I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Henry]

You want to meet the opposition, here they are: https://allendalestrong.org/.

And on its front page is this video (then again, NIMBYism has existed for many decades):

[Anthony_JK]

So...the LoopIt group ("Allendale Strong", my ASS!!) wants to build a surface-level "urban boulevard" similar to the Evangeline Thruway "urban boulevard" conversion proposed in the I-49 Lafayette Connector project, but make no changes whatsoever to I-220 or LA 3132/Inner Loop other than signing them as I-49 to "bypass" Allendale and the CBD.

Never mind that the 3A alignment resolves the issue of severing Allendale and SWEPCO Park by swerving east of those areas, or that signing I-49 through I-220/Inner Loop will not only require major upgrades and encounter potential 4(f) issues even worse than passing through Allendale (because Cross Lake is an aquifer for Shreveport's drinking water supply and the Inner Loop is NOT quite Interstate grade), but will remove existing I-49 between I-20 and LA 3132 from the NHS with no chargeable replacement. What designation replaces that segment?? I-249?? I-120?? US 171?? With the state taking over maintinance from the Feds??

The rest is just the usual bullshit about "freeways destroying inner cities" that does not allow for processes to better incorporate and integrate the highway into the surrounding spaces, such as what is being done in Lafayette.

[sprjus4]

It's still far more direct than routing I-49 over onto I-220.

I-220 adds approximately 4 miles over the proposed ICC routing for around $1 billion less.

I-49 north of Texarkana carries around 10,000 AADT

[Anthony_JK]

That's only if no improvements are done to I-220 and the Inner Loop to accommodate the additional traffic, and with no "urban boulevard" constructed. Plus, you lose the direct access from I-49 North to the CBD that is currently routed through Market Street from the north. Also, what if completing the ICC increases ADT for I-49 traffic from Texarkana to Shreveport, and then the rest of I-49 is completed to Fort Smith?? The $1B price tag is worth the benefits here.

[sprjus4]

That's only if no improvements are done to I-220 and the Inner Loop to accommodate the additional traffic

What additional traffic? I-49 through traffic is already using that route.

Also, what if completing the ICC increases ADT for I-49 traffic from Texarkana to Shreveport

Why would completing this lead to that? I-49 is already completed north and south of Shreveport, and there is an interstate-grade bypass around Shreveport.

[and then the rest of I-49 is completed to Fort Smith??

Maybe in 50 years.

The $1B price tag is worth the benefits here.

Louisiana highways have a lot of issues and money constraints. I-20 through Downtown Shreveport is in absolute terrible state. I-10 around Baton Rouge and the 20 mile bridge is an absolute mess traffic-wise. Billions of dollars of needs in the state. Not the money to do so. There's even the wish of I-49 South being built through Lafayette, which doesn't have a bypass like Shreveport.

And spending $1 billion on a 3 mile connector to carry 20,000 vehicles a day and shave off a minute on through trips is worth it over those? That's an interesting choice.

I'm not against the idea of the ICC per se, but the high brings the benefits into question.

[PColumbus73]

It kind of reminds me a little of South Carolina and the whole issue with I-73. South Carolina has a huge backlog of needs they're finally getting around to, including widening I-26, I-85, the reconstruction of the I-20/26 interchange, and finally getting started on widening I-95 near Georgia. For better or worse, I-73 is not on SC's table at the moment.

If Louisiana's transportation budget and backlog is anything similar to South Carolina's I would agree that Louisiana would be better off spending $1 Billion on other aforementioned projects.

This is not to say that the merits aren't there for connecting straight through. But stating that I-49 can't be routed over I-220 because of the aquifer at Cross Lake is kind of irrelevant since I-220 already exists across the same lake. Furthermore, if the I-220 bridge needs repair and upgrades in the future, it doesn't matter whether I-49 is routed over top of it either way.

I think a compromise could be to establish a Business 49 from Exit 215 / LA 1 down US 71 / Market St and meet with the existing I-20/49 interchange. Rebuild Market St with better access management and synchronized signals on Market St leading into downtown, then route I-49 onto I-220/LA 3132.

Compared to I-73, the Shreveport gap should be relatively easy to connect with existing highways, even an ugly jog on I-20/220, and maybe rebrand LA 3132 as LA X49. Then, if a fully connected I-49 generates the AADTs northbound, it might create more political incentive to push for the ICC.

[bwana39]

Swepco Park....


Around 20 years ago, the city of Shreveport bought and tore down a significant number of Shotgun Shacks (both here and over near Common street). When you heard them talk about "The Bottoms" this is generally the place they were talking about. There are no significant facilities. It is literally about 5 acres that is shredded a couple of times each summer.  It is used a good bit because there is no requirement for a deposit, fee, or even a reservation like most (all?) of the other parks that SPAR operates for a large group gathering.  "Swepco Park" seems like a great place to an outsider, but really is just something the Allendale Strong folks put on their list of "losses."

Most of the affected part of Allendale except a 4 block x 4 block section (around Buena Vista st) are pretty substandard (decrepit) . Alendale Strong is a group of New Orleans transplants (who honestly talk more about Claiborne Avenue (in NOLA) than Allendale) and are being "advised" by a couple of New Englanders who previously were teachers at University of Louisiana and at McNeese. 



As to the "

This is not to say that the merits aren't there for connecting straight through. But stating that I-49 can't be routed over I-220 because of the aquifer at Cross Lake is kind of irrelevant since I-220 already exists across the same lake. Furthermore, if the I-220 bridge needs repair and upgrades in the future, it doesn't matter whether I-49 is routed over top of it either way.

The point is not about the routing. It is about expanding. Expanding the bridge would be an environmental issue.  To carry significant additional traffic would necessitate an expansion. In all likelihood, I-69 will reach I-49 well before I-369 reaches Texarkana. Being from Texarkana (more or less) I want I-369 completed, but I-69 (US-59) near Woods in Panola County Tx is only 35 miles from I-49 near Stonewall. Less than 20 miles for Louisiana to build.

[Anthony_JK]

The I-49 Lafayette Connector costs $1.5 billion for 5 miles of freeway. You want to tell the people in Lafayette that struggle through the Evangeline Thruway that they should wait another 50 years?? $1B for a 4-mile connector that opens up access to downtown Shreveport from the north and delivers a direct path for traffic from the heart of Shreveport to access the CBD is indeed worth the cost.

LADOTD directs I-49 traffic to use I-220 to I-20 to the existing northern terminus of I-49, not LA 3132. That is because the Inner Loop is NOT Interstate standard even if it is full freeway, and to make it such that it could be used as I-49 would require extensive improvements to it AND to I-220 crossing Cross Lake. And that's before you consider the additional tacked on cost of the "urban boulevard" that Allendale Strong wants.

[Anthony_JK]

Swepco Park....


Around 20 years ago, the city of Shreveport bought and tore down a significant number of Shotgun Shacks (both here and over near Common street). When you heard them talk about "The Bottoms" this is generally the place they were talking about. There are no significant facilities. It is literally about 5 acres that is shredded a couple of times each summer.  It is used a good bit because there is no requirement for a deposit, fee, or even a reservation like most (all?) of the other parks that SPAR operates for a large group gathering.  "Swepco Park" seems like a great place to an outsider, but really is just something the Allendale Strong folks put on their list of "losses."

Most of the affected part of Allendale except a 4 block x 4 block section (around Buena Vista st) are pretty substandard (decrepit) . Alendale Strong is a group of New Orleans transplants (who honestly talk more about Claiborne Avenue (in NOLA) than Allendale) and are being "advised" by a couple of New Englanders who previously were teachers at University of Louisiana and at McNeese. 



As to the "

This is not to say that the merits aren't there for connecting straight through. But stating that I-49 can't be routed over I-220 because of the aquifer at Cross Lake is kind of irrelevant since I-220 already exists across the same lake. Furthermore, if the I-220 bridge needs repair and upgrades in the future, it doesn't matter whether I-49 is routed over top of it either way.

The point is not about the routing. It is about expanding. Expanding the bridge would be an environmental issue.  To carry significant additional traffic would necessitate an expansion. In all likelihood, I-69 will reach I-49 well before I-369 reaches Texarkana. Being from Texarkana (more or less) I want I-369 completed, but I-69 (US-59) near Woods in Panola County Tx is only 35 miles from I-49 near Stonewall. Less than 20 miles for Louisiana to build.

Let me guess who those "teachers" are: Michael Walden and his wife, Ann Burriss, who have been the primary leaders of the opposition to the Lafayette Connector?? If I recall correctly, both of them were involved in a letter to then Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg challenging both the Lafayette and Shreveport I-49 projects on "civil rights" and "environmental justice" grounds. In the case of Lafayette, that was resolved through an additional set of meetings with official neighborhood groups affected by the corridor. Of course, the existing Duffy FHWA has pretty much nuked the "environmental justice" protocols as mere "DEI", so that's no longer an option for any budding lawsuits should LoopIt try to challenge any FEIS/ROD.

[vdeane]

@PColumbus73 and @sprjus4

A couple things to keep in mind that would affect all this:
1. As highways are typically designed for foretasted traffic levels 30 years after expected project completion rather than current traffic levels, one must also factor in the effects of growth (and even designated a highway on an existing route could potentially need to go through this process depending on DOT policy, to prevent shields from just being put down on routes that aren't suitable).  If that growth would require widening I-220 but I-49 would take away enough traffic to avoid that, this would be a factor.
2. The I-49/LA 3132 interchange might need to be rebuilt to make I-49 the thru movement if I-49 were routed that way, in addition to any other upgrades LA 3132 would need.  Although the Mississippi FHWA division allowed I-69 to use a loop ramp, which is wild.
3. Even though I-220 is already an interstate, FHWA might require upgrades if it doesn't meet modern standards before signing I-49 (this was required of I-81 for the I-86 upgrade in NY).
4. Louisiana's overriding need for infrastructure is hurricane evacuation, so they're probably factoring in evacuating traffic, not just daily commuter traffic.

That said, $1 billion for 20k AADT (if it's actually expected to be that low) is a lot, though I'm curious how much looping the route would actually cost.  Given how the I-81 project is around Syracuse, it could be more than what one would expect.  Hopefully they have this fully decided and locked-in before they do any renumbering of exits/mile markers for the extension south of I-10.

[PColumbus73]

2. The I-49/LA 3132 interchange might need to be rebuilt to make I-49 the thru movement if I-49 were routed that way, in addition to any other upgrades LA 3132 would need.  Although the Mississippi FHWA division allowed I-69 to use a loop ramp, which is wild.

Not sure if the situation is quite the same, but the I-73 mainline has to utilize ramps to continue on the Greensboro Outer Loop at both ends, I guess it could be argued that the Outer Loop is the thru movement, much like I-69 and I-465.

For Lafayette, it's interesting that LADOTD would choose to take I-49 straight through the city rather bypassing it simply due to cost. Shreveport, it's just a matter of stitching it across the city. Considering that for the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, NCDOT is paying $1.74 Billion for about 35 miles of new interstate, the same amount for 5 miles of new interstate is expensive.

[Anthony_JK]

The main issue with any I-49 bypass in Lafayette is that any bypass to the west would be so far out due to how Lafayette has sprawled to the south and west that it would be prohibitively expensive. The Lafayette Regional Expressway, which would do exactly that, would end up being nearly 25 miles long with a price tag of $3 billion, compared to $1.5B for the Lafayette Connector 5 mile freeway. To the east, Cypress Swamp and the Vermillion River would bring forth serious environmental issues for building a freeway, and US 90 is already being upgraded to Interstate standards just south of the Lafayette Regional Airport, so there would be little benefit from diverting traffic away via an east bypass.

[PColumbus73]

The Lafayette Regional Expressway, which would do exactly that, would end up being nearly 25 miles long with a price tag of $3 billion

What makes Louisiana's construction costs so expensive? That's twice as much as as I-74/274 in North Carolina. How does Louisiana compare to Texas?

[ModernDayWarrior]

The I-49 Lafayette Connector costs $1.5 billion for 5 miles of freeway. You want to tell the people in Lafayette that struggle through the Evangeline Thruway that they should wait another 50 years?? $1B for a 4-mile connector that opens up access to downtown Shreveport from the north and delivers a direct path for traffic from the heart of Shreveport to access the CBD is indeed worth the cost.

LADOTD directs I-49 traffic to use I-220 to I-20 to the existing northern terminus of I-49, not LA 3132. That is because the Inner Loop is NOT Interstate standard even if it is full freeway, and to make it such that it could be used as I-49 would require extensive improvements to it AND to I-220 crossing Cross Lake. And that's before you consider the additional tacked on cost of the "urban boulevard" that Allendale Strong wants.

Are the Shreveport and Lafayette projects competing against each other for funding, or does LA DOTD have the resources to pull off both of them? I'm in favor of the Shreveport ICC in principle, but it does seem to me (as an outsider, admittedly) that it's a much less pressing need than the Lafayette Connector. Shreveport does, at least, have an all-freeway route connecting the two segments of I-49; it may not be totally adequate, but it's still far better than anything Lafayette has. It's been probably twenty years since I've been through Lafayette, but I remember the Evangeline Thruway being a slog even then. Hate to think what it's like now. And that's without taking any potential hurricane evacuation into account.

If Louisiana can find the money to construct them both, though, so much the better.

[bwana39]

The I-49 Lafayette Connector costs $1.5 billion for 5 miles of freeway. You want to tell the people in Lafayette that struggle through the Evangeline Thruway that they should wait another 50 years?? $1B for a 4-mile connector that opens up access to downtown Shreveport from the north and delivers a direct path for traffic from the heart of Shreveport to access the CBD is indeed worth the cost.

LADOTD directs I-49 traffic to use I-220 to I-20 to the existing northern terminus of I-49, not LA 3132. That is because the Inner Loop is NOT Interstate standard even if it is full freeway, and to make it such that it could be used as I-49 would require extensive improvements to it AND to I-220 crossing Cross Lake. And that's before you consider the additional tacked on cost of the "urban boulevard" that Allendale Strong wants.

Are the Shreveport and Lafayette projects competing against each other for funding, or does LA DOTD have the resources to pull off both of them? I'm in favor of the Shreveport ICC in principle, but it does seem to me (as an outsider, admittedly) that it's a much less pressing need than the Lafayette Connector. Shreveport does, at least, have an all-freeway route connecting the two segments of I-49; it may not be totally adequate, but it's still far better than anything Lafayette has. It's been probably twenty years since I've been through Lafayette, but I remember the Evangeline Thruway being a slog even then. Hate to think what it's like now. And that's without taking any potential hurricane evacuation into account.

If Louisiana can find the money to construct them both, though, so much the better.

Louisiana really doesn't have the money for either.  While both are high (perhaps highest) priority in their regions, they both fall far behind other projects in the greater scope of Louisiana. They get built (eventually) because the folks down south trade their projects for the ones in the more remote areas.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, in my opinion, they need to prioritize this thing and just get it built and done with. There's tons of other boondoggles, but this is not one of them.

[Plutonic Panda]

The I-49 Lafayette Connector costs $1.5 billion for 5 miles of freeway. You want to tell the people in Lafayette that struggle through the Evangeline Thruway that they should wait another 50 years?? $1B for a 4-mile connector that opens up access to downtown Shreveport from the north and delivers a direct path for traffic from the heart of Shreveport to access the CBD is indeed worth the cost.

LADOTD directs I-49 traffic to use I-220 to I-20 to the existing northern terminus of I-49, not LA 3132. That is because the Inner Loop is NOT Interstate standard even if it is full freeway, and to make it such that it could be used as I-49 would require extensive improvements to it AND to I-220 crossing Cross Lake. And that's before you consider the additional tacked on cost of the "urban boulevard" that Allendale Strong wants.

Are the Shreveport and Lafayette projects competing against each other for funding, or does LA DOTD have the resources to pull off both of them? I'm in favor of the Shreveport ICC in principle, but it does seem to me (as an outsider, admittedly) that it's a much less pressing need than the Lafayette Connector. Shreveport does, at least, have an all-freeway route connecting the two segments of I-49; it may not be totally adequate, but it's still far better than anything Lafayette has. It's been probably twenty years since I've been through Lafayette, but I remember the Evangeline Thruway being a slog even then. Hate to think what it's like now. And that's without taking any potential hurricane evacuation into account.

If Louisiana can find the money to construct them both, though, so much the better.

Louisiana really doesn't have the money for either.  While both are high (perhaps highest) priority in their regions, they both fall far behind other projects in the greater scope of Louisiana. They get built (eventually) because the folks down south trade their projects for the ones in the more remote areas.

You're right, but the state needs to do something to fix that.

[sprjus4]

Yeah, in my opinion, they need to prioritize this thing and just get it built and done with. There's tons of other boondoggles, but this is not one of them.

It's a boondoggle to spend over $1 billion on this and leave I-20 (which carries 3x the traffic) in the worst condition through Shreveport when it's long overdue for a full depth reconstruction and rehabilitation.

[bwana39]

Yeah, in my opinion, they need to prioritize this thing and just get it built and done with. There's tons of other boondoggles, but this is not one of them.

It's a boondoggle to spend over $1 billion on this and leave I-20 (which carries 3x the traffic) in the worst condition through Shreveport when it's long overdue for a full depth reconstruction and rehabilitation.

OK? What part of I-20? I-20 is around 30 years old from Pines ROad to Spring street. There has been NOTHING done to it since the mid-90's. This is sort of new for Louisiana Freeways. It does need to be rehabbed and resurfaced, but a  reconstruction is probably 20 years away.  Compared to Bossier City before the rehab (It was 50+ years old) was begun a couple of years ago, I-20 in Shreveport is pristine.  Compared to LA-3132 (Inner loop freeway / Terry Bradshaw Passway) I-20 is wonderful.  I-20 from I-220 to I-220 has been detoured around I-220 for around 3 years. What really is there.

For what it is worth, not a lot of local traffic travels I-20 from Common to Pines.

[sprjus4]

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?

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bobby5280]

I-20 through Shreveport does need quite a bit of improvement work. Some short segments have been improved (or are in the process of being improved). That includes the segment on the East side of the city from the US-71 interchange to the Eastern I-220 interchange. A lot of the concrete slab from the Downtown area on West to the LA-3132 interchange is in fairly rough shape. The road surface is riddled with patch repairs; those are visible in Google Earth imagery. Another problem with I-20 thru Shreveport: portions of the road do not meet current Interstate standards. Shoulders are deficient. Some bridges don't have shoulders at all.

Those problems can't be remedied all at once. The fixes will have to be phased in piece by piece just like we see on so many other existing Interstates.

The intercity connector is a different kind of beast. It's going to rely greatly on federal funding/grants. The project is impossible just with state and local funds. I think the connector could provide some great benefits to the Shreveport economy. The downtown area and industrial zone to the North would be better connected. That might lead to a good bit of new development and improvement in the area.

[The Road Warrior]

That's only if no improvements are done to I-220 and the Inner Loop to accommodate the additional traffic

What additional traffic? I-49 through traffic is already using that route.

I-49 isn't finished yet. The expectation is that when its finally complete from New Orleans to Kansas City, it will handle far more traffic than it does now. Current levels of traffic do not match the actual expected level upon the interstate's completion.

[Bobby5280]

If the federal government had a more ambitious and organized plan for completing new Interstates that might allow projects like I-49 and I-69 to get finished much faster. If the I-69 segment between Houston and Shreveport was finished a whole lot more traffic would get funneled onto the I-49 corridor from Shreveport to Texarkana.

Currently most of the work on I-69 is happening in Texas. I have the feeling TX DOT will put more of its focus on the in-state I-369 corridor once enough of I-69 between Houston and Tenaha is complete. TX DOT won't have as much motivation to build its part of I-69 from Tenaha to the LA border and Logansport. I think the feds will have to get more involved to get that cross-state leg of I-69 completed.

I can't tell if there is any real plan to build out the I-49 segment from Texarkana to Ashdown. What I mean by "real plan" are records of decision and construction time lines. Once again, this is one of those cross-state situations where the feds may need to butt in to push things forward. TX and AR aren't going to do anything by themselves.

After more than 20 years of nothing happening in Fort Smith we're only now just starting to see the beginnings of an I-49 extension South of the I-40 corridor. Hopefully once the Arkansas River bridge project is finished it will provide momentum for things to get going on I-49 work South of Fort Smith.

[abqtraveler]

If the federal government had a more ambitious and organized plan for completing new Interstates that might allow projects like I-49 and I-69 to get finished much faster. If the I-69 segment between Houston and Shreveport was finished a whole lot more traffic would get funneled onto the I-49 corridor from Shreveport to Texarkana.

Currently most of the work on I-69 is happening in Texas. I have the feeling TX DOT will put more of its focus on the in-state I-369 corridor once enough of I-69 between Houston and Tenaha is complete. TX DOT won't have as much motivation to build its part of I-69 from Tenaha to the LA border and Logansport. I think the feds will have to get more involved to get that cross-state leg of I-69 completed.

I can't tell if there is any real plan to build out the I-49 segment from Texarkana to Ashdown. What I mean by "real plan" are records of decision and construction time lines. Once again, this is one of those cross-state situations where the feds may need to butt in to push things forward. TX and AR aren't going to do anything by themselves.

After more than 20 years of nothing happening in Fort Smith we're only now just starting to see the beginnings of an I-49 extension South of the I-40 corridor. Hopefully once the Arkansas River bridge project is finished it will provide momentum for things to get going on I-49 work South of Fort Smith.

The issues mentioned here boil down to political will and funding, with the former driving the latter. Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas have long had the political will to complete their sections of I-69, and they figured out the funding mechanisms to accomplish that. Likewise, Arkansas and Missouri both had the political will to complete their respective sections of I-49 from I-40 to Kansas City, and found a way to secure the funding for that piece.

Arkansas has shown the political will to complete I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana, with the start of construction of the new Arkansas River Bridge and connection to I-40, and final design and ROW acquisition moving forward on the extension of I-49 to Y City. Because there is always more needs than available funding, Arkansas is taking the approach where new highways like I-49, I-57, and I-69 will eventually get built, but at glacial speed as funding becomes available. If they want to build it faster, they'll need to come up with new funding streams to make that happen. But, Arkansas is a place where tolls and tax hikes are highly unpopular, so I don't see that happening.

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.