I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Strider]

Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

The Alternate 5/"Loop It" proposal has variants for rebuilding the Inner Loop as is (2x2), and adding a third lane in either direction (3x3). There would still be a problem with the Jewella Avenue interchange with LA 3132 having to be removed due to spacing issues with the reworking of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange which would be required to switch the through traffic movements for I-49 onto the Inner Loop rather than continuing straight as currently done.

Plenty of interstates exit by themselves to continue the routing. That is not going to be an issue unless YOU don't like interstates exiting by itself.

[sprjus4]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

[Anthony_JK]

Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

The Alternate 5/"Loop It" proposal has variants for rebuilding the Inner Loop as is (2x2), and adding a third lane in either direction (3x3). There would still be a problem with the Jewella Avenue interchange with LA 3132 having to be removed due to spacing issues with the reworking of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange which would be required to switch the through traffic movements for I-49 onto the Inner Loop rather than continuing straight as currently done.

Plenty of interstates exit by themselves to continue the routing. That is not going to be an issue unless YOU don't like interstates exiting by itself.

Sure, but do "plenty of Interstates" bottleneck down to one lane when exiting themselves? The modifications to the I-49/Inner Loop interchange are necessary for Alt. 5 both for maintaining continuity should I-49 be shifted over to the Inner Loop/I-220 routing, and to maintain 2 lanes in either direction.

It's not my call whether TOTSO exits are good or bad. Got an issue with LADOTD/FHWA design specs just because you personally don't like freeways closer to downtown areas? Take it up with them. (https://www.i49shreveport.com) I don't make the rules.


moto g power (2022)

[Anthony_JK]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

[bwana39]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

There are three keys to why the ICC needs to be built from a local perspective.

1) More efficient movement of traffic from North of I-220 to Downtown Shreveport and points south of I-20. Shreveport wants the have a vital downtown. As workers move further away (primarily North Bossier City), there needs to be a better transit option.
2) Reduce traffic load @ the Red River on I-20
3) Have a clear divider between Allendale and Downtown.

Roadgeeks seem opposed to this road because they are only looking at it for its utility as a route from I-49 south of LA-3132 to I-49 north of I-220. Is the 4 or 5 miles closer, really that big a deal? Not really.  Yes, for those driving cross country, it has little utility. I suspect that when I-49 is completed a large share would continue to follow LA-3132 ESPECIALLY if they made it  a little smoother.

[mgk920]

How did Caltrans manage to do their still U.C. Westside Parkway (CA 58) freeway through that well-established post-WWII neighborhood in Bakersfield,CA?

Mike

[vdeane]

Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

The Alternate 5/"Loop It" proposal has variants for rebuilding the Inner Loop as is (2x2), and adding a third lane in either direction (3x3). There would still be a problem with the Jewella Avenue interchange with LA 3132 having to be removed due to spacing issues with the reworking of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange which would be required to switch the through traffic movements for I-49 onto the Inner Loop rather than continuing straight as currently done.

Plenty of interstates exit by themselves to continue the routing. That is not going to be an issue unless YOU don't like interstates exiting by itself.

Sure, but do "plenty of Interstates" bottleneck down to one lane when exiting themselves? The modifications to the I-49/Inner Loop interchange are necessary for Alt. 5 both for maintaining continuity should I-49 be shifted over to the Inner Loop/I-220 routing, and to maintain 2 lanes in either direction.

It's not my call whether TOTSO exits are good or bad. Got an issue with LADOTD/FHWA design specs just because you personally don't like freeways closer to downtown areas? Take it up with them. (https://www.i49shreveport.com) I don't make the rules.


moto g power (2022)

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp, I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

[The Ghostbuster]

That interchange reconfiguration happened in a relatively rural location. There's no way you could build such a reconfiguration of the Interstate 49/LA 3132 interchange in an urban location like Shreveport. I believe the Inner-City Connector will be constructed eventually.

[bwana39]

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp, I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

[Rothman]

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp, I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

"I'm not an ambi-turner!"

[bwana39]

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp, I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

"I'm not an ambi-turner!"

These intersections after they are changed seem to me as stay left to go right / go (merge?) right to go straight / and from a driving (as opposed to traveling) viewpoint turn off the the prevalent traffic pattern to remain in that traffic pattern. I-635 is CLEARLY the prevalent traffic pattern there. I would assume many of the others are as well. The I-20 east of this is almost immediately a rural freeway. US-80 carries more traffic to Forney than I-20 does.

[Strider]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption? 

[Rothman]

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp, I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

"I'm not an ambi-turner!"

These intersections after they are changed seem to me as stay left to go right / go (merge?) right to go straight / and from a driving (as opposed to traveling) viewpoint turn off the the prevalent traffic pattern to remain in that traffic pattern. I-635 is CLEARLY the prevalent traffic pattern there. I would assume many of the others are as well. The I-20 east of this is almost immediately a rural freeway. US-80 carries more traffic to Forney than I-20 does.

Just read the signs.

[Anthony_JK]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

[Strider]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

So in other words, you don't have a proof.

[Anthony_JK]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

So in other words, you don't have a proof.

And you don't have an argument worthy of proof.

If you don't want I-49 routed through the ICC, just say so and bring something a tad more substantial than self-absorbed assumptions and weak arguments to the debate.

We will all see what will happen in the final process.


moto g power (2022)

[bwana39]

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

So in other words, you don't have a proof.

And you don't have an argument worthy of proof.

If you don't want I-49 routed through the ICC, just say so and bring something a tad more substantial than self-absorbed assumptions and weak arguments to the debate.

We will all see what will happen in the final process.


moto g power (2022)

From being in Shreveport at least 4 days in every week for the past ten years and living in the media market for all of it. I agree with Anthony.   It appears that the opposition group in Allendale is a small group of Katrina refugees and some againers (those who are against anything and everything) from around Shreveport with the support of urbanists from outside of Shreveport.

[Anthony_JK]

Obviously, I don't live in Shreveport (my residence is near Opelousas), but I have followed the drama of routing I-49 through Shreveport even since the days of the North-South Expressway proposals of the late 1970's. And, my takes on routing freeways close as possible to downtown centers while focusing on mitigating the negative impacts on abutting neighborhoods have been open and transparent here on this forum from the day I joined. Don't even have to agree with me on this or anything else I say here; but at least I back up my opinions and can defend them. And, I can acknowledge when I am wrong and adjust accordingly. Debates make a forum thrive, as long as we keep it cordial and respectful.

[Dave H]

Interesting video on I-49

https://youtu.be/3It8GOsq5RE

[silverback1065]

Interesting video on I-49

https://youtu.be/3It8GOsq5RE

That guys channel is cool, highly recommend it! I wonder if he is on this board too. 

[DJStephens]

a discussion on "mileage mikes" channel would have been helpful, most specifically the "delays" in getting the I-49 ICC section done.   In other words, why on earth didn't they do it first, meaning the small urban section, when the funds were "transferred" to I-49 from cancelled NOLA expressways initially?   

[Anthony_JK]

a discussion on "mileage mikes" channel would have been helpful, most specifically the "delays" in getting the I-49 ICC section done.   In other words, why on earth didn't they do it first, meaning the small urban section, when the funds were "transferred" to I-49 from cancelled NOLA expressways initially?   

At that time, the focus was on completing I-49 between Lafayette and Shreveport. Since opposition from Allendale was pretty strong back then and the segment from I-220 north was still just a concept, LADOTD decided to punt on constructing I-49 north of I-20, save for the Allen Avenue-Pete Harris Drive couplet connection.

It should be noted that Mileage Mike's vid discusses the entirety of the I-49 extension, from the (still needed) Bruce Watkins Drive upgrade in KC to I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans.


moto g power (2022)

[Bobby5280]

The Bruce Watkins Drive situation is just baffling stupid. The signaled intersections along US-71 are rated among the most dangerous and crash-prone in Missouri. I guess the court prefers risking the lives of motorists or at the very least contributing to a lot of traffic collisions.

None of that wide median strip is park land (apparently MO DOT owns it). Limited access overpasses (or underpasses) for Gregory Blvd, 59th Street and 55th Street would do nothing to harm the adjacent neighborhoods. The limited access crossings nearby, Meyer Blvd in particular, have connecting sidewalks and even some beautification features. All of the business store fronts near US-71 are NOT facing the highway. They're facing Prospect Avenue. So a freeway upgrade would NOT affect them.

The stone-walling to upgrade the last non-freeway segments of Bruce Watkins Drive is only an example of some people being festering, infected assholes just to be that way. Middle fingers to them.

The Allendale situation in Shreveport is almost as stupid. The "Renaissance at Allendale" apartment complex was literally built to try to block the proposed I-49 extension. We'll see how that goes. Over in Dallas in the not too distant future that whole Embree Hill/Lake Village West Apartments complex as well as a bunch of houses South of it are going to be removed for the extension of the GHW Bush Turnpike South of I-30. Those folks knew the turnpike would eventually be extended. When that happens it will be an example for the anti-freeway crowd in Shreveport.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Bruce Watkins Drive corridor has a court order preventing those intersections from being converted to interchanges and extending the Interstate 49 designation to Interstates 70/670. The Allendale corridor does not have a court order (at least not yet) and it would not be wise to give them any such ideas (I hope none of them read this forum).

[Anthony_JK]

The BWD is covered by a consent decree signed and approved by a federal district judge which blocks any attempt to close the freeway gap there. It can be renegotiated but would require a new agreement between the state and the city, along with the community leaders there, to modify the decree to allow construction of the remaining elements of the freeway. The locals and the city government, however, seem to be happy with the status quo; so until there is some serious movement, I-49 will terminate at the Grandview Triangle. For now.