Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MikieTimT]

Whatever it takes to eventually bypass Memphis.  I'm probably not alone in this outlook with anyone west and north of Little Rock, but anytime we head to Florida for vacation, we take US highways from Little Rock to Mobile, AL (other than three dozen miles of I-530) through the depressing delta lands just specifically to not have to deal with Memphis traffic and roads.  Any Mississippi River bridges south if I-55 and north of Helena on roads of freeway quality would eliminate so much navigation and perpetual lane closures due to construction in Memphis.

[Wayward Memphian]

^^^^^^^
Unless commercial and housing development expanding outward from Memphis overtakes I-269, it'll probably remain one of the region's lesser trucking thoroughfares -- at least until I-69 is completed both north and south of metro Memphis.  There just isn't a huge volume of traffic heading north on I-55 that turns east on I-40 at this time. 

There's a lot of warehouse space going in already along the I-269 corridor south of Collierville, and Norfolk Southern has been expanding its intermodal terminal just east of I-269, so it could get pretty crowded just from locally originating and arriving traffic.

Wow!  Sounds like the I-269 corridor is being groomed as FedEx East!  I-69 development better get cracking sooner than later to provide egress to and from Memphis from all directions; that metro area is certainly positioning itself as the southern version (if not equivalent) of Chicago as far as being "distribution central" (but we sort of knew that all along!).

I don't know if you have been paying attention as it's been flying under the radar but there is literally tens of billions in development for Memphis in the pipeline. 

[Bobby5280]

This is a place where the federal government would be useful.  Facilitating interstate commerce.  There's dozens of places where leadership at the national level could get something done while states bicker and cry poverty.  Instead we have... not that.

These days the federal government is so absent in the planning, funding & building process of any new long distance route. Routes such as I-69 or I-14 have little if any big picture, national-level execution. The routes end up being unfinished little crooked herky-jerky segments of crap only designed for local interests in a specific area. It's like trying to string together a bunch of unrelated bypasses into one route. The exercise ends up really being pork for lawmakers in specific districts and their business interests. The current process is a complete mockery against the very notion of having a properly designed NATIONAL highway network.

Just a random thought: maybe the pathetic mechanisms we have for highway planning are being quietly influenced by groups who don't like highways. I'm not talking NIMBY's, environmentalists, etc. I'm talking about groups like the airline industry lobby. Why blow billions on a new Interstate when the same money can be poured into an airport terminal? Or maybe a new NFL stadium for that matter?

A Western extension of I-269/I-22 across the Mississippi River into Arkansas to I-40 would be a big benefit to long distance traffic. It would even help I-55 thru traffic. If state lawmakers in Nashville don't like inner city Memphis this bypass would, in a way, be a big middle finger to that city, allowing thru traffic to go well around it. The only trouble is Tunica is in Mississippi. That gets us back to the need of having the federal government involved in this stuff rather than just leaving it all up to the states (particularly cash-poor states like Mississippi).

There are blue states that do the same thing to red enclaves within those states, so it goes both ways...just depends on what state you're in.  That aside, regardless of what political party folks are affiliated with, it sure would be nice if our elected officials would put the people they've been elected to serve ahead of their party ideologies.  I think more would get done if the two sides would come together, have a civilized conversation and make compromises.

I don't think I've ever seen a suburb bypassed in favor of a pushing a freeway through a dense (and presumably more liberal) urban center.

[sparker]

I don't think I've ever seen a suburb bypassed in favor of a pushing a freeway through a dense (and presumably more liberal) urban center.

These days it's more likely that new freeways will extend outward from beltways in a manner calculated to minimize property acquisition cost.  No agency -- or roadway backing entity -- wants to incur the cost, both fiscal and political, of plowing a freeway through either dense urban or even moderately dense suburban territory.  The era of central-city freeway building (at least in respect to new facilities) is past.  Back in the mid-50's, the urban trunks & loops planned in the Yellow Book were to a large degree prompted as a response to the middle-class flight to the suburbs -- intended to provide access so that spending power could return to the city to shop and recreate.  Of course, the '60's saw shopping malls sited along beltways and outlying arterials, which took the wind out of the urban-freeway sails about the same time the urban anti-freeway movement was gelling.  After that, very few urban areas had the will or ability to build out their freeway networks to anywhere close to the original plans. 

[cjk374]

The era of central-city freeway building (at least in respect to new facilities) is past.

The I-49 Inner City Connector in Shreveport says hi.      

[sparker]

The era of central-city freeway building (at least in respect to new facilities) is past.

The I-49 Inner City Connector in Shreveport says hi.      

Forgot about that one; but it's likely the exception that proves the rule.  Getting that thing through the approval process was like pulling teeth.  I'm just surprised Citylab, John Norquist, and others didn't come down hard regarding opposition to the project;  fortunately, it seemed to stay just enough under the national radar to slide through.   

Curiously, when a I-10 spur to Dothan, AL was still being considered several years back, the original concept was to route it outside of the peripheral city "loop" that carried US 84 and 231 -- but the downtown merchants' association pressed for an in-city routing following an abandoned rail line so as to (potentially) draw business back to the city center from the commercial areas that were sited along the outer loop.  But with AL's recent deletion of most freeways from its plans -- including that one -- the concept is now moot.

[jamierazorback]

Once I-269 and I-69 are fleshed out, a southern bypass of Memphis doesn't have to involve Memphis or even Tennessee whatsoever, just Mississippi and Arkansas.  If we're honest about finances, though, it'll be federal money that enables crossing the Mississippi River with the finances of those states, so the Memphis MSA would have some say there.  But it's likely that something catastrophic occurring with one of the current bridges is what it would take to actually make the push of any other crossing within the next 20 years.

Given that the states you mention are still trying to figure out how to pay for the "Great River Bridge" (I-69), I wouldn't look for a southern Memphis-area crossing anytime soon...

I agree with this. While Mississippi already has a road built for the interstate (304 to 61) and all they would have to come up with is bridge money for the most part; Arkansas would have to come up with bridge money and a good 30 miles of new interstate. And what towns do you have that would connect Tunica to say West Memphis or Forest City? There is nothing there. I don't see where Arkansas would want to invest a single penny on that project!

[Wayward Memphian]

Once I-269 and I-69 are fleshed out, a southern bypass of Memphis doesn't have to involve Memphis or even Tennessee whatsoever, just Mississippi and Arkansas.  If we're honest about finances, though, it'll be federal money that enables crossing the Mississippi River with the finances of those states, so the Memphis MSA would have some say there.  But it's likely that something catastrophic occurring with one of the current bridges is what it would take to actually make the push of any other crossing within the next 20 years.

Given that the states you mention are still trying to figure out how to pay for the "Great River Bridge" (I-69), I wouldn't look for a southern Memphis-area crossing anytime soon...

I agree with this. While Mississippi already has a road built for the interstate (304 to 61) and all they would have to come up with is bridge money for the most part; Arkansas would have to come up with bridge money and a good 30 miles of new interstate. And what towns do you have that would connect Tunica to say West Memphis or Forest City? There is nothing there. I don't see where Arkansas would want to invest a single penny on that project!

If it would be build from say, Lehi to just north of Horseshoe Lake, It would  better connect Arkansas' Intermodal facilities for the growing DCs of Norf Sippi and may even spur further development on this side of the river by removing the Old  bridge bottleneck. And... finally allow that  bridge's issues to be properly addressed. I see it as way more for economic development than opening up land for sub divisions.

The Great River Bridge is overkill, there's a perfectcally good, rather new one just down stream that  could be used for I-69.

[Anthony_JK]

The era of central-city freeway building (at least in respect to new facilities) is past.

The I-49 Inner City Connector in Shreveport says hi.      

As well as it's compliment in Lafayette (I-49 Lafayette Connector).

In both cases, though, the downtown connection is shorter and less expensive, and the bypass alternatives either don't exist and would be prohibitly expensive (as the case with I-49 in Lafayette), or are too far away to provide any service to the inner core (such as LA 3132/I-220 as an alternative to the ICC in Shreveport).

This is a moot point regarding Memphis, of course, since they already have I-55/I-240 as the N/S direct route, and I-40/I-240 as a decent near E/W bypass.

[Anthony_JK]

[...]

The Great River Bridge is overkill, there's a perfectcally good, rather new one just down stream that  could be used for I-69.

Not quite.

If you rerouted I-69 along US 82 from Monticello to Greenville just to use the US 82 bridge, you'd add way too much mileage, especially if you kept the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello portion.

There is enough justification for a crossing of the Mississippi between Greenville and Helena, and the more direct routing of I-69 would provide relief to the I-30/I-40 corridor through Texarkana and Little Rock.

[Bobby5280]

These days it's more likely that new freeways will extend outward from beltways in a manner calculated to minimize property acquisition cost. No agency -- or roadway backing entity -- wants to incur the cost, both fiscal and political, of plowing a freeway through either dense urban or even moderately dense suburban territory. The era of central-city freeway building (at least in respect to new facilities) is past.

That may be the current philosophy (with 2 noted exceptions along I-49 for Shreveport and Lafayette). But let's see how that philosophy holds up over the next 10-20 years. The United States has a bunch of urban zones whose high priced economics make them mathematically unsustainable over the long term. They're bubbles waiting to burst (the situation isn't much better for all those clusters of McMansions in the suburbs and exhurbs either). Right now it's politically, financially and logistically impossible to plow a new freeway to or thru a city center experiencing a trendy renaissance. How difficult will it be 20 years from now when the same zone may be struggling to attract new residents, businesses and customers?

Young adults are getting better and better at avoiding having kids and the soaring costs of parenthood. For people born in the United States we're now getting into negative territory: more people dying than being born. Combine that with the current anti-immigrant fervor, extreme costs of health care, child care, housing, etc and it creates the potential for a serious down-turn in population growth. Add age demographic imbalance to the equation. Our population will be top-heavy with retirement age citizens and short on young, working age adults. All of that added together could create quite the downturn in those pricey city centers.

Ever-improving technology is making it less necessary to work or live in a high priced city, much less a very high priced city center. The same thing goes for even traveling to that city center. Brick and mortar retail is taking a beating from online merchants. Pro sports events and concerts are often price-gouging rip-offs. You can often get a better experience watching the event on the giant 4K UHDTV in the living room. They're building bike paths and other types of green space in these urban centers. There will be fewer people who can afford to live near those attractions. Screw driving a long distance in stop-&-go traffic or taking forever on a bus or train to get there either.

Of course if a downtown/urban center falls into a serious down-turn no one is going to be very enthused about building a new freeway through that zone unless there's an obvious benefit to doing so.

[silverback1065]

These days it's more likely that new freeways will extend outward from beltways in a manner calculated to minimize property acquisition cost. No agency -- or roadway backing entity -- wants to incur the cost, both fiscal and political, of plowing a freeway through either dense urban or even moderately dense suburban territory. The era of central-city freeway building (at least in respect to new facilities) is past.

That may be the current philosophy (with 2 noted exceptions along I-49 for Shreveport and Lafayette). But let's see how that philosophy holds up over the next 10-20 years. The United States has a bunch of urban zones whose high priced economics make them mathematically unsustainable over the long term. They're bubbles waiting to burst (the situation isn't much better for all those clusters of McMansions in the suburbs and exhurbs either). Right now it's politically, financially and logistically impossible to plow a new freeway to or thru a city center experiencing a trendy renaissance. How difficult will it be 20 years from now when the same zone may be struggling to attract new residents, businesses and customers?

Young adults are getting better and better at avoiding having kids and the soaring costs of parenthood. For people born in the United States we're now getting into negative territory: more people dying than being born. Combine that with the current anti-immigrant fervor, extreme costs of health care, child care, housing, etc and it creates the potential for a serious down-turn in population growth. Add age demographic imbalance to the equation. Our population will be top-heavy with retirement age citizens and short on young, working age adults. All of that added together could create quite the downturn in those pricey city centers.

Ever-improving technology is making it less necessary to work or live in a high priced city, much less a very high priced city center. The same thing goes for even traveling to that city center. Brick and mortar retail is taking a beating from online merchants. Pro sports events and concerts are often price-gouging rip-offs. You can often get a better experience watching the event on the giant 4K UHDTV in the living room. They're building bike paths and other types of green space in these urban centers. There will be fewer people who can afford to live near those attractions. Screw driving a long distance in stop-&-go traffic or taking forever on a bus or train to get there either.

Of course if a downtown/urban center falls into a serious down-turn no one is going to be very enthused about building a new freeway through that zone unless there's an obvious benefit to doing so.

I've been told that the idea that young people are moving downtown has now reversed and they're moving to the burbs.  is that true?

[froggie]

^ It's mixed.  There is still a strong desire for young professionals to move into/live in the city, but housing costs in most regions are a constraint.  Those cities that are expanding their housing (DC being one example) are continuing to see all ages move in.

[Bobby5280]

If young people are moving back to the burbs it might be to move back in with mom and dad.

But, seriously, I don't know if the trend of young people migrating to urban centers is starting to reverse itself. It is clear many of them are financially forced to do things like share living spaces with 1 or more roommates to help cover rent and other living costs. That living situation has its own risks. The delicate financial balance can be thrown out of whack if one or more roommates leave for various life-changing reasons. Everything tends to cost a whole lot more in an urban center.

Developers aren't exactly building lots of affordable single family homes out in the suburbs either. The focus is mostly on McMansions. It takes a good paycheck to be able to afford living on your own in a nice apartment in a city center or a good house out in the burbs. Hell, apartments even in more sketchy parts of a city aren't all that cheap either. Lots of twenty somethings are stuck living with parents unless they make big compromises, like sharing an apartment with multiple roommates, bouncing from one friend's couch to the next, etc.

This trend can't go on forever. Rising interest rates are going to shut a lot of people out of being able to buy homes. I think home lenders have already been allowing buyers to get in way over their heads with mortgage payments equaling as much as 70% of their income. Crazy.

Towns like mine here in Oklahoma are starting to see a little more growth, despite the crisis going on with public schools. Home and apartment prices have gone up some, but not at the stratospheric rates common to the big cities. The US Army is moving more missions to Fort Sill in part to save money due to our lower living costs.

[Chris]

Millennials are now also entering their thirties on a large scale and are starting to raise families, which is generally more affordable / desirable in the suburbs. Homeownership is out of reach for them in many city centers, or they would have to settle with a lot less space.

[sparker]

I think home lenders have already been allowing buyers to get in way over their heads with mortgage payments equaling as much as 70% of their income. Crazy.

That was one of the precipitating factors with the housing-finance "crash" of 2007-09.  Living in the Inland Empire at the time, I witnessed the phenomemon first-hand.  The company I worked for until that time had a same-day courier division; some of their more consistent clients in the early 2000's were finance companies that, for lack of a more concise description, basically fabricated income documentation for lower-income speculative home buyers in order to qualify them for the more outlying homes in such places as the high desert (Victorville, Adelanto) and the Hemet Valley southeast of Riverside -- the locations of the last sub $200K housing in those heady times.   They had no problem paying hundreds of dollars for same-day service of mortgage/escrow papers, which allowed them to complete the transactions before anyone looked too hard at them.  These finance companies would then "bundle" those loans with others of a more conventional nature and sell them to even larger entities -- after collecting all the fees and the first layer of profits!  After 2008, some were actually indicted and prosecuted for fraud; but between the evictions and the stoppage of construction of some tracts, leaving many sites half-completed, things didn't even begin to approach some semblance of fiscal order until as late as 2012.   

[MantyMadTown]

This is a place where the federal government would be useful.  Facilitating interstate commerce.  There's dozens of places where leadership at the national level could get something done while states bicker and cry poverty.  Instead we have... not that.

These days the federal government is so absent in the planning, funding & building process of any new long distance route. Routes such as I-69 or I-14 have little if any big picture, national-level execution. The routes end up being unfinished little crooked herky-jerky segments of crap only designed for local interests in a specific area. It's like trying to string together a bunch of unrelated bypasses into one route. The exercise ends up really being pork for lawmakers in specific districts and their business interests. The current process is a complete mockery against the very notion of having a properly designed NATIONAL highway network.

Just a random thought: maybe the pathetic mechanisms we have for highway planning are being quietly influenced by groups who don't like highways. I'm not talking NIMBY's, environmentalists, etc. I'm talking about groups like the airline industry lobby. Why blow billions on a new Interstate when the same money can be poured into an airport terminal? Or maybe a new NFL stadium for that matter?

A Western extension of I-269/I-22 across the Mississippi River into Arkansas to I-40 would be a big benefit to long distance traffic. It would even help I-55 thru traffic. If state lawmakers in Nashville don't like inner city Memphis this bypass would, in a way, be a big middle finger to that city, allowing thru traffic to go well around it. The only trouble is Tunica is in Mississippi. That gets us back to the need of having the federal government involved in this stuff rather than just leaving it all up to the states (particularly cash-poor states like Mississippi).

I like the idea of a western extension past the Mississippi River. It would serve as a good connector between I-40 and I-55 while bypassing Memphis. It would just have to be I-22 instead of I-269, because I-269 is planned to end at I-69 along the same roadway.

[MikeTheActuary]

I like the idea of a western extension past the Mississippi River. It would serve as a good connector between I-40 and I-55 while bypassing Memphis. It would just have to be I-22 instead of I-269, because I-269 is planned to end at I-69 along the same roadway.

The odds are pretty good that a southern crossing would take over the I-55 designation.

[GreenLanternCorps]

The MDOT Traffic Camera at MS 305 and I-269 pointing South (West) shows that the travel lanes have been paved and the center white lines are painted.  They appear as of this morning to be working on the median and shoulder which do not appear to have the final layer of pavement yet.

[MikieTimT]

I like the idea of a western extension past the Mississippi River. It would serve as a good connector between I-40 and I-55 while bypassing Memphis. It would just have to be I-22 instead of I-269, because I-269 is planned to end at I-69 along the same roadway.

The odds are pretty good that a southern crossing would take over the I-55 designation.

As far south as another river crossing would be, it would be tough to make it I-55 without having to backtrack back west several miles along I-40 before splitting off back south on a new alignment.

[sparker]

I like the idea of a western extension past the Mississippi River. It would serve as a good connector between I-40 and I-55 while bypassing Memphis. It would just have to be I-22 instead of I-269, because I-269 is planned to end at I-69 along the same roadway.

The odds are pretty good that a southern crossing would take over the I-55 designation.

As far south as another river crossing would be, it would be tough to make it I-55 without having to backtrack back west several miles along I-40 before splitting off back south on a new alignment.

The only way a I-55 designation makes sense for a southern crossing is if (a) it would cross I-40 in AR and loop back to I-55, intersecting it somewhere near the I-555 junction (the existing I-55 section south of there would be a I-555 extension), and (b) direct N>W flyover ramps were constructed at the current I-55/69/269 interchange at Hernando.  Neither concept is being explored presently, much less a southern MS River crossing (no funding!); what's on the ground after I-269 is opened in the area is likely to be it for quite some time. 

[Bobby5280]

If a new Southern Memphis area crossing of the Mississippi River was built (directly West of where I-269 and MS-304 is pointing) chances are very low it would carry the I-55 designation. Due to the curves of the Mississippi River a new bridge and Interstate would have to connect to I-40 in Arkansas at least 10 or more miles West of the existing I-40/I-55 interchange in West Memphis, AR. That's quite a bit of back-tracking to do to get back to the existing alignment. Then there's the consequence to local businesses along I-55 with changing the highway designation. Any advertising or other business materials mentioning I-55 in relation to their location has to be updated.

It would be more simple for a new crossing over the Mississippi to carry a new number, be it I-269 or I-22. I personally prefer I-22 for a new Southern crossing. There's nothing wrong with having I-22 dovetail into I-40 ten or more miles West of West Memphis.

[lordsutch]

The only way a I-55 designation makes sense for a southern crossing is if (a) it would cross I-40 in AR and loop back to I-55, intersecting it somewhere near the I-555 junction (the existing I-55 section south of there would be a I-555 extension), and (b) direct N>W flyover ramps were constructed at the current I-55/69/269 interchange at Hernando.  Neither concept is being explored presently, much less a southern MS River crossing (no funding!); what's on the ground after I-269 is opened in the area is likely to be it for quite some time. 

If it hopes to get funding, a new bridge (no matter where it ends up) probably will have to be justified as part of a rerouting of I-55. It's just a matter of when, not if, although it'll probably take the "old bridge" falling into the river (or pretty close) to actually spur things into action.

There has been some talk in Memphis of building a bridge to provide a second access point to the industrial area on the President's Island peninsula south of downtown, which could be a jumping off point for a southern crossing that would be closer in to West Memphis, although I doubt it would be constructed to a freeway standard unless bigger plans were being considered for it. A north-south bridge across the main river channel in that location could actually tie into I-55 east of West Memphis.

[MantyMadTown]

An I-55 rerouting would be impractical. The interstate will eventually have to go southeast, and rerouting it to west of where it already is would make an unnecessary loop somewhere, whether it starts in West Memphis or otherwise. It just wouldn't make sense.

[silverback1065]

what happened to the plan to realign 55 and removing that stupid cloverleaf at crump?