizations and have found absolutely no one who is in support of Alternative 5 which is using the "loop"  around the city for I-49. I truly believe that alternative will be (and was intended to be) a "no-build"  due to the enormous cost and environmental issues associated with that route. Every business person I have spoken with fully supports completing the project through the city and not around it ....
After spending a significant amount of time at the recent public meetings this week, I have reaffirmed my decision the project needs to be completed through the city using the most direct, lowest-cost route possible. Since the federal government now has a new highway bill in place, now is the time our community needs to get together on completing this last small section of I-49.
While Interstate 69 is very important so is I-49. Recently, in an article earlier this week on I-69, the first paragraph of that article mentioned that "I-49 was now finished."  Well that is simply not true. It will be finished once the inner-city connector through Shreveport is completed and south Louisiana finally completes its last portions between Lafayette and New Orleans. We need to support ALL of these projects for our state and our region and stop playing one against the others.

At least he's talking the talk of a unified Louisiana .............
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 05, 2016, 04:22:17 PM
The I-49 Inner-City Connector-Shreveport website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/) has been updated to to announce six Community Input Meetings scheduled for January 19-21.  Here is the Public Notice (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/29/115/Round%203%20CIM%20Public%20Notice.pdf) for the meetings, in case anyone is interested in attending.

The Documents page on the I-49 Inner-City Connector-Shreveport website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) now includes materials from the January 19-21 Round 3 Community Input Meetings, including the Meeting Presentation (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/29/118/Presentation%20Slides.pdf).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 30, 2016, 07:28:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2013, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
The documents section (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) of the ICC website now has letters from both Rep. Burrell and Loop It stating their cases and complaining about the treatment, along with LADOTD's response to those letters. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for the links.)
In Representative Burrell's January 9 letter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/110/Rep%20Burrell%20Comment%20Letter%2001092013.pdf), he .... identifies local architect Kim Mitchell as assisting in the formation of Loop It, LLC.

Here is a snip from (former) Rep. Burrell's January 9, 2013 letter:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYkaxncF.jpg&hash=14f5437adeef5f13cd423c9549a026e162a10c4c)

In his letter, Rep. Burrell identifies "local retired Architect Bill Weiner" as the individual who formed Loop It, LLC. I believe that Rep. Burrell misspelled Bill Wiener's last name.

This January 27, 2016 article (http://710keel.com/local-businessman-escorted-out-of-city-chambers-during-i-49-meeting/) (including an undercover video) reports that Wiener was physically removed from a recent City Council meeting and that he later seemed to be alleging corruption by local clergymen and other people of influence:

Quote
On Tuesday, Jan 26, 2016, during a City Council meeting to discuss the future of I-49, a local businessman was escorted from the chamber in, what some call, a breach of protocol on the city's part. According to our anonymous source, who shot a video of the altercation, this is what occurred:
"Bill Wiener had addressed Council for 3 minutes, and then that prompted Chairman Bradford to ask NLCOG Director Kent Rogers to come forward so that he could ask Mr. Rogers some questions about what Mr. Wiener had said.
Following that, Mr. Wiener stood up again, invoking a point of personal privilege under Roberts Rules of Order. Mr. Bradford then started shouting at Mr. Wiener.
Mr. Wiener believed he should be recognized and requested clarification from the Parliamentarian, but rather than politely grant him that clarification, Bradford shouted him down and then CAO Brian Crawford signaled for the police captain to come remove Mr. Wiener from the chamber.
"
Our source can only speculate why Mr. Wiener was removed, but he says, "The real investigative story is the fact that numerous churches in Allendale and in its surrounds have purchased adjudicated property in Allendale for $1 per lot, and they are holding secret meetings amongst themselves and with white collar business people and elected officials but these same pastors refuse to meet or even communicate with Allendale residents about their intentions with all that property they hold. It is potentially hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate."

An interesting aspect of the article is that it refers to Wiener as a "local businessman", but is completely silent regarding his affiliation with Loop It (hmmmm.... is "the source" also affiliated with Loop It?). All of which makes for a great Louisiana brew of antics, politics, undercover video, alleged corruption, and journalism.

Is Loop It trying to manufacture a "controversy" out of desperation?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 04, 2016, 04:37:14 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 25, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
The Documents page on the I-49 Inner-City Connector-Shreveport website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) now includes materials from the January 19-21 Round 3 Community Input Meetings, including the Meeting Presentation (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/29/118/Presentation%20Slides.pdf).

A January 2016 Economic Impacts of I-49 Completion Inner City Connector Study (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/52/69/Shreveport%20I49%20Project%20Report%20V5%20January%202016.pdf) has recently been posted on the website; the Executive Summary compares the economic impact of the four Inner City Build Alternatives to the Build Alternative 5 (I-220, LA 3132) and concludes that the Inner City Build Alternatives will have the greater economic impact (pp. 2-4/56 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvCtL4fu.png&hash=c271644670e5fe1dca65ecf95ae78e36258333a3)
....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyuCyyIT.jpg&hash=5546ce2e32d1eca5e6ff02889cb665d7d6de3e4f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfctIi5P.png&hash=f25a12843cb6d030f6bc4835f62fa2c656fc3e25)

The Study also has a brief section on "Interchange Scenarios", which indicates that a final recommendation will come at a later point in time (p. 21/56 of pdf; p. 17 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIQsg7eg.png&hash=82d74109ad03e21658a20d7ad04721e4343d5437)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on March 06, 2016, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2013, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
The documents section (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) of the ICC website now has letters from both Rep. Burrell and Loop It stating their cases and complaining about the treatment, along with LADOTD's response to those letters. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for the links.)
In Representative Burrell's January 9 letter (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/Assets/29/110/Rep%20Burrell%20Comment%20Letter%2001092013.pdf), he .... identifies local architect Kim Mitchell as assisting in the formation of Loop It, LLC.

A march and rally protesting the possibility of the ICC being routed through Allendale was held on March 5.  The march is interesting both in terms of the number of participants and the messaging of the organizers. 

Reporting on the planning of the march provides useful insight into the eventual number of participants. This February 23 article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2016/02/23/allendale-residents-plan-rally-protest-potential-routing--49/80609306/) reports that planners initially wanted at least 500 people to attend the march:

Quote
An Allendale community group is planning a rally and potential march to protest possible routing of I-49 through the neighborhood.
A group of about a dozen concerned Shreveport residents recently met at the Community Renewal International Inc. building on Clay Street to discuss plans for an upcoming rally. Dorothy Wiley, president of LOOP-IT, a group advocating for the I-49 route that loops around the city, said the rally, scheduled for Saturday, March 5 at 1 p.m. at the downtown courthouse, is an attempt to raise awareness at the local level about the dangers of routing I-49 through the historic Allendale neighborhood ....
"Allendale is the last historic black community," Wiley said. "This is our community and we don't want it to come through here.
We don't need a freeway to come through and displace us. This is where we are, this is where we are connected and we look out for each other."
The group discussed the logistics for the rally, including how to raise money and what they would need.  They also started discussing plans for a march that would proceed the rally. Wiley asked those gathered to reach out to at least 10 people to join the march because the group had set a goal for at least 500 to attend.
Gregory Young, a retired postal service worker in attendance at the meeting, said amassing that critical number was important to the group's cause.
"Imagery means a lot. The last thing we want is to validate the premise that we're a handful of people in opposition," Young said.

Later, this March 4 article (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/allendale-group-plans-i-49-protest) about the march and rally includes a photo of a flyer contending that Allendale is leading Shreveport to a "national movement" towards boulevardization. Here is a snip of the flyer:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4MduSZk.jpg&hash=9c28ac726292b4852d123adba13707c5bab0db92)

Next, this March 5 article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2016/03/05/allendale-community-stages-march-rally-raise-awareness--49/81320202/) about the march and rally reports that "more than 30 marchers" participated in the march, that "about 10 people" attended the rally, and that Kim Mitchell contended at the rally that "cut-through freeways" in 25 cities (specifically including New Orleans, Houston, and Little Rock) have not panned out:

Quote
On Saturday, an Allendale community group marched to raise awareness about the I-49 connector that it doesn't want running through the neighborhood.
More than 30 marchers carried poster-board signs reading "Save Our Community," sang songs and handed out fliers during the march to raise awareness about the repercussions of running a highway through the Allendale community
"We come together to fight for our community, our neighborhood and each other," declared Dorothy Wiley, president of the LOOP-IT group – a group advocating for the I-49 route to loop around the city. "There has to be a better, cheaper route and that is a boulevard that will separate business traffic from through traffic." ....
Keynote speakers – including Allendale resident Louis Brossett, LSUS professor Brian Salvatore and city architect Kim Mitchell – talked about different concerns of the I-49 connector. The concerns included Shreveport taxpayers shouldering costs for the interstate, the health and environmental risks associated with the vehicular exhaust, and the deficits facing several Shreveport communities in need of repair.
Mitchell pointed to 25 U.S. cities – including Houston, Little Rock and New Orleans– that have recognized cut-through freeways did not pan out the way their investors planned.
"The expressways that carve up Shreveport allow people to go faster to nowhere –and have had our area grow geographically in a way that we cannot support," Mitchell said.
The rally lasted for an hour, during which about 10 people gathered or stopped by to listen
to the Loop-It group's featured speakers ...

Speaking of national movements, Loop It President Dorothy Wiley seems to nod to another important national movement in one of her comments:

Quote
"We want to thank those who came to join us, to support us," Wiley said. "Lives matter. Our lives matter."

This story still has some interesting chapters to be written.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 06, 2016, 10:46:15 PM
Yeah, right.

They're basically pimping *proposals* to eliminate inner city freeways that have not been vetted or analyzed for actual impacts. The Claiborne Elevated proposal in NOLA is simply just that...a PROPOSAL. Same for the removal of I-30 through Little Rock. No one is even talking about removing I-30 in Dallas or US 59/I-69 in Houston (only the Pierce Elevated, and even there the idea is to reroute it through US 59/I-69 and I-10, not totally bypass the downtown area via I-610 or the Sam Houston Tollway.

This is just another round of NIMBY combined with the typical New Urbanist anti-freeway nonsense.

Plus..."boulevarding" through downtown Shreveport is simply a non-starter, since you still would have to upgrade I-220 and LA 3132 to full Interstate standards, including crossing Cross Lake, which could threaten Shreveport's drinking water. In that case, you might as well keep the Pete Harris/Allen couplet up to Ford Street, then widen Ford to Market Street.

I wonder whether any of those "marchers" were paid by the Allendale project developers.

"Our lives matter", my ass.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on March 07, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on March 07, 2016, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 06, 2016, 10:46:15 PM
Yeah, right.

They're basically pimping *proposals* to eliminate inner city freeways that have not been vetted or analyzed for actual impacts. The Claiborne Elevated proposal in NOLA is simply just that...a PROPOSAL. Same for the removal of I-30 through Little Rock. No one is even talking about removing I-30 in Dallas or US 59/I-69 in Houston (only the Pierce Elevated, and even there the idea is to reroute it through US 59/I-69 and I-10, not totally bypass the downtown area via I-610 or the Sam Houston Tollway.

This is just another round of NIMBY combined with the typical New Urbanist anti-freeway nonsense.

Plus..."boulevarding" through downtown Shreveport is simply a non-starter, since you still would have to upgrade I-220 and LA 3132 to full Interstate standards, including crossing Cross Lake, which could threaten Shreveport's drinking water. In that case, you might as well keep the Pete Harris/Allen couplet up to Ford Street, then widen Ford to Market Street.

I wonder whether any of those "marchers" were paid by the Allendale project developers.

"Our lives matter", my ass.
Add to that list of "proposals" the removals of I-83 in downtown Baltimore and I-375 in Detroit. I'm all for preserving urban areas and all, but this New Urbanist NIMBY bullshit has gone too far. A compromise needs to be done, in which I-49 can still be routed with as little impact to Allendale as possible, although that would be very hard to pull off.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 07, 2016, 10:57:44 AM
I could just imagine how horribly bad a clusterf*** traffic in downtown Dallas would be if a highway like I-30 was removed. Traffic there is bad enough as it is, but could you imagine all those many thousands of cars stuck on surface streets? The gridlock would be epic in scale. People would end up doing everything they could to avoid downtown, period. Maybe the ulterior motive of the anti-freeway campaign is blowing many billions of dollars into light rail or subway lines. I complain a lot about the absurdly high cost inflation of highways, but mass transit projects always manage to up the ante. It's nothing for a new subway tunnel to cost a few billion.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DNAguy on March 07, 2016, 11:47:43 AM
I think you guys are creating straw man arguments here.... esp. the idea that Dallas would remove I30. The proposal is to remove I345 which carries significantly less traffic and blocks downtown from a very popular area. In addition, this thread is about building a new freeway where there was no freeway before. Big difference.

It's 2016 guys and gals. If you don't expect people to oppose highways being built through neighborhoods, you're living in a dream world. There have been decades of examples where these highways kill neighborhoods. These highways are typically built in low income and minority neighborhoods. These highways promise more economic development but seldom deliver. The classism and racism of prior freeway construction is a huge, HUGE hurdle to have to overcome.

That all being said, if the project is better (I don't know if it is and I don't have a dog in this fight) then it should win out on the merits. I think having to jump a higher hurdle for new urban freeways is a good thing.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: noelbotevera on March 07, 2016, 10:13:46 PM
So sixty years have passed since the Interstate System began....so please tell me, what has changed within sixty years? Do you not see more trucks on those roads?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 07, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 07, 2016, 10:34:53 PM
Quote from: DNAguy on March 07, 2016, 11:47:43 AM
I think you guys are creating straw man arguments here.... esp. the idea that Dallas would remove I30. The proposal is to remove I345 which carries significantly less traffic and blocks downtown from a very popular area. In addition, this thread is about building a new freeway where there was no freeway before. Big difference.

It's 2016 guys and gals. If you don't expect people to oppose highways being built through neighborhoods, you're living in a dream world. There have been decades of examples where these highways kill neighborhoods. These highways are typically built in low income and minority neighborhoods. These highways promise more economic development but seldom deliver. The classism and racism of prior freeway construction is a huge, HUGE hurdle to have to overcome.

That all being said, if the project is better (I don't know if it is and I don't have a dog in this fight) then it should win out on the merits. I think having to jump a higher hurdle for new urban freeways is a good thing.

Except that a rally of 30 people and a meeting of 12 people claiming to represent an entire neighborhood isn't exactly a majority of that community, right?

Also, if the New Urbanists and John Norquists would have their way, I-30 near the Mixmaster would definitely be removed, and traffic diverted via I-20 or I-635. Just because no one has openly advocated it yet doesn't mean that they aren't thinking about it.

The merits of the Inner City Connector speak for themselves. Allendale has a right to their objections, and to have their concerns addressed, but they are not the only ones who should have a final say.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on March 08, 2016, 12:36:20 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 07, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?
Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2016, 01:54:31 AM
Quote from: DNAguythink you guys are creating straw man arguments here.... esp. the idea that Dallas would remove I30. The proposal is to remove I345 which carries significantly less traffic and blocks downtown from a very popular area. In addition, this thread is about building a new freeway where there was no freeway before. Big difference.

Not really. First of all, just how much of unsigned I-345 is to be removed? Do they take it out all the way down to the I-30/I-45 interchange, and take out a chunk of North Central Expressway, a possible future North extension of I-45, in the process? Or do they just remove the Woodall-Rogers Expressway segment, a freeway that has been a fixture in downtown Dallas for a pretty long time?

In the case of the Woodall-Rogers Expressway, it's worth noting Klyde-Warren Park literally covers the freeway for 3 city blocks, thus creating a pretty natural connection between downtown Dallas, Victory Park and Uptown. I would go so far as to say it might be cheaper to just cap the Woodall-Rogers expressway with more green space rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions considering it's downtown Dallas, converting that freeway into some boulevard. After all, that would mean removing Klyde-Warren Park and other efforts to hide the freeway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on March 08, 2016, 06:32:29 AM
Is this really serious?  One of the area's biggest interstates is a subject of possible removal?   I thought that I-81 in Syracuse was far out, even though they have the I-481 bypass nearby.    This is crazy, then again we live among many crazy people in society.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DNAguy on March 08, 2016, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2016, 01:54:31 AM
Quote from: DNAguythink you guys are creating straw man arguments here.... esp. the idea that Dallas would remove I30. The proposal is to remove I345 which carries significantly less traffic and blocks downtown from a very popular area. In addition, this thread is about building a new freeway where there was no freeway before. Big difference.

Not really. First of all, just how much of unsigned I-345 is to be removed? Do they take it out all the way down to the I-30/I-45 interchange, and take out a chunk of North Central Expressway, a possible future North extension of I-45, in the process? Or do they just remove the Woodall-Rogers Expressway segment, a freeway that has been a fixture in downtown Dallas for a pretty long time?

In the case of the Woodall-Rogers Expressway, it's worth noting Klyde-Warren Park literally covers the freeway for 3 city blocks, thus creating a pretty natural connection between downtown Dallas, Victory Park and Uptown. I would go so far as to say it might be cheaper to just cap the Woodall-Rogers expressway with more green space rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions considering it's downtown Dallas, converting that freeway into some boulevard. After all, that would mean removing Klyde-Warren Park and other efforts to hide the freeway.

Well, yes you are but I digress.

I am not aware of any plans or have seen any mentioning of extending I45 up through Oklahoma at all. So I don't see that as having any weight on whether I345 should remain. In addition, Uptown is already nice and capping more of 366 isn't going to really help the city in making it "nicer". Getting rid of I345, however, would go along way in helping development migrate more east / southeast to areas that have not seen the same kind of development as uptown.

As I understand it the 345 removal would be from the 366 to I30. Most likely I45 and US75 would tie into Caesar Chaves Blvd via a spur and exit respectively.

US75 traffic headed south would be forced to either continue on a highway via 366 or exit via a spur to ~ John Carpenter park to tie into Caesar Chaves Blvd.

I45 traffic north would be forced to exit at S Caesar Chavis St and Grand for downtown & fairgrounds destinations... and possibly S Good Latimer Expy for Deep Ellum destinations where currently US 175 and I45 now meet (this alignment of US175 is going away btw and the I45 intersection will be moved farther south. Current alignment of US175 from 310 to 45 is being turned into blvd) or traffic will continue on to I30 where you'd be forced to exit to either I30 east /west.

This would resemble something most like Houston's plan to get rid of the Pierce Elevated without the need to route an interstate along another interstate.

I realize this is an I49 thread and apologize for going on, but I thought I would at least address your question.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2016, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2016, 12:36:20 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 07, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?
Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on March 08, 2016, 12:36:04 PM
Quote from: DNAguy on March 08, 2016, 10:45:16 AM
I am not aware of any plans or have seen any mentioning of extending I45 up through Oklahoma at all. So I don't see that as having any weight on whether I345 should remain.

US-69 in Oklahoma is specifically called out in ISTEA (the 1991 highway bill) as a potential Interstate. All Oklahoma has to do is request it, which they have never done. Presumably it would be an I-45 extension, though no number is attached to it in the actual law.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DNAguy on March 08, 2016, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2016, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2016, 12:36:20 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 07, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?
Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.

It's Hazmat already routed along I220?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2016, 03:44:58 PM
Quote from: DNAguy on March 08, 2016, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2016, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2016, 12:36:20 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 07, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?
Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.

It's Hazmat already routed along I220?


Yes, but if the ICC is completed as planned, it could be used as an alternative route for N/S HazMat traffic.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DNAguy on March 08, 2016, 04:04:49 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2016, 03:44:58 PM
Quote from: DNAguy on March 08, 2016, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2016, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2016, 12:36:20 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 07, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?
Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.

It's Hazmat already routed along I220?


Yes, but if the ICC is completed as planned, it could be used as an alternative route for N/S HazMat traffic.

So you're saying that having hazardous materials routed through the city, < 2 miles west of downtown and through multiple neighborhoods (one of which you'd have to get approval to build the highway though in the first place) is a selling point for building the ICC?

You've lost me.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on March 12, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
The Cross Lake bridge of I-220 is built to contain any hazmat spill that stays on the bridge. There are drains in the median and the spill would be directed to a concrete holding pond on the east side of the bridge.

Now if the hazmat flips off the side of the bridge directly into the water...then 12-Mile Bayou will become...as it does when Cross Lake drops to low levels...the back up water system until the lake would get cleaned up.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 23, 2016, 03:54:24 PM
No pictures due to rain, but I was in Shreveport this past Saturday and can update a bit. The first major thing, is that I-220 in Caddo Parish has done sign overhauling. All I-220 trailblazers have TO I-49 shields in both directions (going east: To North I-49, and going west: TO South I-49). They are almost Texas style with 2 shields on 1 post. Approaching I-220's westbound terminus, the sign just before the 1C exit now has West I-20 shield and TO I-49 shield on the Monroe BGS. It's so dumb to me, because staying on LA 3132 is only 7 miles to I-49 south. Going I-20 west then I-49 south to the same point is 11 miles. When you pass I-220's terminus and transition to LA 3132 the BGS says To I-49 Alexandria anyway.

I-49 work at I-220 is coming along. 220 is one lane each direction between exits 5 (LA 173) and 7A/B (US 71/ LA 1) and you drive along the original eastbound lanes. The large posts are under construction for the flyover lanes to I-49 north. There is significant flooding to the south of I-220 in this area from the Louisiana flooding, and probably a good bit in the construction on the north side as well.

Also noteworthy: I-220 BGS in Shreveport have mostly all been replaced by Clearview font. They FINALLY changed exit 5 to the correct streetname. It was formerly Blanchard Rd, which wasn't technically correct (Shreveport-Blanchard Hwy). Now it says LA 173 Hilry Huckaby III (with no "Hwy" added). It was also interesting that at the Jefferson Paige Rd. exit (1A) there is a west parish road 18 shield from the exit ramps. Not often you see one of those within a bigger city.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on April 24, 2016, 03:28:12 PM
The section at the LA/AR border is finally on Google Street View but currently only Northbound.
https://goo.gl/maps/ebu5zMapCbE2
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 20, 2016, 12:04:32 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its February 26, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_02262016.pdf), which indicate that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the Inner City Connector ("ICC") should be ready by the end of 2016, provide an optimistic assessment that FHWA could issue a Record of Decision ("ROD") for the ICC by late February, 2017, and also provide a cost estimate for the ICC project of just under $500 million to just over $600 million (pp. 1, 3-4/4 of pdf):

Quote
Others Present
Mr. Jerry Jones — Legal Counsel for NLCOG
Mr. Kent Rogers — NLCOG
....
Mr. Rogers
directed the members to the short update provided for the I-49 Inner City Connector Study ....
He stated the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be available around the end of this year. He stated the draft EIS will be advertised in the Federal Register for 45 days along with a public hearing during that time frame. There will probably be two meetings with one during the day in the downtown area and one in the evening within the project area. Following those meetings, the comments will be included in the final EIS for FHWA for a 30-day review period. At the end of that, the Record of Decision will be issued. Mr. Rogers stated it should be around this time next year if all goes well ....
He stated off the top of his head the costs were just under $500 million to just over $600 million. He stated that varied depending on elevated versus at-grade, interchanges, etc. Dr. Wilson asked if that was for all five options. Mr. Rogers said yes that included all five alternatives.

Will Loop It be happy with the preferred alignment?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 20, 2016, 04:28:45 PM
What is the likelihood that the ICC will be constructed? Would anyone care to hazard a guess?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 20, 2016, 05:19:43 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2016, 12:38:10 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its November 20, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11202015.pdf) and those Draft Minutes reflect considerable discussion about Context Sensitive Soutions ("CSS") for the I-49 ICC, including the possibility of maximizing the amount of at-grade roadway, and whether the water table limits options for depressing the roadway:
Quote
Others Present
Ms. Anna O'Neal — Legal Counsel for NLCOG
Mr. Kent Rogers — NLCOG ....
Mr. Rogers introduced Ms. Jolie Maberry with Providence Engineering to give an update of the I-49 ICC. Ms. Maberry stated originally all of the area was considered wetlands and that has now changed.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 20, 2016, 12:04:32 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its February 26, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_02262016.pdf), which indicate that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the Inner City Connector ("ICC") should be ready by the end of 2016

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its April 15, 2016 Draft Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_04152016.pdf), which indicate that the ICC project team will take another look at the areas that were removed from the official wetlands designation and that FHWA anticipates that the DEIS will identify two or more build alternatives instead of identifying one preferred alignment:

Quote
A. I-49 Inner City Connector
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the short update provided for the I-49 Inner City Connector Study. He stated the project team, including federal and state agencies, reviewed the comments and the matrix of data collected, and which corridors to move forward with. He stated part of that discussion centered on areas that were removed from the official wetlands designation. He stated there would an initial look at those areas prior to moving forward with the corridor decisions. Mr. Rogers stated the FHWA representative stated he expects the draft EIS will not identify one preferred alternative, rather it would have two or more build alternatives to be considered ...

I'm not sure whether the additional look at the wetlands issue will push the issuance of the DEIS into 2017.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 24, 2016, 03:12:33 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 15, 2014, 04:32:14 PM
NLCOG has posted its October 3, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10032014.pdf) and, in regard to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5, they contain some discussion about improvements that would need to be made to the existing I-49/ LA 3132 interchange at the southern end of the potential LA 3132 section of the Inner City Connector:
Quote
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the diagram of the potential new interchange at I‐49 and LA 3132 if Alternate 5 is chosen as the preferred alignment. He stated a minimum of two (2) through lanes for I‐49 needed to continue carrying traffic at interstate speeds. FHWA, LaDOTD, and EPA stated the study must look at bringing LA 3132 to the same interstate standards as the build‐through options. Mr. Rogers stated a modification to the existing interchange will be needed to avoid creating nightmare for future traffic and there is a possibility that the Linwood Avenue exit would be closed.
I could not find the interchange diagram as an attachment to the Draft Minutes.
Quote from: Grzrd on January 25, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
The Documents page on the I-49 Inner-City Connector-Shreveport website (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/documents.html) now includes materials from the January 19-21 Round 3 Community Input Meetings, including the Meeting Presentation (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/29/118/Presentation%20Slides.pdf).

The Outreach (http://www.i49shreveport.com/Site/outreach.html) page was recently updated with the addition of the Event Summary Report (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/67/141/I-49_ICC_Round3_Event%20Summary%20Report.pdf) to the Round 3 Community Input materials.  While looking at other materials on the page, the proposed modifications to the I-49/ LA 3132 interchange and the closure of the currently existing LA 3132/ Linwood interchange (http://www.i49shreveport.com/site/Assets/67/136/LA%203132%20and%20Linwood%20Ave%20Interchanges.pdf) if the "Loop" alternative is chosen caught my eye (red for removals and green for additions):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_24_05_16_2_50_34.png)

I suspect that these modifications would be expensive.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: robbones on May 24, 2016, 09:21:32 PM
If the "Loop It" is the alternative chosen, will the current I 49 be renamed north of the LA 3132 interchange?

6045O

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 24, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: robbones on May 24, 2016, 09:21:32 PM
If the "Loop It" is the alternative chosen, will the current I 49 be renamed north of the LA 3132 interchange?

6045O



I'm guessing it would have to be...probably either an even I-x49 connector or perhaps, if John Lundquist gets his way and an at-grade "parkway" replaces the ICC all the way to I-20, Louisiana gets its first I-49 Business. Or, it becomes LA 3049.


Update:  OOPS...just saw I meant to say I-220, not I-20....of course, if the ICC isn't built, existing I-49 would probably become an I-x49 connector....but if a parkway was built in place of the ICC, you could see a Business I-49/LA 3049 extending from Shreveport South I-49/LA 3132 all the way to I-220/I-49 North.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on May 25, 2016, 11:15:36 AM
Yeah, I could see BL 49 through Shreveport. The southern half would be the fifth instance of a Business Interstate being routed on a freeway (40 in Winston-Salem, 80 in Sacramento, 85 in Spartanburg and Greensboro), which I really do not care for at all. But if they loop I-49, then so be it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on May 25, 2016, 11:19:41 AM
What the...? What's wrong with the existing W->S ramp? Or N->E?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dfwmapper on May 26, 2016, 08:06:54 PM
Each is just a single lane. Presumably the new ones would be 2 lanes each.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2016, 09:22:12 PM
Quote from: yakra on May 25, 2016, 11:19:41 AM
What the...? What's wrong with the existing W->S ramp? Or N->E?

They would have to be readjusted to make way for the new 2-lane through routing of I-49 to LA 3132 West/North.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 29, 2016, 08:11:21 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 25, 2016, 11:15:36 AM
The southern half would be the fifth instance of a Business Interstate being routed on a freeway (40 in Winston-Salem, 80 in Sacramento, 85 in Spartanburg and Greensboro), which I really do not care for at all. But if they loop I-49, then so be it.

6th.  Don't forget most of I-376 Business is a freeway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on September 09, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
Slow progress on the Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector ("ICC"). This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2016/09/09/-49-shreveport-connector-options-whittled-down-four/90129380/) reports that Providence Engineering was supposed to present two alternatives to the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") today, but they only eliminated one alternative and four remain:

Quote
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments hoped the engineers working on Shreveport's Interstate 49 connector project would have had two recommended routes to present on Friday, but instead they presented a status update on the remaining four, citing a lack of important data and an upcoming report on the route's possible impact on Cross Lake and SWEPCO Park ....
On Friday, project manager Kerry Oriol with Providence Engineering told the NLCOG that her firm didn't have enough data yet to make a recommendation.
"There was an expectation that we would have recommendations, but we don't have them yet," Oriol said. "We expected to know by now, but we don't."
Prospective route 3, which of the inner city connector options would have had I-49 largest impact on the Allendale neighborhood, was taken out of consideration. It  had the farthest deviation from the projected inner city corridor.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would build a 36-mile I-49 extension, running along Twelve Mile Bayou and through the northeast corner of the city's Allendale neighborhood a couple miles west of downtown Shreveport.
Alternative 5, which would have I-49 connect to Highway 220 to the already existing loop around the city that connects to I-20. There's also the option to not build a connector at all, Oriol said ....
The next step in the project, Oriol said, is to have SWEPCO Park, Cross Lake and other recreational areas near the connector analyzed to make sure construction wouldn't have any detrimental effect on the environment of the public parks. After the analysis is complete, the project team will gather environmental and community impact data for the proposed routes before holding a final public hearing.
Friday's meeting was the last time the public was able to comment on the project until the final public hearing, Oriel said. That hearing, if all goes smoothly, could take place around this time next year.
"We can't circumvent the process," Oriol said. "The process must be followed."
The estimated total cost of the I-49 North project is $670 million.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on October 08, 2016, 10:28:53 PM
New signs are up on I-220 for the new I-49 interchange. I couldn't get pictures, but the overhead BGS says: EXIT 6...I-49 shield with NO direction listed...TEXARKANA.

At the location where the EXIT ramp will be are 3 overheads on 1 gantry. From left to right they are:

1. TO SOUTH (I-49 shield) Alexandria

2. (I-220 shield) WEST. Dallas

3. EXIT 6...I-49 shield with NO direction listed...Texarkana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Alex on November 09, 2016, 08:27:50 AM
Checked in on the LADOTD page for Interstate 49 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/home.aspx?key=21), and noticed that completion of the segment north from I-220 was pushed back from 2016-17:

QuoteI-220 to La. 1, Segments J-K, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Estimated completion 2017-2018
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on November 09, 2016, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Alex on November 09, 2016, 08:27:50 AM
Checked in on the LADOTD page for Interstate 49 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/home.aspx?key=21), and noticed that completion of the segment north from I-220 was pushed back from 2016-17:

QuoteI-220 to La. 1, Segments J-K, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Estimated completion 2017-2018

Part of the push back may be due to the flooding we had back in March when 20+ inches fell in 24 hours (just an opinion). Not to be confused with all the rain that cell in south Louisiana back in August.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 30, 2017, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
And here's a look at the I-49/MLK interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9mqmFJP.jpg&hash=1827c4a842889afd44dfd195c830d3cfd7fc1e96)

Google Maps has posted some October 30. 2016 imagery and the MLK interchange is coming right along:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5536085,-93.7945357,1752m/data=!3m1!1e3

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_31_01_17_9_42_33.jpeg)

In addition, a look at the I-220 interchange:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_31_01_17_9_51_21.jpeg)

Also, this October, 2016 StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5966539,-93.832732,3a,90y,113.3h,91.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smRqf2XiHUEF1b1uN1uTI7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) gives a good view of the LA 1 bridges.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 31, 2017, 10:20:34 AM
Whoa...check out how swollen the Red River was from last year's flooding in that Google Map link!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2017, 10:29:04 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 09, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
Slow progress on the Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector ("ICC"). This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2016/09/09/-49-shreveport-connector-options-whittled-down-four/90129380/) reports that Providence Engineering was supposed to present two alternatives to the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") today, but they only eliminated one alternative and four remain

This TV video (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/i-49-inner-city-connector-project/650481639) suggests that the Loop It alternative has been effectively eliminated from consideration, and that a final route should be chosen by next Winter:

Quote
Kent Rogers, Exec. Director NWLA Council of Governments ....
Initially there were 5 possible routes for the I-49 connector.
"Build alternatives 1 through 4 were within the Allendale/Ledbetter. Build alternative 5 is the loop it option," says Rogers.
"1 and two principally follow the Pete Harris and Allen Avenue corridor. Build alternative 4 was to the west of that. Build alternative 3 was to the east of that and cut through downtown," says Rogers.
Of those possible routes, Build alternative 3 was removed.
"It was initially developed to minimize the impact to the housing authority property. It's unfortunate that where they built was the portion where the road would have gone. It kind of hampers that, and the way it curved around did other things. It did hit some historical properties, some historic structures, additional park properties.. Of the 4 it has the most impacts," says Rogers.
Along with build alternative 5.
"To utilize the current la 31-32 and 2-20 from its interchange at 20 up to where the new I-49 and 2-20 interchange is under construction now. To bring that up to full interstate standards, to make it a free flow interstate at the inter loop and 49 interchange, the price is astronomical to do that work. You also run into a lot of environmental issues because you have to add additional lanes to cross lake bridge," says Rogers.
Now leaving officials to decide between build alternative 1,2 and 4.

"Alternatives building through verses the loop it option, it's a much shorter distance, provides better and more access into the downtown area, provides a more direct connection between the existing 49 heading south, it will provide a more direct connection to I-49 heading north to Texarkana, Arkansas and ultimately Canada," says Rogers.
A final route should be decided by this coming Winter, which will conclude phase one.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Buck87 on February 07, 2017, 12:27:14 PM
Good to hear that the ICC will eventually happen instead of loop it. 

And I see the "New Orleans to Winnipeg" line is still being used to describe the "I-49 project as a whole" in media outlets :rolleyes:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on February 07, 2017, 06:54:35 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on February 07, 2017, 12:27:14 PM
Good to hear that the ICC will eventually happen instead of loop it. 

And I see the "New Orleans to Winnipeg" line is still being used to describe the "I-49 project as a whole" in media outlets :rolleyes:

I'm in Shreveport this week and had a chance to drive the I-220 loop where the I-49 interchange will be.  A lot of progress is being made.  The flyover bridges are taking shape, and it appears that I-49 beyond the interchange is mostly complete, except for the interchange with I-220 itself.  Pavement and BGSs along the future I-49 mainline can be seen off to the left as you head eastbound on I-220 through the interchange construction site.  Looks like maybe late this year or next year we'll be driving on the new stretch of freeway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 10:07:59 PM
Judging by the new Google Earth imagery it looks like they're leaving stubs for the future I-49 main lanes that will go through the I-220 interchange to the Inter-City Connector.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on February 08, 2017, 12:35:25 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 10:07:59 PM
Judging by the new Google Earth imagery it looks like they're leaving stubs for the future I-49 main lanes that will go through the I-220 interchange to the Inter-City Connector.

From what was mentioned earlier in the thread, it looks like the powers that be down here favor blasting I-49 through Shreveport rather than around it on I-220 and LA-3132 (although I personally would use the existing loop to connect both sections of I-49 if I were king for a day).  Doing so might actually be an improvement for the city, since most of the proposed I-49 corridor between I-20 and I-220 looks like a scene out of "The Walking Dead" with lots of urban decay and blight.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on February 08, 2017, 09:20:28 AM
I think it would be a great benefit to the city to have I-49 go through rather than around. I know there are some obstacles that still need to be cleared (namely Allendale), but I know they will get it done eventually.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 08, 2017, 12:25:27 PM
I strongly favor the inter city connector option. I think it will improve business in the downtown area. As stated earlier, the "loop it" concept has been rejected due to the costs being even higher than connecting I-49 directly, skirting West of the downtown area.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: DNAguy on February 08, 2017, 01:26:06 PM
So just to be clear, upgrading a 7 mile existing grade separated freeway is < expensive than 4-5 miles of new freeway through an existing neighborhood?

I220 north of I20 should already be up to interstate standard, no?

So, again, how is upgrading 3132 more expensive than building a direct connector?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find this hard to believe.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2017, 02:14:00 PM
Quote from: DNAguy on February 08, 2017, 01:26:06 PM
So just to be clear, upgrading a 7 mile existing grade separated freeway is < expensive than 4-5 miles of new freeway through an existing neighborhood?

I220 north of I20 should already be up to interstate standard, no?

So, again, how is upgrading 3132 more expensive than building a direct connector?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find this hard to believe.

First off, it's only 3 miles for the ICC, not 4.5.

Secondly, while LA 3132 is freeway standard from I-49 to I-20, it is not Interstate standard. There is the matter of the Linwood Avenue interchange so close to the stack interchange between I-49 and LA 3132. There is the sharp curve just north of the I-20/I-220 (West) interchange that is below Interstate standard. There is the issue of having to modify the I-49/I-220 stack interchange to accommodate transferring through traffic between the western Inner Loop and south I-49. There is the matter of what to do with existing I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20 if it is removed from the current system. Most important, there is the bridging of I-220 through Cross Lake that would require major reconstruction and widening to 6 lanes to accommodate both "through" I-49 traffic and current and projected I-220 traffic.

By contrast, the ICC has a relatively cheap corridor that is already mostly uninhabited (save for the segment through Allendale), and can easily be incorporated with both the I-220 and I-49 interchanges. It's actually cheaper than what would be needed for the "Loop It" option.

And finally, other than the Allendale housing project interests and the New Urbanists, the overwhelming majority of Shreveport citizens favor the ICC alignment on cost-effectiveness and potential economic growth on its own.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:52:46 AM
One fascinating aspect of the ICC that interests me:


Currently, existing I-49 evolves north of I-20 into a one-way couplet using Allen Avenue southbound and the recently constructed Pete Harris Drive northbound. I'd assume that for the proposed Ford Street interchange, they would use just slip ramps braided with the I-20 connections, but most of the maps currently assume a separate, standalone interchange.


Also, I wonder whether that segment through downtown will be elevated continuously or possibly depressed; would there be a potential to cap the segment through Allendale, and use frontage roads integrating the existing street system for access?


Either way, I'm glad that common sense prevailed and the Loop It alternative was eliminated. Though, I fully expect the lawsuits to fly as soon as the EIS/ROD is completed and CNU/Allendale screams about their fantasies being denied.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on February 09, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
It'll be interesting how the ICC routing takes shape, especially in the areas described above.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: dfwmapper on February 09, 2017, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:52:46 AM
Also, I wonder whether that segment through downtown will be elevated continuously or possibly depressed; would there be a potential to cap the segment through Allendale, and use frontage roads integrating the existing street system for access?
Not 100% familiar with the hydrology of the area, but I suspect that the water table is too high for a depressed freeway. Pretty safe bet for most of Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 11:41:03 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 09, 2017, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:52:46 AM
Also, I wonder whether that segment through downtown will be elevated continuously or possibly depressed; would there be a potential to cap the segment through Allendale, and use frontage roads integrating the existing street system for access?
Not 100% familiar with the hydrology of the area, but I suspect that the water table is too high for a depressed freeway. Pretty safe bet for most of Louisiana.

Definitely for South Louisiana....but not so sure about NW LA.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on February 10, 2017, 05:40:13 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 11:41:03 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 09, 2017, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:52:46 AM
Also, I wonder whether that segment through downtown will be elevated continuously or possibly depressed; would there be a potential to cap the segment through Allendale, and use frontage roads integrating the existing street system for access?
Not 100% familiar with the hydrology of the area, but I suspect that the water table is too high for a depressed freeway. Pretty safe bet for most of Louisiana.

Definitely for South Louisiana....but not so sure about NW LA.

The water table is deep enough to be able to bury people in cemeteries (compared to the above-ground vaults in South LA cemeteries) but I don't think you can entrench a highway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 19, 2017, 09:53:28 PM
Quote from: Alex on November 09, 2016, 08:27:50 AM
Checked in on the LADOTD page for Interstate 49 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/home.aspx?key=21), and noticed that completion of the segment north from I-220 was pushed back from 2016-17:
QuoteI-220 to La. 1, Segments J-K, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Estimated completion 2017-2018

This article (http://www.ktbs.com/story/35186317/workers-continue-to-bring-the-new-portion-of-i-49-to-life-set-to-open-summer-2018) removes 2017 from the equation and places the completion date as Summer 2018:

Quote
Federal and state dollars continue to bring LA-1 to Interstate 220, the new portion of I-49. The goal of the Department of Transportation and Development is to have the best impact for thousands of drivers who will use the interstate every day.
If you take a drive through north Shreveport you'll notice the amount of progress that has been made.
However, inclement weather plays a role in construction zone timelines.
The new extension of Interstate 49 has experienced several hiccups due to poor weather conditions. Despite these delays, the Louisiana DOTD Public Information officer, Erin Buchanan assures KTBS that the project is on schedule to be complete on time in the Summer of 2018. 
"There was some delay when we had that historic flooding with the red river in the summer of 2015. We had another round of floods in March of 2016. Those two events affected the timeline somewhat but it's forging ahead" Buchanan said.
....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2017, 02:23:38 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on February 10, 2017, 05:40:13 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 11:41:03 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 09, 2017, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:52:46 AM
Also, I wonder whether that segment through downtown will be elevated continuously or possibly depressed; would there be a potential to cap the segment through Allendale, and use frontage roads integrating the existing street system for access?
Not 100% familiar with the hydrology of the area, but I suspect that the water table is too high for a depressed freeway. Pretty safe bet for most of Louisiana.

Definitely for South Louisiana....but not so sure about NW LA.

The water table is deep enough to be able to bury people in cemeteries (compared to the above-ground vaults in South LA cemeteries) but I don't think you can entrench a highway.
you can build a tunnel.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on April 20, 2017, 08:50:53 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2017, 02:23:38 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on February 10, 2017, 05:40:13 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 11:41:03 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 09, 2017, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:52:46 AM
Also, I wonder whether that segment through downtown will be elevated continuously or possibly depressed; would there be a potential to cap the segment through Allendale, and use frontage roads integrating the existing street system for access?
Not 100% familiar with the hydrology of the area, but I suspect that the water table is too high for a depressed freeway. Pretty safe bet for most of Louisiana.

Definitely for South Louisiana....but not so sure about NW LA.

The water table is deep enough to be able to bury people in cemeteries (compared to the above-ground vaults in South LA cemeteries) but I don't think you can entrench a highway.
you can build a tunnel.

True. I-10 in Birmingham Biloxi comes to mind. (not awake yet)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on April 20, 2017, 09:16:58 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 20, 2017, 08:50:53 AM
Quoteyou can build a tunnel.
True. I-10 in Birmingham comes to mind.

It will be news to the people of Birmingham that I-10 passes through their city.  :sombrero:

There are tunnels in Belle Chasse and Houma, two other cities with presumably-high water tables.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on April 20, 2017, 10:49:21 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 20, 2017, 08:50:53 AMTrue. I-10 in Birmingham Biloxi comes to mind. (not awake yet)

(Slurring) Shurely Mobile?

In regard to the special measures for soils that have very low bearing capacity due to high organic content, waterlogging, and other factors, in the I-49 corridor those end somewhere between Opelousas and Alexandria.  I-49 North is a very conventional design for areas where soil drainage is generally good.  (Besides very long viaducts that begin and end at tiny hillocks since the soil cannot bear heavy surcharges, there is a tendency to use exaggerated camber in fabricating girders for bridges that carry minor roads over the freeway, so that each bridge seems to form a shallow arch over the freeway.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on April 20, 2017, 12:54:00 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 20, 2017, 10:49:21 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 20, 2017, 08:50:53 AMTrue. I-10 in Birmingham Biloxi comes to mind. (not awake yet)

(Slurring) Shurely Mobile?



(https://previews.123rf.com/images/yayayoy/yayayoy1109/yayayoy110900034/10740233-Emoticon-pointing-a-gun-on-his-head-Stock-Vector-smiley-face-emoticon.jpg)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on April 21, 2017, 10:50:51 AM
In fairness, Mobile is fresh in my mind since I was there about three weeks ago and made multiple transits of the Bankhead and George Wallace tunnels.

Returning to I-49, I am not so sure that a high water table doesn't form part of the argument not to put lengths of it in tunnel in southern Louisiana.  I looked at the Wikipedia article on the Sunshine Skyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge) last night and it seems waterlogged ground is part of the reason a bridge/tunnel combination was rejected as an alternate when replacement of the shipwrecked span was being planned in the early 1980's.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 21, 2017, 06:59:29 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2017, 10:29:04 AM
This TV video (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/i-49-inner-city-connector-project/650481639) suggests that the Loop It alternative has been effectively eliminated from consideration, and that a final route should be chosen by next Winter:
Quote
Of the 4 it has the most impacts," says Rogers.
Along with build alternative 5.
"To utilize the current la 31-32 and 2-20 from its interchange at 20 up to where the new I-49 and 2-20 interchange is under construction now. To bring that up to full interstate standards, to make it a free flow interstate at the inter loop and 49 interchange, the price is astronomical to do that work. You also run into a lot of environmental issues because you have to add additional lanes to cross lake bridge," says Rogers.
Now leaving officials to decide between build alternative 1,2 and 4.

The Loop It Alternative lives. This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2017/04/21/decision--49-inner-city-connector-could-come-soon-july/100707278/) reports that, at yesterday's meeting of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments Transportation Policy Committee, it has come down between Alternative 1 and the Loop It Alternative, with Alternative 1 facing a potential major problem in SWEPCO Park:

Quote
During a regular meeting of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments meeting Thursday morning, an engineer with Providence Engineering made a presentation to the council that included Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler and Bossier City Mayor Lo Walker.
Providence identified Routes 1 and 5 for additional study. Route 5 will use the loop that takes drivers over Cross Lake, while Route 1 would connect I-49 through SWEPCO Park in the Allendale neighborhood.
The engineer said they're waiting on an evaluation of the significance of SWEPCO Park as well as an environmental impact study on both routes before they say they can move forward.
Tyler said during the meeting that the city plans to close the park after it was deemed not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Federal Highway Administration cited SWEPCO Park's location as the reason to reject Route 1. With the park closed, the route could be greenlighted.
In the past, the city government has approved bond issuances for ADA compliance for places like the Riverview Theatre and Barnwell Center downtown ....
A decision on the final route could come as soon as July if Providence finishes its evaluation on time, but it's unlikely a vote will happen until the fall.

Wonder if the Shreveport city government will issue bonds to make SWEPCO Park ADA-compliant?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 21, 2017, 09:29:21 PM
WOW.

I'm pretty sure this sets up a major battle between Allendale residents (and the New Urbanists lobby) who will attempt to force Shreveport locals to make SWEPCO Park ADA compliant in order to block the ICC and force the Loop It alternative + lesser surface boulevard) under Section 4(f); and ICC supporters who would say that closing down a park is worth building the most cost-effective means of connecting both segments of I-49. And, this battle could last a while due to lawsuits.

I still favor the ICC route through Shreveport, but there damn well better be a plan for replacing SWEPCO Park, or everything will be lost.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Revive 755 on April 21, 2017, 09:42:35 PM
SWEPCO Park is/was actually a park?  It just looks like a patch of trees on Google Maps (link). (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5316403,-93.7660366,471m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)  Is parking for it sharing the bank parking lot?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on April 21, 2017, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 21, 2017, 09:42:35 PMSWEPCO Park is/was actually a park?  It just looks like a patch of trees on Google Maps (link). (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5316403,-93.7660366,471m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)  Is parking for it sharing the bank parking lot?

It is a real honest-to-God city park with, (apparently) until their recent removal, a pavilion, barbecue pits, playground equipment, and shade trees galore.

http://heliopolis.la/is-the-city-trying-to-un-park-swepco-park/

This blog piece describes strange doings by Shreveport Parks & Recreation that may be a prelude to attempting to release it for I-49 construction.  I don't think it is necessarily impartial given the top picture that shows people holding signs reading "Smarter49.com," "Save our community," "Highways to boulevard" and so on.

I have a sneaky feeling that a lot of the juice will go out of the I-49 "throughpass" option once the I-49/I-220 interchange is finished since that will form a fully access-controlled connection between the two rural lengths of I-49, even if it is not completely up to Interstate standard and involves two TOTSOs.

(As an aside:  a stack in Shreveport of all places!  I have to update my stack list.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 22, 2017, 02:03:55 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 21, 2017, 10:35:01 PM

I have a sneaky feeling that a lot of the juice will go out of the I-49 "throughpass" option once the I-49/I-220 interchange is finished since that will form a fully access-controlled connection between the two rural lengths of I-49, even if it is not completely up to Interstate standard and involves two TOTSOs.


Ummm...I don't think so. The Loop It alternative is still far more expensive than the "throughpass" option due to the need to upgrade LA 3132 (Inner Loop) to Interstate grade (it's already freeway, but nowhere near Interstate standard due to tight curves and interchange spacing) and the additional lane in each direction that would be needed for I-220 through Cross Lake. And then, there's the possible threat to Shreveport's drinking water that the latter construction may increase. Plus, far too many Shreveport business and local interests are backing the ICC.

Would it be possible to deck over the ICC at that point and rebuild SWEPCO Park above the mainline? That might be a suitable compromise.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US-175 on April 22, 2017, 02:31:07 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 22, 2017, 02:03:55 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 21, 2017, 10:35:01 PM

I have a sneaky feeling that a lot of the juice will go out of the I-49 "throughpass" option once the I-49/I-220 interchange is finished since that will form a fully access-controlled connection between the two rural lengths of I-49, even if it is not completely up to Interstate standard and involves two TOTSOs.


Ummm...I don't think so. The Loop It alternative is still far more expensive than the "throughpass" option due to the need to upgrade LA 3132 (Inner Loop) to Interstate grade (it's already freeway, but nowhere near Interstate standard due to tight curves and interchange spacing) and the additional lane in each direction that would be needed for I-220 through Cross Lake. And then, there's the possible threat to Shreveport's drinking water that the latter construction may increase. Plus, far too many Shreveport business and local interests are backing the ICC.

Would it be possible to deck over the ICC at that point and rebuild SWEPCO Park above the mainline? That might be a suitable compromise.

Would the below-ground section (if done that way) be flood-prone, or not?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on April 22, 2017, 08:16:50 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 21, 2017, 10:35:01 PM
It is a real honest-to-God city park with, (apparently) until their recent removal, a pavilion, barbecue pits, playground equipment, and shade trees galore.
http://heliopolis.la/is-the-city-trying-to-un-park-swepco-park/

This TV video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/35215079/shreveport-proposes-closing-swepco-park-to-prepare-for-i-49-route) has some footage of the park and discusses the City's plans to close it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on April 22, 2017, 11:22:20 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 22, 2017, 02:03:55 AMUmmm...I don't think so. The Loop It alternative is still far more expensive than the "throughpass" option due to the need to upgrade LA 3132 (Inner Loop) to Interstate grade (it's already freeway, but nowhere near Interstate standard due to tight curves and interchange spacing) and the additional lane in each direction that would be needed for I-220 through Cross Lake. And then, there's the possible threat to Shreveport's drinking water that the latter construction may increase. Plus, far too many Shreveport business and local interests are backing the ICC.

Need has both conceptual and political dimensions.  The LOS standard that presumably drives the argument that an additional lane needs to be provided for the Cross Lake bridge is a soft requirement, and it is easy to envisage an outcome where I-49 is connected at both ends and SR 3132/I-220 are simply left unimproved to operate at a worsened LOS.  SR 3132 does not fail to meet Interstate standards in a way that is obvious to the ordinary driver; closely spaced exits notwithstanding, it is still a freeway and still of relatively modern design.

I would frankly take the concerns about contamination of Cross Lake more seriously if Shreveport did not already have the absolute worst-tasting tap water I have found in over 30 years of travel spanning 49 US states and DC (though admittedly not to places like Flint and the West Virginia mountains where tap water is confirmed to be actively dangerous and is noticeably discolored, flammable, or so lead-laden as to produce rapid deterioration in cognitive function).

Two weeks ago I stayed in a budget motel near the airport and was taken aback by how awful the tap water was.  Though it was clear without any visible discoloration, it had strong tasting notes of mold and mildew, and smelled bad not just at the motel (which might have had dodgy plumbing--it was undergoing remodelling and I was initially mistakenly put in a room that had been torn down for renovation), but also at the nearby Waffle House restaurant and gas station.  It was so bad that I didn't refill my water bottles before I left, knowing that I could find much better-tasting water further along the road.  I actually did some Web searches to find out why Shreveport city water tasted so awful, and found a local TV news story about coliform bacteria being found in testing where the TV reporters took the city water officials at their word when they said "Not a problem"--a model of how not to do investigative journalism.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on April 22, 2017, 10:59:38 PM
The big argument for building I-220 over Cross Lake in the 80s was fear of an 18-wheeler full of haz-mat turning over & contaminating the city water supply.

What they fail to see was the super-busy KCS mainline running on the lake's eastern levee. Are they not afraid of a train derailment spilling tons more haz-mat into the lake? (The railroad was there before they made Cross Lake the city's drinking water supply I think.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
There is more to that story as well; quoting from this post (http://www.ktbs.com/story/35258668/i-49-inner-city-connector-update#.WQEaKH8my4o.facebook) from the Shreveport ABC-TV affiliate KTBS website:

Quote
Once the Federal Highway Administration takes a closer at the two alternatives, Louisiana DOTD Public Information Officer, Erin Buchanan, said it is on to the next and near final step, "A draft of the final impact statement will be drawn up and that will be offered for public comment and public meeting. That's also a part of this process that has to be put out there for the public to give their input."

The city of Shreveport recently determined SWEPCO Park is not significant and could be used as part of the project.

Members are now awaiting approval from the FHWA. A determination on whether Cross Lake is considered significant was also requested by the FHWA.


Cross Lake is also being questioned as potentially a roadblock for the Loop It/Alternative 5 bypass due to its status as a sole source for Shreveport's drinking water supply. If Shreveport's council does go forward with its plans to close or relocate SWEPCO Park, that would grease the wheels for the Alignment 1/Throughpass to be selected, notwithstanding any potential lawsuits from Allendale or the housing project operators or the New Urbanist/boulevard proponents.


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2017, 12:28:04 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 22, 2017, 11:22:20 AM
Need has both conceptual and political dimensions.  The LOS standard that presumably drives the argument that an additional lane needs to be provided for the Cross Lake bridge is a soft requirement, and it is easy to envisage an outcome where I-49 is connected at both ends and SR 3132/I-220 are simply left unimproved to operate at a worsened LOS.  SR 3132 does not fail to meet Interstate standards in a way that is obvious to the ordinary driver; closely spaced exits notwithstanding, it is still a freeway and still of relatively modern design.

"The ordinary driver" does not enforce Federal Interstate design standards; FHWA and LADOTD do. And, even if the Inner Loop already is a freeway, the fact that it does not meet essential standards for an Interstate facility and would need some expensive modifications to do so is not irrelevant to the ICC selection process.

Also, if you run I-49 through the Inner Loop/I-220, what happens to existing I-49 between the loop and I-20 (plus any at-grade boulevard extension to connect with I-49 at I-220 North)? LA 3049? US 71?? Business I-49??
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: J N Winkler on May 08, 2017, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2017, 12:28:04 AM"The ordinary driver" does not enforce Federal Interstate design standards; FHWA and LADOTD do. And, even if the Inner Loop already is a freeway, the fact that it does not meet essential standards for an Interstate facility and would need some expensive modifications to do so is not irrelevant to the ICC selection process.

I don't disagree.  But the fact remains that completion of the I-49/I-220 wye currently under construction is all that is required to complete a freeway route for I-49 traffic in the vicinity of Shreveport, even if it is not in full compliance with Interstate design standards and thus cannot be signed as I-49 in its entirety.  If the planning folks in Shreveport aren't careful with the 4(f) and environmental justice issues surrounding Swepco Park and the surrounding neighborhood, they could find themselves dealing with another Somerset Freeway situation.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2017, 12:28:04 AMAlso, if you run I-49 through the Inner Loop/I-220, what happens to existing I-49 between the loop and I-20 (plus any at-grade boulevard extension to connect with I-49 at I-220 North)? LA 3049? US 71?? Business I-49??

Any of those solutions would work.  I think I-149 (for the freeway segment only) is also available.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 09, 2017, 10:53:28 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 08, 2017, 11:05:38 AM

I don't disagree.  But the fact remains that completion of the I-49/I-220 wye currently under construction is all that is required to complete a freeway route for I-49 traffic in the vicinity of Shreveport, even if it is not in full compliance with Interstate design standards and thus cannot be signed as I-49 in its entirety.  If the planning folks in Shreveport aren't careful with the 4(f) and environmental justice issues surrounding Swepco Park and the surrounding neighborhood, they could find themselves dealing with another Somerset Freeway situation.

The City of Shreveport has made it plain that they plan to close down SWEPCO Park in order to clear the way for Alternative 1 to be approved. If there is no park there, there is no 4(f) case. Loop It/Allendale can then try to sue to make the "environmental justice" case and reverse course, but it could be a tough sell.

Quote
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2017, 12:28:04 AMAlso, if you run I-49 through the Inner Loop/I-220, what happens to existing I-49 between the loop and I-20 (plus any at-grade boulevard extension to connect with I-49 at I-220 North)? LA 3049? US 71?? Business I-49??

Any of those solutions would work.  I think I-149 (for the freeway segment only) is also available.

Considering that it is a connection between 2 freeways (I-49 and I-20), the freeway section could get an even I-x49 designation. If the boulevard extension is built, it would have to be a state highway (LA 3049), since it would not be possible to reroute US 71 or US 171 onto it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2017, 12:53:09 PM
One more small section of I-49 to clinch! This May 30 TV video (http://www.ksla.com/story/35549101/louisiana-to-open-part-of-new-stretch-of-i-49-on-wednesday) reports that the northbound lanes from MLK to LA 1 will open to traffic today. The southbound lanes will remain closed, presumably until the I-220 interchange opens. Four photographs of the work on the I-220 interchange accompany the article.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: I-39 on May 31, 2017, 09:23:46 PM
And with the recent gas tax defeat in Louisiana, don't expect any more sections of I-49 to be completed anytime soon.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on June 01, 2017, 01:23:18 PM
I don't see any future U.S. 90 construction projects on LaDOTD 6 month schedule. When the 2 design build projects are finished is it on hold until the I 49 South Lafayette connector is decided?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on June 01, 2017, 08:47:51 PM
I apologize for coming in late here, but what is the routing for 49 inside Shreveport?

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 03:04:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 01, 2017, 08:47:51 PM
I apologize for coming in late here, but what is the routing for 49 inside Shreveport?

Nexus 6P

The current and, IMHO, most likely routing (now in the environmental review stage of planning) is called the 'Inner City Connector', a fairly straight-shot between the ends of I-49 at I-20 and I-220.  The neighborhood north of I-20/49 is very 'marginal' at best and there is little opposition from within it.  It is planned to go straight north from the existing I-20 interchange, then turn northwestward after about 10-12 blocks and then back to due northward to line up with the now opening I-49 end at I-220.

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on June 02, 2017, 03:20:00 PM
What is the exit number going to be for the MLK interchange?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on June 02, 2017, 03:27:27 PM
That's surprising that there isn't much opposition, that's great.

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 03:30:41 PM
I'd focus on getting the Shreveport inner city connector finished before going any further on I-49 south. Worst-case scenario, traffic will have to use Interstate 10 to get over to New Orleans for a while.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on June 02, 2017, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 03:30:41 PM
I'd focus on getting the Shreveport inner city connector finished before going any further on I-49 south. Worst-case scenario, traffic will have to use Interstate 10 to get over to New Orleans for a while.
How is that worst case? It's shorter and faster than future I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 02, 2017, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 03:30:41 PM
I'd focus on getting the Shreveport inner city connector finished before going any further on I-49 south.

Please explain how you, from middle Tennessee, know more about the needs of Louisiana than those of us who live in Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: jbnv on June 02, 2017, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 03:30:41 PM
I'd focus on getting the Shreveport inner city connector finished before going any further on I-49 south.

Please explain how you, from middle Tennessee, know more about the needs of Louisiana than those of us who live in Louisiana.

Um...... I never claimed that, it was just a general observation? The Shreveport Connector is a lot less miles than the I-49 south, and does not have quite as much opposition.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 07:29:10 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 02, 2017, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 03:30:41 PM
I'd focus on getting the Shreveport inner city connector finished before going any further on I-49 south. Worst-case scenario, traffic will have to use Interstate 10 to get over to New Orleans for a while.
How is that worst case? It's shorter and faster than future I-49.

It's about the same, but my point is I-49 south isn't getting completed anytime soon with the gas tax hike defeat.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 03, 2017, 01:48:30 AM
From Lafayette I-10 is definitely a faster and shorter route to New Orleans. BUT! If you're heading to some destinations along the West Bank across from New Orleans (Gretna, Belle Chasse, etc) then I-49 South could act as a convenient bypass to New Orleans traffic. And then there's all those communities along the I-49 South route. That Interstate would serve as a more efficient hurricane evacuation route for the Southern New Orleans metro and other areas close to the Louisiana coast.

I agree the Shreveport inner city connector needs to get built much sooner than later. Once the connection to I-220 is complete next year then the ICC needs to get fast tracked while it has momentum. The I-49 South projects in Lafayette need to get finished too, but that's a tougher battle. Once the court battles can finally end and I-49 starts getting fleshed out through Lafayette then it will be possible to finish it the rest of the way to the West Bank Expressway across the river from New Orleans.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 09, 2017, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 03, 2017, 01:48:30 AM
From Lafayette I-10 is definitely a faster and shorter route to New Orleans. BUT! If you're heading to some destinations along the West Bank across from New Orleans (Gretna, Belle Chasse, etc) then I-49 South could act as a convenient bypass to New Orleans traffic.

Depends on where in Lafayette you're starting. Most of Lafayette is south of I-10. The fastest-growing parts of metro Lafayette are well-south of I-10 and along the Future I-49 corridor. With a complete I-49 and assuming no change in the flow of traffic through Baton Rouge, I-49 South and I-310 open up some viable scenarios, including access to MSY and downtown New Orleans via the Westbank Expressway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 10, 2017, 09:29:22 PM
Quote from: jbnv on June 09, 2017, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 03, 2017, 01:48:30 AM
From Lafayette I-10 is definitely a faster and shorter route to New Orleans. BUT! If you're heading to some destinations along the West Bank across from New Orleans (Gretna, Belle Chasse, etc) then I-49 South could act as a convenient bypass to New Orleans traffic.

Depends on where in Lafayette you're starting. Most of Lafayette is south of I-10. The fastest-growing parts of metro Lafayette are well-south of I-10 and along the Future I-49 corridor. With a complete I-49 and assuming no change in the flow of traffic through Baton Rouge, I-49 South and I-310 open up some viable scenarios, including access to MSY and downtown New Orleans via the Westbank Expressway.

A south I-10 bypass of Baton Rouge from west of Port Allen to near Gonzales would instantly relieve the bottleneck through BTR enough to make I-10 more effective. A completed I-49 South would be a bonus.

Now, add the southwest perimeter of the Lafayette Regional Expressway proposed toll road bypass loop between west of Scott and south of Broussard, and I-49 South all of a sudden becomes much more viable as both a bypass of BTR and a means of avoiding the mess of crossing the Atchafalaya Basin Swamp. Heck, you might even want to reroute I-10 there, and make current I-10 through Lafayette to BTR an extension of I-12!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 12, 2017, 08:56:55 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 10, 2017, 09:29:22 PM
A south I-10 bypass of Baton Rouge from west of Port Allen to near Gonzales would instantly relieve the bottleneck through BTR enough to make I-10 more effective.

Or make better use of what we already have: the LA 1-3127 corridor from Port Allen to Boutte. If the whole stretch were expressway and bypassed the major towns on its route, it could serve as a relief route for southbound traffic when Baton Rouge is congested. (And for numbering, extend US 63 through Pineville, Marksville, and Port Allen to Boutte.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on June 12, 2017, 10:32:43 AM
Perhaps the ICC is the better way to go, especially if there's almost no opposition to it, and looping it onto I-220 and LA 3132 would be more expensive anyway. I say Shreveport should go for that.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2017, 04:34:04 PM
What is the opposition level to building the ICC through Shreveport, anyway?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 15, 2017, 03:54:45 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2017, 04:34:04 PM
What is the opposition level to building the ICC through Shreveport, anyway?

Mostly, it's coming from the neighborhood of Allendale where the ICC will go through, developers of the housing project that will be razed by the ROW, and New Urbanists who are opposed to "throughpass" freeways in general and would rather either boulevards or rail serving downtowns, with bypasses serving through traffic.

Most of the business sector of Shreveport and the neighborhoods other than Allendale overwhelmingly support the ICC.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2017, 03:20:47 PM
New Urbanists? I dislike new urbanism. They should be forced to live in the developments they support, and nowhere else.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: aboges26 on June 15, 2017, 06:17:49 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2017, 03:20:47 PM
New Urbanists? I dislike new urbanism. They should be forced to live in the developments they support, and nowhere else.

Generally they do, but they think everybody should live like them because it's better for the environment.  Rail access and bypasses are good and fine, but radial freeways that get people in and out of the city center where rail does not serve has severely fallen out of fashion these days.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: I-39 on June 15, 2017, 07:18:20 PM
It seems there is more opposition to the Lafayette connector than the Shreveport one, so I'd say finish the latter first since it's only 3 or so miles of new freeway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on June 15, 2017, 08:54:54 PM
Fuck the planet.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 16, 2017, 02:56:55 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 15, 2017, 07:18:20 PM
It seems there is more opposition to the Lafayette connector than the Shreveport one, so I'd say finish the latter first since it's only 3 or so miles of new freeway.

Not so much. The Lafayette Connector's main issues are resolving how to clean up a former railyard site that has been found to potentially contaminate Lafayette's drinking water supply; and adding some enhancements that the locals want to mitigate the footprint of the freeway. There is still some opposition to the corridor in general from the Sierra Club who still would prefer Teche Ridge Bypass, but the bulk of the locals want the Connector, but with enhancements.

Swepco Park is a much bigger potential roadblock for the Shreveport ICC if it's not resolved than any issue for the Lafayette Connector.  Plus, the Lafayette Connector is the most vital piece in completing I-49 South; there is no Inner Loop/I-220 bypass as a fallback.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 16, 2017, 08:15:30 AM
Does anyone have a diagram of 220/49/at full build out with the ICC.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on June 16, 2017, 09:07:13 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 16, 2017, 08:15:30 AM
Does anyone have a diagram of 220/49/at full build out with the ICC.
Yes, I'd love to see that too!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: aboges26 on June 16, 2017, 10:15:46 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 16, 2017, 09:07:13 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 16, 2017, 08:15:30 AM
Does anyone have a diagram of 220/49/at full build out with the ICC.
Yes, I'd love to see that too!

Google Image search "Shreveport ICC map", and you will be able to see others relatively quickly, but this was one of the best results:

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b2a2d0eea9c665e339add63147cfb5ab9f25bd95/c=16-0-678-498&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2016/09/09/LAGroup/Shreveport/636090349744689065-SHRI495alts.PNG)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2017, 10:44:41 AM
Quote from: aboges26Generally they do, but they think everybody should live like them because it's better for the environment.  Rail access and bypasses are good and fine, but radial freeways that get people in and out of the city center where rail does not serve has severely fallen out of fashion these days.

The "fashion" really depends on the region of the nation where the road would be built. Rapidly growing cities like Dallas, Austin and Houston are expanding super highways and building new ones.

New Urbanists think American cities need to be laid out like certain European cities, with freeways confined to the perimeter. The problem is they don't understand the cores of those cities were created hundreds of years ago, centuries before the automobile was invented. Lots of streets in these historic city cores are only big enough for one lane. When you look at a city like London it's very easy to understand why a route like M-1 dead ends where it does. They built the highway as far as they could. If there was space available they would have extended the road closer to the city center. Most big American cities have super highways running in or near city centers because it was much easier to build those roads and most of the buildings that had to be cleared to make way for the highway were not historically significant. Many American buildings, be they homes or businesses, are very temporary in nature. Very few are built to last centuries even these high priced McMansions.

New Urbanists have a very romanticized view of mass transit that is not grounded in reality. They only see the positive sides to it and think there are no negative aspects.

I lived in New York City for 5 years, 4 years on Staten Island and the last year in Brooklyn. To commute back and forth from home to college and work in Manhattan I took the bus, Staten Island Ferry and subway. You could get just about anywhere in NYC using the bus or train. Commuter rail and bus services could take you to destinations out on Long Island, New Jersey, Upstate NY and even parts of Connecticut.

Downsides: the mass transit commute process was a monumental time suck. I lost 3 hours every day in my commute just going from Staten Island to Manhattan. Taking a car was much faster, even during rush hour. Waiting at a bus stop or on a subway platform puts you out in the weather. New Urbanists only see a sunny, warm view of this. They don't think about driving rain, snow and ice cold North winds blasting. You can carry only so much when you're riding the bus or train. I carried a big portfolio case and box of art supplies on my commute. That was a giant pain in the ass on a crowded bus or train. Need groceries? You can carry only so many bags of food on a bus or train, and you're going to travel only so far which limits your choice. Anyone with money was driving, using a car service or at least taking a cab.

Bus lines aren't the cheapest thing to operate. Here in Lawton the LATS service only runs limited hours. It needs grants and subsidies to stay in the black. Light rail lines and subways are ridiculously expensive to build. Those also often need government subsidies for their operation.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 16, 2017, 11:25:25 AM
I commute 45-60 minutes per way each day to work and ride-share on the side. I have a hard time believing that busses and rail are realistic parts of the solution for Baton Rouge (where I work) and Lafayette. (They work very well in New Orleans because New Orleans has a culture of tight neighborhoods and an established light-rail system. BR and Lafayette have neither.) I personally see how ride-sharing is making transportation more affordable and practical for lower-income workers and racial/ethnic minorities. And the biggest time-suck in my commute is waiting in traffic due to insufficient throughput.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 16, 2017, 12:12:44 PM
Quote from: jbnv on June 16, 2017, 11:25:25 AM
I commute 45-60 minutes per way each day to work and ride-share on the side. I have a hard time believing that busses and rail are realistic parts of the solution for Baton Rouge (where I work) and Lafayette. (They work very well in New Orleans because New Orleans has a culture of tight neighborhoods and an established light-rail system. BR and Lafayette have neither.) I personally see how ride-sharing is making transportation more affordable and practical for lower-income workers and racial/ethnic minorities. And the biggest time-suck in my commute is waiting in traffic due to insufficient throughput.

I can't speak for Baton Rouge, but Lafayette does have a decent and relatively cheap bus system (LTS), supplemented by a "Night Owl" service for evening/hours. ULL also has its own free bus service for students who use Cajun Field for parking during classes.

Light rail for Lafayette? Fuggettabotit. There is no thourghfare in Lafayette wide enough to be converted for light rail usage, other than maybe Johnston Street from the ULL campus to Mall of Acadiana....and you can probably sense what the reaction from regular users of that arterial or the businesses there would be to that proposal. Also, the current BNSF/UP freight rail line cuts right through Lafayette in a way that makes any light rail connection to the northern or eastern portions of Lafayette impossible.

If the BNSF line was moved to bypass Lafayette to the west, or somehow BNSF train traffic was transferred to the UP line that goes through Opelousas to Livonia to meet the main UP line that goes through Grosse Tete/Addis/Plaquemine (with the existing BNSF line reduced to serving Amtrak's Sunset Limited), then maybe a light rail network could become a bit more feasible.

There was a time when there was hope that the abandoned Southern Pacific line between Lafayette and Opelousas could be made into a commuter rail line, and there was even a proposal to make a trail out of the abandoned ROW. That fell through due to resistance from landowners who wanted their property back.

Either way it goes, most commuting will continue to be by auto. New Urbanism simply won't play here.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2017, 02:32:16 PM
Light rail lines are just too expensive for any modest sized cities. They only work in really large cities, and even those lines get help from taxpayers.

I have a feeling mass transit systems in the US will suffer a big drop in ridership in the years ahead. It's only a matter of time until self-driving cars become widely available. All the big auto companies as well as Google and Apple are working on it. It is "disruptive" level technology. The technology has the potential to revolutionize long distance car travel. Self-driving vehicles may cause radical changes to happen in many other areas of business and leisure. The technology will put more emphasis on improving the nation's highways. New automobile technology will also contribute to increased ride sharing and use of car services like Uber and Lyft.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 16, 2017, 04:51:12 PM
In the short-term, ridesharing will become the de-facto mode of transportation for a lot of people, particularly blue-collar workers and low-wage service personnel, especially in sprawling cities like Baton Rouge. If Uber and Lyft can figure out how to pair up long-distance commuters with people on their way, it could even become a viable alternative for the suburban commuter. Ride-sharing is handling the problem of on-demand time-sensitive transportation that public transportation has never been able to satisfy.

I've never had a passenger tell me, "This ridesharing thing is okay, but I'm going to stick with the bus."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: compdude787 on June 16, 2017, 06:44:44 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2017, 02:32:16 PM
Light rail lines are just too expensive for any modest sized cities. They only work in really large cities, and even those lines get help from taxpayers.

I have a feeling mass transit systems in the US will suffer a big drop in ridership in the years ahead. It's only a matter of time until self-driving cars become widely available. All the big auto companies as well as Google and Apple are working on it. It is "disruptive" level technology. The technology has the potential to revolutionize long distance car travel. Self-driving vehicles may cause radical changes to happen in many other areas of business and leisure. The technology will put more emphasis on improving the nation's highways. New automobile technology will also contribute to increased ride sharing and use of car services like Uber and Lyft.

Totally agree with you. I have long thought that self-driving cars would cause a major decrease in the ridership of mass transit. But granted, parking is still going to be an issue in city centers, (parking is VERY expensive in Downtown Seattle) and avoiding paying for parking is really the only compelling reason for anyone to use public transit if they work in a downtown area. Even so, people could just use self-driving Uber cars. :D
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on June 16, 2017, 10:04:33 PM
These self driving cars are going to cost a shitload, not going to see many people buying one, especially since car ownership is approaching the 10 yr mark on average now.  I wouldn't worry about it any time soon. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2017, 10:28:19 PM
I think autonomous cars are going to change car ownership as well. I'm not sure how many people grasp the level of change that is coming with autonomous cars.

A lot of people will be put out of work but to be fair the work that the cars are going to replace are low level jobs. I get that some people might do it to make money on the side but this could create more skilled jobs for coding. I honestly don't know too much about this aspect.

Taxi drivers, rideshare drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, shuttle drivers, delivery drivers, etc.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bugo on June 16, 2017, 10:41:20 PM
If and when driverless cars take over, I suspect there will be no more private ownership, at least for the proles. They will probably operate like taxicabs. A person will be able to have a car meet them at home at 7:30, drop them off at work at 8, meet them at work at 5 and drive them home. After the car drops a person off it will automatically drive to another person who needs a car ride. I am glad I won't live to see it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on June 17, 2017, 02:21:20 AM
No one in the tech industry is talking about it (jobs it will kill) and politicians don't understand.  Also I think you all misunderstand how fast this will happen, again, the cost alone is going to keep this in premium territory, look at electric cars.  Also, I think car insurance companies will be severely hurt (no one shedding a tear for them).  I think all of what you're saying is true, just not any time soon.  It's honestly frustrating how no one cares about this that matters, if you look at state by state, what is the most common job, a truck driver is usually it, or a driving job in general.  What the hell are we going to do for these people when they lose their jobs?  I have no idea, and I wish people in power would figure that out too. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2017, 03:02:33 AM
Self-driving cars will cost quite a premium in the beginning. The technology will not stay ridiculously expensive for long. Just look at all the advances in computer technology. Back in the early 1990's it was a big deal for a super computer to pass the barrier of 1 trillion floating point operations in one second. Today an okay PC graphics accelerator can do a teraflop. The highest end workstation graphics boards from nVidia ($4000 to $6000 range) can surpass 20 teraflops. Many of us have smart phones and tablets that can do a lot more than a high end computer from 10 years ago.

Many new cars are ridiculously expensive for other reasons, mainly because enough people are still willing to pay a stupid amount of money for a new vehicle. I'd like a new pickup truck. But I'm not going to blow $60,000 for one. That douche-bag pricing "strategy" is the main thing that's going to kill vehicle ownership, not the cost of self driving technology. The auto industry is starting to run into a rough patch over this stuff. The used car industry is in trouble for all the games it has played jerking people around on the sub-prime loans racket. I think the auto manufacturers are looking at the self-driving tech angle as more than just some new market to exploit. It could be something that may pull their asses out of the fire.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 17, 2017, 03:05:21 AM
I am very curious as to the laws that will surround autonomous cars like who will be at fault for accidents etc... will you need a drivers license to drive? Will some cars not have a manual mode at all?

People with DUI's, suspended drivers license, etc...

What about these money hungry cops? How will they operate their speed traps if all cars obey the speed limits? Will autonomous cars get pulled over for accidentally breaking traffic laws? Lol

This will extend eventually to planes, boats, and trains.

It isn't just truck drivers, catering drivers, delivery drivers, airport shuttles, the guys that drive the cars around the airport to deliver bags... even your golf cart will be autonomous!!! Lol

But there really are some good questions and I'm not trying to be an alarmist here. I'm kind of excited for the fact that I might be able to drive and have fun then when I'm tired kick the seat back and let the car take over as opposed to pulling into a hotel or a rest stop.

As for the timeline of arrival, I haven't got a clue. I'm willing to be the tech will be here quicker than most think but the red tape surrounding it? That's a different story. All kinds of laws will need to be worked out.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: oscar on June 18, 2017, 11:18:33 PM
I drove the newest segment of I-49 north of Shreveport, yesterday evening just before sunset, as I was passing through the Shreveport area. Some notes:

-- The answer to yakra's question about the exit number for the south end of the new segment is 211. I took this photo from the inside shoulder of the NB lanes (SB traffic still has to exit at LA 1), with a telephoto lens and even that needed magnification.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FI49-newsouthend-exit0sign-SB-DSC_6157.jpg&hash=fcdca53658d21781ab5a2db419469930d314101d)

-- The "soft launch" of the new segment apparently includes not telling drivers on US 71 north of I-220 about the extension, and indeed retaining old signage misleading them into thinking they have to use LA 1 to connect to I-49.

-- On WB I-220 just west of US 71, the ramp to I-49 north to Texarkana has an uncovered exit sign. Motorists getting the wrong idea will find the new ramp barricaded. I have no idea why the sign is uncovered, especially since it's obvious from ramp bridge segments hanging in mid-air that the I-49 connection to I-220 is nowhere near completion.

-- The new segment is posted at 70 mph. The speed limit goes up to 75 north of exit 215 to LA 1.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on June 19, 2017, 02:34:43 PM
Quote from: oscar on June 18, 2017, 11:18:33 PM
I drove the newest segment of I-49 north of Shreveport, yesterday evening just before sunset, as I was passing through the Shreveport area. Some notes:

-- The answer to yakra's question about the exit number for the south end of the new segment is 211. I took this photo from the inside shoulder of the NB lanes (SB traffic still has to exit at LA 1), with a telephoto lens and even that needed magnification.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FI49-newsouthend-exit0sign-SB-DSC_6157.jpg&hash=fcdca53658d21781ab5a2db419469930d314101d)

There are 5 abbreviations/initials on that sign and only one of them has a period after it.  If you put a period after "Dr" (Doctor) then put one after "Jr" and "Dr" (Drive) to be consistent.  For a minute, I thought it was an OK DOT sign.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 19, 2017, 04:35:18 PM
Does the 211 exit number give an indication of whether Interstate 49 will be built through Shreveport, or whether it will bypass Shreveport via 3132 and 220?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on June 19, 2017, 05:19:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 19, 2017, 04:35:18 PM
Does the 211 exit number give an indication of whether Interstate 49 will be built through Shreveport, or whether it will bypass Shreveport via 3132 and 220?

Based on sheer mileage alone, the "211" would have to reflect the direct in-town I-49 alignment extending north from the I-20/49 interchange.  A routing along LA 3132 and I-220 would increase that number by 6 or 7 (miles). 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on June 20, 2017, 10:43:40 AM
They better hope their assumptions prove correct!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: apjung on June 27, 2017, 02:04:40 AM
This news report about an accident at I-220 has footage of the I-49/220 Interchange construction.
http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/major-part-of-interstate-closed-in-shreveport/746051510
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 18, 2017, 07:20:46 PM
This TV video (http://www.kplctv.com/story/36168386/i-49-extension-one-step-closer-to-reality-in-allendale) reports that the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has selected Alternative 1, which travels through Allendale, as the locally preferred alternative for the Inner City Connector ("ICC"):

Quote
One of the final major hurdles that needed to be crossed to build an I-49 extension through the Allendale neighborhood in Shreveport, was done on Friday morning.
During the Northwest Louisiana Council of Government's transportation policy committee, Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler moved to adopt the Allendale route instead of the bypass route which would have caused major upgrades to LA 3132.
The rest of the council followed suit and voted in favor of the Allendale route.

During the meeting, the the outlined plan provided a detailed analysis which showed the Allendale route would cost an estimated $547 million if it was built fully elevated with 2 internal interchanges and 4 lanes.
It would cost an estimated $640 million fully elevated with 2 internal interchanges and 6 lanes ....
In contrast, the proposed 3132 route would cost an estimated $832 million dollars including resurfacing and widening to the existing LA 3132.  Reconstruction and widening existing LA 3132 would cost $846 million.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on August 18, 2017, 07:34:45 PM
What is the likeliest year for start of construction on this as of now?

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 19, 2017, 11:29:21 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 18, 2017, 07:34:45 PM
What is the likeliest year for start of construction on this as of now?

This TV video (http://www.ksla.com/story/36168386/i-49-extension-one-step-closer-to-reality-in-allendale) reports three to five years, with construction lasting five to seven years:

Quote
NLCOG Executive Director Kent Rogers summed up why the council voted unanimously for Alternative 1 through Allendale saying it's the "Shortest, quickest, cheapest" of the options available.
Rogers estimated when construction could get underway, adding, "Best case to start building, I would say 3 to 5 years."
He said it would take another 5 to 7 years to build, meaning it could be as late as 2029 before the I-49 connector project is completed.
"These big giant projects like that, they're 20 year projects, easy," concluded Rogers.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 19, 2017, 08:08:15 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 18, 2017, 07:20:46 PM
This TV video (http://www.kplctv.com/story/36168386/i-49-extension-one-step-closer-to-reality-in-allendale) reports that the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has selected Alternative 1, which travels through Allendale, as the locally preferred alternative for the Inner City Connector ("ICC"):

Quote

One of the final major hurdles that needed to be crossed to build an I-49 extension through the Allendale neighborhood in Shreveport, was done on Friday morning.
During the Northwest Louisiana Council of Government's transportation policy committee, Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler moved to adopt the Allendale route instead of the bypass route which would have caused major upgrades to LA 3132.
The rest of the council followed suit and voted in favor of the Allendale route.

During the meeting, the the outlined plan provided a detailed analysis which showed the Allendale route would cost an estimated $547 million if it was built fully elevated with 2 internal interchanges and 4 lanes.
It would cost an estimated $640 million fully elevated with 2 internal interchanges and 6 lanes ....
In contrast, the proposed 3132 route would cost an estimated $832 million dollars including resurfacing and widening to the existing LA 3132.  Reconstruction and widening existing LA 3132 would cost $846 million.

So, it looks like they resolved the issue of going through SWEPCO Park by simply removing the park, right?

3 to 5 years should be long enough, given the inevitable lawsuit from the Loop It folks and Allendale over the loss of the park and the housing project.

BTW...KPLC is the Lake Charles NBC-TV affiliate. Nobody in Shreveport media reported this?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 19, 2017, 09:27:32 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 19, 2017, 08:08:15 PM
BTW...KPLC is the Lake Charles NBC-TV affiliate. Nobody in Shreveport media reported this?

My second post contains a link to KSLA in Shreveport

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 19, 2017, 08:08:15 PM
So, it looks like they resolved the issue of going through SWEPCO Park by simply removing the park, right?

This August 18 Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/breaking/2017/08/18/committee-endorses-allendale-route-49-connector/580620001/) reports that FHWA and LaDOTD found that SWEPCO Park was not deserving of protection:

Quote
Kerry Oriol, project manager for Providence Engineering ....
The Federal Highway Administration, tasked with stewardship over the construction and maintenance of the nation's highways, and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development made two decisions about whether SWEPCO Park and Cross Lake require protections, Oriol said.
Cross Lake does. SWEPCO Park does not.

The article also provides a projected timeline for a DEIS, FEIS, and ROD:

Quote
Kerry Oriol, project manager for Providence Engineering ....
Oriol said her organization's field team plans to be on site to conduct evaluations on Monday. It hopes to submit a draft to the federal and state agencies by winter of this year and to approve a final version by the first quarter of 2018.
She estimated that a public hearing and stakeholders meetings would occur in the second quarter of 2018, with a final decision by the third quarter of 2018.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on August 19, 2017, 09:57:58 PM
Kinda makes me wonder....do you reckon that someone has plans & blue prints already made for the I-49/I-220 interchange to continue south? After all, the exits are numbered north of I-220 as though the world had already made up its mind that the ICC was going to be built before any decisions were made about SWEPCO Park & Cross Lake protections.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on August 20, 2017, 12:15:00 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 19, 2017, 09:57:58 PM
Kinda makes me wonder....do you reckon that someone has plans & blue prints already made for the I-49/I-220 interchange to continue south? After all, the exits are numbered north of I-220 as though the world had already made up its mind that the ICC was going to be built before any decisions were made about SWEPCO Park & Cross Lake protections.

I for one would not be surprised to hear that preliminary plans were actually done some time ago -- at least for the segments of the connector closest to its north and south ends.  And since the portion of the 49/220 interchange that will be opened in the near future is still a work in progress, it would also not be surprising if initial grading for the ramps to and from the new connector commences before finish work (any landscaping/planting/etc.) is done -- regardless of any potential litigation re the connector itself. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 20, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 19, 2017, 09:57:58 PM
Kinda makes me wonder....do you reckon that someone has plans & blue prints already made for the I-49/I-220 interchange to continue south?

It may not be a blue print, but it's close enough:

Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
Here's how the interchange will look if the Inner City Connector is built:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0ZA9Xgv.jpg&hash=9950b09d35a1bebc4b00100ee5a69ca599b27585)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on August 20, 2017, 04:32:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 20, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 19, 2017, 09:57:58 PM
Kinda makes me wonder....do you reckon that someone has plans & blue prints already made for the I-49/I-220 interchange to continue south?

It may not be a blue print, but it's close enough:

Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
Here's how the interchange will look if the Inner City Connector is built:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0ZA9Xgv.jpg&hash=9950b09d35a1bebc4b00100ee5a69ca599b27585)

Thanks, Grzrd!  I was wondering if the I-49 trajectory shift required to access the ICC alignment would occur within the bounds of the interchange itself, or would occur further south; this answers my question. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on August 20, 2017, 06:28:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 20, 2017, 04:32:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 20, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 19, 2017, 09:57:58 PM
Kinda makes me wonder....do you reckon that someone has plans & blue prints already made for the I-49/I-220 interchange to continue south?

It may not be a blue print, but it's close enough:

Quote from: Grzrd on April 09, 2013, 04:52:47 PM
Here's how the interchange will look if the Inner City Connector is built:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0ZA9Xgv.jpg&hash=9950b09d35a1bebc4b00100ee5a69ca599b27585)

Thanks, Grzrd!  I was wondering if the I-49 trajectory shift required to access the ICC alignment would occur within the bounds of the interchange itself, or would occur further south; this answers my question. 

There is no choice here. The big nasty Shreveport landfill is located in the bottom left quadrant of the yellow & blue lines.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on August 20, 2017, 06:41:32 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 20, 2017, 06:28:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 20, 2017, 04:32:39 PM
Thanks, Grzrd!  I was wondering if the I-49 trajectory shift required to access the ICC alignment would occur within the bounds of the interchange itself, or would occur further south; this answers my question. 

There is no choice here. The big nasty Shreveport landfill is located in the bottom left quadrant of the yellow & blue lines.

Good to know.  If it's anything like the landfills around here, you don't want to be downwind on a hot day (and Shreveport certainly experiences its share of those!). 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on August 21, 2017, 09:34:33 AM
As long as it does not disrupt too much of Allendale, I'd be cool with it. And if it's less expensive than looping it around I-220, then so be it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on September 25, 2017, 12:26:12 PM
Quote from: rte66man on June 19, 2017, 02:34:43 PM
Quote from: oscar on June 18, 2017, 11:18:33 PM
I drove the newest segment of I-49 north of Shreveport, yesterday evening just before sunset, as I was passing through the Shreveport area. Some notes:

-- The answer to yakra's question about the exit number for the south end of the new segment is 211. I took this photo from the inside shoulder of the NB lanes (SB traffic still has to exit at LA 1), with a telephoto lens and even that needed magnification.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FI49-newsouthend-exit0sign-SB-DSC_6157.jpg&hash=fcdca53658d21781ab5a2db419469930d314101d)

There are 5 abbreviations/initials on that sign and only one of them has a period after it.  If you put a period after "Dr" (Doctor) then put one after "Jr" and "Dr" (Drive) to be consistent.  For a minute, I thought it was an OK DOT sign.

Even worse than all the abbreviations...on the unopened southbound section of I-49 between LA 1 and LA 3194, it says" Dr M L KING Jr Dr" with King in all caps.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on September 25, 2017, 03:57:07 PM
sign contractor should have just made it look like this one in indy: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8120803,-86.1796968,3a,24.3y,131.99h,110.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3sIRmRAYJvkiamXHWdVeYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 24, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/staff/10044384/lex-talamo/ Her is an article about I49 Shreveport inter connector About 7 yrs. before actually happening.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 24, 2017, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 25, 2017, 03:57:07 PM
sign contractor should have just made it look like this one in indy: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8120803,-86.1796968,3a,24.3y,131.99h,110.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3sIRmRAYJvkiamXHWdVeYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Greenville, MS posts is as DR MLK JR DR
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on November 25, 2017, 08:07:28 AM
Quote from: Gordon on November 24, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/staff/10044384/lex-talamo/ Her is an article about I49 Shreveport inter connector About 7 yrs. before actually happening.

Site won't play anything for me. I really wanted to see the E. Kings highway story too.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on November 25, 2017, 11:07:17 AM
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2017/11/24/49-connector-shreveport-still-seven-years-off-executive-says/889017001/       Try this link for Shreveport connector
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 29, 2017, 01:21:22 AM
Goodness...Gannett has some horrible reporters who have never heard of proofreading.

Louisiana Department of Transportation AND DEVELOPMENT.

And...it's called the I-49 Inner City Connector (MIXED CAPS).

But on the story itself:

The 7 years is pretty much based on the EIS/ROD being completed by this time next year, followed by 3-5 years of engineering and design. Of course, given the inevitable lawsuit by the anti-ICC group Allendale Strong (who hosted the meeting, BTW) to force a reconsideration of the bypass route (LA 3132/I-220) over the shorter through pass route, that may be a bit optimistic.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on November 29, 2017, 06:13:37 AM
Another issue with the proofreading: the text says I-49 goes to Canada when the map clearly shows I-29 being highlighted from KC northward.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2017, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on November 29, 2017, 06:13:37 AM
Another issue with the proofreading: the text says I-49 goes to Canada when the map clearly shows I-29 being highlighted from KC northward.

The consideration of I-49 and I-29 as one continuous corridor has been promoted by regional PR flacks attempting to lure business development to the I-49 corridor ever since the formal designation of the northern extension of that route 12 years ago.  Although the notion of signing it with a singular designation has been floated in this forum from time to time, the fact that 29 has been in existence for 60 years and 49 for 35 years -- and no formal request to renumber either route has been presented -- is a good indication that each number will be around in its present/planned form for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on December 04, 2017, 02:53:18 AM
Even I-29 going all the way to Winnipeg would be a pretty neat trick.
(There used to be a Manitoba Route 29, but it got renumbered as part of MB75.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 04, 2017, 12:51:53 PM
Yeah, and MB-75 isn't even a freeway at all. It's just a regular 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections. The road is flanked by frontage roads nearly all the way from the North Dakota border to Winnipeg, which makes possible freeway upgrades easier. But upgrading still costs quite a bit of money.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: seicer on December 04, 2017, 12:55:07 PM
I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on December 04, 2017, 05:17:03 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 04, 2017, 12:51:53 PM
Yeah, and MB-75 isn't even a freeway at all. It's just a regular 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections. The road is flanked by frontage roads nearly all the way from the North Dakota border to Winnipeg, which makes possible freeway upgrades easier. But upgrading still costs quite a bit of money.

Quote from: seicer on December 04, 2017, 12:55:07 PM
I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.

Manitoba certainly hasn't been bitten by the "freeway bug", with only spot improvements in the Winnipeg area.  I-29 has extended to the border for about a half-century; if MB hasn't gotten around to upgrading it as of yet, it's doubtful it'll be prioritized in the foreseeable future.  Of the 3 Interstate crossings in western Canada, only the I-5/BC 99 crossing continues on as a full freeway -- and even that peters out once it hits central Vancouver!  We can lead our freeways to the border, but we can't make Canadians drink that particular Kool-Aid!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2017, 05:34:51 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 04, 2017, 12:55:07 PM
I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
its nice to have things you don't need. I would rather have a country with more interstates than it needs than one that has less.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: seicer on December 04, 2017, 06:03:17 PM
It's nice to be able to fully fund freeways without having to go through partisan reauthorization processes every few years.

It's nice to be able to fund freeways without having to incur further debt on our books (not withstanding the absurd debt levels shared by our DoD).

It's nice to be able to fund freeways based on the justification that four-lane highways with full access control is warranted on the premise that the road will have an AADT of less than 5,000.

It's nice to be able to be in a country swamped with debt that it can't finance improvements and maintenance on what it already has.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2017, 06:16:38 PM
I stand by my original statement. Not going to go in circles here.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 04, 2017, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2017, 05:34:51 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 04, 2017, 12:55:07 PM
I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
its nice to have things you don't need. I would rather have a country with more interstates than it needs than one that has less.

Illogical...and a waste of money. That's all I'm going to say lest I lose my temper.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2017, 10:54:03 AM
Quote from: US71 on December 04, 2017, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2017, 05:34:51 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 04, 2017, 12:55:07 PM
I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
its nice to have things you don't need. I would rather have a country with more interstates than it needs than one that has less.

Illogical...and a waste of money. That's all I'm going to say lest I lose my temper.
Okay so why don't you be specific... Or will you loose your temper?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2017, 11:04:15 AM
Which Interstate highways have traffic counts lower than 5,000 vehicles per day?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 12:23:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2017, 11:04:15 AM
Which Interstate highways have traffic counts lower than 5,000 vehicles per day?
i-180 in iliinois
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on December 05, 2017, 12:23:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2017, 11:04:15 AM
Which Interstate highways have traffic counts lower than 5,000 vehicles per day?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7563.msg2114736#msg2114736
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2017, 02:09:24 PM
So what's the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So let's hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. I'm waiting to hear about other interstates too...
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 05, 2017, 03:28:06 PM
You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: seicer on December 05, 2017, 03:36:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2017, 02:09:24 PM
So what's the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So let's hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. I'm waiting to hear about other interstates too...

Eye roll, please. You missed my point and you missed subsequent comments. But yes, did I-95 in northern Maine need four-lane capacity when it was expanded? No. From a safety perspective, other tactics could have worked and would have been far cheaper to implement. It wouldn't have "completed" the system but that isn't the point. It moved traffic 30 years ago just as effectively as it does now even with the added capacity and expense - which it didn't need.

There are large chunks of I-15 in Montana that were two-lanes that even still does not totally warrant four-lane expansion from a traffic or safety standpoint.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 05, 2017, 03:28:06 PM
You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.

Bingo. See: I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2017, 04:03:58 PM
Standards are standard for a reason. While I can agree there are certain roads out there that might have excess capacity where the funds used to build them could have gone to something better, having 4 lane interstates across the country is a good standard to have, IMO. I don't know what else to say here. We disgaree. Thankfully those in charge see the benefit too and build the interstates to a certain standard. It's the same beef I have with the at grade intersections along I-40 in Texas. Though Texas is fixing this, I don't care how few cars use it, standards are standards and need be maintained.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 05, 2017, 04:20:05 PM
The standards are what they are largely because it was an effective way of bringing federal cash to often-neglected parts of the country. Now that the federal cash is no longer being thrown around in the same way it once was, expect to see "right-sizing" of rural reconstruction projects over the next few decades.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: seicer on December 05, 2017, 04:49:49 PM
It's a reason why I-66 is no longer being pursued across West Virginia and Kentucky (and westward), because West Virginia's 65 MPH expressways with the occasional at-grades and interchanges are fine enough and because Kentucky's 55 MPH two- and four-lane highways and 65 MPH parkways are more than adequate. And why I-73 and I-74 is not being pursued in Ohio because the 55/60 MPH US 23 and OH 32 corridors are more than adequate, with upgrades long ago completed or programmed.

Just because we have interstates does not mean that everything needs to be an interstate, nor does everything need to be four-lane, 70 MPH, et. al.

We could go on all day with this but it's now off topic.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:29:49 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 05, 2017, 03:36:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2017, 02:09:24 PM
So what's the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So let's hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. I'm waiting to hear about other interstates too...

Eye roll, please. You missed my point and you missed subsequent comments. But yes, did I-95 in northern Maine need four-lane capacity when it was expanded? No. From a safety perspective, other tactics could have worked and would have been far cheaper to implement. It wouldn't have "completed" the system but that isn't the point. It moved traffic 30 years ago just as effectively as it does now even with the added capacity and expense - which it didn't need.

There are large chunks of I-15 in Montana that were two-lanes that even still does not totally warrant four-lane expansion from a traffic or safety standpoint.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 05, 2017, 03:28:06 PM
You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.

Bingo. See: I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire.

i believe 93 is 2 lanes there due to geographic constraints, and the parkland
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: NE2 on December 05, 2017, 06:47:49 PM
Whoosh. The point is that two lanes carry traffic just fine.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: seicer on December 05, 2017, 09:50:12 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:29:49 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 05, 2017, 03:36:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2017, 02:09:24 PM
So what's the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So let's hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. I'm waiting to hear about other interstates too...

Eye roll, please. You missed my point and you missed subsequent comments. But yes, did I-95 in northern Maine need four-lane capacity when it was expanded? No. From a safety perspective, other tactics could have worked and would have been far cheaper to implement. It wouldn't have "completed" the system but that isn't the point. It moved traffic 30 years ago just as effectively as it does now even with the added capacity and expense - which it didn't need.

There are large chunks of I-15 in Montana that were two-lanes that even still does not totally warrant four-lane expansion from a traffic or safety standpoint.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 05, 2017, 03:28:06 PM
You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.

Bingo. See: I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire.

i believe 93 is 2 lanes there due to geographic constraints, and the parkland

There is room for your lanes with 10' shoulders and a central barrier. I came across a bunch of articles on newspapers.com when I was looking up history of the area a while back and part of the reason it was built as two-lanes was to essentially complete the gap in I-93. Even though it's not signed as I-93 for just a few miles, it concerns almost no one - and carries traffic just fine.

Now, if we are talking about the West Virginia Turnpike, that was two lanes and worked well for some time before poor safety record, rising traffic levels, steep grades and tight curves - along with a tunnel, more than justified its expense in widening to four lanes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on December 12, 2017, 03:25:37 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 05, 2017, 06:47:49 PM
Whoosh. The point is that two lanes carry traffic just fine.
The point is frozen.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on December 12, 2017, 08:58:16 PM
Shall we resume the original discussion before it goes even further off the rails or shall I lock it?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2018, 10:46:43 AM
This January 3 TV video (http://www.ksla.com/story/37186703/bridge-connecting-i-220-and-i-49-nearing-completion) says that the I-49/I-220 interchange is about 80 percent complete and it should open in late summer or early fall; it also has some good footage of the ongoing construction:

Quote
"We're about 80 percent complete. We're looking at a late summer early fall completion, weather permitting of course," said Erin Buchanan is the Public Information Officer for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on February 11, 2018, 02:11:50 PM
The ramps at the I-49/I-220 interchange are paved. Most, if not all, signage is erected. However, the EB->NB flyover still has 2 sections of bridge missing. Also, some of the guard rail has been poured on the SB->EB flyover. That is the latest & the greatest as of 2/10/18.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 02, 2018, 11:07:18 AM
Looks like I-49 has encountered a rain delay (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/i-49-construction-entrance-underwater/1001352818)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 02, 2018, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 02, 2018, 11:07:18 AM
Looks like I-49 has encountered a rain delay (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/i-49-construction-entrance-underwater/1001352818)

Reminds me of Super Bridge where the ramps to both ends of the new Clark Bridge in Alton, Illinois  were flooded out by the Great Flood of 1993 and the construction crew had to be ferried to the bridge by boat.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2018, 05:53:45 PM
Do they have any dates on when the Interstate 220-to-Interstate 20 connection might be constructed? Or is that yet-to-be-determined?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 02, 2018, 06:36:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2018, 05:53:45 PM
Do they have any dates on when the Interstate 220-to-Interstate 20 connection might be constructed? Or is that yet-to-be-determined?

Somewhere up thread are the details, they have a route, but have to design it and get the land.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 02, 2018, 06:56:35 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on March 02, 2018, 06:36:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2018, 05:53:45 PM
Do they have any dates on when the Interstate 220-to-Interstate 20 connection might be constructed? Or is that yet-to-be-determined?

Somewhere up thread are the details, they have a route, but have to design it and get the land.

The Inner City Connector phase of I-49 in Shreveport is still in the environmental review stage, with a Draft EIS due to be published later this year.

The general alignment through Shreveport  between the existing termini of I-49 is being recommended, but due to some local opposition, there is also an alternative using the existing LA 3132 Inner Loop and I-220 as a bypass alternative that is also being reviewed.

Once the final alignment is approved with a ROD (and the inevitable lawsuit from Allendale residents is rejected); they can go ahead with final design and construction...if they find the money, that is.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 19, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
All the exit signs are up for I-49 at I-220, and along 220. Going by signs on I-220, the road is open, but it's not (still constructing the ramps). LADOTD needs to tarp everything over like Arkansas does or put orange Exit Closed banners on the signs ala Oklahoma.

SB 49 still has to exit at LA 1, but NB traffic can access 49 from LA 3194/ Martin Luther King Dr which is the next exit south of LA 1.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 19, 2018, 05:49:54 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 19, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
All the exit signs are up for I-49 at I-220, and along 220. Going by signs on I-220, the road is open, but it's not (still constructing the ramps). LADOTD needs to tarp everything over like Arkansas does or put orange Exit Closed banners on the signs ala Oklahoma.

SB 49 still has to exit at LA 1, but NB traffic can access 49 from LA 3194/ Martin Luther King Dr which is the next exit south of LA 1.
What's the estimated date for completion of the connection?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on March 19, 2018, 06:11:30 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 19, 2018, 05:49:54 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 19, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
All the exit signs are up for I-49 at I-220, and along 220. Going by signs on I-220, the road is open, but it's not (still constructing the ramps). LADOTD needs to tarp everything over like Arkansas does or put orange Exit Closed banners on the signs ala Oklahoma.

SB 49 still has to exit at LA 1, but NB traffic can access 49 from LA 3194/ Martin Luther King Dr which is the next exit south of LA 1.
What's the estimated date for completion of the connection?

I've not seen any info lately, but my semi-educated guess is this Fall or next Spring to I-220.  South of 220 to complete 49 through town is probably 3-4 years away from starting, then (roughly) two years to complete.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on March 19, 2018, 06:13:06 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 19, 2018, 05:49:54 PM
Quote from: US71 on March 19, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
All the exit signs are up for I-49 at I-220, and along 220. Going by signs on I-220, the road is open, but it's not (still constructing the ramps). LADOTD needs to tarp everything over like Arkansas does or put orange Exit Closed banners on the signs ala Oklahoma.

SB 49 still has to exit at LA 1, but NB traffic can access 49 from LA 3194/ Martin Luther King Dr which is the next exit south of LA 1.
What's the estimated date for completion of the connection?

Possibly fall 2018 according to the last thing I read on it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2018, 08:27:51 PM
Meanwhile, on the I-49 South end....one of the more important phases of the project was completed and finalized with a ribbon-cutting ceremony today of the opening of the US 90/LA 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish.


This project upgraded the previous at-grade intersection with LA 318 to a grade-separated interchange with US 90 overpassing LA 318, reconfigured the frontage road system, and closed off direct access to the US 90 mainline by expanding the frontage road system.


The details of the press conference and ribbon cutting are at the LADOTD website:


http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=16685 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=16685)


Other than closing a few direct access points near Jeanerette and grade separating an at-grade railroad spur crossing (or eliminating the spur in favor of an underground pipeline), US 90 is now fully Interstate grade between LA 88 and the LA 182 intersection at Ricohoc.


Work continues on the US 90 upgrade of the Albertson's Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182/BNSF Railway overpass/interchange in Lafayette Parish near Broussard; that project has a set completion date of this coming fall.


Now, if only Google Maps would get off it and update their platform so we can all see and celebrate the results...

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on April 27, 2018, 08:53:41 PM
Last time I looked at LADOTD they didn't have anymore projects on there 6 month construction list. Are they going to wait and see how the Lafayette Connector decision before they do anymore?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2018, 09:16:45 PM
Quote from: Gordon on April 27, 2018, 08:53:41 PM
Last time I looked at LADOTD they didn't have anymore projects on there 6 month construction list. Are they going to wait and see how the Lafayette Connector decision before they do anymore?

They are going to be waiting a loooooonnnnng time if they are waiting for the Connector decision; that project is still in the preliminary design/Supplemental EIS stage.

The 6 month list is mostly for projects that are already "shovel-ready".

There are other projects along I-49 South that are closer to construction, funding pending, such as the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South interchange with US 90, along with the Verot School Road and LA 92/LA 92-1 interchanges.

The Connector is at the very least 3-5 years away from being "shovel-ready"...if it isn't stopped by lawsuits first.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on May 23, 2018, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2018, 08:27:51 PM
Meanwhile, on the I-49 South end....one of the more important phases of the project was completed and finalized with a ribbon-cutting ceremony today of the opening of the US 90/LA 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish.
This project upgraded the previous at-grade intersection with LA 318 to a grade-separated interchange with US 90 overpassing LA 318, reconfigured the frontage road system, and closed off direct access to the US 90 mainline by expanding the frontage road system.

This May 15 TV video (http://www.klfy.com/news/local/dotd-celebrates-completion-of-la-318-interchange/1181585850) reports that LaDOTD Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson notes that the LA 318 interchange opens up 42 miles of uninterrupted driving:

Quote
On April 27, DOTD Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson and Gov. John Bel Edwards attended the ribbon cutting ceremony ....
Actually with 318 opening, we're going to have, I think, 42 miles of uninterrupted interstate to interstate standards,"  Wilson said. "And that's going to be tremendous in terms of getting through that corridor."

Slow progress. Do those 42 miles warrant real I-49 shields?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: seicer on May 23, 2018, 08:26:30 PM
Why was this built as essentially an elevated viaduct instead with more fill?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 23, 2018, 10:12:07 PM
Quote from: seicer on May 23, 2018, 08:26:30 PM
Why was this built as essentially an elevated viaduct instead with more fill?
Because fill is hard to find (and keep) along that part of the Gulf Swamp, err Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: seicer on May 23, 2018, 10:43:32 PM
Gotcha. Looking at the other overpasses - I noticed they are of similar construction. I see work has started further north towards Lafayette, too.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 23, 2018, 11:12:21 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 23, 2018, 08:10:10 PM
Quote
On April 27, DOTD Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson and Gov. John Bel Edwards attended the ribbon cutting ceremony ....
Actually with 318 opening, we're going to have, I think, 42 miles of uninterrupted interstate to interstate standards,"  Wilson said. "And that's going to be tremendous in terms of getting through that corridor."

Slow progress. Do those 42 miles warrant real I-49 shields?

I'd wait a bit until some other portions of US 90 closer to Lafayette are upgraded (like the segment from the airport to New Iberia) and there is a firm commitment on the Lafayette Connector segment before I start dropping I-49 shields and exit numbers.

Also, that's not quite true about the 42 miles; there's still a couple of median crossings along the path of US 90 in Iberia Parish near Jeanerette that need to be closed off, and then there's that hideous rail spur at-grade crossing south of the LA 85 interchange that needs to be either spanned or removed. (They can't decide whether to simply overpass the spur or remove it and replace with a pipeline to serve that sugar cane processing plant.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 23, 2018, 11:16:25 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 23, 2018, 10:12:07 PM
Quote from: seicer on May 23, 2018, 08:26:30 PM
Why was this built as essentially an elevated viaduct instead with more fill?
Because fill is hard to find (and keep) along that part of the Gulf Swamp, err Louisiana.

Also, that's the standard for modern Louisiana overpasses. Less fill means less settling.

I also noticed in the KLFY vid that they decided to go with traffic signals rather than mere stop sign controls for the ramp connections. Good move there, because I figure this new interchange will soon be attracting some business.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cenlaroads on May 25, 2018, 11:36:25 PM
This is good news about the LA 318 interchange.  Are there any other projects between the Lafayette airport and New Iberia that have been funded?

Also, Anthony, do you have a rough idea of how often that railroad spur is used?  I have never had to stop there, but just seeing it is annoying.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 27, 2018, 10:16:24 PM
Quote from: cenlaroads on May 25, 2018, 11:36:25 PM
This is good news about the LA 318 interchange.  Are there any other projects between the Lafayette airport and New Iberia that have been funded?

Other than the current project at Albertson Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182/BNSF overpass that's under construction, nothing funded yet. Design is now in progress for the Verot School Road interchange, and design is about to begin for the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South and Youngsville Highway interchanges, but those are still as of yet unfunded.


QuoteAlso, Anthony, do you have a rough idea of how often that railroad spur is used?  I have never had to stop there, but just seeing it is annoying.

The railroad spur south of Jeanerette serves a sugar cane processing plant, so it's usually more active towards the fall harvesting season than otherwise. LADOTD is split between putting an overpass there, or having the Louisiana & Delta Railroad remove the spur altogether and using an underground pipeline to provide fuel to the plant. I'm guessing that the pipeline would be cheaper than an overpass.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cenlaroads on May 28, 2018, 06:31:18 PM
The pipeline probably would be cheaper.  Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: nexus73 on May 28, 2018, 06:43:20 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 23, 2018, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2018, 08:27:51 PM
Meanwhile, on the I-49 South end....one of the more important phases of the project was completed and finalized with a ribbon-cutting ceremony today of the opening of the US 90/LA 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish.
This project upgraded the previous at-grade intersection with LA 318 to a grade-separated interchange with US 90 overpassing LA 318, reconfigured the frontage road system, and closed off direct access to the US 90 mainline by expanding the frontage road system.

This May 15 TV video (http://www.klfy.com/news/local/dotd-celebrates-completion-of-la-318-interchange/1181585850) reports that LaDOTD Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson notes that the LA 318 interchange opens up 42 miles of uninterrupted driving:

Quote
On April 27, DOTD Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson and Gov. John Bel Edwards attended the ribbon cutting ceremony ....
Actually with 318 opening, we're going to have, I think, 42 miles of uninterrupted interstate to interstate standards,” Wilson said. “And that's going to be tremendous in terms of getting through that corridor."

Slow progress. Do those 42 miles warrant real I-49 shields?

Sure!  How many miles of I-11 do we have?  Less than 42 no doubt!

Rick
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2018, 09:52:43 PM
I-11 at least connects to I-515/I-215 in Las Vegas. The upgraded sections of US 90 thus far don't connect with anything.

Better to wait until the Lafayette Connector and US 90 upgrades are more complete before starting to drop official I-49 shields.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on July 04, 2018, 11:59:40 PM
I would love to see I-49 shields up for the Westbank Expressway. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on July 05, 2018, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2018, 09:52:43 PM
I-11 at least connects to I-515/I-215 in Las Vegas. The upgraded sections of US 90 thus far don't connect with anything.

Better to wait until the Lafayette Connector and US 90 upgrades are more complete before starting to drop official I-49 shields.
Quote from: lamsalfl on July 04, 2018, 11:59:40 PM
I would love to see I-49 shields up for the Westbank Expressway. 

Unlikely that I-49 shields will be erected anywhere in the south/eastern section of the corridor until a freeway-to-freeway connection is made with I-310, which will at least provide a through all-freeway route into greater N.O. from Houma, Morgan City, and the other populated areas strung out along US 90. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 05, 2018, 07:54:07 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2018, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2018, 09:52:43 PM
I-11 at least connects to I-515/I-215 in Las Vegas. The upgraded sections of US 90 thus far don't connect with anything.

Better to wait until the Lafayette Connector and US 90 upgrades are more complete before starting to drop official I-49 shields.
Quote from: lamsalfl on July 04, 2018, 11:59:40 PM
I would love to see I-49 shields up for the Westbank Expressway. 

Unlikely that I-49 shields will be erected anywhere in the south/eastern section of the corridor until a freeway-to-freeway connection is made with I-310, which will at least provide a through all-freeway route into greater N.O. from Houma, Morgan City, and the other populated areas strung out along US 90. 

The freeway section from downtown NOLA through the Westbank Expressway already carries a silent, hidden designation of "I-910"; it would not be difficult once that section is upgraded all the way to the US 90 interchange to decloak and redesignate as I-49.

The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

It would still be possible to use Congressional legislation similar to what was done with the I-69 family in TX to redefine the I-49 South corridor and force-drop I-49 shields on the completed freeway segments (and "TEMP/FUTURE I-49" shields on the remaining segments). Before anything is done, however, they need to secure funding and establish the actual route, especially through Lafayette and the Raceland to Gretna segment.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 06, 2018, 09:47:28 AM
In the first couple decades of the Interstate highway system there were numerous disconnected segments already carrying Interstate highway markers. IMHO, there is enough substantial freeway along US-90 they could install I-49 markers without it blowing anyone's mind. I think the real reason why they don't install I-49 markers on the completed freeway segments is such an act would require LaDOT to actually finish the corridor. As long as I-49 is not marked between Lafayette and New Orleans they always have an "out" to cancel the project.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 06, 2018, 10:46:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 06, 2018, 09:47:28 AM
In the first couple decades of the Interstate highway system there were numerous disconnected segments already carrying Interstate highway markers. IMHO, there is enough substantial freeway along US-90 they could install I-49 markers without it blowing anyone's mind. I think the real reason why they don't install I-49 markers on the completed freeway segments is such an act would for LaDOT to actually finish the corridor. As long as I-49 is not marked between Lafayette and New Orleans they always have an "out" to cancel the project.

Ummm...I don't think that LADOTD has any plans to cancel I-49 South any time soon; it's marked as the #1 priority project in their 2030 Transportation Plan, and they are still deep into planning the main sections though Lafayette. The lack of current funding may have slowed momentum, but there is still as of now a solid commitment to finishing this project.

Because the last attempt to garner funding failed due to the state Legislature not passing any gas tax increases, the next chance for raising major revenue for transportation may not be until 2021. Until then, though, process will be slow to occur, but progress is ongoing nevertheless. The LA 318 interchange just opened, the Albertson's Parkway/LA 182 overpass/interchange is scheduled to open later this year; and plans are to begin design soon on the overpass of the L&DRR rail spur near Jeanerette.

It's up to the LA Legislature and LA's Congressional delegation to decide whether they want to push designating the finished portions of US 90 as I-49 now, or wait until funding is secured for the entire project.



Also...AFAIK there are still "Future I-49" signs along US 90 and the Westbank Expressway...so there's that.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 07, 2018, 10:37:32 AM
And I bet LA doesn't want to renumber exits for I-49 if they post it just now south of I-10.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on July 07, 2018, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 05, 2018, 07:54:07 PM
The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I’ll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on October 18, 2018, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on July 07, 2018, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 05, 2018, 07:54:07 PM
The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I'll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.

Link?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2018, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on July 07, 2018, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 05, 2018, 07:54:07 PM
The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I'll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.

Recent models? Yeah, I'd like the linkage to that myself, too. I know they are redoing the Supplemental EIS for that segment of I-49 South, but there's nothing at the LADOTD site.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on October 18, 2018, 10:47:03 PM
So far the outlook for I49 in Louisiana for 2019 has the US 90 Railroad overpass SE of La 85 for bid in 2019 so money is tight in all States Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana and it is going to be a slow process until money is available.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2018, 02:05:13 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 18, 2018, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on July 07, 2018, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 05, 2018, 07:54:07 PM
The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I'll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.

Recent models? Yeah, I'd like the linkage to that myself, too. I know they are redoing the Supplemental EIS for that segment of I-49 South, but there's nothing at the LADOTD site.


Since LADOTD has done no updates since the Supplemental EIS was announced in 2015, I'll give you what I have.


This is what the latest plans I saw were for the I-49S/US 90/I-310 interchange complex, based on the 2014 Refinement Study that reduced down the scope and format for the project. It shows how I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended southward to connect with proposed I-49 South.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Feim6te.jpg&hash=26b3a6eaf3c1405cb543ccc78054464dd8f6f610)





By comparison, here is the originally planned connection between I-49S and I-310 per the 2008 EIS/ROD, which included direct connections between I-49 and I-310 independent of LA 3137, and ended LA 3137 at a T-intersection with US 90.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi64.tinypic.com%2F9vbfpd.jpg&hash=332733a04effa9f734f2940611d023e8022dd64a)



I'm wondering if URG's latest models he saw were any different than what was proposed in 2014.

Also...the flyover ramp shown in the 2014 model from US 90 eastbound to LA 3137/I-310 northbound is planned for construction as a separate standalone project under the interim program.


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Revive 755 on October 20, 2018, 11:45:28 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2018, 02:05:13 PM
This is what the latest plans I saw were for the I-49S/US 90/I-310 interchange complex, based on the 2014 Refinement Study that reduced down the scope and format for the project. It shows how I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended southward to connect with proposed I-49 South.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Feim6te.jpg&hash=26b3a6eaf3c1405cb543ccc78054464dd8f6f610)

Designed by the same person who did I-24 at I-57? (https://goo.gl/maps/y3xyevUkekx)




Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mgk920 on October 21, 2018, 01:14:15 AM
I definitely like the newer version much more than the older one, far simpler.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on October 22, 2018, 01:50:50 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 20, 2018, 11:45:28 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2018, 02:05:13 PM
This is what the latest plans I saw were for the I-49S/US 90/I-310 interchange complex, based on the 2014 Refinement Study that reduced down the scope and format for the project. It shows how I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended southward to connect with proposed I-49 South.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Feim6te.jpg&hash=26b3a6eaf3c1405cb543ccc78054464dd8f6f610)

Designed by the same person who did I-24 at I-57? (https://goo.gl/maps/y3xyevUkekx)

I was thinking the I-86/I-390 interchange west of Bath, NY was a carbon copy of this design as well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on November 01, 2018, 03:23:53 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 20, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2019/September_20_MPO%20Minutes.pdf) and they provide a timeline under which we might see the issuance of a Record of Decision for the Inner City Connector (pp. 3-4/4 of pdf):

Quote
... Based on all this the general schedule for completion is as follows:
- Second Quarter 2018 — Submit Draft Cultural Resource Survey to DOTD review and
approval for submittal to SHPO.
- Third Quarter 2018 — finalize the technical studies
- Fourth Quarter 2018 — Submit Draft EIS for DOTD/FHWA review and begin
stakeholder briefings.
- First Quarter 2019 — finalize stakeholder briefings and receive approval from
DOTD/FHWA on Draft EIS
- Second Quarter 2019 — Release Draft EIS for public Review, Hold Public Hearing (no
less than 30 days after issuance of Draft EIS for public review), submit Draft Final EIS
for agency review
- Third Quarter 2019 — Approval of Final EIS and Issuance of a ROD (Record of
Decision.)

With a little bit of luck,we may see the ROD in about a year. Then, the inevitable lawsuits and simply figuring out how to pay for it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 03, 2018, 12:24:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 01, 2018, 03:23:53 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 20, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2019/September_20_MPO%20Minutes.pdf) and they provide a timeline under which we might see the issuance of a Record of Decision for the Inner City Connector (pp. 3-4/4 of pdf):

Quote
... Based on all this the general schedule for completion is as follows:
- Second Quarter 2018 — Submit Draft Cultural Resource Survey to DOTD review and
approval for submittal to SHPO.
- Third Quarter 2018 — finalize the technical studies
- Fourth Quarter 2018 — Submit Draft EIS for DOTD/FHWA review and begin
stakeholder briefings.
- First Quarter 2019 — finalize stakeholder briefings and receive approval from
DOTD/FHWA on Draft EIS
- Second Quarter 2019 — Release Draft EIS for public Review, Hold Public Hearing (no
less than 30 days after issuance of Draft EIS for public review), submit Draft Final EIS
for agency review
- Third Quarter 2019 — Approval of Final EIS and Issuance of a ROD (Record of
Decision.)

With a little bit of luck,we may see the ROD in about a year. Then, the inevitable lawsuits and simply figuring out how to pay for it.

Given that schedule, we may see the ICC FEIS/ROD before we see the Lafayette Connector Final SEIS/SROD.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 20, 2018, 09:33:21 AM
It's been a good long while since there's been an update on I-49 South, but yesterday one small but significant bump in the path of the upgrade began to be flattened.


LADOTD announced that they were taking requests for consultants to design and potentially construct the removal of the at-grade railroad crossing of US 90 just southeast of the LA 85 interchange in Iberia Parish, between New Iberia and Morgan City. The spur rail line, controlled by the Louisiana & Delta Railroad and which connects to the BNSF/UP mainline which parallels US 90, serves a sugar cane/molasses processing plant.


The original solution was to simply build an overpass of the mainline US 90 over the rail line, keeping the parallel frontage roads to cross at-grade. However, the state found that a cheaper solution was to truncate the rail line east of crossing US 90 while constructing a pipeline and pumping facility that would pass in a culvert below both the mainline US 90 and the frontage roads. The pipeline facility would be buried in a tunnel that would pass underneath the roadways; embankment would be needed to raise the height of US 90 and the frontage roads to allow proper clearance for the pipeline/tunnel/culvert facility and the surrounding conveyor/pumping/transfer facilities.


The RFQ filed yesterday by LADOTD seeks for firms to bid for the right to design and ultimately construct the project.


According to the Stage 0 report filed by LADOTD in 2014, the project would qualify for 100% Federal funding under the Removal of Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Hazards program.


The RFQ did not set any dates for actual construction, but given the length of the contract, I'd say that construction could probably begin by either late summer or early fall 2019, with completion probably by summer 2020.


More information, including pdf files of the original Stage 0 study and the RFQ advertisement, can be found here (http://webmail.dotd.louisiana.gov/AgreStat.nsf/6e0a8b2ac100345a862571780059ad2e/2e5df78fe7e12f1286258367007335a1?OpenDocument).

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on December 20, 2018, 11:53:54 AM
^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 20, 2018, 09:19:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2018, 11:53:54 AM
^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.

I'm figuring that since the rail line isn't being totally abandoned, but just truncated to eliminate the US 90 crossing, and the pipeline/conveyance system built below US 90 would serve the sugar cane processing plant, then that wouldn't trigger such action. The track itself would be modified and upgraded to handle the transfer facilities.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on December 21, 2018, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 20, 2018, 09:19:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2018, 11:53:54 AM
^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.

I'm figuring that since the rail line isn't being totally abandoned, but just truncated to eliminate the US 90 crossing, and the pipeline/conveyance system built below US 90 would serve the sugar cane processing plant, then that wouldn't trigger such action. The track itself would be modified and upgraded to handle the transfer facilities.

Makes sense.  But since that transfer facility would most likely be a lot closer to the BNSF-owned main trunk freight line from N.O. to Lafayette (possibly directly adjacent), it's equally likely that BNSF simply made a financial arrangement with the local line to take over their hauling contract with the sugar producer -- a "buyout" of sorts.  Probably work out well for the short line regional RR -- less track to maintain (including the US 90 crossing signals) for either a chunk of cash or a series of payouts. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 23, 2018, 10:12:08 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 21, 2018, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 20, 2018, 09:19:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2018, 11:53:54 AM
^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.

I'm figuring that since the rail line isn't being totally abandoned, but just truncated to eliminate the US 90 crossing, and the pipeline/conveyance system built below US 90 would serve the sugar cane processing plant, then that wouldn't trigger such action. The track itself would be modified and upgraded to handle the transfer facilities.

Makes sense.  But since that transfer facility would most likely be a lot closer to the BNSF-owned main trunk freight line from N.O. to Lafayette (possibly directly adjacent), it's equally likely that BNSF simply made a financial arrangement with the local line to take over their hauling contract with the sugar producer -- a "buyout" of sorts.  Probably work out well for the short line regional RR -- less track to maintain (including the US 90 crossing signals) for either a chunk of cash or a series of payouts. 

Actually, it wouldn't be even that close to the BNSF mainline; the L&DRR (Louisiana & Delta) is the short line that actually owns and operates the rail line, and its connection to the BNSF/UP main is pretty far away...about one mile.

I would tender a guess that L&DRR would have the main contract with the facility over the short line to the plant, with BNSF as a subsidiary over the main line connection. In any case, since it's only a small portion of the total length of the line through and west of US 90 that would be truncated and replaced with the conveyance/tunnel/pipeline connection that US 90 and the frontage roads would be elevated over, the costs to the facility would be significantly less than if the whole line had to be abandoned. Also, building the pipeline connection and eliminating the at-grade rail crossing would not only save the plant a huge storage tank full of insurance liability fees from potential auto-train collisions, but would improve the overall operations of the plant. Simply put, a win-win for everyone.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on January 01, 2019, 03:03:05 PM
I noticed that Job # H.013265 Scheduled in July 2019, US 90 Railroad Se of La 85, Bridge overpass was estimated to cost 10-15 million and now that has raised to 20-30 million. Is that because they will do the frontage roads also?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 08, 2019, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: Gordon on January 01, 2019, 03:03:05 PM
I noticed that Job # H.013265 Scheduled in July 2019, US 90 Railroad Se of La 85, Bridge overpass was estimated to cost 10-15 million and now that has raised to 20-30 million. Is that because they will do the frontage roads also?

It may be that the original bidded cost reflected the concept of only an overpass bridging the rail line with the frontage roads crossing at grade; and the new costs reflect the revision of the conveyor/pipeline/storage system facility combined with a truncated rail line, along with embankment and culvert crossing of the facility by both the US 90 mainline and the frontage roads.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 19, 2019, 02:42:41 PM
https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_754f2f50-313b-11e9-abbf-cba22dbd3810.html                                                                     Here is an article on the Lafayette connector that expects a federal Record of Decision on the I-49 Lafayette Connector and final document by 2021.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on February 20, 2019, 12:18:55 PM
Why does a city the size of Lafayette need I-49 AND a toll loop?  Seems like overkill to me.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: the young texan on February 21, 2019, 10:21:23 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 20, 2019, 12:18:55 PM
Why does a city the size of Lafayette need I-49 AND a toll loop?  Seems like overkill to me.

Its not a big town. They should just take the money and spend it on the I-69 project or connecting I-49 in Shreveport.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on February 21, 2019, 10:52:13 AM
There's no money for the Lafayette toll loop. I doubt there will ever be any state money for it, and if it ever does get funded most of that funding will come from private interests (probably for the toll revenue). Even if there were state money for it, Acadiana legislators would never allow it to be redirected to I-69.

Regarding the need for the loop: The loop will sweep across four parishes, through area that already has some degree of development and would be ready for even more development. If you're looking only at the city of Lafayette and not the surrounding area, you're missing the point.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on February 21, 2019, 11:41:13 AM
Quote from: jbnv on February 21, 2019, 10:52:13 AM
There's no money for the Lafayette toll loop. I doubt there will ever be any state money for it, and if it ever does get funded most of that funding will come from private interests (probably for the toll revenue). Even if there were state money for it, Acadiana legislators would never allow it to be redirected to I-69.

Regarding the need for the loop: The loop will sweep across four parishes, through area that already has some degree of development and would be ready for even more development. If you're looking only at the city of Lafayette and not the surrounding area, you're missing the point.

i still dont see why this needs to be limited access.  a simple divided highway would suffice.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 01:21:23 PM
Wouldn't a toll road have to get its money from private sources anyway (through methods like bond sales)? If the road was going to be built with gas tax money it might be better to build a divided at-grade expressway Texas-style with a median big enough to hold a future freeway. Or just build a new 2-lane road with a big ROW to the side of it. Of course there's only so much gas-tax funding available. I-49 ought to be a higher priority with that money.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on February 21, 2019, 03:09:22 PM
Again, we're talking about money that hasn't been raised yet. If the people of Lafayette and the surrounding parishes decide to move forward with it, they will.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 22, 2019, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: Gordon on February 19, 2019, 02:42:41 PM
https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_754f2f50-313b-11e9-abbf-cba22dbd3810.html                                                                     Here is an article on the Lafayette connector that expects a federal Record of Decision on the I-49 Lafayette Connector and final document by 2021.

Interesting that Claire Taylor, the author of that article, has moved over from the Daily Advertiser to the Acadiana Advocate. She has been the lead reporter for articles on the Connector project since its inception.

It would make sense to kick the dates for the Supplemental EIS and CSS studies down the road to 2021, and also stage the funding and construction. Maybe they will finally update their website to reflect the latest news?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 22, 2019, 03:20:33 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 20, 2019, 12:18:55 PM
Why does a city the size of Lafayette need I-49 AND a toll loop?  Seems like overkill to me.

I-49 through Lafayette is the greater need due to the congestion of the Evangeline Thruway and the need to complete the I-49 South extension; but there is a legit justification for the LRX loop, especially its western semicircle. Southern and Western Lafayette Parish and the surrounding enclaves of Vermilion and St. Martin Parishes have been undergoing some major development and growth in the past 5 years, and an LRX loop would essentially serve that growth by setting the outer boundary of greater Lafayette.

The LRX is just in its initial stage of development and study; this is only the Tier 1 EIS that establishes the general corridor. Tier 2 studies would actually set the ROW and alignment for the project, which would be plenty of time for establishing some form of funding.

Financial studies thus far have shown that tolls alone could pay for only 48% of the funding of the segment of the LRX from I-10 south to US 90/Future I-49 South/LA 182, and probably only 40% if extended north to I-49 North near Carencro. It would probably require a combination of funding sources to build out the LRX; and they would be totally independent of funding I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: yakra on February 26, 2019, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 22, 2018, 01:50:50 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 20, 2018, 11:45:28 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2018, 02:05:13 PM
This is what the latest plans I saw were for the I-49S/US 90/I-310 interchange complex, based on the 2014 Refinement Study that reduced down the scope and format for the project. It shows how I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended southward to connect with proposed I-49 South.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Feim6te.jpg&hash=26b3a6eaf3c1405cb543ccc78054464dd8f6f610)

Designed by the same person who did I-24 at I-57? (https://goo.gl/maps/y3xyevUkekx)

I was thinking the I-86/I-390 interchange west of Bath, NY was a carbon copy of this design as well.
Or the north end of NH I-293.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 02, 2019, 06:11:37 AM
Getting back in Louisiana and on the topic of I-49 South:

I was finally able to find a decent aerial of the newly completed US 90/LA 318 interchange west of Franklin. This courtesy of Bing Maps:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F2lm7a5j.jpg&hash=3302693b2ea3c952ff8c0c5876a752856dae76e8)

Basically, they tightened the westbound entry/exit ramps and widened the east frontage road in order to save the housing development on the northeast fringe of the former intersection. Not bad.



Also...the Public Hearing for the Tier I Draft EIS for the Lafayette Regional eXpressway loop around Lafayette Parish was held Thursday night, and was pretty much dull except for one commentator:

Quote

Michael Waldon, a Lafayette engineer, questioned the toll and traffic projection methodology. He also asked the LMEC to post more information online.

"The project looks like a wonderful substitute, to me, for the I-49 Connector – which we've been assured will never be built if there's strong local opposition. And I can assure you: There is strong local opposition," Waldon said. (source (https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/02/28/lafayette-regional-xpressway-loop-plans-taking-shape-future-toll-road/3015262002/))

Waldon is one of the lead opponents of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway project that would complete I-49 South through the city along US 90 and the Evangeline Thruway. How he thinks the LRX, at nearly $1.8 BILLION will replace the $800 million Connector project, is a mystery only in his head.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on March 02, 2019, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 02, 2019, 06:11:37 AM


Quote

Michael Waldon, a Lafayette engineer, questioned the toll and traffic projection methodology. He also asked the LMEC to post more information online.

"The project looks like a wonderful substitute, to me, for the I-49 Connector – which we've been assured will never be built if there's strong local opposition. And I can assure you: There is strong local opposition," Waldon said. (source (https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/02/28/lafayette-regional-xpressway-loop-plans-taking-shape-future-toll-road/3015262002/))

Waldon is one of the lead opponents of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway project that would complete I-49 South through the city along US 90 and the Evangeline Thruway. How he thinks the LRX, at nearly $1.8 BILLION will replace the $800 million Connector project, is a mystery only in his head.

This sounds just like the "Loop it" group in Shreveport about spending billions to upgrade LA 3132 when you come out better spending millions on the new connector.  :pan: I hope wiser heads will prevail here as they did in Shreveport.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 03, 2019, 01:31:43 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on March 02, 2019, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 02, 2019, 06:11:37 AM


Quote

Michael Waldon, a Lafayette engineer, questioned the toll and traffic projection methodology. He also asked the LMEC to post more information online.

"The project looks like a wonderful substitute, to me, for the I-49 Connector – which we've been assured will never be built if there's strong local opposition. And I can assure you: There is strong local opposition," Waldon said. (source (https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/02/28/lafayette-regional-xpressway-loop-plans-taking-shape-future-toll-road/3015262002/))

Waldon is one of the lead opponents of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway project that would complete I-49 South through the city along US 90 and the Evangeline Thruway. How he thinks the LRX, at nearly $1.8 BILLION will replace the $800 million Connector project, is a mystery only in his head.

This sounds just like the "Loop it" group in Shreveport about spending billions to upgrade LA 3132 when you come out better spending millions on the new connector.  :pan: I hope wiser heads will prevail here as they did in Shreveport.

It's actually worse than the Loop It group in Shreveport.

At least there is LA 3132 and I-220 already existing as a bypass alternative to the ICC, although to upgrade that corridor to handle through I-49 traffic would be expensive.

The LRX, on the other hand, would cost nearly $1.8 BILLION to construct, and since tolls would only defray around 40-45% of the construction and maintenance costs, you still would have to spend nearly a billion dollars to complete a 40 mile loop that would not even come close to deferring traffic from the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor. Not to mention, US 90 south of Lafayette is still planned on being upgraded to freeway standards anyway.

I'm guessing that Waldon and the Lafayette Connector opponents are still wanting to throw a Hail Mary for something like the Teche Ridge Bypass, or attempt to expedite funding for the LRX loop, so that they can kill the Connector project; but it's probably not happening.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 03, 2019, 01:40:58 PM
I think currently the Lafayette Connector is slowly inching toward a final, federal record of decision sometime in 2021. Ugh. Construction on the connector won't begin until then. I guess we would be looking at the 2025 time frame for the connector to be complete, if the project isn't derailed by some stupid nonsense. On the bright side other upgrade projects on US-90 farther South continue to proceed. Maybe by the time the connector is finished much of the rest of I-49 in the Lafayette area will be done as well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 03, 2019, 03:43:06 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 03, 2019, 01:40:58 PM
I think currently the Lafayette Connector is slowly inching toward a final, federal record of decision sometime in 2021. Ugh. Construction on the connector won't begin until then. I guess we would be looking at the 2025 time frame for the connector to be complete, if the project isn't derailed by some stupid nonsense. On the bright side other upgrade projects on US-90 farther South continue to proceed. Maybe by the time the connector is finished much of the rest of I-49 in the Lafayette area will be done as well.

The original contract for the Lafayette Connector, which was extended in March of last year, had pushed for a Supplemental EIS/ROD to be finalized by October of this year, but got pushed back due to issues involving merging some of the committees overseeing the design and CSS development process. There was also the need to review the potential mitigation of the ROW crossing the site of a former railyard that had to be cleaned up due to hazardous materials being processed there over the past 100 or so years (the rail yard was closed back in the 1950's). Obviously, pushing back the completion date of the CSS/Conceptual Design/SEIS process will be a bit costly, but it makes sense to do it right, especially in the wake of public opposition and the importance of this project.

2021 would actually be a pivotable year for finding funding for the project, because that would be the closest year that LADOTD can pursue some time of gas tax revenue increase or other revenue enhancements to fund the rest of I-49 South, including the Connector segment. Tolls are obviously out of the question since it would be impossible to place toll booths or even ETC towers on an urban segment, especially with the Evangeline Thruway as a "shunpike"; and the rest of the US 90 upgrade to freeway is crawling along in bits and pieces. The Albertson Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182 interchange and BNSF/UP mainline overpass upgrade is just about finished, with completion date set to later this spring (probably May).

The next improvements down the line would be constructing the interchanges with South Ambassador Caffery Parkway, LA 92/LA 92-1 (Youngsville Highway/Petroleum Parkway), and Verot School Road; adding frontage roads south of LA 182 to where the existing frontage roads begin just north of the LA 88 (Coteau Road) interchange, and possibly extending frontage roads north of Albertson Parkway to the Verot School intersection/proposed interchange. All those projects are in the environmental planning and design stages, with no money as of yet for construction....though that may change by 2021.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 04, 2019, 11:11:55 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 03, 2019, 03:43:06 PM
Tolls are obviously out of the question since it would be impossible to place toll booths or even ETC towers on an urban segment, especially with the Evangeline Thruway as a "shunpike".

Are you sure? Looks to me like it's a pretty clear choice: Pay the toll, or endure traffic-light hell.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 04, 2019, 11:44:32 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 04, 2019, 11:11:55 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 03, 2019, 03:43:06 PM
Tolls are obviously out of the question since it would be impossible to place toll booths or even ETC towers on an urban segment, especially with the Evangeline Thruway as a "shunpike".

Are you sure? Looks to me like it's a pretty clear choice: Pay the toll, or endure traffic-light hell.

It's not so clear, and it's not that much a choice.

LADOTD already did a toll study on I-49 South, and they found that even if the entire route was tolled, it would still account for less than half the revenue needed to finish the project. Also, tolls would have to be imposed on the long completed "free" segment between Morgan City and Raceland, which is essentially a non-starter since existing LA 182 could be used to shunpike, and there is usually strong opposition to tolling a segment that is already completed as a freeway.

Tolling the LRX does make sense because it is a peripheral loop that compliments the freeway system. Tolling the Connector, on the other hand, is not really possible because how and where would you place the toll booths or ART towers for collecting the tolls? You could possibly toll the segment just south of the Connector via a Texas tollway setup (2x3 toll mainlanes + 3 lane access roads via slip ramps), but would the public actually go for that..especially with the interchanges being proposed already being built for "free" with public funds?

My guess is that folks in Lafayette would sooner build Teche Ridge Bypass than endure a tolled Connector.

I'd probably prefer to wait until 2021 and see if some additional public revenue can be sought to complete the project first before I even begin to think about tolling the Connector.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 05, 2019, 10:04:20 AM
"Even if the entire route was tolled, it would still account for less than half the revenue needed to finish the project."

Some revenue is better than no revenue. Funny how people whine about there not being money to build our roads, yet when the obvious solution of tolling--literally people paying for using the road--comes up, the same people either whine about that too or make some ridiculous "shunpike" excuse.

When I go to the Austin area, I take SH 130 around the city instead of the various free routes through it. Why? Because I'm happy to pay for the privilege of little traffic and 80 MPH. I make that choice. The savings in time and frustration justify the expense. And knowing that I can silence my critics because I put my money where my mouth is also makes it worth it.

LA 182 parallels US 90 from Broussard all the way past Raceland. If your time is so cheap that you will pass through every small town on the way and hit every red light to save a few dollars, good for you. I'll be on the tollway, doing my civic duty and paying for my use of the infrastructure. Same thing with a tolled connector through Lafayette.

From now on, I'm not going to take anyone who uses the "shunpike" experience seriously unless they actually offer a plan for paying for these roads. They are just noisy gongs, not genuinely interested in solving our infrastructure issues.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vdeane on March 05, 2019, 12:21:01 PM
Shunpiking does happen.  I remember someone posting about how traffic is getting worse on US 30 as Pennsylvania Turnpike tolls climb ever higher.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 05, 2019, 03:18:28 PM
Of course it happens. If it's happening too much the tolls are too high. The point is that the fact that there are alternate routes and cheap people with poor awareness of the value of their time does not nullify the logic and value of tolling.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 05, 2019, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 05, 2019, 10:04:20 AM
"Even if the entire route was tolled, it would still account for less than half the revenue needed to finish the project."

Some revenue is better than no revenue. Funny how people whine about there not being money to build our roads, yet when the obvious solution of tolling--literally people paying for using the road--comes up, the same people either whine about that too or make some ridiculous "shunpike" excuse.

Not everybody wants to convert every controlled access highway into tollways. See the example of the Trans Texas Corridor.

Also, a highway that has already been funded and maintained through "free" gas taxes probably should not be converted into a tollway unless the funding goes towards upgrading it.

Quote
When I go to the Austin area, I take SH 130 around the city instead of the various free routes through it. Why? Because I'm happy to pay for the privilege of little traffic and 80 MPH. I make that choice. The savings in time and frustration justify the expense. And knowing that I can silence my critics because I put my money where my mouth is also makes it worth it.

What works for Austin doesn't necessarily work for Lafayette. And, there is talk of reducing if not eliminating the tolls on SH 130 as a means of rerouting I-35 in order to avoid reconstruction in downtown Austin.  Just because you personally are willing to pay tolls doesn't mean everybody else would, especially if they're already paying through gas taxes and other fees.

QuoteLA 182 parallels US 90 from Broussard all the way past Raceland. If your time is so cheap that you will pass through every small town on the way and hit every red light to save a few dollars, good for you. I'll be on the tollway, doing my civic duty and paying for my use of the infrastructure. Same thing with a tolled connector through Lafayette.

US 90 was originally built between Lafayette and Morgan City to be a freeway, and paid for with public funding. The fact that LA 182 exists as an alternative through local towns like New Iberia, Jeanerette, Baldwin, Franklin, and Patterson/Berwick changes nothing about that fact. And it's not as if "free" users of US 90 don't pay anything at all.

QuoteFrom now on, I'm not going to take anyone who uses the "shunpike" experience seriously unless they actually offer a plan for paying for these roads. They are just noisy gongs, not genuinely interested in solving our infrastructure issues.

Well, pardon me if I don't think that the solution to Louisiana's infrastructure deficits is to slap tolls on every freeway and push those not rich enough to afford 80 mph speeds into already insufficiently underfunded roads.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 05, 2019, 11:43:52 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 05, 2019, 10:04:20 AM
"Even if the entire route was tolled, it would still account for less than half the revenue needed to finish the project."

Some revenue is better than no revenue. Funny how people whine about there not being money to build our roads, yet when the obvious solution of tolling--literally people paying for using the road--comes up, the same people either whine about that too or make some ridiculous "shunpike" excuse.

When I go to the Austin area, I take SH 130 around the city instead of the various free routes through it. Why? Because I'm happy to pay for the privilege of little traffic and 80 MPH. I make that choice. The savings in time and frustration justify the expense. And knowing that I can silence my critics because I put my money where my mouth is also makes it worth it.

LA 182 parallels US 90 from Broussard all the way past Raceland. If your time is so cheap that you will pass through every small town on the way and hit every red light to save a few dollars, good for you. I'll be on the tollway, doing my civic duty and paying for my use of the infrastructure. Same thing with a tolled connector through Lafayette.

From now on, I'm not going to take anyone who uses the "shunpike" experience seriously unless they actually offer a plan for paying for these roads. They are just noisy gongs, not genuinely interested in solving our infrastructure issues.
Quote from: jbnv on March 05, 2019, 03:18:28 PM
Of course it happens. If it's happening too much the tolls are too high. The point is that the fact that there are alternate routes and cheap people with poor awareness of the value of their time does not nullify the logic and value of tolling.
We get you can afford all these tolls, and will ride them all day long and night. Do you have to insult people that don't? You're personally attacking some people by saying "cheap people" "poor awareness".

Toll roads aren't the answer to everything you know. When you want to blow a toll road through a poorer area, don't expect everyone to be able to afford to pay the tolls, and even better, insult them by calling them cheap and having poor awareness. They're more concerned about their financial decisions rather than time, and I respect that. I'll pay the tolls to, but understand you should accept others just as much that choose not to.

And the argument "some revenue is better than no revenue" is a poor one. Let me ask the question - when you have some of the revenue paid for, where do you get the rest? From a magical fairy land? You need to have a full plan in place that will fully pay for the project whether tolling or not. Just because tolls exist doesn't mean there's unlimited money all of a sudden. It doesn't work that way FYI. Here's a brief lesson - if the project is fully toll supported, and no public monies, the tolls have to be high, which in result can lead to shunpiking, and as much as you want to believe it's a joke, it sure exists. If the project is partially supported by tolls, and public monies as well, the tolls end up being lower, but you still have to have public monies to pay for it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vdeane on March 06, 2019, 12:25:44 PM
Playing devil's advocate here, wouldn't it still cost the public less if only some money was raised by tolling than if none of it is?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on March 07, 2019, 08:03:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 06, 2019, 12:25:44 PM
Playing devil's advocate here, wouldn't it still cost the public less if only some money was raised by tolling than if none of it is?

That's kind of the thought process for getting the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River built. Everyone knows that tolls won't be enough to cover the whole bill, but it'll make scrounging through the couch cushions for the remaining funds a lot easier.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 10:58:23 AM
Wow. I'm not rich by any means. I commute 45 miles to work one-way every day on two interstates, one of which is I-12 into Baton Rouge. Which means that if they were tolled, I'd be paying hundreds of dollars every month just to work. And guess what? If that money means less traffic and better-maintained roads, I'd pay it. (There's a construction project on that stretch that has been ongoing since I started this job two years ago and is still not done. I'm literally watching the results of the refusal to toll the traffic I sit in.)

Speaking of I-12 traffic: A large quantity of that traffic came from out of Louisiana. Considering that I'm happy to pay Texas to use their roads when I'm in Texas, I have no qualms about asking traffic from outside of Louisiana to pay Louisiana for using roads to pass through Louisiana. Not to mention that the 10/12 corridor is a known corridor for drugs and human trafficking. If paying tolls on that stretch discourages the trafficking and helps pay for more police, then put the transponders up tomorrow.

If Texas wants to remove the tolls on SH 130 to encourage people to use it instead of I-35, good for them and congratulations on having the luxury of doing that. My first concern is about the state of Louisiana roads. Which isn't very good and bears the burden of lots of traffic that doesn't compensate it in return.

Finally, if you rule out tolls as a means of funding our major highways, then you have no right to complain about the inability to fund them. And I'm going to call you out when you do.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2019, 11:19:10 AM
A huge NO from me to the idea of any interstates being tolled!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2019, 03:46:48 PM
Quote from: jbnvI'm not rich by any means. I commute 45 miles to work one-way every day on two interstates, one of which is I-12 into Baton Rouge. Which means that if they were tolled, I'd be paying hundreds of dollars every month just to work. And guess what? If that money means less traffic and better-maintained roads, I'd pay it.

Affordability is all relative. Ability to pay tolls on a previously "free" highway varies from one motorist to the next. And it also varies from one toll road to the next. A big chunk of our nation's population is making at or little above minimum wage. A decade ago when the mezzo-scale, ponzi-scheme fraud perpetrated on our housing industry finally imploded one of the catalysts to make it happen was gasoline prices hitting new all-time highs. Many new home owners stretched themselves financially just to upgrade into better living spaces (often farther out into the suburbs and exurbs). They had no wiggle room to absorb their commute costs suddenly doubling or worse. Flash forward to today: many of the same conditions are present again in the economy.

I'm 100% sure if someone conducted a poll of Oklahoma's residents about their views of our turnpike system the vast majority would say extremely negative things about it. Most want the toll gates removed. Few probably realize there would be a serious cost penalty to doing so. A big hike on fuel tax rates would be required for ODOT to assume maintenance obligations on 600 miles worth of turnpikes. I also doubt if many of Oklahoma's drivers have ever bothered comparing the prices per mile of Oklahoma's toll roads versus those elsewhere in the country.

I think Oklahoma tolls per mile are a bargain compared to those in Texas. Most of the toll roads in Texas are flanked by frontage roads that are free to use. Highways like LBJ Freeway in Dallas or Katy Freeway in Houston have plenty of free lanes as an alternative to the tolled express lanes.

Quote from: jbnvSpeaking of I-12 traffic: A large quantity of that traffic came from out of Louisiana. Considering that I'm happy to pay Texas to use their roads when I'm in Texas, I have no qualms about asking traffic from outside of Louisiana to pay Louisiana for using roads to pass through Louisiana. Not to mention that the 10/12 corridor is a known corridor for drugs and human trafficking. If paying tolls on that stretch discourages the trafficking and helps pay for more police, then put the transponders up tomorrow.

If any of those motorists fill up at any gas stations in Louisiana they're contributing to funding the roads there. It's up to Louisiana to charge an proper fuel tax rate to cover its needs. Oklahoma just passed a very modest increase to its fuel taxes, the first hike since 1993. The hike was long overdue and arguably not nearly enough to cover inflation of construction and maintenance costs over the past 25 years.

Erecting toll gates on an existing Interstate highway that has long been "free" to use would be extremely unpopular politically. I imagine if a lawmaker here in Oklahoma proposed installing toll gates on I-40 to raise revenue he would end his political career pretty fast.

I seriously doubt toll gates would have any effect on illegal businesses like drug smuggling and human trafficking. Unfortunately tolls would be a small price to pay for the big amounts of money those activities generate.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2019, 03:46:48 PM
If any of those motorists fill up at any gas stations in Louisiana they're contributing to funding the roads there.

That's a huge assumption. The I-10/12 corridor through Louisiana is only 250 miles. That's pretty easy to cross on one tank for modern lightweight vehicles. (For comparison, I get about 400 miles/tank on my current vehicle.) Now, I have no idea what kind of range trucks get. You're welcome to educate me in that regard.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2019, 03:46:48 PM
Erecting toll gates on an existing Interstate highway that has long been "free" to use would be extremely unpopular politically. I imagine if a lawmaker here in Oklahoma proposed installing toll gates on I-40 to raise revenue he would end his political career pretty fast.

That's a matter of education. We're at the point where pretty much any tax increase is going to face great opposition. I'm one of those people who is going to oppose a tax increase for whatever the reason anyway. So tolls vis-a-vis higher gas taxes is a wash.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2019, 03:46:48 PM
I seriously doubt toll gates would have any effect on illegal businesses like drug smuggling and human trafficking. Unfortunately tolls would be a small price to pay for the big amounts of money those activities generate.

You missed the part where I proposed using tolls to help pay for highway patrol as well as maintenance. Furthermore, all the extra cameras will give traffickers pause about ignoring the law. It's a highly theoretical benefit but one worth considering.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 09, 2019, 05:53:46 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 05:22:53 PM
I'm one of those people who is going to oppose a tax increase for whatever the reason anyway.

Ah yes, you're one of those people who support the nonsensical notion of "no new taxes" but demand more services/proper maintenance of existing stuff from your government anyway.

Quote
You missed the part where I proposed using tolls to help pay for highway patrol as well as maintenance. Furthermore, all the extra cameras will give traffickers pause about ignoring the law. It's a highly theoretical benefit but one worth considering.

Traffic cameras are a terrible substitute for actual law enforcement.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 08:09:02 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 05:22:53 PM
I'm one of those people who is going to oppose a tax increase for whatever the reason anyway.
More people would support higher taxes over tolls on all the interstates. That's a f-a-c-t. Don't complain when taxes are raised, I hope you realize that when they are raised - it's for an actual reason. The current taxes cannot handle everything, and installing electronic toll gantries on every interstate is not the answer. The minority (you) may believe that, but there's a reason proposals in the past like to toll I-81, I-95, and other interstates on the east coast have f-a-i-l-e-d. Another thing, tolls drive away businesses. That's also a f-a-c-t. They hurt truckers having to pay expensive tolls (way more than the average car). Even better, the trucker has to pay it out if his/her pocket, so that adds even more of a burden to them. Again, f-a-c-t. North Carolina was going to toll all 182 miles of I-95 to widen it, but instead they're moving on with widening - with tax dollars and slightly higher taxes. It's gonna take longer, but pay off in the end. They already have over 40 miles funded to be widened from 4 to 8 lanes (construction starts this year), and more programmed in the future for 6 lanes IIRC. A much more favorable option for everybody, especially truckers. Haven't heard much opposition to that. The toll proposal had lots of opposition on the contrary.

Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 05:22:53 PM
You missed the part where I proposed using tolls to help pay for highway patrol as well as maintenance. Furthermore, all the extra cameras will give traffickers pause about ignoring the law. It's a highly theoretical benefit but one worth considering.
Ah yes. Let's slap a $40 car toll / $60+ truck toll on I-10 / I-12 across Louisiana for a theoretical benefit that really doesn't exist. The only thing it will do is place a burden on thousands of people daily, for almost no reason besides... raising money for a hypothetical program? No one would support that, not to mention actually get serious with any proposals. I mean, what is a CCTV camera going to help with? Seeing a bunch of cars and trucks pass under it at 70+ MPH? You can't catch traffickers with that, have you watched CCTV cameras before on the interstates?

If you love tolls so much, go live somewhere like Dallas, Houston, Southern California, and a lot of other places that are filled with tolls roads left and right. The interstates were built with tax dollars decades ago, they work fine, and if a massive expansion is needed, that's when tolling can be considered, along with traditional methods. But just to place some sensors on an existing 4-lane rural interstates to get some extra revenue that won't benefit the motoring public or flow of traffic whatsoever just seems like a waste to almost everybody.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2019, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: jbnvThat's a huge assumption. The I-10/12 corridor through Louisiana is only 250 miles. That's pretty easy to cross on one tank for modern lightweight vehicles. (For comparison, I get about 400 miles/tank on my current vehicle.) Now, I have no idea what kind of range trucks get. You're welcome to educate me in that regard.

The fact there's plenty of convenience stores and truck stops along the exits of Louisiana Interstates should provide at least some proof long distance motorists are filling up at least some of the time there. I've driven back and forth between Oklahoma and Florida numerous times; I've often stopped at various places in Louisiana to fill up the tank. It's 342 miles for me to get across Louisiana on the way to Florida (11 miles on I-20, 7 on LA-3132, 201 on I-49 and 141 on I-10/I-12 to the MS border). It's a similar distance to get down to New Orleans. That's more than enough mileage to warrant a fuel stop. Not everyone is just taking I-20 or I-10/I-12 straight across the state.

Quote from: jbnvThat's a matter of education. We're at the point where pretty much any tax increase is going to face great opposition. I'm one of those people who is going to oppose a tax increase for whatever the reason anyway. So tolls vis-a-vis higher gas taxes is a wash.

That's a contradictory statement. You want to "educate" people about tolls, but you're against any gas tax increase no matter what the circumstances might be? Such as high cost inflation of building and maintaining roads? If states aren't able to raise their gasoline taxes they'll be forced to install RFID tag readers and license plate cameras to charge tolls on every street corner.

Quote from: jbnvYou missed the part where I proposed using tolls to help pay for highway patrol as well as maintenance. Furthermore, all the extra cameras will give traffickers pause about ignoring the law. It's a highly theoretical benefit but one worth considering.

Drug smugglers and people who do human trafficking do not have signs on the outsides of their vehicles letting any cameras know they're conducting an illegal operation. Whether the vehicle is a semi-truck or a standard passenger auto it's pretty easy for those criminals to reach their destinations. All they have to do is not call attention to themselves by speeding or doing anything else stupid. The best chance of catching those criminals is at border checkpoints where law enforcement personnel have an opportunity to inspect/search the vehicle.

Regarding the funding of highway patrol, most states do that directly from the state budget. That's the case for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Only under special circumstances are parts of their operation funded with turnpike revenue. In 2018 the OTA provided $5 million in funding for a new OHP Academy class since the state budget had come up short for that during the previous 2 years.

I don't think highway patrols should be funded through toll revenue (or gasoline taxes either). When the price of fuel gets too high many people cut way back on their trips. And that ultimately hurts revenue since gasoline taxes are a flat per gallon amount rather than a percentage of the per gallon price. A highway patrol reliant on toll revenue or fuel taxes would be prone to all kinds of budget shortfalls during hard times. And it's during hard times when law enforcement has to step it a couple notches since crime rates can rise under those circumstances.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:13:18 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 09, 2019, 05:53:46 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 05:22:53 PM
I'm one of those people who is going to oppose a tax increase for whatever the reason anyway.

Ah yes, you're one of those people who support the nonsensical notion of "no new taxes" but demand more services/proper maintenance of existing stuff from your government anyway.

Ah yes, you're one of those people who support the asinine notion that everyone who opposes new taxes is some sort of hypocrite who doesn't want to pay for the services they receive from government.

Only a royal jerk tells someone who is campaigning for tolled highways that he's "demand more services/proper maintenance of existing stuff" from government and refusing to pay for it.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 09, 2019, 05:53:46 PM
Quote
You missed the part where I proposed using tolls to help pay for highway patrol as well as maintenance. Furthermore, all the extra cameras will give traffickers pause about ignoring the law. It's a highly theoretical benefit but one worth considering.

Traffic cameras are a terrible substitute for actual law enforcement.

Who said anything about replacing law enforcement with traffic cameras? You clearly have a problem with putting words in people's mouths regardless of what they actually say.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:27:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 08:09:02 PM
More people would support higher taxes over tolls on all the interstates. That's a f-a-c-t.

Citation needed. Spelling out the word "fact" doesn't make your statement a fact. (What's with the spelling anyway? Are you talking to a child?)

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 08:09:02 PM
Ah yes. Let's slap a $40 car toll / $60+ truck toll on I-10 / I-12 across Louisiana for a theoretical benefit that really doesn't exist.

Ah yes, let's listen to someone in Virginia tell us what will and won't work in Louisiana.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 08:09:02 PM
The only thing it will do is place a burden on thousands of people daily, for almost no reason besides... raising money for a hypothetical program?

Charging people for using the public infrastructure. That was cool right up to the post right before yours, but apparently it's not cool anymore?

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 08:09:02 PM
If you love tolls so much, go live somewhere like Dallas, Houston, Southern California, and a lot of other places that are filled with tolls roads left and right.

Again, with what authority do you, as someone who lives in Virginia, lecture someone who lives in Louisiana about their situation? Include with your answer an explanation for the pro-tax people in here why we should *not* have to pay for the infrastructure that we use.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2019, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: jbnvThat's a huge assumption. The I-10/12 corridor through Louisiana is only 250 miles. That's pretty easy to cross on one tank for modern lightweight vehicles.
The fact there's plenty of convenience stores and truck stops along the exits of Louisiana Interstates should provide at least some proof long distance motorists are filling up at least some of the time there.

Quote from: jbnvYou missed the part where I proposed using tolls to help pay for highway patrol as well as maintenance. Furthermore, all the extra cameras will give traffickers pause about ignoring the law. It's a highly theoretical benefit but one worth considering.
Regarding the funding of highway patrol, most states do that directly from the state budget. ... A highway patrol reliant on toll revenue or fuel taxes would be prone to all kinds of budget shortfalls during hard times.

It's like you're deliberately omitting key parts of my hypotheticals and ideas for the sole purpose of shutting me down and making me look stupid. Seems to be a trend here.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: SSOWorld on March 09, 2019, 09:37:46 PM
Tone it down and be civil guys
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:27:46 PM
Are you talking to a child?
I feel like it.

Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:27:46 PM
Ah yes, let's listen to someone in Virginia tell us what will and won't work in Louisiana.
Fair point, but I'm just saying any legislation proposed that would enact tolls along 250 miles of interstate highway with no improvements in return (widening, interchange reconfigurations, traffic improvements, etc) would likely not go very far. From experience from North Carolina with I-95 and VA with I-81, even with massive expansions proposed, tolling was still unpopular and didn't get far.

Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:27:46 PM
Charging people for using the public infrastructure.
Isn't that what a gas / fuel tax does? Increase it to the proper rate to match inflation, and overtime the benefits will sink it.

Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:27:46 PM
Again, with what authority do you, as someone who lives in Virginia, lecture someone who lives in Louisiana about their situation? Include with your answer an explanation for the pro-tax people in here why we should *not* have to pay for the infrastructure that we use.
Umm, because our taxes pay for them already? Whenever I fuel up at the gas station, I'm paying gas / fuel tax, which goes towards the maintenance of the roadways. Not to mention, the interstates were built decades ago, and no massive expansion is proposed from what you're saying. I've driven I-10 / I-12 through Louisiana many times, I don't see how tolling for additional enforcement, CCTV cameras, and maintenance can be justified in any way. The way I feel about Louisiana I feel the exact same way about Virginia & NC with the I-95 / I-81 tolling proposed. It didn't go anywhere, a lot of people including myself were opposed to it, especially truckers, and it didn't get far. I-95 tolling is off the table as NCDOT is now funding it with traditional methods (oh, would you look at that, something NOT tolled!), and I-81 is back and forth. It was proposed back in January for the umpteenth time, yet didn't get anywhere.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 10, 2019, 05:39:26 AM
Getting this back to the original point of tolling the Lafayette Connector/I-49 South...

As I mentioned earlier, LADOTD had already launched a toll study which compared tolling all of the I-49 South corridor with tolling only portions (such as the "free" sections of the US 90 freeway between Morgan City and Raceland, or the segment of US 90 just south of Lafayette), and they found that even in the best case of tolling the entire corridor, they'd still get to about 50% of the revenue needed to complete the project.

I actually would not be opposed to (though I wouldn't really like it) some tolling of some segments of a freewayized US 90 where parallel one-way frontage roads would be built (similar to the Texas tollway setup), especially from Lafayette southward to New Iberia, if it helped expedite completion of the entire project.

No way in Hell, though, would a tolled Connector through Lafayette ever pass muster; the public would probably call for a tolled Teche Ridge Bypass or an expedited LRX than ever see the Connector built as a toll facility. There's already enough opposition to the Connector as is without adding the additional barrier of a toll.

And as for the "no new taxes" stand? Let our infrastructure in Louisiana rot to the point of actual collapse, and then call me with the idea that public money shouldn't be used for public infrastructure. If Texas can reject the Trans Texas Corridor scam and build the I-69 Colossus fully with public funds, I do think Louisiana can find a way to publically fund I-49 South.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: jbnvIt's like you're deliberately omitting key parts of my hypotheticals and ideas for the sole purpose of shutting me down and making me look stupid. Seems to be a trend here.

What am I omitting, in specifics? I expained my earlier points pretty clearly -like it being a bad idea to fund highway patrols through toll revenue and how it would be politically suicidal for a lawmaker to stick toll gates on highways previously built and funded through gasoline taxes. A brand new superhighway can have tolls stuck on it. So can brand new "Lexus Lanes" in cities like Dallas. That's just the way it is. You're making the broad claim out of state drivers aren't filling up at Louisiana gas stations. I do not agree with that at all. If you feel like I'm trying to make you look stupid that's something you're inventing in your own head. I'm no troll.

I also think it is 100% contradictory to be in favor for sticking tollgates on existing highways yet be 100% against any fuel tax increases. Both function as a tax. Just to add a little thing to that: toll revenue only goes to maintaining a turnpike system. Unlike gasoline taxes, toll revenue does nothing to help maintain all the surface highways and streets connecting to the turnpike. Plenty of cars and trucks from out of state put wear on tear on roads in the vicinity of turnpike exits.

Quote from: Anthony_JKAs I mentioned earlier, LADOTD had already launched a toll study which compared tolling all of the I-49 South corridor with tolling only portions (such as the "free" sections of the US 90 freeway between Morgan City and Raceland, or the segment of US 90 just south of Lafayette), and they found that even in the best case of tolling the entire corridor, they'd still get to about 50% of the revenue needed to complete the project.

One obvious problem is many long distance drivers headed for New Orleans Westbank suburbs like Gretna would just shun-pike US-90 if it was tolled. They would continue to use I-10 right through the downtown district to get to the Westbank instead. That would defeat one of the purposes of upgrading US-90 to Interstate standards: being a relief route for I-10.

Louisiana could try to use the "cross-pledging" funding method the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority uses for its roads. Technically the toll gates on Oklahoma's toll roads were supposed to come down once the turnpike bonds were paid off. The OTA spreads the costs of maintenance, upgrades and new turnpike segments across the entire system (so there's always some debt that still has to be paid to justify the toll gates remaining in place). Still, the setup depends on having at least a couple turnpikes that are able to turn a profit (the Turner & Will Rogers turnpikes). Otherwise the OTA's budget would drown in red ink. The problem with Louisiana is the busiest highways (I-10 & I-20) have long existed as fuel-tax funded "free" highways. A politician can't stick toll gates on those things in order to cross-pledge funds for a US-90 turnpike, at least not if he wants to avoid political suicide.

Quote from: Anthony_JKAnd as for the "no new taxes" stand? Let our infrastructure in Louisiana rot to the point of actual collapse, and then call me with the idea that public money shouldn't be used for public infrastructure. If Texas can reject the Trans Texas Corridor scam and build the I-69 Colossus fully with public funds, I do think Louisiana can find a way to publically fund I-49 South.

Oklahoma finally had to give in and raise fuel taxes. But when the state legislature finally did so it was not out of any concern for the highways. For the first few years that extra fuel tax money is going to help fund teacher pay raises. Oklahoma's public education system has suffered extreme budget cuts. Most of the teachers had gone without any wage increase in over a decade. Our state's teachers are among the least paid in the nation. As a result many of the better teachers have been saying "f*** Oklahoma" and taking jobs elsewhere. That's affecting business. Skilled workers with families aren't very willing to move to a state that hatefully neglects its public education sector. The fuel tax increase was a half-ass way of starting to deal with the problem. But it's misappropriating funds from our streets and highways. The simple fact is the state government handed out a bunch of tax cut candy to voters without having any way to afford it. The cuts did nothing to grow revenue. Instead the state is falling into a deeper disadvantage to neighboring states, like Texas.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 11, 2019, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 11:29:42 PM
Fair point, but I'm just saying any legislation proposed that would enact tolls along 250 miles of interstate highway with no improvements in return (widening, interchange reconfigurations, traffic improvements, etc) would likely not go very far.

The whole point of the tolls should be for the maintenance and improvement of the corridor. :rolleyes: (You're correct, but that should be common sense.)


Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 09:27:46 PM
Charging people for using the public infrastructure.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 11:29:42 PM
Isn't that what a gas / fuel tax does?

Indirectly. I prefer to be charged directly for the services that I receive.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 11:29:42 PM
I've driven I-10 / I-12 through Louisiana many times, I don't see how tolling for additional enforcement, CCTV cameras, and maintenance can be justified in any way.

Good for you. You haven't lived here for 30 years. You don't commute from Hammond to Baton Rouge every workday. When you take a road trip to visit family/friends, can you cross long bridges without anticipating that some accident or problem will have it blocked for hours? That's my experience. Not fair of you to deny it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 11, 2019, 02:13:39 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
You're making the broad claim out of state drivers aren't filling up at Louisiana gas stations.

No, I'm not. Reread what I actually wrote: "That's a huge assumption. The I-10/12 corridor through Louisiana is only 250 miles. That's pretty easy to cross on one tank for modern lightweight vehicles."

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
I also think it is 100% contradictory to be in favor for sticking tollgates on existing highways yet be 100% against any fuel tax increases. Both function as a tax. Just to add a little thing to that: toll revenue only goes to maintaining a turnpike system. Unlike gasoline taxes, toll revenue does nothing to help maintain all the surface highways and streets connecting to the turnpike. Plenty of cars and trucks from out of state put wear on tear on roads in the vicinity of turnpike exits.

First, I never said that we absolutely have to eliminate gas taxes. Second, I made it rather clear why I'm not going to support increased taxes. This is a complex issue and will require multiple sources of revenue. I'll say it right now so everyone understands me: I am not endorsing and will not endorse a repeal of gasoline taxes. However, I'm not taking the option of tolling off the table either. You can choose to do so, in which case we'll keep having this discussion because I won't drop tolling as an option.

Quote from: Anthony_JKAs I mentioned earlier, LADOTD had already launched a toll study which compared tolling all of the I-49 South corridor with tolling only portions (such as the "free" sections of the US 90 freeway between Morgan City and Raceland, or the segment of US 90 just south of Lafayette), and they found that even in the best case of tolling the entire corridor, they'd still get to about 50% of the revenue needed to complete the project.

That's 50% of the revenue that they'll have to get from somewhere. Might as well get it from the tolls.

Quote from: Anthony_JKAnd as for the "no new taxes" stand? Let our infrastructure in Louisiana rot to the point of actual collapse, and then call me with the idea that public money shouldn't be used for public infrastructure. If Texas can reject the Trans Texas Corridor scam and build the I-69 Colossus fully with public funds, I do think Louisiana can find a way to publically fund I-49 South.

OK. Good luck with that as more and more taxpayers leave the state because the state can't get its stuff together. Guess where a lot of those taxpayers have already moved to?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
One obvious problem is many long distance drivers headed for New Orleans Westbank suburbs like Gretna would just shun-pike US-90 if it was tolled. They would continue to use I-10 right through the downtown district to get to the Westbank instead. That would defeat one of the purposes of upgrading US-90 to Interstate standards: being a relief route for I-10.

If it's worth their time to sit in traffic in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. (For that matter, they can also take LA 1 through Donaldsonville to LA 3127 to Boutte. Every route has its cost in time, and odds are, by your logic, the people taking those free routes will be stopping at gas stations to fill up anyway. ;) )

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
The problem with Louisiana is the busiest highways (I-10 & I-20) have long existed as fuel-tax funded "free" highways. A politician can't stick toll gates on those things in order to cross-pledge funds for a US-90 turnpike, at least not if he wants to avoid political suicide.

Maybe, just maybe, we made a huge mistake as a nation in making our interstate highway system free instead of tolled. We're paying the price for that now, not just financially but in political gridlock as well.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 11:03:15 AM
For the first few years that extra fuel tax money is going to help fund teacher pay raises. ... But it's misappropriating funds from our streets and highways.

Congratulations, you understand why I resist the call to raise taxes.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2019, 02:22:31 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 11, 2019, 02:13:39 PM


Maybe, just maybe, we made a huge mistake as a nation in making our interstate highway system free instead of tolled. We're paying the price for that now, not just financially but in political gridlock as well.
One could also easily make an argument that we're paying the price for it due to not raising our gas taxes as many states including the federal gas tax have not been raised for decade or more.

Think about it this way. What if we originally tolled the interstates but never or barely raised the tolls like we have haven't with the gas tax. We would be in the same situation we are now. If anytime a toll increase was proposed, your logic would be the same thing as saying "I am opposed to any toll increase" and "we should tax gasoline to find the revenue."

PS, I'm not against tollways. I am against tolling of any interstate corridor. If a state wants a freeway to be a tolled facility, then no interstate designation.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: jbnvNo, I'm not. Reread what I actually wrote: "That's a huge assumption. The I-10/12 corridor through Louisiana is only 250 miles. That's pretty easy to cross on one tank for modern lightweight vehicles."

Again: out of state motorists don't all travel 250 miles or less within Louisiana when crossing the state. I gave you my own personal example using the I-20, I-49, I-10/12 combo.

Quote from: jbnvFirst, I never said that we absolutely have to eliminate gas taxes. Second, I made it rather clear why I'm not going to support increased taxes. This is a complex issue and will require multiple sources of revenue. I'll say it right now so everyone understands me: I am not endorsing and will not endorse a repeal of gasoline taxes. However, I'm not taking the option of tolling off the table either. You can choose to do so, in which case we'll keep having this discussion because I won't drop tolling as an option.

Not I or anyone else claimed you said anything about repealing fuel taxes. But the notion of being flatly against any fuel tax increases is 100% absurd. That stance assumes there is no such thing as price inflation related to road building and maintenance costs. If fuel taxes can't be adjusted according to inflationary pressure then the budget for road building and maintenance eventually goes bust. That's what has been happening here in Oklahoma. A bunch of "no new taxes ever" morons are living in some fantasy land thinking 1993 levels of funding are going to cover cost levels of 2019.

Quote from: jbnvMaybe, just maybe, we made a huge mistake as a nation in making our interstate highway system free instead of tolled. We're paying the price for that now, not just financially but in political gridlock as well.

The question of whether to put up tolls or not was an issue with new Interstates over 60 years ago when the system was just getting started. Not every super highway needs tolls on it. Here in Oklahoma we have lots of toll roads. But most of the super highways in urban areas are free access. I-44 has free access in Lawton-Fort Sill, OKC and Tulsa. That's because traffic jams happen on more than just freeways.

Quote from: jbnvCongratulations, you understand why I resist the call to raise taxes.

You're clutching to some hard-lined ideology rather than anything based on numerical financial math. For one thing streets and highways are far more than just Interstates. Gotta pay for building and upkeep on those somehow.

Here in Oklahoma we have plenty of "tea party" types who think the state can just magically pull extra money out of its backside to pay for everything and then some. All they want is more tax cuts, no matter how badly the state's budget is already busted due to the previous cuts. Their ideology is not based on any principals of math. It's like expecting someone making $7.25 per hour to afford the mortgage on a 2000 square foot house and payments on a $40000 car. They just throw out the old, vague "we have to cut back on waste" crap without any specifics of which services, jobs or bit of state-funded infrastructure to eliminate.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 11, 2019, 02:45:04 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2019, 02:22:31 PM
One could also easily make an argument that we're paying the price for it due to not raising our gas taxes as many states including the federal gas tax have not been raised for decade or more.

Think about it this way. What if we originally tolled the interstates but never or barely raised the tolls like we have haven't with the gas tax. We would be in the same situation we are now. If anytime a toll increase was proposed, your logic would be the same thing as saying "I am opposed to any toll increase" and "we should tax gasoline to find the revenue."

Fair point. Yes, the costs do increase. The public needs to know how the costs have increased, and trust the government enough to either vote for the taxes directly to elect representatives to pass the taxes.

(Ironically, our governments are more likely to talk about how much money the lottery put into education or whatever cause it is funded than to do the same for either tolls or gas taxes. It shouldn't be too hard to say "Existing taxes raised $X million for roads. We need $Y million to complete these outstanding projects. We can raise that money by raising the gas tax per gallon by Z cents." Just a simple statement would do a lot to help build the will to raise the taxes.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 11, 2019, 03:21:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: jbnvNo, I'm not. Reread what I actually wrote: "That's a huge assumption. The I-10/12 corridor through Louisiana is only 250 miles. That's pretty easy to cross on one tank for modern lightweight vehicles."
Again: out of state motorists don't all travel 250 miles or less within Louisiana when crossing the state. I gave you my own personal example using the I-20, I-49, I-10/12 combo.
I wasn't talking about your route. I was talking about the 10/12 corridor.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
That's what has been happening here in Oklahoma. A bunch of "no new taxes ever" morons are living in some fantasy land thinking 1993 levels of funding are going to cover cost levels of 2019.
More likely they don't trust the state government. Calling them "morons" "living in a fantasy land" isn't going to restore or build that trust.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2019, 04:12:26 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 11, 2019, 03:21:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: jbnvNo, I'm not. Reread what I actually wrote: "That's a huge assumption. The I-10/12 corridor through Louisiana is only 250 miles. That's pretty easy to cross on one tank for modern lightweight vehicles."
Again: out of state motorists don't all travel 250 miles or less within Louisiana when crossing the state. I gave you my own personal example using the I-20, I-49, I-10/12 combo.
I wasn't talking about your route. I was talking about the 10/12 corridor.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
That's what has been happening here in Oklahoma. A bunch of "no new taxes ever" morons are living in some fantasy land thinking 1993 levels of funding are going to cover cost levels of 2019.
More likely they don't trust the state government. Calling them "morons" "living in a fantasy land" isn't going to restore or build that trust.
Though I can understand their hesitation of trusting the government to spend their money from increased taxes wisely, I am consistently frustrated with this crowd as they never seem to place forth any plan of their own dealing with the corruption they insist exists and pushing forth a plan to rebuild our infrastructure. In the end, the users of the road end up on the shit end of the stick while they anti tax crowd usually just shakes their finger "no"  at everything. It gets very frustrating.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 11, 2019, 04:33:08 PM
Good problem-solvers are hard to find. And they're usually too busy actually solving problems to jump into politics, or lack the social polish to want to jump into politics. Unfortunately the people we do end up with in politics usually aren't very good at actually solving problems but are pretty good at talking about solving problems.

(I'm a problem solver, I've watched politics for some 30 years now, and I don't have a quick answer to solving this problem.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2019, 01:02:50 AM
QuoteI wasn't talking about your route. I was talking about the 10/12 corridor.

People from out of state may often drive more than just that corridor. You're trying to paint the situation in a very linear manner. I already provided my own personal experiences that refute your example. New Orleans is a major tourism destination. Anyone driving there from Texas or other nearby states is bound to have to fill up the tank at least once in Louisiana.

QuoteMore likely they don't trust the state government. Calling them "morons" "living in a fantasy land" isn't going to restore or build that trust.

People here taking that kind of stance only see in absolutes. They'll only "trust" the gub'ment when they don't have to pay any taxes at all. Let those commie/socialist public school teachers live on the funds of prayer and flag waving. Same goes or anyone less than affluent in need of any kind of public assistance. Especially anyone who isn't white. Their stance is one of complete nihilism. And it's not even realistic at that. Some of these folks want public schools turned into Sunday School during the work week. Others just don't want any of their property taxes going to educating other people's kids. Or they don't want to pay any property taxes at all. They think the government can create all that funding some other magical way. The problem with that myopic, extreme selfish view is that most of these "no new taxes" old farts depend greatly on "Uncle Sugar" to provide plenty of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding for their sorry asses. Smoked too many cigarettes? Oh, I need free lung cancer treatment now!. That government funding will not exist without a working age tax base in-state to contribute to it. When Oklahoma gives its young people every reason to get the living hell out of the state they're not going to stick around.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 12, 2019, 09:54:35 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2019, 01:02:50 AM
Let those commie/socialist public school teachers live on the funds of prayer and flag waving. Same goes or anyone less than affluent in need of any kind of public assistance. Especially anyone who isn't white.

OK, we clearly don't have to take you seriously any further.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: texaskdog on March 12, 2019, 10:15:11 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 09, 2019, 05:53:46 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 09, 2019, 05:22:53 PM
I'm one of those people who is going to oppose a tax increase for whatever the reason anyway.

Ah yes, you're one of those people who support the nonsensical notion of "no new taxes" but demand more services/proper maintenance of existing stuff from your government anyway.

Quote
You missed the part where I proposed using tolls to help pay for highway patrol as well as maintenance. Furthermore, all the extra cameras will give traffickers pause about ignoring the law. It's a highly theoretical benefit but one worth considering.

Traffic cameras are a terrible substitute for actual law enforcement.

Agreed, they are illegal in many states.  If you get pulled over you can discuss and may get a warning.  Mailing you a ticket when you may not be the driver, etc, is ridiculous. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 12, 2019, 10:26:47 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 12, 2019, 10:15:11 AM
Agreed, they are illegal in many states.  If you get pulled over you can discuss and may get a warning.  Mailing you a ticket when you may not be the driver, etc, is ridiculous.

So when my ex-wife went through an electronic toll without a pass, and the agency sent me a large fine for it, I didn't actually have to pay it? (I love how tolling agencies could find your car out of state 11 years ago, yet there's absolutely no way to use new surveillance technology to reduce other forms of crime today.)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 12, 2019, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2019, 10:26:47 AM
yet there's absolutely no way to use new surveillance technology to reduce other forms of crime today.)

Go ask the UK how well that surveillance state is working for them.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on March 12, 2019, 06:08:58 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 12, 2019, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2019, 10:26:47 AM
yet there's absolutely no way to use new surveillance technology to reduce other forms of crime today.)

Go ask the UK how well that surveillance state is working for them.

I don't have to. I got to pay for my ex-wife's craziness.

(Do you know the difference between something being possible and something being misused?)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mvak36 on June 04, 2019, 03:36:41 PM
https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2019/06/04/breaking-shreveports-49-loop-set-100-m-infusion/1340389001/

QuoteBATON ROUGE – Shreveport's Interstate 49 inner city connector project is teed up for a $100 million cash infusion in a surprise bill that secured final passage here Tuesday.

"It's huge for us," said Sen. Barrow Peacock, R-Bossier City.

House Bill 578 by Rep. Tanner Magee, R-Houma, had initially included $275 million for two road projects, but it expanded to $690 million for 10 key infrastructure projects throughout the state as it moved through the Legislature.

"This is the bill of the session," said Sen. Page Cortez, R-Lafayette, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. "It's like opening packages at Christmas."

Lawmakers are financing the projects with $700 million the state secured in the settlement for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill.

Though the state receives the money in annual payments of $53 million, the projects could be bonded out to begin work almost immediately.

The bill now heads to Gov. John Bel Edwards' desk for his signature

I-49 South in Lafayette is also mentioned in this article as receiving funding.
QuoteAcadiana/Lafayette: Interstate 49 South, $150 million;
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 05, 2019, 10:15:34 AM
As per the $150 million earmarked for I-49 South.....I'm guessing that that will be used to get some federal funding to build the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South interchange and extend the one-way frontage road system from the newly completed Albertson's Parkway/St. Nazaire Road overpass/interchange south through the LA 182/BNSF RR overpass. (The frontage roads will be grade separated from the rail line, just like the US 90 mainlines.) It could also be used to fund replacing that last at-grade railroad crossing of US 90 near Jeanerette with a pipeline/culvert crossing under an elevated embankment, although I saw that funding had already been secured for that project through other sources.

I'm hoping that they could also squeeze some cash to completing the I-49 Lafayette Connector engineering and CSS/Supplemental EIS processes, so that they can get to actually getting real funding to build that project later on.

But, slow but steady progress, I guess.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on June 05, 2019, 03:22:51 PM
I saw on LaDOTD that the 30 million job for the railroad project that was scheduled for July was pulled from their future bid Schedule. And a news article said after A 18 wheel truck wreck that one person died in  that they are studying that project further on which way to do it, pipe line underneath or bridges. Maybe that will be a priority get that done
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 07, 2019, 01:55:10 PM
If it's being pulled from the main bidding now, that probably means that it will be funded directly from this bill, and that rebidding will commence soon.


They have committed to the pipeline option, since that would be cheaper and less liability costs for the sugar/molasses processing plant, and would eliminate both the mainlane and frontage road railroad crossings. The railroad would be truncated just north(east) of the crossing, and the pipeline would serve to distribute the byproducts from the plant to a holding tank that would load the railcars.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 14, 2019, 04:11:44 PM
I drove the corridor from New Orleans (I-310) to Lafayette last week.

There is no construction in progress. It looks like wire rope barrier installation completed very recently on sections on the eastern side of corridor.

I came through the area mid afternoon on Thursday, and the traffic lights through Lafayette were well synchronized so I moved through surprisingly quickly. But I'm thinking there could be long delays at peak periods.

Due to the sheer amount of work needed in Lafayette, my perception is that the full conversion to Interstate standards is going to cost at least $1 billion, probably much more considering some older sections east of Lafayette are in poor condition and need to be rebuilt.

My main observation is that the number of billboards along the corridor for injury/accident lawyers is beyond ridiculous! I'm thinking around 200-400 lawyer billboards. I don't remember anywhere near this many billboards on a trip about 4-5 years ago. The Gordon McKernan guy is especially egregrious with his billboard proliferation. At one point there are at least 5 identical billboards for him all bunched together. Is this area of Louisiana a hotbed for litigation and big jury awards? Is a lot of the litigation related to the offshore and marine industry? (One lawyer seemed to specialize in "maritime accidents".)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2019, 05:50:43 PM
I was under the impression the federal government and/or most states had some limits on how many billboards could be installed along a US or Interstate highway. As in one billboard per minimum of so and such many feet before another one could be erected. I think the Lady Bird Johnson Highway Beautification Act in the late 1960's put really serious limits on billboard numbers. I can remember when I was a kid seeing things like a single ad spread along a dozen or more small billboards, spelling out sentences and what not. Some of it was charming but a bunch of it was just AWFUL CLUTTER.

Here in Oklahoma I still see quite a lot of billboard clutter on tribe-owned lands. For example, the end of one segment of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44) near the Medicine Park exit. The West side of the highway lined with a bunch of double stack and/or 4-stack billboards on I-Beams. It looks like hell. Worse yet many of the billboard ads are poorly designed. So that adds to the clutter.

I'm a sign guy, but I worry about various kinds of businesses pushing their luck by throwing up as much clutter as they can get away with installing. I worry about it causing a big backlash. The backlash could whip around and hurt my business. People have to act with some responsibility and tasteful restraint.

If I saw an entire string of billboards advertising some ambulance chasing lawyer I would instantly know which attorney NOT to hire in case I was in a bad fender bender.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vdeane on June 15, 2019, 09:05:20 PM
There are, but I assume such limits don't apply on reservations.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on June 16, 2019, 10:26:48 AM
Louisiana is the most friendly state for personal injury lawyers. I'm not sure what return McKernan gets from making an ass of himself, but apparently he's profiting from it. It's election year in Louisiana and I can only hope that the voters will finally say enough is enough--but I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on July 14, 2019, 10:17:18 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 14, 2019, 04:11:44 PM
I drove the corridor from New Orleans (I-310) to Lafayette last week.

There is no construction in progress. It looks like wire rope barrier installation completed very recently on sections on the eastern side of corridor.

I came through the area mid afternoon on Thursday, and the traffic lights through Lafayette were well synchronized so I moved through surprisingly quickly. But I'm thinking there could be long delays at peak periods.

Due to the sheer amount of work needed in Lafayette, my perception is that the full conversion to Interstate standards is going to cost at least $1 billion, probably much more considering some older sections east of Lafayette are in poor condition and need to be rebuilt.

My main observation is that the number of billboards along the corridor for injury/accident lawyers is beyond ridiculous! I'm thinking around 200-400 lawyer billboards. I don't remember anywhere near this many billboards on a trip about 4-5 years ago. The Gordon McKernan guy is especially egregrious with his billboard proliferation. At one point there are at least 5 identical billboards for him all bunched together. Is this area of Louisiana a hotbed for litigation and big jury awards? Is a lot of the litigation related to the offshore and marine industry? (One lawyer seemed to specialize in "maritime accidents".)

Welcome to Louisiana, where we are known as a "judicial hellhole" because of stupid tort laws which favor personal injury lawsuits. The billboards are a real quality of life issue here; even a current gubernatorial candidate made mention of it.

I wonder if Mckernan wants to be governor or something. Only thing that can explain the # of billboards.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on July 16, 2019, 08:15:03 AM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on July 14, 2019, 10:17:18 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 14, 2019, 04:11:44 PM
I drove the corridor from New Orleans (I-310) to Lafayette last week.

There is no construction in progress. It looks like wire rope barrier installation completed very recently on sections on the eastern side of corridor.

I came through the area mid afternoon on Thursday, and the traffic lights through Lafayette were well synchronized so I moved through surprisingly quickly. But I'm thinking there could be long delays at peak periods.

Due to the sheer amount of work needed in Lafayette, my perception is that the full conversion to Interstate standards is going to cost at least $1 billion, probably much more considering some older sections east of Lafayette are in poor condition and need to be rebuilt.

My main observation is that the number of billboards along the corridor for injury/accident lawyers is beyond ridiculous! I'm thinking around 200-400 lawyer billboards. I don't remember anywhere near this many billboards on a trip about 4-5 years ago. The Gordon McKernan guy is especially egregrious with his billboard proliferation. At one point there are at least 5 identical billboards for him all bunched together. Is this area of Louisiana a hotbed for litigation and big jury awards? Is a lot of the litigation related to the offshore and marine industry? (One lawyer seemed to specialize in "maritime accidents".)

Welcome to Louisiana, where we are known as a "judicial hellhole" because of stupid tort laws which favor personal injury lawsuits. The billboards are a real quality of life issue here; even a current gubernatorial candidate made mention of it.

I wonder if Mckernan wants to be governor or something. Only thing that can explain the # of billboards.

I'm spending the week in Shreveport on a business trip and I also noticed all the billboards around here advertising for one law firm after the next.  And I thought New Mexico was bad for being a sue-crazy state, looks like Louisiana outdoes New Mexico in that category.

That aside, I did drive the new stretch of I-49 from Shreveport to Texarkana last week. The Arkansas portion is very nicely done, but the Louisiana portion is already showing signs of deterioration after only a few years of being open: the concrete pavent is spalling in places and they've already had to make patches and repairs in places. Speaks a lot about how Louisiana manages tje quality of its road projects.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MikieTimT on July 16, 2019, 12:31:33 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 16, 2019, 08:15:03 AM
I'm spending the week in Shreveport on a business trip and I also noticed all the billboards around here advertising for one law firm after the next.  And I thought New Mexico was bad for being a sue-crazy state, looks like Louisiana outdoes New Mexico in that category.

That aside, I did drive the new stretch of I-49 from Shreveport to Texarkana last week. The Arkansas portion is very nicely done, but the Louisiana portion is already showing signs of deterioration after only a few years of being open: the concrete pavent is spalling in places and they've already had to make patches and repairs in places. Speaks a lot about how Louisiana manages tje quality of its road projects.

Arkansas does new construction well and maintenance poorly.  No glory in taking care of what you already got I guess.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on July 19, 2019, 12:07:56 PM
Is the US 90 Albertsons PKWY to Ambassador Caffery project south of Lafayette complete or still finishing up? It was projected to be finished this past spring.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 19, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: Gordon on July 19, 2019, 12:07:56 PM
Is the US 90 Albertsons PKWY to Ambassador Caffery project south of Lafayette complete or still finishing up? It was projected to be finished this past spring.

The Albertson's Parkway overpass/interchange and mainline US 90 overpass over the BNSF/UP mainline is complete and open to traffic. The phase where they extend the frontage roads over the railroad is still under construction, and probably won't be fully completed until they find funding and begin constructing the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South interchange with US 90. There is also a phase where they extend frontage roads north of Albertson's Parkway along US 90 to the proposed Verot School Road interchange, but that is further down the road pending funding and construction of the Verot School Road overpass. They also will have to make a decision on what to do with the proposed Southpark Road (LA 89) interchange.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: jbnv on July 19, 2019, 01:59:34 PM
I've already driven over the new overpass.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 02:45:36 PM
Google Earth imagery of the I-49/I-220 interchange is still from April of 2018. But they do have new Street View imagery (March, April & May 2019) of movements through the interchange. The big looping flyover ramp shows a lot of flooding near the road.

Aside from how well Louisiana maintains its roads, I think it's kind of impressive they built this new interchange using more state of the art (and elegant looking) cast-segmental methods on the flyover ramps than the more crude looking methods seen all over Texas. The only bad thing about this interchange is it's missing a WB I-220 to NB I-49 ramp. I wonder if that ramp would be added (with all the other additional ramps) once I-49 is extended South through the interchange toward downtown.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on July 20, 2019, 03:42:42 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 02:45:36 PM
The only bad thing about this interchange is it's missing a WB I-220 to NB I-49 ramp. I wonder if that ramp would be added (with all the other additional ramps) once I-49 is extended South through the interchange toward downtown.

There is a WB -> NB ramp at this interchange. It and the EB -> NB ramps are built with a stub that is ready to connect to the ICC when it is built.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on July 23, 2019, 11:19:15 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/albums/72157635265627400

Here are some photos I have of that said interchange. Though not the ramp being talked about, I do have photos of the signage of the interchange going SB on I-49.  Right now transitional signage is in place directing the through I-49 traffic for Alexandria and beyond to use I-220 W Bound to either LA 3142 or I-20 via large panels on the overhead at the Exit 210 Split.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 06, 2019, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 19, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: Gordon on July 19, 2019, 12:07:56 PM
Is the US 90 Albertsons PKWY to Ambassador Caffery project south of Lafayette complete or still finishing up? It was projected to be finished this past spring.

The Albertson's Parkway overpass/interchange and mainline US 90 overpass over the BNSF/UP mainline is complete and open to traffic. The phase where they extend the frontage roads over the railroad is still under construction, and probably won't be fully completed until they find funding and begin constructing the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South interchange with US 90. There is also a phase where they extend frontage roads north of Albertson's Parkway along US 90 to the proposed Verot School Road interchange, but that is further down the road pending funding and construction of the Verot School Road overpass. They also will have to make a decision on what to do with the proposed Southpark Road (LA 89) interchange.
Is this the only project on I-49 South actually under construction?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 06, 2019, 08:43:29 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 06, 2019, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 19, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: Gordon on July 19, 2019, 12:07:56 PM
Is the US 90 Albertsons PKWY to Ambassador Caffery project south of Lafayette complete or still finishing up? It was projected to be finished this past spring.

The Albertson's Parkway overpass/interchange and mainline US 90 overpass over the BNSF/UP mainline is complete and open to traffic. The phase where they extend the frontage roads over the railroad is still under construction, and probably won't be fully completed until they find funding and begin constructing the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South interchange with US 90. There is also a phase where they extend frontage roads north of Albertson's Parkway along US 90 to the proposed Verot School Road interchange, but that is further down the road pending funding and construction of the Verot School Road overpass. They also will have to make a decision on what to do with the proposed Southpark Road (LA 89) interchange.
Is this the only project on I-49 South actually under construction?

As of right now, yes....though work is currently ongoing on a minor project to remove some at-grade crossovers on US 90 in Iberia Parish near Jeanerette in order to make that section truly Interstate freeway grade.

Also, work should begin soon, as soon as the final engineering finishes, on the elimination of that at-grade rail spur crossing south of the LA 668 interchange. It's being replaced by a pipeline which would serve a sugar processing plant that would cross underneath the elevated US 90 mainline and frontage roads.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2019, 01:16:03 AM
Update:

The Albertson's Parkway/St. Nazaire Road interchange/overpass at US 90 is officially completed as of yesterday. The "ribbon cutting" was held there Monday.

https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/08/26/gov-john-bel-edwards-cuts-ribbon-albertson-parkway-widening-louisiana-project-interstate-49-south/2123593001/

Also...the latest Google Street View shows the completed overpass over both Albertson's Parkway and the BNSF Railway mainline and LA 182.

It also shows that the approaches were built for the ultimate one-way frontage road bridges over LA 182 and the rail line. I assume that the actual structures will be built as part of the South Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange about a mile further south, am I right?

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on February 02, 2020, 11:24:52 AM
Looks like LaDOTD is working on design of connector. Maybe Anthony can Comment more about it.                                                             (Lafayette, La.) — The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), along with national, state, regional and local partners, are moving forward with the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) process for the I-49 Lafayette Connector Project. As the historic preservation process and necessary survey, traffic analysis, and field sampling work progressed, the CSS scope was updated and contracted to continue the goal of achieving a project design that is affordable and acceptable to all key stakeholders and has the potential to become a community asset.

The Concept Refinement phase of the project is complete, and a refined alignment has been agreed upon with community stakeholders input and project partner approval. This includes the development of Evangeline Thruway to improve connectivity and provide access to I-49 from Downtown Lafayette and adjacent neighborhoods. In order to more effectively address the key CSS components of the mainline viaduct and urban design features, the former CSS Community Working Group (CWG) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) are being combined into a unified Advisory Group (AG) to provide a forum for the coordinated community and technical input for the CSS process. This process will focus on gathering input about various design features to help develop the I-49 Lafayette Connector Design Guidelines.

"Over the next several months, the I-49 Lafayette Connector Advisory Group will conduct a rigorous monthly workshop-based process to keep moving the project ahead with all appropriate parties involved,"  said Secretary Shawn Wilson, Ph.D. "We're looking forward to regrouping as a team to see the I-49 Lafayette Connector through to a final development plan."

Within the next month, the DOTD will be contacting all key stakeholder groups to confirm representation and ongoing participation. For the public, an updated CSS process flowchart is available for viewing on the project website, while neighborhood meetings and public workshops are slated to be scheduled so the community can continue to be informed and ask questions.

###

The I-49 Lafayette Connector, part of DOTD's Geaux South program, is a future 5.5-mile segment of highway that is a critical transportation link for Lafayette and the state as a whole. Geaux South is a $3 billion, multi-year construction initiative to convert approximately 160 miles of the current U.S. 90 corridor to Interstate 49 South. When completed, I-49 will extend from the current terminus at I-10 in Lafayette to the West Bank Expressway in New Orleans. Geaux South will support economic growth, improve access, reduce traffic congestion, and improve connectivity throughout the state's transportation system
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 02, 2020, 05:39:05 PM
Link to the LADOTD press release on the resumption of the I-49 Lafayette Connector CSS process:

http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=22141

I'll post a comment soon over at the I-49 South/I-49 Connector thread. For now, I'll just say that it's about time.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2020, 10:45:43 AM
New thread and update on the Lafayette Connector now up:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26399.0

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on February 11, 2020, 05:29:55 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 20, 2019, 02:45:36 PM
Google Earth imagery of the I-49/I-220 interchange is still from April of 2018. But they do have new Street View imagery (March, April & May 2019) of movements through the interchange. The big looping flyover ramp shows a lot of flooding near the road.

Aside from how well Louisiana maintains its roads, I think it's kind of impressive they built this new interchange using more state of the art (and elegant looking) cast-segmental methods on the flyover ramps than the more crude looking methods seen all over Texas. The only bad thing about this interchange is it's missing a WB I-220 to NB I-49 ramp. I wonder if that ramp would be added (with all the other additional ramps) once I-49 is extended South through the interchange toward downtown.

While there is some flooding, this was actually a lagoon before. Not sure how they got to build the freeway over what may have been called wetland.
There are ramps from and to each direction that is done on I49 & 220. Everything was there when it opened. WB 220 to NB 49 is just a simple right turn ramp.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 03:59:29 PM
In regard to the I-49 Inner City Connector (not to be confused with the I-49 Port connector), Providence Engineering has been issued a limited Notice to Proceed for the environmental study, with a full notice aniticipated shortly:

http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: mvak36 on August 06, 2020, 04:21:58 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 03:59:29 PM
In regard to the I-49 Inner City Connector (not to be confused with the I-49 Port connector), Providence Engineering has been issued a limited Notice to Proceed for the environmental study, with a full notice aniticipated shortly:

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

Welcome back. It seems like it's been a while since I've seen your posts. Hope all is well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 04:45:57 PM
Thanks. I just took some time off from posting. All is well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2020, 09:23:50 AM
https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/speed-limits-going-up-in-the-river-valley-down-in-northwest-arkansas/
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 07, 2020, 10:22:13 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 03:59:29 PM
In regard to the I-49 Inner City Connector (not to be confused with the I-49 Port connector), Providence Engineering has been issued a limited Notice to Proceed for the environmental study, with a full notice aniticipated shortly:

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

Ummm....there is NO "I-49 port connector", as far as I know. There is the I-49 Lafayette Connector that would extend I-49 through the heart of Lafayette, and there is the rest of I-49 South that would give improved access to the ports of South Louisiana (Port of South Louisiana, Morgan City, Port Fourchon). Or, are you talking about the Inner Loop extension of LA 3132 to LA 1 and proposed I-69?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 07, 2020, 10:23:07 AM
Oh, and welcome back from me as well, Grzz....it has been a while.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Grzrd on August 07, 2020, 10:43:00 AM
NLCOG refers to the I-69 frontage road as the I-49 Port Connector. It sort of makes sense. And, thanks for the welcome back, Anthony.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Gordon on December 13, 2020, 01:52:40 PM
LaDOTD has pulled the railroad project in Iberia parish From their projects scheduled but added the Ambassador Caffery interchange in Lafayette for 10/13/21. I guess they can't make up their mind about the railroad job cause that is the second time it has been pulled off schedule.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 02:48:38 PM
I looked 7 pages back and searched and couldn't find a dedicated thread which I feel will eventually be needed for this project.

Anyways, Buttigieg announced his opposition to a freeway project(surprise) but it wasn't for climate change reasons. It was due to the apparent fact the I-49 Shreveport connector project goes through a black area. Regardless how I feel about that, I do think this project should proceed and less getting too political, I only wonder if that kills this project...

QuoteState Senator Barrow Peacock is optimistic about the future of the I-49 Inner City Connector, despite negative comments from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg about new federal highways going through "Black and brown neighborhoods."

"I disagree with that," says Peacock, referring to the Buttigieg statement that many previous projects "reinforce racial and economic inequality, "Shreveport, Bossier is for the Inner City Connector. The African-American Chamber of Commerce if for the Inner City Connector. We need economic prosperity. You need a growing tax base, The Inner City Connector will produce (more than) $800 million in economic activity for northwest Louisiana and our state."



Read More: Why I-49 Connector Will Bring Money, Jobs to Shreveport | https://710keel.com/sen-peacock-why-i-49-connector-will-bring-money-jobs-to-shreveport-video/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
I don't disagree. I'm happy to see increased emphasis on rail and alternative transportation but not happy how anti car he is coming across and the subtle wording they use.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on March 03, 2021, 10:38:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
I don't disagree. I'm happy to see increased emphasis on rail and alternative transportation but not happy how anti car he is coming across and the subtle wording they use.
Maybe we should have kept the last corrupt Transportation Secretary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/politics/elaine-chao-inspector-general-report.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 11:10:15 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on March 03, 2021, 10:38:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
I don't disagree. I'm happy to see increased emphasis on rail and alternative transportation but not happy how anti car he is coming across and the subtle wording they use.
Maybe we should have kept the last corrupt Transportation Secretary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/politics/elaine-chao-inspector-general-report.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I never was overly impressed with Chao but admittedly I've only been recently following the transportation secretaries over the last two terms. So I honestly wouldn't know any better. I was highly disappointed in Trumps infrastructure moves overall. I'm more hopeful with the current administration but I worry about large, much needed freeway projects.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on March 04, 2021, 07:42:14 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
It was Biden returning the favor for Buttigieg dropping out of the 2020 presidential race. As the saying goes, "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 11:55:20 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 04, 2021, 07:42:14 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
It was Biden returning the favor for Buttigieg dropping out of the 2020 presidential race. As the saying goes, "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

Yep it's a political plum.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Rothman on March 04, 2021, 05:06:50 PM


Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 09, 2021, 02:08:49 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2020, 10:43:00 AM
NLCOG refers to the I-69 frontage road as the I-49 Port Connector. It sort of makes sense. And, thanks for the welcome back, Anthony.

Ahhh, I see. I stand corrected.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on March 09, 2021, 06:57:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 04, 2021, 05:06:50 PM


Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 

What the secretary actually does is essentially serve as the spokesman for USDOT; like most cabinet-level departments, the "grunt" work is normatively done by the lifers situated just below the level of political appointments.  But the secretaries over the last couple of administrations have been quite a varied lot, from Pena (under Obama),who took a decidedly urbanist view of things (again, a former mayor [Denver]).  DOT secretaries under Democratic administrations have tended to be more visible and vocal than under Republicans; the last secretary, Mrs. Mitch McConnell/Elaine Chao, kept a decidedly low profile; not surprising, since R administrations tend to skew away from visible public expenditures not in the realm of security.  But now that a nationally quasi-known figure occupies the secretary's seat, it's likely that Pete B. will, at times, use his visibility as a "bully pulpit".  Of course, what he actually can accomplish is largely dependent upon congressional whim and preferences, since that is where funding is actually addressed.  And with razor-thin majorities in both houses, ambitious plans that favor/benefit one segment of the population (urban core dwellers as an example) without similar attention being paid to the outlying areas might encounter opposition -- or at least disinterest from many congressional delegations (including D representatives from swing Midwest/western districts).  So while that bully pulpit might swing urban more often than not, it had better consider rural needs alongside the more citified concepts, including freight movement "out in the sticks" between metro areas.     
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
The way I've heard Pete's role in new articles it makes it seem as if he has a lot of sway in what is ultimately proposed and influenced among the country.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 09, 2021, 06:57:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 04, 2021, 05:06:50 PM


Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 

What the secretary actually does is essentially serve as the spokesman for USDOT; like most cabinet-level departments, the "grunt" work is normatively done by the lifers situated just below the level of political appointments.  But the secretaries over the last couple of administrations have been quite a varied lot, from Pena (under Obama),who took a decidedly urbanist view of things (again, a former mayor [Denver]).

Federico Peña was transportation secretary under Bill Clinton, not Obama. Obama's transportation secretaries were Ray LaHood (a Republican congressman from Illinois) and Anthony Foxx (mayor of Charlotte NC).
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 10:55:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 09, 2021, 06:57:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 04, 2021, 05:06:50 PM


Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 

What the secretary actually does is essentially serve as the spokesman for USDOT; like most cabinet-level departments, the "grunt" work is normatively done by the lifers situated just below the level of political appointments.  But the secretaries over the last couple of administrations have been quite a varied lot, from Pena (under Obama),who took a decidedly urbanist view of things (again, a former mayor [Denver]).  DOT secretaries under Democratic administrations have tended to be more visible and vocal than under Republicans; the last secretary, Mrs. Mitch McConnell/Elaine Chao, kept a decidedly low profile; not surprising, since R administrations tend to skew away from visible public expenditures not in the realm of security.  But now that a nationally quasi-known figure occupies the secretary's seat, it's likely that Pete B. will, at times, use his visibility as a "bully pulpit".  Of course, what he actually can accomplish is largely dependent upon congressional whim and preferences, since that is where funding is actually addressed.  And with razor-thin majorities in both houses, ambitious plans that favor/benefit one segment of the population (urban core dwellers as an example) without similar attention being paid to the outlying areas might encounter opposition -- or at least disinterest from many congressional delegations (including D representatives from swing Midwest/western districts).  So while that bully pulpit might swing urban more often than not, it had better consider rural needs alongside the more citified concepts, including freight movement "out in the sticks" between metro areas.     
The idea that the Secretary's opinions actually affect use of the majority of federal funds is pretty unfounded.  Secretaries of Transportation have come and gone, while NY gets its appropriations one way or another.

Grant programs, which are a sliver of overall federal funding are where you see the most influence.  In the last administration, the President's influence was more noticeable than the Secretary's when it came to what projects were funded.  Otherwise, such programs just seem to fund the same old hodgepodge of projects on a state's or municipality's "partially-funded list."
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 12, 2021, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on March 12, 2021, 07:22:08 PM
why not bypass the city using 220 and 3132? does it really need to barrel through the city proper?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on March 13, 2021, 03:55:23 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 12, 2021, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.


From what I've gathered, there are local activists on both sides of the Shreveport issue, but the anti-I-49 side has been bolstered by the peripatetic "usual suspect" activists who seem to pop up whenever a freeway controversy emerges.  This may turn out to be the one instance where it's not simply a "freeway vs. the people" equation, a sentiment that serves as the catalyst for such activism.  We'll just have to see if the new Secretary can and will consider each situation on its specific merits and downsides, or will adopt a blanket approach that defaults to the negative.

And according to all the pretty pictures in that particular thread, I-69 is now integrated with Bloomington and has been for several years now!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on March 13, 2021, 11:18:14 AM
getting 69 through bloomington was easy, 37 was already close to freeway grade through there.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 12:24:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2021, 03:55:23 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 12, 2021, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.


From what I've gathered, there are local activists on both sides of the Shreveport issue, but the anti-I-49 side has been bolstered by the peripatetic "usual suspect" activists who seem to pop up whenever a freeway controversy emerges.  This may turn out to be the one instance where it's not simply a "freeway vs. the people" equation, a sentiment that serves as the catalyst for such activism.  We'll just have to see if the new Secretary can and will consider each situation on its specific merits and downsides, or will adopt a blanket approach that defaults to the negative.

And according to all the pretty pictures in that particular thread, I-69 is now integrated with Bloomington and has been for several years now!

And there's always the option of tunneling the I-49 Inner-City Connector under the Allendale neighborhood to minimize disruption to the overlying community while still getting last piece of I-49 built. A tunnel is really expensive, but that might be the only option that leaves everyone satisfied to some degree.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on March 13, 2021, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 13, 2021, 11:18:14 AM
getting 69 through bloomington was easy, 37 was already close to freeway grade through there.

Physically, yes; sociopolitically, not so much.  Back around 2013 or so the pictures of protesters (ostensibly from IU-centered activist groups) on the overpasses during the upgrade construction efforts there made the local papers out here.   Didn't escape one's sense of irony that they were on pre-existing freeway overpasses that had been there for some time.  Guess the publicity surrounding the I-69 extension provided more than ample opportunity for them to make their points.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on March 13, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 07:09:22 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 13, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5

The I-20/I-220/LA-3132 interchange would require a lot of rework, and I believe LA-3132 is not up to interstate standards. Some folks say that I-220 between I-20/LA-3132 and I-49 including the bridge over Cross Lake will need to be widened, but it's already an interstate, so I don't quite buy that argument.  I think they're looking at it from a cost perspective, believing it would be cheaper to just plow I-49 through the Allendale neighborhood, rather than performing upgrades to 3132 and reconfiguring the 20/220/2132 interchange on the west side.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 13, 2021, 07:33:56 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 07:09:22 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 13, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5

The I-20/I-220/LA-3132 interchange would require a lot of rework, and I believe LA-3132 is not up to interstate standards. Some folks say that I-220 between I-20/LA-3132 and I-49 including the bridge over Cross Lake will need to be widened, but it's already an interstate, so I don't quite buy that argument.  I think they're looking at it from a cost perspective, believing it would be cheaper to just plow I-49 through the Allendale neighborhood, rather than performing upgrades to 3132 and reconfiguring the 20/220/2132 interchange on the west side.
Wouldn't the I-49 / LA-3132 interchange also have to redesigned to provide continuity for I-49 traffic as well? I mean, it technically could just be routed on the ramps, but ideally it would be.

It seems to be most the logical option just to continue with current I-49 connector plans.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 14, 2021, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 12:24:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2021, 03:55:23 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 12, 2021, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.


From what I've gathered, there are local activists on both sides of the Shreveport issue, but the anti-I-49 side has been bolstered by the peripatetic "usual suspect" activists who seem to pop up whenever a freeway controversy emerges.  This may turn out to be the one instance where it's not simply a "freeway vs. the people" equation, a sentiment that serves as the catalyst for such activism.  We'll just have to see if the new Secretary can and will consider each situation on its specific merits and downsides, or will adopt a blanket approach that defaults to the negative.

And according to all the pretty pictures in that particular thread, I-69 is now integrated with Bloomington and has been for several years now!

And there's always the option of tunneling the I-49 Inner-City Connector under the Allendale neighborhood to minimize disruption to the overlying community while still getting last piece of I-49 built. A tunnel is really expensive, but that might be the only option that leaves everyone satisfied to some degree.

First off....tunneling is not a real viable option because of both the prohibitive cost and the sharp transition that would occur between the southern terminus of the ICC at the I-49/I-20 interchange and any depressed/tunneled area that would probably have to begin near Ford Street, where an interchange is proposed in the current plan to connect the ICC with downtown Shreveport and the local neighborhood. Plus, you have low wetlands just past Allendale to the north between there and I-220 (the northern terminus at the existing I-49 North/I-220 interchange) that would prohibit a sunken highway without serious wetland impacts.

Second...those who oppose the ICC would probably not want a depressed freeway or tunnel, since they are opposed on basic principle to the freeway alignment itself, and are insistent on diverting it away via LA 3132 and I-220, and using at-grade surface boulevards as a "cheap" substitute for "urban development".

Personally, I don't see the problem with an elevated highway from I-20 through Allendale; it gets the traffic through via the most direct route, while allowing for full accessibility underneath with adequate cross roads. You could use CSS principles to both ease the visual impact and prompt more and stable economic development.

Although, I perfectly understand why they would oppose the project, even as I fundamentally disagree with them.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 14, 2021, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 13, 2021, 07:33:56 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 07:09:22 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 13, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5

The I-20/I-220/LA-3132 interchange would require a lot of rework, and I believe LA-3132 is not up to interstate standards. Some folks say that I-220 between I-20/LA-3132 and I-49 including the bridge over Cross Lake will need to be widened, but it's already an interstate, so I don't quite buy that argument.  I think they're looking at it from a cost perspective, believing it would be cheaper to just plow I-49 through the Allendale neighborhood, rather than performing upgrades to 3132 and reconfiguring the 20/220/2132 interchange on the west side.
Wouldn't the I-49 / LA-3132 interchange also have to redesigned to provide continuity for I-49 traffic as well? I mean, it technically could just be routed on the ramps, but ideally it would be.

It seems to be most the logical option just to continue with current I-49 connector plans.

The current proposal in the ICC Draft EIS for an Inner Loop/I-220 bypass does include a rework of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange to allow a two-lane ramp transition between south I-49 and west/north LA 3132. The other issues would be that the current 3132 interchange with Linwood Avenue just west of I-49 would have to be eliminated due to interchange spacing requirements, a sharp bend on I-220 just north of the I-20/I-220/LA 3132 interchange would have to be adjusted and realigned, and a third lane would be required on I-220 from I-20 West to the current I-49 North (to Texarkana) terminus due to additional traffic. Although, I'd say that the proposed "commercial boulevard" would probably relieve the need for that traffic, but at a real cost to Allendale in terms of increased noise, less accessibility, and less cohesiveness.

The current more direct path, in my view, remains the best option.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 14, 2021, 05:37:47 PM
The ebb and flow of the intercity connector has run with the who is the mayor question.

Here is how the proposition works. The mayor's office sends his people to the NLCOG (Council of Governments). Without their support LADOTD will build nothing. I-49 was a high priority under Keith Hightower around the turn of the century.  Cedrick Glover pretty much stopped it dead in its tracks. Ollie Tyler's administration let it get started again. Where exactly Adrian Perkins sits is still up in the air.

Now back to the issue. There is an element in Shreveport that never gave up on getting I-49 inner-city connector cancelled.  They just see Buttigieg as a new way to get what they want.  Their primary argument is against "dividing the community" . There is virtually nothing east of any of the I-49 routes except for downtown. The only residences downtown are in repurposed multi-story commercial buildings. There have been some new apartments built in the past decade, but this falls into one of two groups of thought. 1) The vacant spaces between Allen avenue and downtown are excellent places to build housing and if we build something in the way they will cancel it. or 2) Let's throw something cheap up in the path and cash in when it is gets built.

The bottom line is there is very little to be separated. Most if not all of anything resembling a community is west of Allen. The freeway will likely be built east of Allen Avenue (the ideal would be build it down the abandoned intraurban railroad path and leave Pete Harris as as Northbound Frontage road and Allen Avenue as a southbound frontage.


Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vdeane on March 14, 2021, 09:33:43 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 14, 2021, 05:37:47 PM
There have been some new apartments built in the past decade, but this falls into one of two groups of thought. 1) The vacant spaces between Allen avenue and downtown are excellent places to build housing and if we build something in the way they will cancel it.
Is that how these (http://google.com/maps/@32.5007071,-93.7610477,3a,21.4y,60.98h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skseYS8FampU0GWCU4RmB1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) got built?  I couldn't figure out why someone would build brand new apartments directly in the path of an interstate.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 15, 2021, 10:34:40 PM
Loop It... (Using LA-3132 and I-220) Is a terrible idea. The traffic on 3132 is already too dense. The traffic across Cross Lake on I-220 is heavy.

Here is what it takes to use the Inner Loop as the primary route for I-49.

Complete rebuild of 3132 from I-49 to 70th Street.  This road was once voted the "Worst Freeway in the United States."

Add a third (or maybe fourth) lane all the way around.  This includes Cross Lake. The Cross Lake bridge on I-220 had both cost overruns AND a sinking problem once it was finished. It opened a couple of years late because of those issues. Building added capacity would probably run into the same problems.

There would be more dollars for bridges built just to ford Cross Lake than total roadway for the Inner City Connector. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 16, 2021, 02:02:43 AM
Eh, who cares about actual traffic problems? RE/T groups just want to use the lowballed option of slap some shields on existing routes and call it a day.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 16, 2021, 02:26:06 PM
The Interstate brand seems to be much like you suggested in the east and perhaps the upper mid-west. In the south, west, and southwest, the drive to put up interstate shields has been minimal. Texas, California, Arizona, and even Louisiana have multiple freeways that had they chosen when building them could have carried interstate shields with minimal upgrades. US Highway 80 from Terrell to I-30 could have been changed to a 3DI when I-20 was rerouted around the south side of Dallas and Fort Worth. Instead, it carries the US80 Shield.

Putting an Interstate Shield for the sake of doing it is not the norm away from the eastern seaboard.



Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Strider on March 16, 2021, 11:58:02 PM
I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on March 17, 2021, 10:59:59 AM
I can care less either way, but if the ICC can be built right (and this is a huge if, being the hot button topic in Allendale and other neighborhoods), I say go for it.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on March 17, 2021, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: Strider on March 16, 2021, 11:58:02 PM
I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

And to that point, I'm not entirely convinced there will be this huge influx of traffic on I-220 and LA-3132 if they're signed as I-49. With "TO I-49" signs already posted along the route since the northern stretch of I-49 from I-220 to Arkansas opened, I-220 and 3132 appear to be handling things just fine right now. I don't think you'd see a huge change in traffic flow on 220/3132 if they took the "TO" placard off and just signed it as I-49.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 17, 2021, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on March 16, 2021, 11:58:02 PM
I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MikieTimT on March 19, 2021, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 17, 2021, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on March 16, 2021, 11:58:02 PM
I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will

It looks to me like the ROW for an I-49 connector would have to go west of Pete Harris to connect with the other current termination, and that there is a neighborhood there complete with houses, churches, and a funeral home, but maybe the proposed ROW didn't connect the 2 current endpoints directly?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on March 19, 2021, 07:01:47 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 17, 2021, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on March 16, 2021, 11:58:02 PM
I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will

It goes to show you how few people understand how federal appropriations work. There are certain "colors" of money that can only be used to pay for certain things. If you use the wrong "color" of money to pay for something, you'll end up in trouble for misappropriating funds for something that wasn't intended by Congress.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: vdeane on March 19, 2021, 11:11:16 PM
Judging by the comments I've read on Facebook, I don't think most people understand what appropriations even ARE much less how they work.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 19, 2021, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 19, 2021, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 17, 2021, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on March 16, 2021, 11:58:02 PM
I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will

It looks to me like the ROW for an I-49 connector would have to go west of Pete Harris to connect with the other current termination, and that there is a neighborhood there complete with houses, churches, and a funeral home, but maybe the proposed ROW didn't connect the 2 current endpoints directly?

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cc22e9d8561e4fb884b931e919560817&extent=-93.8379,32.4896,-93.7152,32.5467    Is still the current study corridor.

I made some assumptions that everyone knew the lay of the land. Basically that there is little between Allen Avenue and Pete Harris.
I agree that North of Ford / Caddo that there are a few houses maybe as many as 50 that will be either in the ROW or east of the ROW and cut off. The apartments at the north end of the existing I-49 were built primarily to stop the inner city connector.

I agree it would be west of Pete Harris. Probably between Allen and Pete Harris. Texas style frontage roads using Allen and Pete Harris would do more to revitalize the commercial community. Honestly revitalizing Pierre into a business Boulevard is just as viable(possibly more so) with the freeway as without.

I do agree that a freeway without through frontage roads ( between I-20 and Ford / Caddo) would have absolutely no value to the community and little for Shreveport.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on March 20, 2021, 09:21:10 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 17, 2021, 10:14:49 PM
There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86

"A real fixer-upper!"
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: LM117 on March 22, 2021, 01:39:48 PM
Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 22, 2021, 01:39:48 PM
Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html)
I love this part. Good luck  :-D :-D

QuoteThe quickest, easiest and most powerful way for Buttigieg to fulfill his promise to "rebuild our nation's infrastructure into something that creates opportunities for all, especially those who have been historically shut out" is to declare the interstate system complete, permanently ending all planning for these final segments and freeing Allendale and poor neighborhoods like it from this funding-induced tyranny.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we don't offend anyone. What a joke.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 22, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we don't offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 22, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we don't offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.
Lol. I'm guessing this post is sarcasm... hopefully :p
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 02:41:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 22, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we don't offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.
Lol. I'm guessing this post is sarcasm... hopefully :p
Given his post history, nope.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Scott5114 on March 22, 2021, 03:53:22 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 22, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we don't offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.

It only works for you because you're a cheapass.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 22, 2021, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 22, 2021, 03:53:22 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 22, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we don't offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.

It only works for you because you're a cheapass.

It seems  that he only posts (with this handle) when he wants to be a smug.....
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on March 23, 2021, 04:10:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 22, 2021, 01:39:48 PM
Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html)
I love this part. Good luck  :-D :-D

QuoteThe quickest, easiest and most powerful way for Buttigieg to fulfill his promise to "rebuild our nation's infrastructure into something that creates opportunities for all, especially those who have been historically shut out" is to declare the interstate system complete, permanently ending all planning for these final segments and freeing Allendale and poor neighborhoods like it from this funding-induced tyranny.

It's not within the parvenu of the Secretary of Transportation to unilaterally "declare the Interstate System complete" when there are congressionally-enacted corridors yet to be constructed dating back to 1991; each one of those, with its own authorizing language, would have to be rescinded one at a time -- and the chances of that happening are slim & none (and slim's left the building!).  As I've iterated before on more than one occasion, these corridors are in and of themselves both political animals and often political detritus.  Now -- a moratorium on building new freeway mileage within urban areas would be somewhat politically feasible (many of the areas affected have already either enacted measures to that effect or have, in a de facto sense, simply chosen not to entertain new-terrain freeway mileage -- even the poster child for the freeway, L.A., fits into this category).  But outlying areas beyond the reach of any reasonable transit network still require safe & efficient roads to handle both interregional travel and commercial transport.  The rail network, in private hands, is increasingly geared toward long-distance and "bulk" movements, essentially leaving short and mid-distance hauls to trucks (and often employing "hub & spoke" networks to effect any intermodal transfers); as that system is configured today, any suggestion to simply move freight to rail is disingenuous at best.

Also, this current administration, given their precarious levels of support in the rural sectors, will probably attempt to pick their battles to those areas where they have a reasonable chance or success.  In the transportation sector, that will likely mean concentrating any push for modal change away from roads & automobiles within the urban areas that provided them with their electoral support last year.  For better or worse, that will mean that items such as the Shreveport connector (or maybe even the Lafayette crosstown project) may not find much support from USDOT, but longer-distance and rural-based projects like I-11 or the P2P, which have the blessing (if not the funding) from the relevant states may be given something of a grudging "green light"; doing otherwise would draw political flack from not only the usual R suspects but members of the administration's party who have been championing these corridors for a quarter-century or more. 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on March 23, 2021, 08:50:36 AM
honestly, we don't need any more interstates. finishing 49 is enough and finishing 69 to memphis. We need to fix existing infrastructure.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2021, 09:16:30 AM
I guess all of people who could greatly use I-11 should just fuck off lol
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MikieTimT on March 23, 2021, 09:47:20 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2021, 09:16:30 AM
I guess all of people who could greatly use I-11 should just fuck off lol

The folks who believe that the Interstate Highway System is functionally complete, have clearly already gotten theirs and don't live in an area with any growth, so why would they want to see their tax money go where the drivers actually are moving to.  They must also have the same notion in regards to legislative representation needing to be fixed at a certain number of representatives regardless of demographic changes, so the census doesn't actually have much meaning to them either.  Contrary to their belief, the population does actually move around, especially out of the more rural areas to more metropolitan areas of various sizes, and lately, from larger metros to smaller metros to get more space for their money.  I actually have a different take, and I came from one of those areas.  When the population decreases to a certain point, the roads need to revert back to the next lower tier government for maintenance, which generally will spend less on those roads' upkeep anyway.  That would result in road funds being spent more on where they are needed rather than keeping paved roads going through emptying ghost towns.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 23, 2021, 11:23:32 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 23, 2021, 08:50:36 AM
honestly, we don't need any more interstates. finishing 49 is enough and finishing 69 to memphis. We need to fix existing infrastructure.

While I am not sure that I don't agree that we may not more INTERSTATES, I clearly believe we need highway upgrades. That is more lanes at places, fewer red lights, stop signs, and more highway-speed miles. Part of the infrastructure problems is overuse.  Expanding capacities is the answer. 

My issue with interstates comes from my home state TEXAS. Due to access laws, through frontage roads are almost a given. So almost any time you build a four-lane freeway, you build eight lanes of road.  I fully agree that there need to be significant upgrades in the ports-to-plains corridor. All of it should be four-lane divided highway with a MINIMUM speed limit of 65 MPH. That means controlled access loops around most if not all of the cities and towns.  It means an interstate grade facility at points. It means grade separated overpasses at major intersections.  On the other hand, most of the rural stretches could be what TXDOT calls Multi-lane Rural Highway (4-lane divided).  Yes, there would be multiple uncontrolled access points. There would be crossovers. 

Far more value for the buck, but not an interstate.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 11:48:11 AM
^

For many states on the eastern seaboard, not counting Florida and Georgia, it would be helpful if rural divided highway mileage would be posted at 65 mph or greater. Instead, we're stuck with artificial state laws that restrict speed limits to 60 mph on anything that is not a controlled access highway.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 23, 2021, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 11:48:11 AM
^

For many states on the eastern seaboard, not counting Florida and Georgia, it would be helpful if rural divided highway mileage would be posted at 65 mph or greater. Instead, we're stuck with artificial state laws that restrict speed limits to 60 mph on anything that is not a controlled access highway.

In Texas, that certainly is not the problem. It almost always is posted at 65 of more, usually 70 or 75. It is when you transition into the (usually small) town and decrease from 75 to 35 that it becomes an issue.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 01:41:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 23, 2021, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 11:48:11 AM
^

For many states on the eastern seaboard, not counting Florida and Georgia, it would be helpful if rural divided highway mileage would be posted at 65 mph or greater. Instead, we're stuck with artificial state laws that restrict speed limits to 60 mph on anything that is not a controlled access highway.

In Texas, that certainly is not the problem. It almost always is posted at 65 of more, usually 70 or 75. It is when you transition into the (usually small) town and decrease from 75 to 35 that it becomes an issue.
Agreed, and Texas could get away with creating a rural divided highway with a consistently maintained 75 mph speed limit with limited access segments and interchanges where necessary in order to hold that speed.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 25, 2021, 03:14:09 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2021, 04:10:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 22, 2021, 01:39:48 PM
Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html)
I love this part. Good luck  :-D :-D

QuoteThe quickest, easiest and most powerful way for Buttigieg to fulfill his promise to "rebuild our nation's infrastructure into something that creates opportunities for all, especially those who have been historically shut out" is to declare the interstate system complete, permanently ending all planning for these final segments and freeing Allendale and poor neighborhoods like it from this funding-induced tyranny.

It's not within the parvenu of the Secretary of Transportation to unilaterally "declare the Interstate System complete" when there are congressionally-enacted corridors yet to be constructed dating back to 1991; each one of those, with its own authorizing language, would have to be rescinded one at a time -- and the chances of that happening are slim & none (and slim's left the building!).  As I've iterated before on more than one occasion, these corridors are in and of themselves both political animals and often political detritus.  Now -- a moratorium on building new freeway mileage within urban areas would be somewhat politically feasible (many of the areas affected have already either enacted measures to that effect or have, in a de facto sense, simply chosen not to entertain new-terrain freeway mileage -- even the poster child for the freeway, L.A., fits into this category).  But outlying areas beyond the reach of any reasonable transit network still require safe & efficient roads to handle both interregional travel and commercial transport.  The rail network, in private hands, is increasingly geared toward long-distance and "bulk" movements, essentially leaving short and mid-distance hauls to trucks (and often employing "hub & spoke" networks to effect any intermodal transfers); as that system is configured today, any suggestion to simply move freight to rail is disingenuous at best.

Also, this current administration, given their precarious levels of support in the rural sectors, will probably attempt to pick their battles to those areas where they have a reasonable chance or success.  In the transportation sector, that will likely mean concentrating any push for modal change away from roads & automobiles within the urban areas that provided them with their electoral support last year.  For better or worse, that will mean that items such as the Shreveport connector (or maybe even the Lafayette crosstown project) may not find much support from USDOT, but longer-distance and rural-based projects like I-11 or the P2P, which have the blessing (if not the funding) from the relevant states may be given something of a grudging "green light"; doing otherwise would draw political flack from not only the usual R suspects but members of the administration's party who have been championing these corridors for a quarter-century or more. 

Ahhh, yes...Charles Mahron, yet another New Urbanist who doesn't know diddley poop about how highways are funded.

No, sir...Allendale can boom just as well with the ICC in place, because most of the ROW that would be removed by the ICC is dead (outside of the apartments deliberately put there by obstructionists), and the remaining displacements can be mitigated quite easily.

If this is a preliminary for what these fools are planning for the Lafayette I-49 Connector segment, this will be all out WAR.

There is no Goddess damn way that LADOTD is going to build Teche Ridge Alignment through Cypress Swamp, or invest $2B into the Lafayette Regional Expressway toll loop just to avoid going through 6 blocks between the Evangeline Thruway that will still get choked off by existing traffic.

If they can't adequately fund needed corridors and defend them, then why have a gas tax and an Interstate system to begin with?

To HELL with Pete Buttigieg and all of them.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
Will the Interstate 49 "missing link" between Interstates 20 and 220 be built anytime soon? I have a feeling the locals might be successful in delaying or killing the project, forcing 49 to follow 3132 and 220.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on March 26, 2021, 02:25:40 AM
That's a subject that has been bandied about for some time in this thread.  Apparently there are both pro and con activists pressing their cases; the latter bolstered by outside (non-local) anti-freeway/automotive groups (I refer to them as the "usual suspects").  The "pro" folks think that a freeway in their vicinity will boost the visibility of the neighborhood and will have the potential of conveying customers to businesses functionally isolated by lack of connectivity -- the inverse of the notion of "pristine" neighborhoods untainted by the effects of traffic.  For better or worse, the latter approach seems to have been internalized within official circles, with USDOT being the latest to express some variant of the concept.  It remains to be seen whether that will be brought to bear on the situation or whether it will be wrung out locally, with the chips falling where they may.  Either way, a substantial level of funding will be needed for either the connector or upgrades to Loop 3132 and I-220 to accommodate I-49 through traffic.   
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 26, 2021, 08:12:43 AM
While we see the media attention to the no-build or the separate "Loop-IT" options, on the ground, the small businesses in the path have signs SUPPORTING building the ICC. Before anyone jumps on the fact I said small businesses... They are a mechanic shop in a bedraggled building, used tire sales outlets in fifties vintage service station buildings, and a closed bodega.  There are a couple of derelict restaurants.



Someone mentioned the Funeral Home might be in the path. They hope so. The last route option through the corridor was added to make sure some buildings in that area were not left out of the ROW acquisition. The activists who drive LOOP-It are from outside of Allendale, and mostly from outside of Shreveport.

Locally the ONLY reason for NOT building the connector is about the idea that the same money spent on other unrelated (not necessarily road) projects would benefit the communities north of I-20 more. They probably are not wrong, but at the same time, that is not how funding works.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: silverback1065 on March 26, 2021, 08:40:07 AM
is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 26, 2021, 10:59:55 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 26, 2021, 08:40:07 AM
is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.

The traffic volume on the inner loop (I-220 and LA-3132) is pretty high. Much of it is intraregional traffic. Even at off-peak times it is moderate to heavy.  It degrades to just short of gridlock at peak usage times.  One of the things the inter-city connector would accomplish is reduce the I-20 traffic backups at the Red River as well as some of the traffic volume on Benton Road and Airline Drive in Bossier.  It would allow the traffic going from the South to bypass I-20 and the Bossier City surface streets when going to North Bossier. Increases in traffic volumes will necessitate expansion of the Inner Loop if the ICC is not built.

The inner city connector will only be  about three miles long.  The northernmost half goes through an area that is  undeveloped (except for a water or sewer plant). Realistically, this stretch is all prone to flooding and will have to be elevated to some extent.  Then in the middle is about five blocks with development. South of Caddo / Ford Street, there are a few a few houses (mostly substandard) with occupants, and some empty houses. There are a few businesses in really old buildings, a vacant church, an older set of apartments (which some of the maps bypass), and the new "let's block the route" apartments.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 26, 2021, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 26, 2021, 10:59:55 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 26, 2021, 08:40:07 AM
is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.

The traffic volume on the inner loop (I-220 and LA-3132) is pretty high. Much of it is intraregional traffic. Even at off-peak times it is moderate to heavy.  It degrades to just short of gridlock at peak usage times.  One of the things the inter-city connector would accomplish is reduce the I-20 traffic backups at the Red River as well as some of the traffic volume on Benton Road and Airline Drive in Bossier.  It would allow the traffic going from the South to bypass I-20 and the Bossier City surface streets when going to North Bossier. Increases in traffic volumes will necessitate expansion of the Inner Loop if the ICC is not built.

The inner city connector will only be  about three miles long.  The northernmost half goes through an area that is  undeveloped (except for a water or sewer plant). Realistically, this stretch is all prone to flooding and will have to be elevated to some extent.  Then in the middle is about five blocks with development. South of Caddo / Ford Street, there are a few a few houses (mostly substandard) with occupants, and some empty houses. There are a few businesses in really old buildings, a vacant church, an older set of apartments (which some of the maps bypass), and the new "let's block the route" apartments.








Wait a minute....that church is abandoned? I saw it in Street View via Google Maps, and it looked like it was recently built to block construction of the ICC.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 26, 2021, 06:23:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 22, 2021, 01:39:48 PM
Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html)
I love this part. Good luck  :-D :-D

QuoteThe quickest, easiest and most powerful way for Buttigieg to fulfill his promise to "rebuild our nation's infrastructure into something that creates opportunities for all, especially those who have been historically shut out" is to declare the interstate system complete, permanently ending all planning for these final segments and freeing Allendale and poor neighborhoods like it from this funding-induced tyranny.
The op-ed argues against new urban freeways such as the proposed urban section of I-49 in Shreveport. It's certainly possible to agree with that but not with the idea of declaring the interstate system "complete." What North Carolina, Texas, and other southern states have been wanting to add to the system is new rural sections reaching underserved regions of the states.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on March 26, 2021, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 26, 2021, 06:23:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 22, 2021, 01:39:48 PM
Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html)
I love this part. Good luck  :-D :-D

QuoteThe quickest, easiest and most powerful way for Buttigieg to fulfill his promise to "rebuild our nation's infrastructure into something that creates opportunities for all, especially those who have been historically shut out" is to declare the interstate system complete, permanently ending all planning for these final segments and freeing Allendale and poor neighborhoods like it from this funding-induced tyranny.
The op-ed argues against new urban freeways such as the proposed urban section of I-49 in Shreveport. It's certainly possible to agree with that but not with the idea of declaring the interstate system "complete." What North Carolina, Texas, and other southern states have been wanting to add to the system is new rural sections reaching underserved regions of the states.
Along with countless projects (mostly urban) that have been cancelled over the years, we should just agree that the opposite is true, that the Interstate system will never be complete.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on March 28, 2021, 10:23:36 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 26, 2021, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 26, 2021, 10:59:55 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 26, 2021, 08:40:07 AM
is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.

The traffic volume on the inner loop (I-220 and LA-3132) is pretty high. Much of it is intraregional traffic. Even at off-peak times it is moderate to heavy.  It degrades to just short of gridlock at peak usage times.  One of the things the inter-city connector would accomplish is reduce the I-20 traffic backups at the Red River as well as some of the traffic volume on Benton Road and Airline Drive in Bossier.  It would allow the traffic going from the South to bypass I-20 and the Bossier City surface streets when going to North Bossier. Increases in traffic volumes will necessitate expansion of the Inner Loop if the ICC is not built.

The inner city connector will only be  about three miles long.  The northernmost half goes through an area that is  undeveloped (except for a water or sewer plant). Realistically, this stretch is all prone to flooding and will have to be elevated to some extent.  Then in the middle is about five blocks with development. South of Caddo / Ford Street, there are a few a few houses (mostly substandard) with occupants, and some empty houses. There are a few businesses in really old buildings, a vacant church, an older set of apartments (which some of the maps bypass), and the new "let's block the route" apartments.








Wait a minute....that church is abandoned? I saw it in Street View via Google Maps, and it looked like it was recently built to block construction of the ICC.


They did spend not insignificant dollars doing renovations to do that, but yes. It is currently unoccupied.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: TheBox on July 22, 2021, 10:06:45 PM
REMINDER: You guys can talk about I-49 at Shreveport in this topic you know   :poke: :pan:
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Thegeet on July 22, 2021, 11:17:07 PM
Quote from: TheBox on July 22, 2021, 10:06:45 PM
REMINDER: You guys can talk about I-49 at Shreveport in this topic you know   :poke: :pan:
In that case...will the ICC ever be built?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 12:13:11 AM
Quote from: TheBox on July 22, 2021, 10:06:45 PM
REMINDER: You guys can talk about I-49 at Shreveport in this topic you know   :poke: :pan:

Yeah, but this thread (http://this%20thread) is mostly about the ICC lately.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Thegeet on July 23, 2021, 12:24:28 AM
Well...When will I-49 be extended to Nola?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 23, 2021, 12:24:28 AM
Well...When will I-49 be extended to Nola?


Sooner than later. Meaning its completion is among the top if not the top priority in LA.  I cannot see the freeway not being complete in 15 years. More likely 10. A bigger issue is repairing the existing freeway portions to meet the standard to be able to sign it as Interstate.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MikieTimT on July 23, 2021, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 23, 2021, 12:24:28 AM
Well...When will I-49 be extended to Nola?


Sooner than later. Meaning its completion is among the top if not the top priority in LA.  I cannot see the freeway not being complete in 15 years. More likely 10. A bigger issue is repairing the existing freeway portions to meet the standard to be able to sign it as Interstate.

Has the EIS been completed on it?  Meaning, is there a chance that it's shovel-ready enough to be in the "infrastructure bill"?
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: abqtraveler on July 23, 2021, 10:13:42 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 23, 2021, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 23, 2021, 12:24:28 AM
Well...When will I-49 be extended to Nola?


Sooner than later. Meaning its completion is among the top if not the top priority in LA.  I cannot see the freeway not being complete in 15 years. More likely 10. A bigger issue is repairing the existing freeway portions to meet the standard to be able to sign it as Interstate.

Has the EIS been completed on it?  Meaning, is there a chance that it's shovel-ready enough to be in the "infrastructure bill"?

They're still fighting over the section through Lafayette, but they're moving along pretty steadily on the rest of the route outside of Lafayette.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 23, 2021, 10:43:47 AM
They've eliminated a decent number of at-grade intersections along US-90 South of the Coteau Rd (LA-88) exit in Lafayette. There's still an at-grade railroad crossing just SE of the LA-85/Patout Rd exit. Other than that US-90 is completely limited access down to Calumet-Patterson-Bayou Vista area. Morgan City to Raceland is another fully limited access segment.

There's still quite a bit of work to do on the West Bank across from New Orleans and in towns like Boutte, Paradis and Des Allemands. At least the work along the West Bank Expressway should be easy. With all the endless nonsense going on in Lafayette those other sections of US-90 may be upgraded to interstate standards before the section in Lafayette is completed. It could very well come to pass that I-49 gets signed from I-10 in New Orleans leading up into the Lafayette area.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 01:45:06 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 23, 2021, 10:43:47 AM
They've eliminated a decent number of at-grade intersections along US-90 South of the Coteau Rd (LA-88) exit in Lafayette. There's still an at-grade railroad crossing just SE of the LA-85/Patout Rd exit. Other than that US-90 is completely limited access down to Calumet-Patterson-Bayou Vista area. Morgan City to Raceland is another fully limited access segment.

There's still quite a bit of work to do on the West Bank across from New Orleans and in towns like Boutte, Paradis and Des Allemands. At least the work along the West Bank Expressway should be easy. With all the endless nonsense going on in Lafayette those other sections of US-90 may be upgraded to interstate standards before the section in Lafayette is completed. It could very well come to pass that I-49 gets signed from I-10 in New Orleans leading up into the Lafayette area.

I agree. The part INSIDE Lafayette may be much longer. I was really thinking from Kaliste Saloom Rd or maybe Ambassador Caffrey  to New Orleans. The part north of that may be decades away.  South of Lafayette Parish really.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 23, 2021, 04:28:48 PM
I'm strangely more sympathetic to I-49 punching thru Lafayette than I am for Shreveport's ICC.
Initially, I was on the side of I-49 using some sort of bypass around Layfayette, but over the years I've come back to the practicality of going straight through town in this case.  That is mainly due to the railroad track that already bisects the core of Lafayette.  I figure one could use the construction of I-49 as a reason to actually improve connectivity across this divide.

In a world where there was some pre-existing loop around the south end of Lafayette, though, I'd be all about using/improving that facility.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 11:02:11 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 23, 2021, 04:28:48 PM
I'm strangely more sympathetic to I-49 punching thru Lafayette than I am for Shreveport's ICC.
Initially, I was on the side of I-49 using some sort of bypass around Layfayette, but over the years I've come back to the practicality of going straight through town in this case.  That is mainly due to the railroad track that already bisects the core of Lafayette.  I figure one could use the construction of I-49 as a reason to actually improve connectivity across this divide.

In a world where there was some pre-existing loop around the south end of Lafayette, though, I'd be all about using/improving that facility.


The ICC would predominately use a disused rail corridor as well.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 25, 2021, 01:41:48 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 23, 2021, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 23, 2021, 12:24:28 AM
Well...When will I-49 be extended to Nola?


Sooner than later. Meaning its completion is among the top if not the top priority in LA.  I cannot see the freeway not being complete in 15 years. More likely 10. A bigger issue is repairing the existing freeway portions to meet the standard to be able to sign it as Interstate.

Has the EIS been completed on it?  Meaning, is there a chance that it's shovel-ready enough to be in the "infrastructure bill"?

Going from north to south:

1) An EIS for the Lafayette Connector portion was completed and signed with a ROD in 2003. The current Supplemental EIS, along with the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) design process and Functional Design studies, will result in a finalized Supplemental Draft EIS by hopefully the end of this year, with a Final SEIS/Supplemental ROD approved by spring of next year. Then (the inevitable lawsuits from opponents notwithstanding), the wait for funding and construction.

2) The segment just south of Lafayette Regional Airport to the LA 88 interchange with US 90 is slowly being upgraded, depending on funding. The Albertson Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182/LA 96 interchange/overpass is complete and open, and letting will commence soon on construction of both the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South interchange and the extension of one-way frontage roads over the current LA 182/BNSF-UP rail line via parallel bridges to the mainline overpass) to Ambassador Caffery South. Design and environmental approval is currently being done for the Verot School Road interchange just south of Lafayette; and design is currently starting on the section south of Ambassador Caffery, which would include a new interchange with LA 92/LA 92B (Youngsville Highway/Petroleum Parkway) and completion of the frontage road network to LA 88.

3) From LA 88 to the Ricohoc interchange west of Wax Lake Outlet, US 90 is essentially full Interstate grade except for eliminating some minor at-grade crossovers in Iberia Parish near Jeanarette, and removing that railroad spur grade crossing south of the LA 85 interchange serving the sugar processing mill. The latter has been let and will begin construction soon.

4) From Wax Lake/Ricohoc through Patterson/Bayou Vista to Berwick: That section was approved with a EIS/ROD in 2008, but new studies and a SEIS will have to be done for that section due to public feedback. No word there on when studies will be completed.

5) Berwick/Morgan City to Raceland: US 90 is fully Interstate grade and complete; all that's needed is to slap on the I-49 shields.

6) Raceland to Westbank Expressway/NOLA: This might be the most unfinished segment of the overall project. An EIS/ROD was completed in 2008 for a fully elevated freeway due to concerns of climate change flooding and evacuation, but the costs were considered too prohibitive. A slimmed down proposal cannibalizing most of US 90 is now under study, but there's no timetable for completion of a ROD or funding at this time.



TL;DR: I-49 South has separate EIS's for the unfinished segments, the Lafayette Connector is the closest to being completed and "shovel ready" when construction funds come around. The remaining uncompleted sections will take some more time. I'd say maybe 15 - 20 years before it is fully finished.

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 25, 2021, 02:01:17 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 23, 2021, 04:28:48 PM
I'm strangely more sympathetic to I-49 punching thru Lafayette than I am for Shreveport's ICC.
Initially, I was on the side of I-49 using some sort of bypass around Layfayette, but over the years I've come back to the practicality of going straight through town in this case.  That is mainly due to the railroad track that already bisects the core of Lafayette.  I figure one could use the construction of I-49 as a reason to actually improve connectivity across this divide.

In a world where there was some pre-existing loop around the south end of Lafayette, though, I'd be all about using/improving that facility.

The Evangeline Thruway was originally designed as a one-way couplet to host an eventual elevated freeway through the city; the only adjustments that had to be made were to shift the alignment westward alongside the railroad near downtown to avoid displacements and mitigate impacts on the Sterling Grove Historical District, which flanks the proposed highway to the east. Given that it serves many important destinations (ULL, LFT, downtown), and that the Thruway is currently choked with traffic and is pretty much an ugly barrier to begin with, I'd say that the Connector would be a major improvement, even notwithstanding adding the CSS process and redeveloping the Thruway as a much more pedestrian, bicycle, and neighborhood friendly corridor. It would also give the opportunity to reconnect neighborhoods that were originally segmented by both the railroad and the Thruway.

Really, a bypass corridor would be not only prohibitively expensive, but due to the placement and natural barriers and growth vectors in greater Lafayette, would not generate enough traffic to pull people off the Evangeline Thruway. Because it connects to current I-49 to the north and US 90 to the south, and directly serves the main destinations within Lafayette, the Thruway essentially serves as the main thoroughfare (along with Johnston Street and Pinhook Road) serving most of the city. Ambassador Caffrey Parkway serves as a sort-of arterial bypass between I-10 and US 90, but it has it's own source of traffic and cannot be improved due to development. There is the proposed Lafayette Metro Expressway loop, but it would be hugely expensive to build even from I-10 to US 90, let alone the connection to I-49 North (near Carencro) that would be needed to effectively function as an I-49 bypass.

There was an alternative proposal for an east bypass, the Teche Ridge proposal, that would have run along the ridge near LA 31 just west of St. Martinville to near Breaux Bridge. But while that proposal briefly was the go to alternative for opponents of the Connector alignment, it has its own issues of bisecting Cypress Lake and the adjorning swamps, providing no access to Lafayette proper, and not taking enough traffic from the existing US 90/Thruway corridor to be economically effective.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: MikieTimT on July 25, 2021, 08:27:24 AM
Thanks for the detailed explanation of what remains.  Sounds like there's really just one shovel-ready segment that could be bundled into anything imminent federally.  Hopefully the state could come up with matching funds to actually cause shovels to turn dirt.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 25, 2021, 08:27:24 AM
Thanks for the detailed explanation of what remains.  Sounds like there's really just one shovel-ready segment that could be bundled into anything imminent federally.  Hopefully the state could come up with matching funds to actually cause shovels to turn dirt.

Seemingly, the only project with more priority in Louisiana seems to be widening I-10. This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.

At some point, the proposed loop around the southern side of Baton Rouge might come into play, but the costs for that are big enough there will need to be a lot more funding available before they start. While there may be some work on the ICC or the Port Connector in NW Louisiana, I-49 south of I-10 seemingly has a much larger priority.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.
Is this an official proposal? While I agree both bridges need to be at least 3 lanes in each direction with full left and right shoulders, I'm not aware of an actual project for this.

I know they've been rapidly expanding portions of I-10 leading up to the bridge, however.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.
Is this an official proposal? While I agree both bridges need to be at least 3 lanes in each direction with full left and right shoulders, I'm not aware of an actual project for this.

I know they've been rapidly expanding portions of I-10 leading up to the bridge, however.

Well widening I-10 has been in discussion for quite a while.  No there is not a FORMAL proposal to widen the bridges across the Atchafalaya Basin, it is discussed and pretty much dismissed based on cost. When the rest of I-10 is 3x3 the large  bridges WILL come next.

Regardless, the plan for I-49 south of I-10 is not going anywhere as long as they are building ANY roads in Louisiana.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2021, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.
Is this an official proposal? While I agree both bridges need to be at least 3 lanes in each direction with full left and right shoulders, I'm not aware of an actual project for this.

I know they've been rapidly expanding portions of I-10 leading up to the bridge, however.

Well widening I-10 has been in discussion for quite a while.  No there is not a FORMAL proposal to widen the bridges across the Atchafalaya Basin, it is discussed and pretty much dismissed based on cost. When the rest of I-10 is 3x3 the large  bridges WILL come next.

Regardless, the plan for I-49 south of I-10 is not going anywhere as long as they are building ANY roads in Louisiana.
I've been watching traffic on I-10 throughout the day and it's been awful. I49 south of I-10 seems like a no brainer for me.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on August 28, 2021, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2021, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.
Is this an official proposal? While I agree both bridges need to be at least 3 lanes in each direction with full left and right shoulders, I'm not aware of an actual project for this.

I know they've been rapidly expanding portions of I-10 leading up to the bridge, however.

Well widening I-10 has been in discussion for quite a while.  No there is not a FORMAL proposal to widen the bridges across the Atchafalaya Basin, it is discussed and pretty much dismissed based on cost. When the rest of I-10 is 3x3 the large  bridges WILL come next.

Regardless, the plan for I-49 south of I-10 is not going anywhere as long as they are building ANY roads in Louisiana.
I've been watching traffic on I-10 throughout the day and it's been awful. I49 south of I-10 seems like a no brainer for me.

Maybe any logistical fallout coming from Hurricane Ida might point out deficiencies in the South LA road network that could be at least in part ameliorated by a fully operational Interstate-grade facility along US 90.  One of the original selling points for that corridor back in the '90's was as an additional evacuation route; essentially extra lanes for the I-10/I-55 configuration NW of NOLA, which because of its extensive bridge structure is problematic for expansion.  I guess we'll see if the current weather situation compounds the original argument! 
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Road Hog on August 28, 2021, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2021, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2021, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.
Is this an official proposal? While I agree both bridges need to be at least 3 lanes in each direction with full left and right shoulders, I'm not aware of an actual project for this.

I know they've been rapidly expanding portions of I-10 leading up to the bridge, however.

Well widening I-10 has been in discussion for quite a while.  No there is not a FORMAL proposal to widen the bridges across the Atchafalaya Basin, it is discussed and pretty much dismissed based on cost. When the rest of I-10 is 3x3 the large  bridges WILL come next.

Regardless, the plan for I-49 south of I-10 is not going anywhere as long as they are building ANY roads in Louisiana.
I've been watching traffic on I-10 throughout the day and it's been awful. I49 south of I-10 seems like a no brainer for me.

Maybe any logistical fallout coming from Hurricane Ida might point out deficiencies in the South LA road network that could be at least in part ameliorated by a fully operational Interstate-grade facility along US 90.  One of the original selling points for that corridor back in the '90's was as an additional evacuation route; essentially extra lanes for the I-10/I-55 configuration NW of NOLA, which because of its extensive bridge structure is problematic for expansion.  I guess we'll see if the current weather situation compounds the original argument!
An improved US 90/I-49 South will help evacuation from the West Bank, but the crossovers from the East Bank will still be a choke point.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2021, 07:47:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2021, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2021, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.
Is this an official proposal? While I agree both bridges need to be at least 3 lanes in each direction with full left and right shoulders, I'm not aware of an actual project for this.

I know they've been rapidly expanding portions of I-10 leading up to the bridge, however.

Well widening I-10 has been in discussion for quite a while.  No there is not a FORMAL proposal to widen the bridges across the Atchafalaya Basin, it is discussed and pretty much dismissed based on cost. When the rest of I-10 is 3x3 the large  bridges WILL come next.

Regardless, the plan for I-49 south of I-10 is not going anywhere as long as they are building ANY roads in Louisiana.
I've been watching traffic on I-10 throughout the day and it's been awful. I49 south of I-10 seems like a no brainer for me.

Maybe any logistical fallout coming from Hurricane Ida might point out deficiencies in the South LA road network that could be at least in part ameliorated by a fully operational Interstate-grade facility along US 90.  One of the original selling points for that corridor back in the '90's was as an additional evacuation route; essentially extra lanes for the I-10/I-55 configuration NW of NOLA, which because of its extensive bridge structure is problematic for expansion.  I guess we'll see if the current weather situation compounds the original argument!
I tell you what I'm watching is the levee system. I've heard some modes say this sucker could get to a cat 4. Hopefully this won't end up as another Katrina. Personally, New Orleans is one of my favorite cities.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on August 28, 2021, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on August 28, 2021, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2021, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2021, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 28, 2021, 10:27:38 AM
This project might even fall ahead of widening the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.
Is this an official proposal? While I agree both bridges need to be at least 3 lanes in each direction with full left and right shoulders, I'm not aware of an actual project for this.

I know they've been rapidly expanding portions of I-10 leading up to the bridge, however.

Well widening I-10 has been in discussion for quite a while.  No there is not a FORMAL proposal to widen the bridges across the Atchafalaya Basin, it is discussed and pretty much dismissed based on cost. When the rest of I-10 is 3x3 the large  bridges WILL come next.

Regardless, the plan for I-49 south of I-10 is not going anywhere as long as they are building ANY roads in Louisiana.
I've been watching traffic on I-10 throughout the day and it's been awful. I49 south of I-10 seems like a no brainer for me.

Maybe any logistical fallout coming from Hurricane Ida might point out deficiencies in the South LA road network that could be at least in part ameliorated by a fully operational Interstate-grade facility along US 90.  One of the original selling points for that corridor back in the '90's was as an additional evacuation route; essentially extra lanes for the I-10/I-55 configuration NW of NOLA, which because of its extensive bridge structure is problematic for expansion.  I guess we'll see if the current weather situation compounds the original argument!
An improved US 90/I-49 South will help evacuation from the West Bank, but the crossovers from the East Bank will still be a choke point.

Even though they're all multilane (and hopefully set up for all-single-direction), the three crossings from the Quarter to I-310 will get crowded really fast.  But if Ida hits west of NOLA, and the levees don't breach, the evac may just be north/east over the river rather than the other way around.  Since the whole thing will be on CNN over the next day or two (or 3, 4; whatever the situation dictates) we'll have the answer soon enough!
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 29, 2021, 10:32:04 AM
Aside from the very slow progress at converting US-90 to I-49 and the discussions of widening very old (and long) I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya River and swamp, there may be other highway concerns with highways in aftermath of Hurricane Ida.

I lived in the New Orleans area back in the early 1980's. I was just a kid then. Some of the fond memories I have of the region include numerous road trips to Grand Isle to go fishing. I'm really worried about what will happen to Grand Isle as well as Port Fourchon when Ida makes landfall shortly. As of 9:00am CDT Ida's top sustained winds are 150mph, just short of category 5 status. Grand Isle appears to be directly in the path of the right front quadrant of Ida. That means Grand Isle is going to get the very worst this hurricane has to offer -the strongest winds and maximum storm surge. Ida is likely to hit Grand Isle with much more ferocity than what Katrina did 16 years ago. Obviously those towns had mandatory evacuation orders. Anyone ignoring those orders and staying in Grand Isle is putting their lives in great danger.

Hurricane Katrina did enough damage to Grand Isle back then. Back in the 1980's we did a lot of our fishing off a really long pier at the East end of Grand Isle. That pier was destroyed by Katrina, as was most of the homes and businesses back then. A lot of Grand Isle has been re-built since then. They built a new pier at that state park (although the end of it is not covered like the original). Ida will likely erase all of that new development. The land there is pretty fragile and has been eroding. I think it's possible the enormous storm surge could alter some of the coast line. Ida won't lose much strength as it makes landfall at Port Fourchon since the area is mostly sparse swamp land and lots of open areas of water.

I wonder how Hurricane Ida will affect the roads leading to Port Fourchon and Grand Isle, mainly LA-1. They built one leg of the Gateway to the Gulf Expressway bridge to replace a lot of damage LA-1 suffered with Katrina. I wonder how that new-ish bridge will fare in this storm. If all the structures in Grand Isle and Port Fourchon are wiped away will they even bother to re-build?

I-10 has definitely been bottle-necked going both East and West of New Orleans. It underscores the need for the federal government to get off its @$$ and directly address some of the highway issues in Louisiana. I-10 is a NATIONAL highway, not one to be solely funded by state projects. That means projects to widen I-10, including those aging, narrow bridges over swamp land, need a LOT of federal funding help. The same goes for improving US-90 into becoming I-49 as an alternative escape route for New Orleans. US-90 going West of New Orleans is insufficient. The West Bank Expressway is still not finished, 40 years after the project started. The towns of Avondale, Boutte, Paradis and Des Allemands are bottlenecks along US-90. Outside of the work in Lafayette those are the most difficult remaining projects of the US-90/I-49 conversion. The freeway projects in Patterson and Bayou Vista will be easier since there is more available ROW to use.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 29, 2021, 12:52:02 PM
It looks like the storm is about halfway over for grand isles. The eye is about me over Leeville. One thing I'd like to experience in my life is to be in the eye of a hurricane. I'd risk my life to do it. It looks amazing.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on August 29, 2021, 09:30:35 PM
At this point (6:30 pm PDT) according to the reports it looks like Ida's doing what previous hurricanes have done and followed distinct waterways inland -- in this case, heading for the Atchafayala River.  We'll have to see how the I-10 bridge system holds up when the eye passes over it.  I'd expect extensive flooding over the I-49/South corridor length, particularly between Morgan City and Lafayette.  Wouldn't be surprised to see the area from Baton Rouge west to about US 165 resembling one huge shallow lake by the end of the day.   
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 29, 2021, 10:41:13 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 29, 2021, 09:30:35 PM
At this point (6:30 pm PDT) according to the reports it looks like Ida's doing what previous hurricanes have done and followed distinct waterways inland -- in this case, heading for the Atchafayala River.  We'll have to see how the I-10 bridge system holds up when the eye passes over it.  I'd expect extensive flooding over the I-49/South corridor length, particularly between Morgan City and Lafayette.  Wouldn't be surprised to see the area from Baton Rouge west to about US 165 resembling one huge shallow lake by the end of the day.
I'm sorry, what? The threat from Lafayette north and west is far less now. The eye of Ida went just to the west of New Orleans metro, and is traveling north between Baton Rouge and Hammond. It won't cross the Mississippi River going west again or the Atchafalaya River.


iPhone
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: sparker on August 30, 2021, 03:56:29 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 29, 2021, 10:41:13 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 29, 2021, 09:30:35 PM
At this point (6:30 pm PDT) according to the reports it looks like Ida's doing what previous hurricanes have done and followed distinct waterways inland -- in this case, heading for the Atchafayala River.  We'll have to see how the I-10 bridge system holds up when the eye passes over it.  I'd expect extensive flooding over the I-49/South corridor length, particularly between Morgan City and Lafayette.  Wouldn't be surprised to see the area from Baton Rouge west to about US 165 resembling one huge shallow lake by the end of the day.
I'm sorry, what? The threat from Lafayette north and west is far less now. The eye of Ida went just to the west of New Orleans metro, and is traveling north between Baton Rouge and Hammond. It won't cross the Mississippi River going west again or the Atchafalaya River.


iPhone

Just extrapolating from earlier reports around the time of the landfall; looks like the eye curved around and headed directly north from there rather than the usual waterway-following pattern.  Last report I saw showed US 51 through Laplace fully inundated (the I-10 causeway visible in the background); projections are a downgrade to a tropical storm but with up to 20" of rain to the east of the eye (which is likely, from the charts shown tonight, to pass just west of Jackson, MS).  Meanwhile, we're still a tinderbox out here in CA; just waiting to see if South Lake Tahoe will still be standing by next week, but choking on smoke in the meantime.  Mountain or bayou -- the current climate situation featuring exaggerated weather patterns isn't sparing anyone!   
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 02, 2021, 06:26:50 AM
This is actually pretty relevant to how Future I-49 South will be built.

It appears that the core of Hurricane Ida went straight through the Barataria Basin, that stretch of low-lying wetland area between Raceland and Boutte; existing US 90 is at ground level and was completely submerged by the 7-11 foot storm surge.

One of the original plans for constructing I-49 South was to fully elevate it all the way across southeast Louisiana from Raceland to the section in Gretna where the Westbank Expressway begins its elevated freeway section, as well as build it on new-terrain alignment outside of US 90 from west of Des Allemands to Boutte. That concept was rejected, however, as too expensive; LADOTD decided to explore a different approach where the proposed freeway cannibalized most of the US 90 ROW save for a brief bypass east of Des Allemands and west of Boutte. The new approach would effectively cut off US 90 between Paradis and Boutte from local traffic and local access, and would require repairs and replacement of the current US 90 bridge across Bayou des Allemands. It would also overlay the existing US 90 roadways east of LA 1/LA 308 at its existing height.

In the aftermath of Ida, I'm wondering if they will reconsider the concept of elevating on viaduct at least portions of US 90 or going more new terrain route to preserve existing US 90 for local access.

The current environmental studies for the Raceland to NOLA segment, as well as the segment through Patterson/Bayou Vista/Berwick, are on hiatus; but I'm expecting that funding from the infrastructure bill will be used to revive and complete them; and there will be renewed pressure to get the funding to complete I-49 South (and also probably the LA 1 Gateway to the South toll connection to Port Fourchon/Grand Isle, provided that the latter is still afloat and not washed into the Gulf).

Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Henry on September 02, 2021, 10:30:47 AM
It seems that elevating I-49 should be a no-brainer, and in the aftermath of Ida, the state will most likely regret the time they rejected that idea.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 10:36:13 PM
The problem is cost. People responsible for designing and building highways in the United States don't appear to have any ability to build bridges that don't cost an outrageous fortune. I agree it would be a great idea in principal to elevate much of I-49 South between Raceland and Gretna. But the cost would be astronomical. On top of that the Louisiana state government has the burden of needing to overhaul and expand I-10. That existing Interstate has a several very long bridges that are getting really old and badly need expansion from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. I almost forgot the Southern end of I-55 is a similar can of worms.
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on September 03, 2021, 07:11:43 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 10:36:13 PM
I almost forgot the Southern end of I-55 is a similar can of worms.

Yep. The first 22.6 miles of I-55 is all bridge...just 1.2 miles shorter than the Pontchartrain Causeway.