AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)  (Read 142195 times)

mcdonaat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 907
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Pineville, LA
  • Last Login: August 15, 2015, 05:21:19 PM
    • Backroading Louisiana
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #200 on: May 16, 2015, 01:55:19 PM »

Just looking at Google Maps, why can't LA 3132 be extended directly south to tie into Ellerbe Rd? To make a tighter turn south, and to create an easier gradient for the curve, we can eliminate the Flournoy Lucas interchange. If the state does that, imagine how much people in the neighborhoods that want a no-build option will complain that the state "took away their highway."

I would prefer Alternative A, eliminating the interchange with Flournoy Lucas. Honestly, though, I would have preferred the state blocking any purchase of land directly in the ROW.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #201 on: June 16, 2015, 09:48:50 PM »

this January 2013 map ... (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf)

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)
The I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations ... (page 21/155 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Draft Minutes, which reflect that NLCOG has requested that Secretary LeBas authorize LaDOTD to conduct an I‐69 SIU 16 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for the portion within Louisiana and to use current earmarked funds to pay for the study:
Quote
Mr. Rogers stated in his request to Secretary LeBas, Texas DOT is ignoring this portion of the project and asked to start the environmental document for the portion that is in Louisiana ....
Dr. Wilson motioned to approve the Request use of Federal Earmarked funds for the development of a Stage 1 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for I‐69 SIU 16 within Louisiana; seconded by Mayor Glover. The motion passed unanimously.

I recently emailed LaDOTD to see if they are following up on NLCOG's request to conduct the environmental study for the Louisiana section of SIU 16 and I was surprised to learn that LaDOTD does not want to conduct the study because "more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas":

Quote
Currently, DOTD has an agreement with Texas whereby the responsibility for the EIS for SIU 16 is with Texas, as more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas. DOTD does not plan to terminate this agreement at this time.
DOTD realizes the importance of the I-69 corridor and remains committed to I-69 through Louisiana. DOTD completed the environmental process for SIU 14 and SIU 15 and these segments each have a Record of Decision with selected alignments. For now, DOTD intends to focus on moving these segments further along, in particular SIU 15 near Shreveport. As these segments move forward, interest in moving SIU 16 forward will likely increase.

I don't know where the southern terminus for the "old" SIU 16 was in Texas, but, using a 70+%/-30% eyeball, I'm guessing that it was somewhere near Nacogdoches. As the above two maps indicate, TxDOT and the I-69 Segment One Citizen Committee have proceeded with and are steadily proceeding with studies on Segment One (which includes the "old" SIUs 29 and 16), which could be to the possible detriment of Louisiana and its section of SIU 16.  In other words, it appears that TxDOT is already doing preliminary work on both its section of SIU 16 and the Tenaha-Texarkana SIU 29 corridor, but with absolutely no efforts going towards Louisiana's section of SIU 16.

I understand that, as a practical matter, nothing would happen on Louisiana's SIU 16 in the near future even if an environmental study were conducted.  That said, I would consider progress on SIU 16 to be more important than progress on SIU 14.  SIU 14 already has a ROD; why should LaDOTD not start the process to get one for SIU 16, particularly if it can be paid for with earmarked funds?



The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") now has an I-69 Information Outlet page on its website.

NLCOG has posted its maps of SIU 14 and SIU 15 showing the route of the I-69 Corridor in those SIUs.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2015, 10:13:02 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

mcdonaat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 907
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Pineville, LA
  • Last Login: August 15, 2015, 05:21:19 PM
    • Backroading Louisiana
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #202 on: June 16, 2015, 11:38:31 PM »

Just curious, but why is I-69 following US 59 from Nacogdoches to Logansport instead of TX 7 through Center? It seems like less development along TX 7, and you would serve an additional town with an airport. Also, with the new US 84 bridge going up, will I-69 require a second bridge over the Sabine? It took LA/TX 20 years to go forward with a new bridge, so I-69 might never get finished!

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1329
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: September 21, 2019, 02:17:05 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #203 on: June 17, 2015, 01:32:01 AM »

Unless they plan on breaking up I-69 into three parts or routing I-69 through Texarkana, then I-30, I'm guessing that they are simply delaying the development of SIU 16 until there's resolution on the other SIU's on US 59 southward to Houston. Also, Louisiana will have its hands full with finishing I-49 South, which is their #1 priority now, with #2 probably being I-10 in Baton Rouge/Baton Rouge Outer Loop, #3 being the I-49 Shreveport ICC.

I'm assuming that the new bridge for US 84 near Logansport will be built with future Interstate standards in mind, right? Then, TX and LA can join forces to complete SIU 16 to US 171 once SIU 15 is completed.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #204 on: September 16, 2015, 03:44:15 PM »

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its December 2014 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update.  The timetable for road projects is essentially divided into three parts: (1) the current 2015-18 TIP, (2) the Short-Range Program (FY 2019 and 2020), and the Long-Range Program (FY 2021-2035).  I was mildly surprised/disappointed that the I-69 Red River Bridge project (I think) is placed in the Long-Range Program instead of the Short-Range Program.

Maybe the I-69 Red River Bridge project is in the Long-Range Program for a good reason. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 21, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they indicate the possibility that, if a certain alignment for the LA 3132 extension is selected, then that may "possibly disrupt or re-open" the Record of Decision ("ROD") for I-69 SIU 15. (pp. 5, 6/6 of pdf; pp. 5, 6 of document):

Quote
LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension ....
Mr. Rogers
directed the members to the handouts and slides from the Project Advisory Committee’s (PAC) second meeting. Mr. Rogers stated the meeting consisted of discussion of the input received from the public meetings, the analysis done prior to the public meetings and the input from the PAC. He discussed a couple of the issues that were found with some of the alignments and interchanges. Mr. Rogers stated there would be more review and then the PAC would develop a preferred alternative ....
Mayor Walker stated the alignment on the LA3132 extension that would possibly disrupt or re‐open the I‐69 EIS ROD would not be in the best interest as it took so long to get that ROD.

Maybe the third time would be the charm ..........
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 04:45:38 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1329
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: September 21, 2019, 02:17:05 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #205 on: September 16, 2015, 05:21:45 PM »

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its December 2014 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update.  The timetable for road projects is essentially divided into three parts: (1) the current 2015-18 TIP, (2) the Short-Range Program (FY 2019 and 2020), and the Long-Range Program (FY 2021-2035).  I was mildly surprised/disappointed that the I-69 Red River Bridge project (I think) is placed in the Long-Range Program instead of the Short-Range Program.

Maybe the I-69 Red River Bridge project is in the Long-Range Program for a good reason. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 21, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and they indicate the possibility that, if a certain alignment for the LA 3132 extension is selected, then that may "possibly disrupt or re-open" the Record of Decision ("ROD") for I-69 SIU 15. (pp. 5, 6/6 of pdf; pp. 5, 6 of document):

Quote
LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension ....
Mr. Rogers
directed the members to the handouts and slides from the Project Advisory Committee’s (PAC) second meeting. Mr. Rogers stated the meeting consisted of discussion of the input received from the public meetings, the analysis done prior to the public meetings and the input from the PAC. He discussed a couple of the issues that were found with some of the alignments and interchanges. Mr. Rogers stated there would be more review and then the PAC would develop a preferred alternative ....
Mayor Walker stated the alignment on the LA3132 extension that would possibly disrupt or re‐open the I‐69 EIS ROD would not be in the best interest as it took so long to get that ROD.

Maybe the third time would be the charm ..........

Can I assume, Grzz, that the offensive alignment for the LA 3132 extension would be the one that goes over to LA 1 and then uses the LA 1 alignment to connect with I-69? I can see why, since that section and the ultimate interchange with I-69 would not meet Interstate standards.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #206 on: September 17, 2015, 08:16:39 PM »

Can I assume, Grzz, that the offensive alignment for the LA 3132 extension would be the one that goes over to LA 1 and then uses the LA 1 alignment to connect with I-69? I can see why, since that section and the ultimate interchange with I-69 would not meet Interstate standards.

Anthony, I had no idea which alignment is at issue and emailed NLCOG to get some clarification. Basically, they are considering a suggestion from the general public to look at a "single footprint" facility for LA 3132 extension Alternatives B1 and B2 that would incorporate the LA 1/ I-69 interchange. The NLCOG response:

Quote
Mayor Walker was referring to the publically generated request to consider a multi-stacked, directional interchange where LA 1/I-69 SIU-15/LA 3132 Ext Alternatives B1 and B2 interchange within a single footprint/facility. This would trigger the “re-opening” of the I-69 SIU-15 EIS document since it is currently cleared (i.e. ROD issued) for the interchange of LA 1 and I-69 SIU-15 alignment at the Port… not a 3 system directional interchange as was suggested at one of our public meetings.

I think that this suggestion was put forth at the May 7, 2015 public meetings; as a result, this suggestion is not included in the maps for Alternatives B1 and B2 that were presented at the meetings.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1329
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: September 21, 2019, 02:17:05 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #207 on: September 18, 2015, 12:45:26 PM »

I wonder, though...exactly how would they merge LA 1, I-69, and LA 3132 in such a mega-directional interchange?

I'd prefer that they modify Alignment A with frontage roads along the segment concurrent with LA 1, and then modify the existing LA 1/I-69 interchange with directional free-flow ramps, making that segment a true freeway/freeway interchange. Otherwise, go with B-1 or B-2 as currently designed, as a standalone alignment for LA 3132.
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 #208 on: October 02, 2015, 05:18:17 AM »

I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.

I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.

On the issue of the potential 3132/LA1/I-69 interchange, I was told the Feds have a requirement that interchanges must be no closer than 2 miles.  So they either stack them altogether or the B1 or B2 options for 3132 has to move far enough west to be 2 miles away from the I-69/LA1 interchange.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #209 on: October 02, 2015, 03:07:57 PM »

Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.
Why the city allowed the subdivisions to get in the way of the Inner Loop extension in the first place is a major concern.
I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.
I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.

Maybe the Finish 3132 Coalition will change its name to the Start I-69 Coalition!  :biggrin:
Focusing on I-69 between I-49 and the Red River Bridge probably does make the most economic sense and maybe there is no need to "cut the corner" with the Extension.

This thread began with the NLCOG meeting where Cedric Glover "killed" the extension, ostensibly to the benefit of developer Tim Larkin's Esplanade subdivision and to the detriment of the Twelve Oaks subdivision (and Willis-Knighton).  Reading the Draft Minutes posted in the OP, I find it hard to believe that Finish 3132 had not previously considered the I-69 option. I get the sense that Twelve Oaks, after several years of fighting the alleged favoritism to Larkin, has decided that if they can't beat Esplanade, then they will join them.  Both subdivisions would theoretically experience less truck traffic and not be disturbed by Extension ROW if the "I-69 option" is adopted.  The recent rise of a possible "threat" to the I-69 ROD by certain LA 3132 Extension possibilities might lead a suspicious mind to believe that a back-room deal has already been reached, i.e. "we either have to build I-69 now or go through another endless environmental process for I-69 - let's come together and get it built!" provides cover for everyone.

How this process finally plays out should be really interesting.

Here is a link to the letter sent to Kent Rogers at NLCOG:

http://www.finish3132.com/documents/stonecipher/Pesnell-letter-to-Kent-Rogers-9-21-15.pdf

Here is Finish 3132's post about the letter:

http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/15-09-30/A_New_and_Far_Superior_Hwy_3132_Extension_Route.aspx
« Last Edit: October 28, 2015, 08:17:30 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1329
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: September 21, 2019, 02:17:05 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #210 on: October 02, 2015, 06:11:30 PM »

Ohhhh-kay.


So, that would pretty much get LADOTD to expedite their segment of I-69 through NW LA, and could potentially give a kick to the bootys of Arkansas and Mississippi to get moving on their I-69 segments as well.


Problem is, though....that would basically dead-end LA 3132, and all but kill any hopes of a completed Inner Loop.


If that be the case, then they might as well downgrade all of LA 3132 east of I-49 to expressway standards, rebuild the Flournoy-Lucas Road interchange with LA 3132 as a conventional intersection, and just extend 3132 as an arterial to LA 1 with at grade connections to both the Esplanade and Twin Oaks neighborhoods.


Unless, of course, they are secretly planning to revive that I-220 extension through Barksdale AFB....


Before all that is settled, they better focus on completing the I-49 Inner City Connector first.
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2095
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2019, 06:23:25 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #211 on: October 02, 2015, 07:10:07 PM »



Before all that is settled, they better focus on completing the I-49 Inner City Connector first.

I whole-heartedly agree with this.   :clap:

In fact, my honest opinion lists these projects in the order I feel should be the highway priority list for Shreveport/Bossier City:

1.  The I-49 ICC. I would have put the I-49/I-220 interchange here if they had not already started the work.

2. The I-69 Red River crossing just so the Jimmie Davis bridge/LA 511 can get some relief.

3. Finding/building a place to end LA 3132.

4. Any updating/improvements to LA 3132 from Bert Kouns north to I-20/I-220. Because...(go to #5)

5. I think they should complete the loop of I-220 and bring it around the eastern edge of the BAFB property. They can build a tall cyclone fence along the interstate to keep trepassers out. Look no further than Huntsville, AL alongside I-565 where it meets the Marshall Flight Center property (or is that Redstone Arsenal? Cody...Freebrick...anyone?)

6. Widening I-20 through Shreveport/Bossier City.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2057
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: September 01, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #212 on: October 02, 2015, 09:12:26 PM »

5. I think they should complete the loop of I-220 and bring it around the eastern edge of the BAFB property. They can build a tall cyclone fence along the interstate to keep trepassers out. Look no further than Huntsville, AL alongside I-565 where it meets the Marshall Flight Center property (or is that Redstone Arsenal? Cody...Freebrick...anyone?)

It is Redstone that I-565 is adjacent to. There is just a regular fence there.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

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 #213 on: October 05, 2015, 12:19:21 PM »

Ohhhh-kay.


So, that would pretty much get LADOTD to expedite their segment of I-69 through NW LA, and could potentially give a kick to the bootys of Arkansas and Mississippi to get moving on their I-69 segments as well.


Problem is, though....that would basically dead-end LA 3132, and all but kill any hopes of a completed Inner Loop.


If that be the case, then they might as well downgrade all of LA 3132 east of I-49 to expressway standards, rebuild the Flournoy-Lucas Road interchange with LA 3132 as a conventional intersection, and just extend 3132 as an arterial to LA 1 with at grade connections to both the Esplanade and Twin Oaks neighborhoods.


Unless, of course, they are secretly planning to revive that I-220 extension through Barksdale AFB....


Before all that is settled, they better focus on completing the I-49 Inner City Connector first.

If the "No Build" option on Hwy 3132 wins out, I bet a smaller project of a parkway type road ends up getting built, south of Flournoy Lucas and either connecting with Leonard Rd or Hwy 1.  The developers might even foot the bill on this.

If Shreveport-Bossier ends up "Trianglulated" w/ I-20, I-49 and I-69, does it really need a 220 loop around BAFB?  That's basically where I-69 is headed, towards Haughton.  For me, a 220 loop on the south side of SB is a bridge too far, or at least a bypass too much.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 12:22:25 PM by Dave H »
Logged

jasondobbins

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6
  • Last Login: October 13, 2015, 02:00:12 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #214 on: October 07, 2015, 02:50:36 PM »

Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.
Why the city allowed the subdivisions to get in the way of the Inner Loop extension in the first place is a major concern.
I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.
I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.

Maybe the Finish 3132 coalition will change its name to the Start I-69 Coalition!  :biggrin:
Focusing on I-69 between I-49 and the Red River Bridge probably does make the most economic sense and maybe there is no need to "cut the corner" with the Extension.

This thread began with the NLCOG meeting where Cedric Glover "killed" the extension, ostensibly to the benefit of developer Tim Larkin's Esplanade subdivision and to the detriment of the Twelve Oaks subdivision (and Willis-Knighton).  Reading the Draft Minutes posted in the OP, I find it hard to believe that Finish 3132 had not previously considered the I-69 option. I get the sense that Twelve Oaks, after several years of fighting the alleged favoritism to Larkin, has decided that if they can't beat Esplanade, then they will join them.  Both subdivisions would theoretically experience less truck traffic and not be disturbed by Extension ROW if the "I-69 option" is adopted.  The recent rise of a possible "threat" to the I-69 ROD by certain LA 3132 Extension possibilities might lead a suspicious mind to believe that a back-room deal has already been reached, i.e. "we either have to build I-69 now or go through another endless environmental process for I-69 - let's come together and get it built!" provides cover for everyone.

How this process finally plays out should be really interesting.

Here is a link to the letter sent to Kent Rogers at NLCOG:

http://www.finish3132.com/documents/stonecipher/Pesnell-letter-to-Kent-Rogers-9-21-15.pdf

Here is Finish 3132's post about the letter:

http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/15-09-30/A_New_and_Far_Superior_Hwy_3132_Extension_Route.aspx

Focusing on the I-69 segment between I-49 and LA HWY 1 does make some sense. However, the approved ROD for I-69 SIU 15 says the Red River Bridge is the top priority segment and will go to construction first. The ROD would probably need to be reopened to change the implementation schedule. It took a long time to get that ROD approved, so I don't see them reopening the ROD.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #215 on: November 05, 2015, 07:57:48 PM »

I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.
I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.
If the "No Build" option on Hwy 3132 wins out, I bet a smaller project of a parkway type road ends up getting built, south of Flournoy Lucas and either connecting with Leonard Rd or Hwy 1.  The developers might even foot the bill on this.

The NLCOG website has posted that Open House Public Meeting #2 for the Stage 1 Environmental Assessment will be held on November 19:

Quote
Open House Public Meeting #2 Set for LA 3132 Extension Environmental Assessment Study

Efforts to determine if and how LA 3132 will be extended are continuing as the Stage 1 Environmental Assessment study progresses. To date, the project team, led by engineering firm Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. (BKI) has met with federal, state and local officials and requested input from these entities, as well as from area technical advisory personnel as they seek to further refine the alternatives brought forth as a result of the feasibility study. Initial Open House Public meetings for this study were held in May 2015 to gain input on potential alternatives.
The preliminary results of the alternatives analysis will be available for review during the second public meeting offered on Thursday evening, November 19. The public is encouraged to attend to provide their input. The open house public meeting time and location is:

Thursday, November 19, 2015
4:00 pm - 7:00 pm
LSU-Shreveport
University Center Ballroom
One University Place
Shreveport, LA 71115


A continuous presentation will be available throughout the meeting, as well as an open house session with project team members. A question and answer period will take place during the last 30 minutes of the meeting.

It will be interesting to see how much emphasis, if any, NLCOG will place on the "I-69 alternative"; it fits in well with the "if and how" language in the announcement.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #216 on: November 16, 2015, 04:44:22 PM »

I recently emailed LaDOTD to see if they are following up on NLCOG's request to conduct the environmental study for the Louisiana section of SIU 16 and I was surprised to learn that LaDOTD does not want to conduct the study because "more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas":
Quote
Currently, DOTD has an agreement with Texas whereby the responsibility for the EIS for SIU 16 is with Texas, as more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas. DOTD does not plan to terminate this agreement at this time.
DOTD realizes the importance of the I-69 corridor and remains committed to I-69 through Louisiana. DOTD completed the environmental process for SIU 14 and SIU 15 and these segments each have a Record of Decision with selected alignments. For now, DOTD intends to focus on moving these segments further along, in particular SIU 15 near Shreveport. As these segments move forward, interest in moving SIU 16 forward will likely increase.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 18, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and the Minutes, as part of a LA 3132 Extension update, indicate that NLCOG intends to try again and approach the next governor and next LaDOTD Secretary (Sherri LeBas has announced that she is stepping down) for the funding to start the NEPA process for Louisiana's part of SIU 16 (p. 5/6 of pdf):



I will be surprised if NLCOG receives a different answer the second time around.
Logged

thefro

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 369
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: September 19, 2019, 09:49:06 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #217 on: November 23, 2015, 08:34:38 AM »

Well, the governor-elect belongs to a different political party than the current LA governor, so it's certainly worth a shot for them to make another request.
Logged

Dave H

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Location: Shreveport
  • Last Login: June 20, 2017, 06:02:14 AM
Re: El Paso Projects: Go-10 and Border West Expressway debut sites
« Reply #218 on: November 24, 2015, 07:21:05 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 alternatives include:
• A "no build" option
• Alternative A — a 3.3 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 at East Flournoy Lucas Road to La. 1.
• Alternative B1 — a 6.6 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 at East Flournoy Lucas Road to the future Interstate 69 corridor near Naylor Airstrip.
• Alternative B2 —a 5.9 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 also from East Flournoy Lucas Road to the future I-69 corridor to Naylor Airstrip.
• Alternative C — a 3.8 mile controlled access roadway extending from La. 3132 near East Bert Kouns Industrial Loop to La. 1 near Leonard Road.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #219 on: December 09, 2015, 11:12:13 AM »

Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 18, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and the Minutes, as part of a LA 3132 Extension update, indicate that NLCOG intends to try again and approach the next governor and next LaDOTD Secretary (Sherri LeBas has announced that she is stepping down) for the funding to start the NEPA process for Louisiana's part of SIU 16 (p. 5/6 of pdf)
Well, the governor-elect belongs to a different political party than the current LA governor, so it's certainly worth a shot for them to make another request.

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 Texas is not even enthusiastic about spending money on the Texas part of SIU 16 and confirming that outgoing Gov. Bobby Jindal has not been a supporter of I-69; however, local support has been demonstrated by Stonewall making efforts to preserve its corridor and by Logansport considering the possibility of doing likewise:

Quote
Max LeComte, president and CEO of the Coordinating and Development Corporation of Shreveport, talked about Interstate 69 activities in Louisiana and Texas.
Louisiana has struggled to find political support for the superhighway. Outgoing Gov. Bobby Jindal has not supported the I-69 project.
However, public support for the project is showing life. The City of Stonewall recently annexed all land along the highway’s prospective route through the town so that development may be controlled.
Officials in Logansport, where the interstate will cross from Louisiana into Texas, are considering a similar move.

The current cost estimate for the McGehee-Haynesville leg is $600 million. It will cost $900 million to build 110 miles of Interstate 69 across Northwest Louisiana.
The State of Texas, meanwhile, is spending about $100 million annually to upgrade portions of U.S. 59 to interstate standards. Texas is not enthusiastic about spending money on the planned portion of Interstate 69 from Logansport to Tenaha, TX, LeComte said ....
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 11:26:29 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #220 on: December 12, 2015, 03:43:51 PM »

I emailed LaDOTD and asked them if they considered this to be an I-69 project, and, if so, has a corridor been chosen for a Logansport bypass. Louisiana does not consider this project to have anything to do with I-69 and asserts that there are no current plans for a Logansport bypass:
Quote
This project will construct 2 new bridges that will have two lanes going in  eastbound and westbound direction. 
As of now, there is no Logansport bypass
.... Who knows? If the new Sabine River bridges are ultimately incorporated into I-69, and construction begins on them before construction begins on the I-69 Red River bridge(s)(which at this point appears several years away), then it would be ironic that the first I-69 construction on Louisiana soil would have arguably begun in the SIU 16 corridor (before SIU 16 corridor environmental studies had been started by TxDOT/LaDOTD).
I'm assuming that the new bridge for US 84 near Logansport will be built with future Interstate standards in mind, right? Then, TX and LA can join forces to complete SIU 16 to US 171 once SIU 15 is completed.
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.

Here is a snip from the video of one of the bypass construction photos:



Has I-69 dirt already been turned in Louisiana?
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10760
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 21, 2019, 07:16:36 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #221 on: December 12, 2015, 08:54:11 PM »

Is that Logansport bypass north of town or south?
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #222 on: December 12, 2015, 09:36:59 PM »

Is that Logansport bypass north of town or south?

Given the description of the project quoted from an article in this post describing the new bridge as being constructed between the old bridge and the railroad bridge, my best guess is that the bypass is south of town (a Google Maps update of aerial imagery would be nice):

US 84 Sabine River Bridge replacement project
(above quote from I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension) thread)
This article provides a construction update ... :
Quote
the plan calls for a new two-lane structure to be built between the existing bridge and the railroad tracks and for a new bridge to replace the current bridge in its footpath ...
Each of the new bridges will have two 12-foot lanes, a 10-foot outside shoulder and a four-foot inside shoulder. One bridge will have a sidewalk connecting the two towns.
New eastbound lanes will run from approximately County Road 3598 in Texas to LA 5 in Louisiana and will be built between the railroad bridge and existing river bridge.
(above quote from US 84 Sabine River Bridge Replacement Project thread)

edit

This November 24, 2013 article reports that the bypass is south of town:

Quote
The southern bridge routing motorists from Texas creates a new pathway to the south of the downtown area before eventually intersecting at Hwy. 84 at Louisiana Highway 5.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 09:52:40 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #223 on: January 13, 2016, 01:51:01 PM »

... $2 billion is the estimated cost to complete I-69 SIUs 14 and 15 in Louisiana (but does not include a cost estimate to complete I-69 SIU 16 in Louisiana), as reflected in this slide from an April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (slide 17/54)):

This Shreveport Times article reports that, with the completion of I-49 North in sight, efforts to get I-69 underway in Louisiana are increasing:

Quote
Efforts to get funding and support for the planned Interstate 69 route through northwest Louisiana picked up in recent months following the opening of Interstate 49 North to motorists.
Bossier City Mayor Lo Walker
, who's also president of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition board of directors, said he felt now is the time to drive interest in the project given the completion of significant portions of I-49 in Louisiana.
"We knew the state could not support two mega projects at the same time so we did not push our project publicly as much because we did not want to interfere with the completion of I-49," Walker said.
There's just one problem — money.
  Portions of I-69 are either underway or completed in other states. Louisiana is responsible for two segments of the highway expansion project. It'sportion is expected to cost upwards to $29 billion, according to published reports. Walker also puts the project's estimated cost in that range. The federal and state governments are expected to  split the costs 80/20.
But given the Louisiana's budgetary issues and the challenges the United States has maintaining its current infrastructure, construction isn't going to start anytime soon ...
John Olivieri, national campaign director for 21st century transportation for the United States Public Interest Research Group
Louisiana has a $12.7 billion backlog in transportation maintenance projects. The amount needed to complete I-69 in Louisiana would more than cover that, Olivieri said.

Walker understands Louisiana's financial difficulties. It's dire, he said.  He doesn't expect the state to fork over it's portion of the money anytime soon.
"We've got two records of decision already sitting there all ready to build when we can get the money," he said ....
Walker believes there will be a high return on the investment if the route is built in Louisiana. It would reduce travel time and have an economic impact as it passes by airports and ports. The future I-69 would go directly through The Port Caddo-Bossier.
The impact of the highway on the port would be both economic and physical, Walker said. In 2007, the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration also deemed the I-69 corridor as one of six interstate routes that are a "Corridor of the Future."

One thing Mayor Walker could do is to back off the $29 billion figure (roughly the national estimated cost to complete I-69), which Olivieri has apparently used to suggest that Louisiana's cost is in excess of $12.7 billion, and make sure to use the $2 billion + cost of SIU 16 figure for the estimated cost of I-69 in Louisiana. Also, no mention of I-49 South as a mega project?



The article also mentions that efforts are underway to preserve the SIU 14 and SIU 15 corridors and to begin the environmental process for SIU 16:

Quote
Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ....
said NLCOG still is pushing to get the environmental work completed on the portion of the project from Tenaha, Texas, to Stonewall. Texas will be a lead on that portion, he said. NLCOG also wants legislation to preserve the corridors for Louisiana's two segments.
The goal is to keep development from infringing on the corridors until money is found to buy the land needed. Ninety-nine percent of Louisiana's segments are in "virgin territory," meaning they would have to be constructed, Rogers said.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3235
  • Never say never.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: September 20, 2019, 11:43:09 AM
    • Personal Site
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #224 on: January 13, 2016, 02:10:55 PM »

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.
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

 


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.