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
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
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?

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

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
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

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
Quote
I-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
I-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
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
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

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
I-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
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:

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/b/bd/Sheet_0110.png)

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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
" [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
This is typical of the signing plans for I-49 North:

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/b/bd/Sheet_0110.png)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Quote
Yeah 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
Yeah 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
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
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: flaroads 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
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
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
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

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
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
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/

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
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
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
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 ..."

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
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;

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|head)

Quote
BATON 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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?

Supply-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
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
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
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
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
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
^^^

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/misc/capslockor6.jpg)

Thanks. ;)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: codyg1985 on November 14, 2011, 07:47:00 AM
Quote
But 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

(http://i.imgur.com/QxwDs.jpg)

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
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 ...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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).

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.
http://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
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
Some photos of I-49's progress if anyone cares to go look.
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=79.325
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
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
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

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
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
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=

(http://i.imgur.com/TSDGu.jpg)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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" (http://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
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.
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
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
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 ...
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:

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
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?

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:

(http://i.imgur.com/YTpzc.jpg)
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
Quote
In 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
What freeway was torn down in Chattanooga?
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
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.

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
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??


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.

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
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

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
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
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
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
• 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.
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 (http://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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7281488882_d398c744e3_c.jpg)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7076/7281493478_6eba54e4f4_c.jpg)

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.

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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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.
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

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
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
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
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
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.

Quote
If 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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|head) 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.

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
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 (http://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:

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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[...]
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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
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):

(http://i.imgur.com/icsEP.jpg)

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
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.
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 (http://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
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
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
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.


Quote
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.

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


[...] 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


[...] 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
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
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

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
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

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
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.

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
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.

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.”
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:
(http://i.imgur.com/JKFZr.jpg)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE&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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
(http://i.imgur.com/LkHEt.jpg)
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
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
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
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."

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
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.

Quote
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.

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??


Quote
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.

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

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
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
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.

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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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):

(http://i.imgur.com/XVThxnB.jpg)

For comparison's sake, here is Alternative D (page 40/76 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/wrD6uQ1.jpg)

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
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
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
Quote
Clementine 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
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
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
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
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
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.



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
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):

(http://i.imgur.com/qwoXN9B.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/QeZpwr6.jpg)

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
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
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
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
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/2rjqsHJ.png)
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
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
^ 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
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
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.



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) ...
(http://i.imgur.com/QeZpwr6.jpg)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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.



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
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
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
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/snZ6H6X.jpg)

Here's how the interchange will look if the Inner City Connector is built:

(http://i.imgur.com/0ZA9Xgv.jpg)

And here's a look at the I-49/MLK interchange:

(http://i.imgur.com/9mqmFJP.jpg)



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:

(http://i.imgur.com/xHUGSfy.jpg)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on April 09, 2013, 05:05:24 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.



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
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
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.

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
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
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
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
<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
Freeways 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
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
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
<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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
I'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.

Quote
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.

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:

Quote
Regarding 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.

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ...

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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.



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.



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
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
here's a look at the I-49/MLK interchange:
(http://i.imgur.com/9mqmFJP.jpg)
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
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
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.
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).
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
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?
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
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
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):

(http://i.imgur.com/Dyq2CpU.png)

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
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/5NSyawa.png)

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.



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".
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)  (http://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
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.
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 (http://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:

(http://i.imgur.com/cAMIrXy.jpg)
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:

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2817/9462086992_c9cdccce26.jpg) (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

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5488/9462056206_7514cb8f53.jpg) (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

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7404/9462057628_7dff43a44d.jpg) (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
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. 

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OH/OH19673221i1.jpg)
(http://shields.aaroads.com/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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Could be greened out though, like I-41.

Or they could put plywood over it. lol.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JtliNJCivlg/SKFNJmaj8EI/AAAAAAAAAB8/nvKbTyBG-xc/s320/P1020858.JPG)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on August 25, 2013, 09:53:17 AM
Could be greened out though, like I-41.

Or they could put plywood over it. lol.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JtliNJCivlg/SKFNJmaj8EI/AAAAAAAAAB8/nvKbTyBG-xc/s320/P1020858.JPG)

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
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
Any word on if this will carry a temporary designation or I-49?
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
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
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
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
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/7JM8T9g.png)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: rte66man on October 02, 2013, 12:50:04 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:

(http://i.imgur.com/7JM8T9g.png)

$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
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/7JM8T9g.png)

$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
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
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
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
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.
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  (http://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
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?)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3784/10272254013_7fcb1e44d4.jpg) (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.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7345/10272146875_8cbc1cccc8.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272146875/)


Pillars for Mainline 49 lanes going up
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/10272142545_ab51b81d01.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272142545/)


Back to Southbound I-49 for these next 2:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7375/10272240373_e1582023c3.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/10272240373/)



(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2880/10272123486_8924155732.jpg) (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.



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:

(http://i.imgur.com/KCwidFE.jpg)

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
^ Thanks for the pics! It's great to see the progress.



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:

(http://i.imgur.com/KCwidFE.jpg)

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
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
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
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
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 (http://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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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
Quote
Regardless 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
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

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
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
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
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/pw2Fzkw.jpg)

Will they choose to Loop It? Time will tell .......

edit

An interesting aspect of this process is that, as previously discussed in this post (http://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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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.
(http://americanroadmagazine.com/forum/uploads/1311708984/gallery_13589_105_30550.gif)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: US71 on November 15, 2013, 05:25:52 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
"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
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
Despite the beginning of the environmental process for the I-10 bridge  (http://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
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
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:

(http://i.imgur.com/jCpEBd5.png)


edit

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:

(http://www.aaroads.com/images/i-049.gif)

http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr01.html
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: lamsalfl on November 26, 2013, 03:20:10 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
Well I know where they got the I-49 graphic in the background:

(http://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
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
Well I know where they got the I-49 graphic in the background:

(http://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
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
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

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5550/10927360195_e52e616779_z_d.jpg)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7351/10927409176_5d248a38c1_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2013, 09:37:24 AM
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
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.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3675/10927104705_975b524fda_z_d.jpg) :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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
This article (http://eunicetoday.com/bookmark/22968421-Projected-I-49-extension-cost-drops-160-million-toll-funding-still-discussed)
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
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
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
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.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2874/11516631243_d237a365a6.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516631243/)



(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7380/11516519994_76464fe562.jpg) (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)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5476/11516599276_260477750b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/11516599276/)


LA 1/US 71 just north of I-220 at LA 3194/MLKJr
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3806/11516514725_421fbb8bf6.jpg) (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.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7413/11516505435_ea55b3ef9d.jpg) (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
LA 1/US 71 just north of I-220 at LA 3194/MLKJr
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3806/11516514725_421fbb8bf6.jpg)[/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
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
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
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.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/9672465292_785ea29e49_c.jpg)

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
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
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
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.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/9672465292_785ea29e49_c.jpg)

Upthread:

New signs at 1 & 71 split. I bet this will still say to North I-49 even after it's completed southward.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7413/11516505435_ea55b3ef9d.jpg) (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
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
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
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 (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/dope-slap.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/)
Title: Re: I49 in LA
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 29, 2014, 03:14:27 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
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