I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Anthony_JK]

It has been a few years since I have driven I-20 through there, but last I remember it was in rough shape. Maybe my memory is losing me or it has been fixed since - but that is what I remember.

To your point about LA-3132, since the pavement is terrible on that road - fixing that should be a higher priority than the ICC. Maintenance and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, especially a road in that poor of shape.

If LADOT can't fund / fix that road, where is the money  coming from for I-49?

Funding for state maintained roadway maintanence is a separate till from Interstate funding and capacity improvements. The funding for finishing I-49 will come from state AND Federal funds, as well as a variety of other sources. LA 3132 is still a state-maintained highway, though it is part of the National Highway System; it would not qualify for Federal Interstate funds. 

Also, to upgrade it to Interstate standards to become an effective bypass I-49 will take more than just patching the pavement. The I-49/LA 3132 interchange would have to be modified to transfer the main traffic movements from I-49 to LA 3132. Then, the Inner Loop would have to be widened to 3x3; the Jewella Avenue interchange would have to be removed due to inadequate spacing from the I-49/Inner Loop interchange; and a below standard curve at the I-220 West/I-20 interchange would have to be adjusted and upgraded. That doesn't include the need to widen I-220 across Cross Lake AND the "urban boulevard" sought after by the LoopIt opponents.

[Anthony_JK]

Anthony, given that you seem to be in the know about the happenings in Louisiana what are the chances these people are able to derail this project?

Because I would really like to see it built, I would use it at least 3 to 4 times a year and this is coming from someone that lives in California.

I'd say much less now, since the FHWA has now completely nuked the "environmental justice" options for opposing highway projects and has "streamlined" the process such that challenges are far more likely to fail. Also, FHWA and the LADOTD have protected themselves well this time with having an extensive public comment and CSS process to develop refinements to better integrate their projects into the affected neighborhoods. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I do hope it is completed.

[Bobby5280]

Texas, on the other hand, has zero motivation to complete its 5-mile stretch of I-49, as it serves no real purpose in Texas, aside from connecting the adjoining sections in Arkansas. I would suspect that Texas might insist that Arkansas pay for part, if not all, of that short stretch of I-49 in Texas, based on the rationale that it really serves Arkansas and much less so, Texas.

Which is why I would not be surprised if Arkansas ultimately decided to leave that dead-end stub of I-49 at US-71 as is and then build a different branch a little to the East that made I-49 stay entirely inside Arkansas and bypass that corner of Texas completely. AR DOT may end up having to do that. Texas will never build its portion of I-49 using state funds. The whole notion of making I-49 clip that corner of Texas was idiotic to begin with. The route should have never been designed that way.

[bwana39]

Texas, on the other hand, has zero motivation to complete its 5-mile stretch of I-49, as it serves no real purpose in Texas, aside from connecting the adjoining sections in Arkansas. I would suspect that Texas might insist that Arkansas pay for part, if not all, of that short stretch of I-49 in Texas, based on the rationale that it really serves Arkansas and much less so, Texas.

Which is why I would not be surprised if Arkansas ultimately decided to leave that dead-end stub of I-49 at US-71 as is and then build a different branch a little to the East that made I-49 stay entirely inside Arkansas and bypass that corner of Texas completely. AR DOT may end up having to do that. Texas will never build its portion of I-49 using state funds. The whole notion of making I-49 clip that corner of Texas was idiotic to begin with. The route should have never been designed that way.

Your premise that Texas will not pay is wrong. Like I have said before the existing US-71 bridges both are technically ALL in Arkansas. The older (southbound bridge) was paid for by Arkansas donation their portion of the state part "in-kind": the ROW. Texas paid for their portion. This bridge leaves Bowie County Texas and lands in Little River County Arkansas.  The newer northbound was paid using a newer model. It leaves Miller County AR and lands in Little River County Ar. texas paid their half of both the federal and state funds .   BTW, you added on to  and paraphrased the unlinked quote.

Texas owns the I-49 ROW already.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14100.0

I still believe that the TX part will be the last to get finished, if not the two parts in LA (Lafayette-New Orleans and the ICC in Shreveport).

The Texas part (all 7 miles of it) is waiting for Arkansas. Texas is gun-shy. Arkansas seems to build out stuff along the line different than what was previously (informally) agreed on with the other state (both Texas and Louisiana.) When Arkansas finalizes the Ashdown to DeQueen route, it might be ready for Texas to start.  The latest (7-8 years ago) discussion is a greenfield route that is closer to Horatio and farther from Lockesburg. The Red River crossing SEEMS to be set at or near the same crossing location from the 1980's.

I've even heard people say that Texas just wanted to claim another interstate no matter how short the distance. That doesn't sound right to me.

It doesn't sound right and just doesn't make any logical sense at all. If the Texas government was really interested in having more Interstate routes as a bragging item, no matter how short the length, then there would be a whole lot of super highways throughout Texas signed as Interstate routes rather than as mere state highways.

I-69 and I-14 are new Interstate routes in Texas, but I would argue they're exceptions to a larger trend of Texas choosing not to sign freeways and toll roads as Interstates.

Twenty plus years ago the crossing was decided. It was kept there in spite of the loop part being on the east side as opposed to the west that had been seemingly decided to be decades ago.

Halfsies? Texas would wish. I have said this before. The US-59/71 bridges at index the first one was from Texas to Arkansas. Arkansas provided ROW. Texas had all the other in-kind expense. The second bridge started in Arkansas and ended in Arkansas. Texas paid half or more of the in-kind money.  I imagine it will fall on Texas for a majority of the in-kind money for the crossing and half of the federal dollars (the earlier federal dollars were targeted.)

While it does cross into Texas, There is little value or prestige in it.  As to I-14 it is purely about Fort Hood. I-69 was congressionally mandated even down to the inane numbering of E, W, & C

For what it is worth, I could see Arkansas doing this because they want to usurp Texas any way they can even if it costs them LOTS of extra money.

[Bobby5280]

Your premise that Texas will not pay is wrong. Like I have said before the existing US-71 bridges both are technically ALL in Arkansas.

Unless something has changed recently, the existing US-71 bridges over the Arkansas River haven't been included in the proposed I-49 alignment from Texarkana to Ashdown. I-49 would have a completely new crossing around a mile or so West from the existing US-71 bridges.

[PColumbus73]

Agreed, the way I understood it, Arkansas wanted to go halfsies with Texas on a new alignment bridge.

[Anthony_JK]

Wasn't the original idea for the routing of I-49 at the Red River crossing to accommodate a possible far west Texarkana bypass that would serve the Tex-Americas (sp?) industrial Park and provide a more direct connection between I-49 north of TRK and I-369?? 

[bwana39]

Your premise that Texas will not pay is wrong. Like I have said before the existing US-71 bridges both are technically ALL in Arkansas.

Unless something has changed recently, the existing US-71 bridges over the Arkansas River haven't been included in the proposed I-49 alignment from Texarkana to Ashdown. I-49 would have a completely new crossing around a mile or so West from the existing US-71 bridges.

You are correct. The new bridge facility would be around FIVE miles to the west.  My point was that Texas has and continues to pay their part and more on these bridges between Texas and Arkansas. Texas is not the problem in any delays my friend. If Arkansas would have a plan, Texas would get into gear. Texas cannot do this until Arkansas formally commits. They burned us with the existing south / west loop in the 90's

Wasn't the original idea for the routing of I-49 at the Red River crossing to accommodate a possible far west Texarkana bypass that would serve the Tex-Americas (sp?) industrial Park and provide a more direct connection between I-49 north of TRK and I-369??

Kinda, sort of.  It actually was to go directly north from The current intersection of I-369 and I-30 and go to (roughly) the same  crossing that is still in the plans today.  The (far) west loop is a more recent idea, but the local power structure wants I-369 to come to the existing loop before they openly talk about the direct I-369 / I-49 connector north (west) of town.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14100.75

[bwana39]

It has been a few years since I have driven I-20 through there, but last I remember it was in rough shape. Maybe my memory is losing me or it has been fixed since - but that is what I remember.

To your point about LA-3132, since the pavement is terrible on that road - fixing that should be a higher priority than the ICC. Maintenance and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, especially a road in that poor of shape.

If LADOT can't fund / fix that road, where is the money  coming from for I-49?

YOu are probably talking about Bossier City. (Shreveport and Bossier are a twin city... the river separates them).The original 1960's / 1970's roadbed was completely replaced over the past 3 or 4 years. I give you, I-20 has a low priority with Baton ROuge.

[ElishaGOtis]

I'd place my bets on the [REDACTED] Bridge getting rebuilt before we get an alternative announced for I-49

/s

But even still... has anything been announced?

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't know why, but I feel like it shouldn't be hard for Louisiana to build freeways unlike a state like California or Massachusetts or New York.

[sprjus4]

I don't know why, but I feel like it shouldn't be hard for Louisiana to build freeways unlike a state like California or Massachusetts or New York.

High cost, no money, low need.

In a perfect world with a pot of money, it would be built with no issues yesterday.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't know why, but I feel like it shouldn't be hard for Louisiana to build freeways unlike a state like California or Massachusetts or New York.

High cost, no money, low need.

In a perfect world with a pot of money, it would be built with no issues yesterday.

I mean, some people feel differently. If that's truly the case, then why is it even being considered at all? These studies are not free.

[sprjus4]

I don't know why, but I feel like it shouldn't be hard for Louisiana to build freeways unlike a state like California or Massachusetts or New York.

High cost, no money, low need.

In a perfect world with a pot of money, it would be built with no issues yesterday.

I mean, some people feel differently. If that's truly the case, then why is it even being considered at all? These studies are not free.

I said "low need", not "no need". If some people feeling differently was truly the case, then why hasn't it been built at all?

High cost, no money, low need

[bwana39]

https://www.ksla.com/2026/04/08/i-49-inner-city-connector-route-decision-expected-by-end-2026/

Months ago it was by December (the end of) 2025.....


SHREVEPORT, La. (KSLA) - The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development says a confirmed route for the I-49 Inner City Connector project could be determined by the end of 2026.

Developers for the Inner City Connector project have been trying to figure out how to connect I-49 at the I-20 interchange with I-49 near I-220.

After years of environmental studies, DOTD says this year might be the year for a confirmed route.

"All of those entities are working together to get this project to reach a point of reaching a record of decision. The goal of reaching that rod is the end of 2026, which would determine the route the inter-city connector will be," said Erin Buchanan, public information officer for DOTD.

[The Ghostbuster]

Even if the route is approved (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be), how long until construction on it would begin?

[CtrlAltDel]

https://www.ksla.com/2026/04/08/i-49-inner-city-connector-route-decision-expected-by-end-2026/

Months ago it was by December (the end of) 2025.....


SHREVEPORT, La. (KSLA) - The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development says a confirmed route for the I-49 Inner City Connector project could be determined by the end of 2026.

Developers for the Inner City Connector project have been trying to figure out how to connect I-49 at the I-20 interchange with I-49 near I-220.

After years of environmental studies, DOTD says this year might be the year for a confirmed route.

Oh, jeez.

[Plutonic Panda]

Hopefully, they choose the logical path the straight one. And build it sooner rather than later.

[ElishaGOtis]

https://www.ksla.com/2026/04/08/i-49-inner-city-connector-route-decision-expected-by-end-2026/

Months ago it was by December (the end of) 2025.....


SHREVEPORT, La. (KSLA) - The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development says a confirmed route for the I-49 Inner City Connector project could be determined by the end of 2026.

Developers for the Inner City Connector project have been trying to figure out how to connect I-49 at the I-20 interchange with I-49 near I-220.

After years of environmental studies, DOTD says this year might be the year for a confirmed route.

"All of those entities are working together to get this project to reach a point of reaching a record of decision. The goal of reaching that rod is the end of 2026, which would determine the route the inter-city connector will be," said Erin Buchanan, public information officer for DOTD.

I'd place my bets on the [REDACTED] Bridge getting rebuilt before we get an alternative announced for I-49

/s

Gosh dangit I didn't expect to actually be right  (I'm not lmao, that thing won't be rebuilt until at least 2032 imho, but still... ).

HOWEVER, there could be a chance that GTA VI comes out before it   

I wonder if they're intentionally waiting until after the midterm elections?

[bwana39]

https://710keel.com/shreveport-i49-connector-update/

The governor just giving lip service?

btw While this is not in Speaker Johnson's 4th Congressional district. His district basically surrounds it. It is in the 6th.  This is at home for the speaker and realistically affects his district as much or more.  Seems like Baton Rouge is giving a bone for Northwest LA so that congress would seemingly send other funds south?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File:Louisiana_Congressional_Districts,_119th_Congress.svg

[Anthony_JK]

I'm thinking more that Gov Landry sees I-49 as the #1 priority for Federal funding as a package deal, both the ICC and the I-49 South/Lafayette Connector segments as one unit. But, Speaker Johnson probably needs something to deliver to the locals as well.

Shreveport was snatched from the 5th Congressional District to form the northern part of the 6th District, which runs all the way from there through Alexandria to Opelousas to Baton Rouge. It was created to develop a second Black-majority district for Louisiana. It is currently being challenged by a lawsuit that is currently before the US Supreme Court, but a ruling will come too late to affect the midterms this year. Cleo Fields, I believe, is the rep for LA-06, though feel free to correct me if I goofed.