I49 in LA

[NE2]

"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

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Grzrd]

The November 2013 I-49 Inner City Connector Newsletter 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, 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):

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes, 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)

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 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:

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.

[texaskdog]

"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?

[texaskdog]

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.

[bassoon1986]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes, 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)

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 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:

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

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.

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.

[Grzrd]

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 reports that only two of four city council candidates for the district seat showed up and the video itself indicates that attendance was sparse:

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.

The Community Input Meetings (Round 2) December 11-13, 2012 Event Summary has been posted on the Inner City Connector website ....

^ Isn't that supposed to be US 71 and not US 171?

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:

[NE2]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[NE2]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Anthony_JK]

Picking fights again, I see??

Taken from Grzrd's earlier post in this thread:

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 15, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes, 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)

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 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:

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.

[NE2]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[NE2]

Most of the people who live in Shreveport don't live next to the ICC. Keep pooing. And not in the cool way.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[NE2]

Same reasons as 8664: people are afraid of going against the current political winds.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[Brandon]

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?

[bassoon1986]

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

[pctech]

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?

[Bobby5280]

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.



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.