I49 in LA

[Grzrd]

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:

[yakra]

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! 

[Henry]

Pretty much what I expected anyway.

[I-39]

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:

I-49 connector status?

[Anthony_JK]

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:

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.

[Grzrd]

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 provides an aerial view of the I-49 construction at I-220.

[cjk374]

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 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.   

[US71]

Somebody typoed the caption underneath the video screen calling it I-40 construction instead of I-49.   

You simply can't get good help these days

[Anthony_JK]

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 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.


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 about hopes and concerns about the Lafayette Connector project was just posted for the Acadiana Advocate.

[jbnv]

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" rehashing the same old arguments against the Connector.

[noelbotevera]

Somebody typoed the caption underneath the video screen calling it I-40 construction instead of I-49.   

You simply can't get good help these days

"Have you ever tried turning it off and on again?"

[Anthony_JK]

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" 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

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 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.

[jbnv]

Good job.

[yakra]

BOOM.

[Grzrd]

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" 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

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 ....

BOOM.

Anthony, you may need to mark December 3 on your calendar because this article 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":

.... 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:

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[jbnv]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[ARMOURERERIC]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[bayoubill]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[bayoubill]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[bayoubill]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.