If/when I-69 into Memphis, TN is completed, will there even be much of a time/mileage benefit Indy <-> Memphis via I-69 vs I-70<->I-57<->I-55?
And if/when MO&AR get the “missing” extended I-57 section built (Walnut Ridge<->Poplar Bluff) that makes I-57 not just a St Louis Bypass but also a Memphis Bypass, there is no way I-69 has any advantage to Texas-bound traffic, and would be questionable if it would even save time/miles if/when AR&LA (and a Mississippi River Bridge) get their sections of I-69 constructed
I assume any Tolling study has accounted for this. Maybe I’m overly skeptical
I think an Interstate bridge would be an in-demand route for an upgraded US 41 Chicago-Nashville corridor, if US 41 (IN 63 where appropriate) could make it to Interstate standard, or at least a minimum of a Terre Haute Bypass and a freeway connection to the south end of the IL 394 Freeway/Expressway, but I am getting Fictional, and too high a toll would still have Long Distance/Freight traffic using the current “Free” I-57/I-24 route or the “mostly Free” (depending on Chicagoland route and if shunpiking the I-65 bridge toll in Louisville) or comparably tolled I-80/94 <-> I-65 route
Intriguing observations -- and quite prescient
if TX completes its I-69/369 composite corridor from Houston to I-30, and the I-57 MO/AR extension is built, that almost obviates the center section of I-69 between Shreveport & Memphis, since the major drawback to the longstanding existing route -- the increasingly congested I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis -- is effectively bypassed in regards to Houston to the Great Lakes region traffic, with the I-57/I-70 corridor via Effingham, IL subbing in for the entire Indy-Memphis section of I-69 -- which now focuses long-distance traffic on Memphis origins & destinations,
not those in TX; they have an equally efficient path elsewhere -- with the advantage of
not traversing much in the way of large metro chokepoints (Terre Haute and Little Rock being the most substantial along that corridor). The efforts to complete the northern I-69 Indy-Memphis segment will be, at least near/medium-term, in provision of benefit to traffic heading from Indiana to Memphis and possibly the New Orleans area via I-55. To be fair, the latter routing
does bypass Louisville, Nashville, and possibly the three Alabama metro areas arrayed along I-65 (Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile), and there is always I-269 as a Memphis bypass, though a little plagued with backtracking regarding the northern E-W section now signed MS 385. Even with Ohio River tolling, I-69
will, in all likelihood, provide a more efficient (and to truckers, cost-effective when time is calculated into the equation) path to the lower Mississippi River commercial areas than is currently available. But Texas access? Not so much; the center I-69 segment will be just another alternative, not appreciably better than its competition. It might eventually be built -- but it'll be local southern AR interests pressing for its development, not hordes of truckers looking for a better route from Houston to the Great Lakes.
When considering the whole of the I-69 project, remember that the most vehement backers were concentrated in Indiana and Texas; the former just wanted to see the Evansville area connected (from two directions if possible) by an Interstate corridor, and the latter had two goals (outlined extensively in several Mid-South threads): providing an Interstate outlet from Houston to the northeast (I-30 and, to a lesser extent, I-20 & I-49) and developing a South TX network covering most of the border crossings and funneling such to Houston. In fits and pieces, they're well on their way to getting
those goals achieved. The center section was simply a vehicle so that the backers of the project could claim national rather than regional benefits for the whole corridor by tying the two more "vital" segments together, bringing some rural interests on board as well. Unfortunately, the three states through which that segment travel are three that are perennially needing to scrounge money for projects -- and other projects have taken precedence over a I-69 section promising relatively little in the way of traffic or significant benefits -- but with a project feature -- the Great River Bridge -- whose construction cost will dwarf any other particular part of the entire corridor, and which the involved states can ill afford. Hardly an undertaking that any of the jurisdictions in question are in any hurry to expedite!
But the Indy-Memphis section -- a very long "SIU" if you will,
will eventually be completed; it
does have regional value -- and most of it is built or well under way. And a tolled I-69 Ohio River bridge will be an integral part of it, regardless of how the local tolling issue shakes out; except for some reticence on the part of TN, the states and other parties involved with that corridor segment have gone "all in".