AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)  (Read 150140 times)

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #225 on: January 14, 2016, 03:21:12 AM »

Also, no mention of I-49 South as a mega project?

Welcome to Louisiana politics. The northern and southern halves of the state might as well be separate states. Every region focuses on their own needs.

Welp, North Louisiana will just have to wait their turn, just as South Louisiana had to wait until I-49 North from Shreveport to the Arkansas state line was completed. I-49 South is the main emphasis now, and will be until at least the I-49 Connector in Lafayette and the segments from Lafayette to Morgan City are fully funded and completed. They will get theirs for the I-49 ICC and I-69 ultimately.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #226 on: February 23, 2016, 01:04:10 PM »

I went to the Hwy 3132 Project Update presentation at LSUS last week.  All the alternatives were presented and some of the pros and cons of each option were highlighted.  My take on it was the Alternative A option has been less econically attractive due to upgrade requirements to LA1 interchange.  It seems one of the B options seems to be the preferred "Build" option.  I also think a "No Build" option will be considered.  It's interesting to note the either of the B options do not directly connect with the Port and there do little to improve or remove truck traffic from Flournoy-Lucas and LA1.  Therefore, I support the No Build option, as stated before, and just wish the money and effort goes into I69 ....

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its January 15, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and the Minutes indicate that NLCOG voted for Alternatives B1 and B2 as their MPO Preferred Alignments (pp. 3-5/6 of pdf; pp. 3-5 of deocument):

Quote
Mr. Kent Rogers – NLCOG ....
Dr. Wilson moved the committee into the first order of new business which was the discussion of the recommended alternatives moving forward with the Stage 1 Environmental Study for the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension. Mayor Walker motioned to begin discussion of the recommended alignments as the MPO Preferred Alignments for further environmental analysis. Mayor Tyler seconded.  Mr.Rogers introduced Mr. Tyler Comeaux with BKI to give a brief presentation and update on what has occurred since the last public meeting ....
Mr. Comeaux .... stated Alternatives A and C were the most costly due to the elevated portions and to still have access at the Port ....
Mr. Rogers stated that at the end of the day, it is FHWA’s decision as they issue the expected Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the study it will be on what they call the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Mayor Tyler asked how many stages until construction. Mr. Comeaux stated funding is next and then design and construction. Dr. Wilson asked within the discussion point they are at now, what is next. Mr. Rogers stated he had drafted a resolution for the recommendation, with blanks. He read the resolution. Mr. Sweeney motioned to consider B1 and B2 with Mr. Washington seconding. Dr. Wilson asked for continued discussion. Dr. Wilson stated he was comfortable with B1 and B2. Mayor Tyler confirmed her support. Mayor Walker stated the Port’s position with A, B1 and B2 included in these options. Mr. Malone clarified the Port’s position of preferably B1. There was no further discussion. The motion passed with no opposition.

Here is a snip from the November 19, 2015 Stage 1 Round 2 Public Materials of Alternative 1:



Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:



With both Alternatives contingent upon I-69's construction, this environmental process may have to be repeated many years from now, which may effectively default to a "No Build" option.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: April 02, 2020, 09:35:43 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #227 on: February 23, 2016, 04:56:22 PM »

I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #228 on: February 24, 2016, 10:15:22 AM »

I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.

Actually, if the conditions didn't change too drastically, you could even do a supplemental EA leading to a new FONSI, as was done with the US 90/LA 318 interchange last year.

Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.
Logged

Dave H

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Location: Shreveport
  • Last Login: June 20, 2017, 06:02:14 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #229 on: February 29, 2016, 03:41:29 AM »

I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.

Actually, if the conditions didn't change too drastically, you could even do a supplemental EA leading to a new FONSI, as was done with the US 90/LA 318 interchange last year.

Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.

Did you read and understand the comment made on the traffic study for this roadway extension? For the 6 miles of new road, less than 1 car per mile at peak traffic times.  Why spend $160 million dollars on a project with so little traffic?  The original intent of the Hwy 3132 extension was to connect to the Port.  The two perferred alternatives don't do that, they go tie into the future I69.  I69 will tie into the Port, so this 3132 extension(B1 or B2) is a complete waste of taxpayers money.

 

Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #230 on: February 29, 2016, 11:48:54 AM »

I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.

Actually, if the conditions didn't change too drastically, you could even do a supplemental EA leading to a new FONSI, as was done with the US 90/LA 318 interchange last year.

Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.

Did you read and understand the comment made on the traffic study for this roadway extension? For the 6 miles of new road, less than 1 car per mile at peak traffic times.  Why spend $160 million dollars on a project with so little traffic?  The original intent of the Hwy 3132 extension was to connect to the Port.  The two perferred alternatives don't do that, they go tie into the future I69.  I69 will tie into the Port, so this 3132 extension(B1 or B2) is a complete waste of taxpayers money.


I don't agree...if this extension isn't built, you basically force Port traffic from the west via LA 3132 to carry an extra 5 miles down I-49 to proposed I-69, and then double back 10 additional miles to get to the Port. Or, would you rather Port traffic negotiate local city streets through south Shreveport?

I'm guessing that the I-69 bridge across the Red River near the Port will be the first phase of I-69 to be built, but that won't come for a long while due to the emphasis on getting the I-69 system finished in TX. The 3132 extension could be built to sync with the segment of I-69 through the Port/Red River, thus creating a decent start to a southern bypass of the Shreveport/Bossier City area.

And actually, the original intent of the Inner Loop was not only to reach the Port, but complete I-220 as a full Shreveport/Bossier City loop. That dream is now dead thanks to Barksdale AFB opposing a through route.
Logged

Dave H

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Location: Shreveport
  • Last Login: June 20, 2017, 06:02:14 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #231 on: March 11, 2016, 10:49:50 AM »

How many loops around SB are needed?  When or if I69 is completed, or at least the portion from I49 (south of Shreveport) to I20 (Haughton), then the SB area will be  looped.  If you drew a theorethical I220/Hwy3132 southern or southeastern portion loop going across the Red River, around south Bossier and Barksdale, then connecting at I20 to complete the 220 loop, you get essentially the same thing with I69.  Sure it would be nice to have both, but let's be realisitic as it will be tough to finance just one of these projects in the next 20 years.

Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #232 on: March 11, 2016, 10:50:07 PM »

How many loops around SB are needed?  When or if I69 is completed, or at least the portion from I49 (south of Shreveport) to I20 (Haughton), then the SB area will be  looped.  If you drew a theorethical I220/Hwy3132 southern or southeastern portion loop going across the Red River, around south Bossier and Barksdale, then connecting at I20 to complete the 220 loop, you get essentially the same thing with I69.  Sure it would be nice to have both, but let's be realisitic as it will be tough to finance just one of these projects in the next 20 years.



There really will be only one loop when the LA 3132 extension is completed to Future I-69, because you could combine that with the segment of I-69 between I-49 near Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, which would include the bridge across the Red River near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier City. The original I-220  south loop has been truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale AFB.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #233 on: April 05, 2016, 03:19:39 PM »

This article, reporting about a recent meeting in El Dorado, AR about I-69 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, quotes Max LeComte, president and CEO of the Coordinating and Development Corporation of Shreveport, as saying that ... local support has been demonstrated by Stonewall making efforts to preserve its corridor and by Logansport considering the possibility of doing likewise
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge thread)
At about the 1:07:30 mark in the above video, LeComte states that the two-lane bridge under construction is being built to interstate standards and that eventually another bridge will be placed adjacent to it.  At about the 1:08:10 mark, LeComte starts discussing an under-construction Logansport bypass being built to the new bridge upon which traffic will be shifted "behind the town" and that is expected to eventually be incorporated into I-69.
Is that Logansport bypass north of town or south?

Google Maps has updated its Logansport aerial imagery and it now shows the bypass south of town.  I'm not convinced that it will eventually be incorporated into I-69.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3645
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: June 30, 2020, 09:47:18 AM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #234 on: April 05, 2016, 04:32:45 PM »

Google Maps has updated its Logansport aerial imagery and it now shows the bypass south of town.  I'm not convinced that it will eventually be incorporated into I-69.

I'm having trouble finding the bypass. I see a new bridge that goes into the heart of the town, but no bypass. Maybe I didn't pan out enough?
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #235 on: April 05, 2016, 04:50:51 PM »

The "bypass" is the new construction proceeding eastward from the new bridge.  Here is a snip of it:

Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3645
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: June 30, 2020, 09:47:18 AM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #236 on: April 05, 2016, 04:52:39 PM »

That doesn't look anything like a bypass. It goes through the heart of town and apparently has at-grade intersections with local streets.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #237 on: April 06, 2016, 01:50:46 PM »

From the looks of it, it's not so much a "bypass" but a realignment that would temporarily switch US 84 traffic onto the newly completed structure while the old structure was demolished and replaced. Possibly, an ultimate short one-way couplet design until the new 4-lane is built?

I'd say that if I-69 is ultimately built, it will be on a true new-alignment bypass, not using US 84.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 325
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 30, 2020, 08:11:34 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #238 on: April 07, 2016, 12:53:28 PM »

From the looks of it, it's not so much a "bypass" but a realignment that would temporarily switch US 84 traffic onto the newly completed structure while the old structure was demolished and replaced. Possibly, an ultimate short one-way couplet design until the new 4-lane is built?

I'd say that if I-69 is ultimately built, it will be on a true new-alignment bypass, not using US 84.

From what I've read, my understanding that an EIS hasn't even been started for Segment 16, which includes the Logansport area.  I recall that the Texas Department of Transportation had completed a Tier I EIS for the proposed (and now-dead) Trans-Texas Corridor, which would have covered the Texas part of I-69 Segment 16; the Tier I Record of Decision documented the "No-Build" alternative being selected for the I-69 TTC.  Since the TTC concept was scrapped, Texas and Louisiana would have to complete a new EIS for Segment 16 which runs from Tenaha to Stonewall, roughly following US-84.  It'll be many years at best before that's done.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #239 on: May 20, 2016, 07:47:32 PM »

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its January 15, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and the Minutes indicate that NLCOG voted for Alternatives B1 and B2 as their MPO Preferred Alignments (pp. 3-5/6 of pdf; pp. 3-5 of document)
Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.
How many loops around SB are needed?  When or if I69 is completed, or at least the portion from I49 (south of Shreveport) to I20 (Haughton), then the SB area will be  looped.  If you drew a theorethical I220/Hwy3132 southern or southeastern portion loop going across the Red River, around south Bossier and Barksdale, then connecting at I20 to complete the 220 loop, you get essentially the same thing with I69.  Sure it would be nice to have both, but let's be realisitic as it will be tough to finance just one of these projects in the next 20 years.
There really will be only one loop when the LA 3132 extension is completed to Future I-69, because you could combine that with the segment of I-69 between I-49 near Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, which would include the bridge across the Red River near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier City. The original I-220  south loop has been truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale AFB.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its April 15, 2016 Draft Transportation Policy Committee Minutes, which indicate that there are issues with both LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension alternative alignments that will need to be further investigated prior to moving forward with the Stage 1 study (apparently bald eagle habitat and Indian mounds and artifacts), resulting in an anticipated delay of approximately six months (p. 1, 4/4 of pdf):

Quote
Members Present
....
Mr. Eric England – Caddo – Bossier Port
Others Present
....
Mr. Kent Rogers – NLCOG

....
B. LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension
Mr. Rogers stated the consultant for the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension has requested a supplemental scope of services as the further analysis requested on the two corridors showed a few things on both corridors. Mr. Rogers stated the hope was that there would be an outstanding issue with one of the corridors that would help narrow it down, but there are issues with both corridors that will need to be further investigated prior to moving forward. Mr. Rogers stated there are bald eagles within the area as well as Indian mounds and artifacts. He stated the project is still moving forward ....
Mr. England asked about the new completion date for LA 3132 Stage 1 study given the developments. Mr. Rogers stated it has changed in regards to the original by about six months. He stated he did not remember the original completion date from the original notice-to-proceed. Mr. Rogers stated there would still be a public hearing prior to the study going to LaDOTD and FHWA for a 45-day review period. He stated that could add a delay while those entities review the study. Mr. England asked Mr. Rogers to send him a timeline.

Grinding away ........................
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 08:09:57 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Dave H

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Location: Shreveport
  • Last Login: June 20, 2017, 06:02:14 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #240 on: September 21, 2016, 10:40:08 AM »

http://nlcoglistens.com/field-review-update

Field Review Update

Posted by JamesTaylor on Mon, 09/19/2016 - 3:58pm
Field Review Update

Starting on Monday, October 10, 2016 and continuing through Friday, October 28, 2016, representatives of Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc., along with its subconsultants HDR Engineering, Inc. and EJES, Inc. will complete a walk-through of two proposed alignments for LA 3132 extension, Alternatives B1 and B2.

Notification letters were sent to property owners within the area of survey on Friday, September 16, 2016 seeking permission to enter property for the purposes of this walk-through. The purpose of this survey is to complete a review of standing structures, wetland and archeological field studies, biological species examination and an initial environmental site examination. This process includes taking a visual survey, photographs and measurements in the survey area, as well as limited shovel testing in order to take core samples in potential wetland areas and potential archeological sites. The team will fill all small holes dug at the time of survey.

All team members will have appropriate identification, along with safety vests and safety gear, as well as copies of the request letter and photo identification for presentation at the time of entry and survey.



Property Owner Questionnaire

Starting the week of September 19, 2016, property owners within the area of survey will receive questionnaires from EJES, Inc. to assist in the completion of the initial environmental site examination. The questionnaire consists of a two-page form, based upon the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E-1527-13. It is routinely completed by the individual landowner or other occupant representatives. When complete, the questionnaire can be returned to EJES. Recipients of this request also have the option to complete the questionnaire by phone interview with the EJES project presentative. Details for this choosing this option are provided in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.

Any questions regarding either of these processes are welcomed by the BKI project representative, Tyler Comeaux, at 318/222-5901 or the NLCOG project manager, Chris Petro, at 318/841-5957.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Logged

Dave H

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Location: Shreveport
  • Last Login: June 20, 2017, 06:02:14 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #241 on: October 12, 2016, 09:03:34 AM »


LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension
http://nlcoglistens.com/project/la-3132-inner-loop-extension

Posted by JamesTaylor on Tue, 10/04/2016 - 2:47pm
Summary report of the second round of public meetings for LA 3132 Extension - DOTD Stage 1 study.

http://nlcoglistens.com/sites/nlcog2.engagingplans.org/files/document/pdf/LA3132_Stage1_PublicMeeting2-Summary_ver4-web.pdf

Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #242 on: November 16, 2016, 08:09:17 PM »

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes ....
Quote
Mr. Rogers briefly discussed I‐69 SIU 14 – El Dorado, AR to Haughton, LA (US 82 to I‐20). A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed April 27, 2012 ....
Mayor Walker cautioned that Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are needed sooner rather than later to preserve the corridors. He asked if there was an MOU for SIU 14 corridor preservation. Mr. Rogers stated there was not and that LaDOTD discussed moving both projects [with SIU 15] forward together.
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Agenda and it looks like they intend to ask to use federal earmarked funds for planning of I-69 SIUs 14 and 15 corridor preservation:
Quote
I-69 SIU 14 & 15 Corridor Preservation
Kent Rogers

Request use of Federal Earmarked funds to develop Corridor Preservation Plans for I-69 SIU’s 14 and 15 within Louisiana

I'm not sure about the relationship between federal earmarked funds and local funds, but this Nov. 11 article reports that the I-69 Corridor is not essential in Webster Parish and subject to a cut:

Quote
The Webster Parish Police Jury may be facing a near $1 million decline in revenue in 2017 and Treasure/Secretary Ronda Carnahan notified the jurors before the November meeting with suggestions to offset the 2017 budget.
The jury’s general fund may be affected while funds from Ad Valorem tax, revenue sharing and occupational licenses are “holding steady,” General Severance and Timber Tax is down approximately $500,000.
“I do not foresee this coming up in 2017,” Carnahan explained to jurors. “It will be necessary to transfer from the special general fund to be able to meet budget.”
Expenditures that are not considered “essential funding” are suggested to be reduced by 20 percent.
Those areas include
Council on Aging, Coordinating and Development Council, Trailblazers, Economic Development, North Louisiana Economic Partnership, Minden Trail of Lights, Interstate 69 corridor, Juror Recreation, Arts an Museum and Sparta Expense ....
With regards to road funds, the sales tax which supplies much of the revenue for road projects has earned the jury approximately $400,000 less in 2016 and it is not expected for those funds to increase in 2017.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 10:01:45 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2140
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:39:02 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #243 on: November 16, 2016, 09:10:22 PM »

Sounds fine with me. I-69 is a waste of tax money. Just give the headache to Arkansas & Texas.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: April 02, 2020, 09:35:43 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #244 on: November 16, 2016, 09:12:34 PM »

I'd assume from the context they're cutting funding for membership in the corridor coalition (i.e. helping pay for lobbyists) or something like that; I doubt they're spending local money on corridor preservation when it's not in the TIP.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #245 on: December 17, 2016, 10:51:44 AM »

Exhibit 6 from the ROD shows that I-69 SIU 15 has been divided into five segments from US 171 to I-20 and it shows the order in which the five segments will be built, with the Red River Bridge segment being first (page 24/87 of pdf; Exhibit 6 of document):

This Oct. 7 article reports on three main options that could serve as the next step for I-69 in Louisiana: (1) corridor preservation for SIUs 14 & 15, (2) the Red River Bridge (number 3 on above map), and (3) from the Port to I-49 (number 2 on above map):

Quote
Eric Kalivoda of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development said the state can use $11.7 million in I-69 federal earmark funds and the $2.9 million state match to consider several options that would constitute progress in the foreseeable future.
“We can develop a corridor preservation plan for Sections of Independent Utilities 14 and 15 – we have already started that, we have not finished it,” he said. “It’s going to get expensive if we do because we’ve got to go and work with all the local governments along the route to enact ordinances to prevent people from building things within the corridor.”
Focus could also shift to the Red River Bridge crossing at the Port of Caddo-Bossier, which would connect La. 1 and U.S. 71. The estimated cost of construction is $340 million.
“That would provide a lot of benefit, it would be good to have that connection particularly right there at the port,” he said. “The third option is to focus on a connection between the port and Interstate 49, to go ahead and do the engineering and they can purchase the right of way to go ahead and have that segment put in place.”
Financial assistance could also be offered to Texas to try and accelerate the completion of the environmental impact statement  of the segment passing through that state.

“They’ve indicated they are stretched thin with the money they have available, and that may help,” he said.
Ultimately, the issue of funding is going to be an obstacle that the coalition will need to overcome, Kalivoda said.
“The funding that I’ve indicated for I-69 with the federal earmark and the state match is only $15 million,” he said. “Louisiana’s cost for the portion of SIU 14 that’s in Louisiana and SIU 15 is $2 billion. That’s not counting our portion of SIU 16. That is a hard pill to swallow in a small state with a lot of other transportation needs.”
The country needs a program to reconstruct and expand the existing interstate system so it can accomplish things like I-69, Kalivoda said.
“It’s a matter of getting Congress to move forward with something like that,” he said. “For any state individually to take on projects of this magnitude by themselves is going to be very difficult.”

Working on the section from the Port to I-49 also serves the purpose of providing a connection to the proposed LA 3132 extension alignments, but that's another story .....
« Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 11:17:34 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Dave H

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Location: Shreveport
  • Last Login: June 20, 2017, 06:02:14 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #246 on: March 29, 2017, 08:11:06 AM »

Louisiana considering increasing gasoline tax.  While I am against increasing overall taxation, increasing the current 16 cents/gallon gas tax to something higher makes sense.  In fact, a graduated increase, say 5-10 cents a year over 2-4 years would work. 

http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2017/03/27/la-residents-might-put-peddle-metal-gas-tax/99691082/

Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #247 on: March 29, 2017, 10:11:42 AM »

Louisiana considering increasing gasoline tax.  While I am against increasing overall taxation, increasing the current 16 cents/gallon gas tax to something higher makes sense.  In fact, a graduated increase, say 5-10 cents a year over 2-4 years would work. 

http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2017/03/27/la-residents-might-put-peddle-metal-gas-tax/99691082/



That money should go more towards completing I-49 in Louisiana, (including I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans and the Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector), I-10 through Baton Rouge, the Calcasieu River Bridge and widening I-10 through Lake Charles, widening I-20 in north Louisiana, and the evacuation route connecting I-10 to the Houma-Thibodeaux area. Perhaps, even a new bridge for a south Baton Rouge bypass and widening the rest of I-10 through LA. Until a consensus is reached on funding I-69 in its entirity, it should await its turn in the queue until these other more important projects get done.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #248 on: April 05, 2017, 10:54:47 AM »

Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") is slowly reducing a backlog in Transportation Policy Committee Minutes and has posted its January 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes, which indicate that Alternative B2 is the locally preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension (p.3/3 of pdf):

Quote
4. LA-3132 Inner Loop Extension
Mr. Tyler Comeaux from BKI gave an update on the Environmental Study for the La 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension project. Mr. Comeaux went over the field review and survey work that had been done on Alternative B1 and B2. He specifically noted those properties that the team had full access to, those with limited access, and those with no access granted. Mr. Comeaux went over the Preliminary Findings in some detail paying specific attention to the following categories: Potential Displacements, Potential Noise Effects, Review of Natural Resources, the Cultural Resources Review, the Environmental Site Review, and Community Input. He noted that the results had been reviewed by the Technical and Project Advisory committee and that they concurred with the input and recommended that Alternative B2 move forward as the locally preferred alternative. Following a brief discussion Mr. Rogers presented the committee
with a resolution in concurrence with these findings
and the recommendation of the Project Advisory Committee to move forward with Alternative B2. Mr. Rogers read the resolution into the record. Mayor Tyler called for a motion on the resolution as presented and read. Mr. Washington motioned for approval with Mr. Sweeney seconding the motion. The motion passed 8 - 0 with 1 absent.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 11:01:24 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #249 on: May 25, 2017, 02:20:26 PM »

Exhibit 6 from the ROD shows that I-69 SIU 15 has been divided into five segments from US 171 to I-20 and it shows the order in which the five segments will be built, with the Red River Bridge segment being first (page 24/87 of pdf; Exhibit 6 of document):
Working on the section from the Port to I-49 also serves the purpose of providing a connection to the proposed LA 3132 extension alignments, but that's another story .....

But it may be part of the story of changing the order of construction. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has published its March 17, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Agenda. Tne entry for I-69 SIU 15 reads as follows:

Quote
5. I-69 SIU 15
Kent Rogers

Request to LADOTD moving forward with segment from LA 1 to I-49

The March 17, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes read as follows:

Quote
5. I-69 SIU 15
Discussion in Washington, D.C. regarding I-69 centered on the benefit it will have as a corridor of the future. The congressman giving his testimony mentioned I-69, I-49, and the Barksdale Gate. DOTD has contacted NLCOG to participate in meeting about existing project, changes that have occurred, and what could be done within the existing project regarding opening a section prior to the bridge. Funding may be available if the project relates to the area. Mr. Altimus encouraged the board to wait until the end of the legislative session to vote on this issue regarding sections of I-69. He referred to Senator Peacock’s work regarding the Jimmy Davis Bridge which may be completed in 2020 and the national infrastructure money that may come through the state and impact a bridge for I-69. Discussion continued regarding the realignment of the Texas portion of I-69. Mr. Rogers concluded by encouraging the committee to look carefully at the long-term projects and funding available at the end of this legislative session.

I assume that, in talking about "opening a section prior to the bridge", they are talking about the LA 1 to I-49 section referenced in the Agenda, which would provide a terminus for Alternative B2 of the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension and would be the first section of I-69 built in Louisiana. I assume "the realignment of the Texas portion of I-69" is simply I-369.



This May 8 article, about the completion of the US 84 Sabine River bridges (prior discussion here) has an interesting comment from Dr. Shawn Wilson, Secretary of LaDOTD:

Quote
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's Secretary, Dr. Shawn Wilson says the two bridges will help ease traffic, improve the local economy, and improve evacuation routes in times of disaster.
"This bridge will also serve as an evacuation route located on the future I-69 another important thing the state department of transportation of both states take very seriously," said Wilson.

If Secretary Wilson's comment is true about them "located on the future I-69", the Sabine River bridges will be the first piece of I-69 completed in Louisiana. I don't buy it, but he is the head man at LaDOTD .......
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.