I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Life in Paradise]

I'm not in this thread much, so this may have an answered, why is looping it such a bad idea? 

The west end of I-220 goes over Cross Lake, which is a major source of drinking water for Shreveport.  This would cause problems if there were to be a fuel spill or major accident.  LA 3132 isn't currently interstate-compatible, and would have to be upgraded.  It would likely cost more to do that than the construction of the ICC on I-49.

I-220 is also designated as a I-20 bypass route, and carries a lot of local traffic as well. Constructing I-49 doesn't eliminate the issue of Cross Lake.

LA-3132 is virtually interstate standards, minor upgrades may be required but in no way would it equal or exceed the cost of a new urban interstate highway.

Might have to change exit ramps from I-49 to the new route to show continuity, make the current stretch of I-49 downtown to perhaps I-149, order up new mileage signs for the rest of the way north (or wait until they make I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans on US 90's route and do the entire thing at once).

[bwana39]

I'm not in this thread much, so this may have an answered, why is looping it such a bad idea? 

Bottom line is that the cross country element of I-49 is not significantly improved by the completion of the ICC> Capacity of I-220 (and to a lesser extent LA-3132) is pretty well maxxed out. By itself, expanding the cross lake bridge on I-220 would cost more than the entire ICC.

The real issue is the ICC as a local transportation item. Downtown Shreveport needs access from North Bossier. Airline  Drive and Benton Road are both slammed. Market Street is not as busy, but still not ideal. The connector is needed to keep downtown Shreveport (and resultantly Shreveport as a whole) relevant.

[bwana39]

I'm not in this thread much, so this may have an answered, why is looping it such a bad idea? 

The west end of I-220 goes over Cross Lake, which is a major source of drinking water for Shreveport.  This would cause problems if there were to be a fuel spill or major accident.  LA 3132 isn't currently interstate-compatible, and would have to be upgraded.  It would likely cost more to do that than the construction of the ICC on I-49.

I-220 is also designated as a I-20 bypass route, and carries a lot of local traffic as well. Constructing I-49 doesn't eliminate the issue of Cross Lake.

LA-3132 is virtually interstate standards, minor upgrades may be required but in no way would it equal or exceed the cost of a new urban interstate highway.

Might have to change exit ramps from I-49 to the new route to show continuity, make the current stretch of I-49 downtown to perhaps I-149, order up new mileage signs for the rest of the way north (or wait until they make I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans on US 90's route and do the entire thing at once).

The entirety of LA-3132 would have to be repaved and hard shoulders added. This needs done anyway, but.... The Jewella and Mansfield road intersections would have to be redone. The curve just south of Mansfield road is too sharp and would have to be rejiggered.  The intersection with I-20 has really bad geometry. There is a 45 mph element in the through movement from I-200 SB to LA-3132 SB. While it is not prohibitive and as a (mostly) no build / upgrade (but not expand) solution it would likely be less expensive than any ICC options.

[abqtraveler]

I'm not in this thread much, so this may have an answered, why is looping it such a bad idea? 

The west end of I-220 goes over Cross Lake, which is a major source of drinking water for Shreveport.  This would cause problems if there were to be a fuel spill or major accident.  LA 3132 isn't currently interstate-compatible, and would have to be upgraded.  It would likely cost more to do that than the construction of the ICC on I-49.

The I-220/LA-3132 loop is already functioning as the "missing link" of I-49, so the concerns about a fuel spill or major accident impacting Cross lake are moot. The biggest challenges (and expenses) would be re-configuring the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 interchange to straighten the I-220/LA-3132 mainline going through the interchange, and re-configuring the I-49/LA-3132 stack to expand the N-W and E-S ramps to at least 2 lanes, thus allowing the primary through movements with a 70 mph design speed, and braiding those ramps with the Linwood Avenue ramps immediately to the west.

[Anthony_JK]

The "alternative" temporary routing for I-49 from north to south uses I-220 to I-20 east to the current I-49 terminus. LA 3132 is not routed as an I-49 bypass, because it is not fully Interstate standard. Upgrading it to be so would require a third lane in either direction through the Cross Lake segment; removing the non-standard curve north of the I-220/I-20/LA 3132 interchange, completely rebuilding the I-49/LA 3132 interchange south of downtown to adjust the through traffic movements, eliminating the 3132/Jewella Avenue interchange due to inadequate interchange spacing, and possibly even adding an additional lane onto the entireity of 3132. Plus, the existing segment of I-49 between I-220 and I-20 would have to be removed from the Interstate system and possibly reverted to the city for maintenance. 

The LA 3132 bypass already serves its purpose as an access route to the outskirts of southern/western Shreveport and as a convenient cutoff for traffic between NOLA and points east to DFW and points west. The ICC serves to provide direct access to downtown Shreveport from the south, north and northwest and to fill in the short gap between I-49's coterminus segments. It is more than worth the cost of construction.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 220 and LA 3132 may still need upgrades in the future, even though Interstate 49 between Interstate 20 and 220 will likely be completed.

[Henry]

Any news from tonight's meeting on what the final alignment will be for the Shreveport ICC?

[mgk920]

I'm not in this thread much, so this may have an answered, why is looping it such a bad idea? 

The west end of I-220 goes over Cross Lake, which is a major source of drinking water for Shreveport.  This would cause problems if there were to be a fuel spill or major accident.  LA 3132 isn't currently interstate-compatible, and would have to be upgraded.  It would likely cost more to do that than the construction of the ICC on I-49.

And also involve a LOT of backtracking.

Mike

[bwana39]

I'm not in this thread much, so this may have an answered, why is looping it such a bad idea? 

The west end of I-220 goes over Cross Lake, which is a major source of drinking water for Shreveport.  This would cause problems if there were to be a fuel spill or major accident.  LA 3132 isn't currently interstate-compatible, and would have to be upgraded.  It would likely cost more to do that than the construction of the ICC on I-49.

And also involve a LOT of backtracking.

Mike

The only real backtracking is following the " Interstate route"; IE I-49 to I-20 to I-220 to I-49 and vice versa. LA-3132 doesn't add that much as mileage goes over the ICC .(around 4 miles)

The real issue is access to downtown Shreveport and the capacity of I-220. When (if) I-69 gets to I-49, there should be a volume increase. It is thought I-69 will reach Shreveport form the south DECADES before any additional northern parts. I-49 would be the route north for the foreseeable future,

The distances from I-49 @LA-3132 to I-220 at I-49 as follows.
LA-3132 and I-220 are about 15 miles.
I-49, I-20, and I-220 are about 21 miles
Using the ICC it will be 10 or 11 miles.

[silverback1065]

I don't see 69 ever coming to Louisiana. They have so many road needs that are more important than 69.

[PColumbus73]

I'm inclined to agree with routing I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220.

If the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is already 'maxxed out', then that would assume it would be due for a replacement or twinning anyway.

I'm not familiar with LADOTD's budgets, but I've seen complaints about the state's aging infrastructure, particularly with I-10 across the Atchafalaya Basin. If the state is struggling to maintain and upgrade their existing system, maybe deferring the ICC in the short-to-medium term might be in the state's best interest to not add additional mileage that they would have to maintain.

[sprjus4]

Everyone is saying LA-3132 would need to be upgraded if I-49 was routed along it... the road is in bad shape, it needs to be upgraded and improved regardless. The interstate designation should not be the reason. It's in terrible shape.

[silverback1065]

US 90 over the Pearl River needs to be fixed too. Lot's of needs all over the state.

[bwana39]

I don't see 69 ever coming to Louisiana. They have so many road needs that are more important than 69.

I see it getting to I-49 and Maybe as far as US-71. To I-49 could be a little as 14 miles. The folks at the port are pressing for the connector from I-49 to LA-1 and perhaps across the red river to US-71.

On the other hand, anything north of I-20 is at least 50 years away.

Louisiana freeways as a whole are about evacuating south Louisiana from a hurricane. I-69 does little to nothing for that. I have said it before the US-425 corridor holds far more utility for LA than teh US-79 corridor.

[bwana39]

If the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is already 'maxxed out', then that would assume it would be due for a replacement or twinning anyway.

Getting the ICC completed would take a lot of traffic off of the Cross Lake Bridge.  It has another 30 or 40 years of utility if the capacity can be balanced out. Of all the places in LA Cross Lake is the one that getting a clean IES would be seemingly hardest.

[mgk920]

Also, I-20 through Shreveport, LA is badly in need of repaving.

Mike

[Plutonic Panda]

Also, I-20 through Shreveport, LA is badly in need of repaving.

Mike

I streetviewed Shreveport not long and holy cow that city needs investment on its infrastructure. Is Louisiana aware that they have a city called Shreveport within the state lines?

[bwana39]

Also, I-20 through Shreveport, LA is badly in need of repaving.

Mike

I streetviewed Shreveport not long and holy cow that city needs investment on its infrastructure. Is Louisiana aware that they have a city called Shreveport within the state lines?

I-20 just is finishing up reconstruction in Bossier City. Most of it in Shreveport is less than 30 years old (good by LA standards)  Shreveport is not on the radar in Baton Rouge. A candidate for LA Governor came to shreveport about 25 years ago. Part of his spiel was that he  (as opposed to most of south Louisianians) did not think that Shreveport was a part of Texas! 

Again I-20 does (virtually) nothing to evacuate south Louisiana in a Hurricane.

Shreveport proper is poor, black majority, and in a population freefall.