I-69 in TN

[sparker]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55. Then it might have to follow Interstate 55 through Missouri and Arkansas to reconnect with existing Interstate 69 south of the Mississippi/Tennessee border. Of course, if that happened, the TN 385/future Interstate 269 freeway will have to permanently remain TN 385, or the freeway will have to be extended across the Mississippi River to connect with Interstate 55 in Arkansas, though a state park and a wildlife refuge stand in the way of extending 385 into Arkansas.

The alternate, of course, is to veer east of the present US 51 corridor, perhaps partially utilizing the section of US 412 immediately east of US 51, then paralleling 51 down to at least TN 385/future I-269.  At that point it could either head west along 385 (if the Superfund site mess is eventually cleared up) or just replace I-269 south.  But it remains to be seen if TDOT is either (a) that clever or (b) that interested in a resolution to the corridor issue.   

[abqtraveler]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55. Then it might have to follow Interstate 55 through Missouri and Arkansas to reconnect with existing Interstate 69 south of the Mississippi/Tennessee border. Of course, if that happened, the TN 385/future Interstate 269 freeway will have to permanently remain TN 385, or the freeway will have to be extended across the Mississippi River to connect with Interstate 55 in Arkansas, though a state park and a wildlife refuge stand in the way of extending 385 into Arkansas.

Another point of consideration about routing I-69 over I-55 through Missouri, Arkansas and back into Tennessee, is the Crump Boulevard interchange. I recall that TDOT was getting ready to reconfigure the Crump interchange, but from what I've read it sounds like they've pulled the plug on that project.

[Bobby5280]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55.

I thought the plan for I-69 between Memphis and Dyersburg was a mostly new terrain path built to the west of the existing US-51 corridor. I can recall seeing concept/study maps about the plan.

As for US-51 between Memphis and Dyersburg, very little of that can be upgraded to Interstate quality due to so much property encroachment on the existing US-51 ROW.

Regarding the concept of routing I-69 over I-155 and then I-55 in Arkansas, I think the idea is a bit of a non-starter. I-69 already follows enough of a stupidly crooked path. Putting it over I-155 just makes the route even more crooked still. If I-69 was pushed that way into Arkansas at that spot then I-69 might as well stay in Arkansas until it hit the Louisiana border. Making the route go into Arkansas and then back into Tennessee just to briefly touch Memphis, then go down into Mississippi and then back into Arkansas again is just ridiculous.

[edwaleni]

The Dyersburg - Memphis section won't be completed for a while. But, as I stated in the I-69 thread, in a few years the Dyersburg to Fulton, KY section will be completed. Other than the Ohio river crossing, a driver (using I-55 to Dyersburg) could travel all the way to Michigan on I-69. I would not be surprised if TN cancels I-155 in favor of I-69, then connects that to I-55 in AR. The two routes can multiplex from Hayti, AR to Memphis to complete the connection for I-69 to Canada.

From north of Dyersburg to downtown Memphis it takes the same amount of time to take I-155 to I-55 as it does to take US-412 east to TN-54, getting on I-40 at Brownsville (1h 57 from US-51 near Obion). US-51 south from Dyersburg is the fastest over both, but anything east of downtown is faster to take 412. The other thing to remember is that I-155 to I-55 is already interstate, so it will not become any faster with upgrades, US-51 would be about 30 minutes faster as an interstate as it is 30 miles shorter (to downtown).

From Indianapolis, the difference between the I-155 route and I-70 -> I-57 is 40 minutes in favor of I-70 (6h 52 to 7h 32). I doubt that the upgrades to I-69 in Section 6, the ORX, and Union City will net 40 minutes (since these upgrades are less than 40 miles and the existing speed limit on these stretches averages about 55 mph).

Thus, I doubt TN will go to this routing for two reasons.
1. The I-155 routing is slower for shorter and longer range traffic on the I-69 corridor and
2. I-69 is not signed south of Dyersburg in TN, thus there is less pressure to connect it to I-40 in the short term.

Part of the bigger story about the Dyersburg-Memphis section of I-69 that often gets overlooked when talking about whether or not it'll ever get built is the fact that environmental groups have been fighting TDOT tooth and nail over the routing of that section, since this segment goes through a lot of wetlands and floodplains as it follows the Mississippi River and crosses a few of its tributaries along the route.  That's a major reason why you haven't seen a Final EIS or Record of Decision published for Segment 8 that runs from I-155 near Dyersburg to I-269 in Millington, not just because of a lack of funding, but also because of strong opposition from locals and environmental groups.  For the last unbuilt portion of Segment 9 between I-269 in Millington and I-40/TN-300 in Memphis, TDOT was supposed to be working on a Supplemental EIS to address a couple of Superfund sites in the path of I-69 that would first have to be remediated before construction on the highway could proceed. Like Segment 8, there is no money to complete the Supplemental EIS for this last stretch of I-69 in Tennessee, and plenty of local opposition.

Last I read was that the proposed bridge crossing the Hatchie River north of Covington was requiring a lot of ROW and it was raising some opposition. There is a lot of swamp/wetland there.

The ROW from TN-385 to Millington is known and documented.

The ROW at I-69 & US-51 further south is so messed up they removed it from the TNDOT website. The Superfund site next to the Loosahatchie River (noted above) is causing heartburn with the locals.

Last I heard they were planning to route I-69 over the existing US-51 across the Hatchie River. Is that still the plan?

Both alternatives have a new bridge over the Hatchie, just west of existing US-51.

[Henry]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55.

I thought the plan for I-69 between Memphis and Dyersburg was a mostly new terrain path built to the west of the existing US-51 corridor. I can recall seeing concept/study maps about the plan.

As for US-51 between Memphis and Dyersburg, very little of that can be upgraded to Interstate quality due to so much property encroachment on the existing US-51 ROW.

Regarding the concept of routing I-69 over I-155 and then I-55 in Arkansas, I think the idea is a bit of a non-starter. I-69 already follows enough of a stupidly crooked path. Putting it over I-155 just makes the route even more crooked still. If I-69 was pushed that way into Arkansas at that spot then I-69 might as well stay in Arkansas until it hit the Louisiana border. Making the route go into Arkansas and then back into Tennessee just to briefly touch Memphis, then go down into Mississippi and then back into Arkansas again is just ridiculous.

Agreed on all counts! I'd rather risk building I-69 next to US 51 than make a long multiplex with I-55 just to get it to Memphis.

[Life in Paradise]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55.

I thought the plan for I-69 between Memphis and Dyersburg was a mostly new terrain path built to the west of the existing US-51 corridor. I can recall seeing concept/study maps about the plan.

As for US-51 between Memphis and Dyersburg, very little of that can be upgraded to Interstate quality due to so much property encroachment on the existing US-51 ROW.

Regarding the concept of routing I-69 over I-155 and then I-55 in Arkansas, I think the idea is a bit of a non-starter. I-69 already follows enough of a stupidly crooked path. Putting it over I-155 just makes the route even more crooked still. If I-69 was pushed that way into Arkansas at that spot then I-69 might as well stay in Arkansas until it hit the Louisiana border. Making the route go into Arkansas and then back into Tennessee just to briefly touch Memphis, then go down into Mississippi and then back into Arkansas again is just ridiculous.

Agreed on all counts! I'd rather risk building I-69 next to US 51 than make a long multiplex with I-55 just to get it to Memphis.

I still like the option of running I-69 down US 412 from Dyersburg down to around Cairo and then split it off to go south (near TN 54) and then going around Brownsville and merging with I-40 towards Memphis.  This would only need about 20-25 miles of new road, and about 20-25 miles of upgraded 4 lane (US 412).  The biggest cost might be upgrading I-40 from  Brownsville to Memphis.

[tdindy88]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55.

I thought the plan for I-69 between Memphis and Dyersburg was a mostly new terrain path built to the west of the existing US-51 corridor. I can recall seeing concept/study maps about the plan.

As for US-51 between Memphis and Dyersburg, very little of that can be upgraded to Interstate quality due to so much property encroachment on the existing US-51 ROW.

Regarding the concept of routing I-69 over I-155 and then I-55 in Arkansas, I think the idea is a bit of a non-starter. I-69 already follows enough of a stupidly crooked path. Putting it over I-155 just makes the route even more crooked still. If I-69 was pushed that way into Arkansas at that spot then I-69 might as well stay in Arkansas until it hit the Louisiana border. Making the route go into Arkansas and then back into Tennessee just to briefly touch Memphis, then go down into Mississippi and then back into Arkansas again is just ridiculous.

I saw this discussion earlier and it got me thinking: what if we did run I-69 along I-155 to I-55 and just ended the highway there, on a temporary basis. Since it appears Tennessee is going to be taking a long time finishing I-69 down to Memphis and Mississippi and Arkansas are going at a snail's pace with this, it may be better than nothing to just run the highway to 55 and terminating it there. Once Tennessee and the other states got serious about finishing their other sections of I-69 the route could be moved onto its final routing and the I-155 routing could be renumbered into something. And with this plan, I-69 wouldn't follow I-55 into Memphis and all of that and Mississippi and keep their random section by themselves if they so desire.

Likewise, if Texas got their I-69 moving along maybe they could route I-69 north to Texarkana and if Louisiana ever got their bit of I-69 going then they would renumber the bit going to Texarkana I-369. The end result would be two seperate I-69's, a Port Huron to Dyersburg/I-55 routing and one through Texas. Once the other states actually got moving on their I-69's then we could actually look into connecting the two separate routes.

[abqtraveler]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55.

I thought the plan for I-69 between Memphis and Dyersburg was a mostly new terrain path built to the west of the existing US-51 corridor. I can recall seeing concept/study maps about the plan.

As for US-51 between Memphis and Dyersburg, very little of that can be upgraded to Interstate quality due to so much property encroachment on the existing US-51 ROW.

Regarding the concept of routing I-69 over I-155 and then I-55 in Arkansas, I think the idea is a bit of a non-starter. I-69 already follows enough of a stupidly crooked path. Putting it over I-155 just makes the route even more crooked still. If I-69 was pushed that way into Arkansas at that spot then I-69 might as well stay in Arkansas until it hit the Louisiana border. Making the route go into Arkansas and then back into Tennessee just to briefly touch Memphis, then go down into Mississippi and then back into Arkansas again is just ridiculous.

I saw this discussion earlier and it got me thinking: what if we did run I-69 along I-155 to I-55 and just ended the highway there, on a temporary basis. Since it appears Tennessee is going to be taking a long time finishing I-69 down to Memphis and Mississippi and Arkansas are going at a snail's pace with this, it may be better than nothing to just run the highway to 55 and terminating it there. Once Tennessee and the other states got serious about finishing their other sections of I-69 the route could be moved onto its final routing and the I-155 routing could be renumbered into something. And with this plan, I-69 wouldn't follow I-55 into Memphis and all of that and Mississippi and keep their random section by themselves if they so desire.

Likewise, if Texas got their I-69 moving along maybe they could route I-69 north to Texarkana and if Louisiana ever got their bit of I-69 going then they would renumber the bit going to Texarkana I-369. The end result would be two seperate I-69's, a Port Huron to Dyersburg/I-55 routing and one through Texas. Once the other states actually got moving on their I-69's then we could actually look into connecting the two separate routes.

I think there would be a better case to convince Congress to amend the Corridor 18/20 legislation to truncate I-69 at Dyersburg, eliminate the section between Dyersburg and Tenaha, Texas, and re-designate the Texarkana to Mexico Border section as something else (maybe I-47) and give two of the three South Texas branches different numbers. I say this because there's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace that Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, or Louisiana will do any work on their sections until Congress ponies up the money to build it, and don't expect Congress to fund I-69 any time soon. Time to stick a fork in it--it's done.

[I-39]

I think there would be a better case to convince Congress to amend the Corridor 18/20 legislation to truncate I-69 at Dyersburg, eliminate the section between Dyersburg and Tenaha, Texas, and re-designate the Texarkana to Mexico Border section as something else (maybe I-47) and give two of the three South Texas branches different numbers. I say this because there's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace that Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, or Louisiana will do any work on their sections until Congress ponies up the money to build it, and don't expect Congress to fund I-69 any time soon. Time to stick a fork in it--it's done.

I agree in principle, but good luck trying to get that through Congress. Too much pork involved.

I-69 never should've been done in the first place. If InDOT wanted an Interstate near Evansville, they should've done the I-67 proposal (Indianapolis to Bowling Green, KY) and then extended it north to Michigan via US 31.

[Bobby5280]

The I-69 effort has been something of a joke for the past 20+ years. The segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana are pretty much the most crooked looking routes in the entire Interstate highway system. I doubt if I-69 in those areas will attract any sort of high traffic counts.

More and more the Great River Bridge in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi looks like a pipe dream. Meanwhile the Memphis metro has much more immediate needs with replacing the janky, narrow I-55 tinker toy bridge over the Mississippi (and that stupid cloverleaf crap at Crump Blvd). The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi River is not up to current standards (6 lanes but ZERO shoulders). And there are legit needs to extend I-269 across the Mississippi both North and South of the Memphis metro. I-269 really needs to be a complete outer loop around Memphis.

Out of all the I-69 projects being proposed or in progress, the projects down in Texas are the most legit out of any I-69 effort. But it could all be under a different Interstate number, such as I-47. There is no debate that Houston and Corpus Christi needs to be directly linked with an Interstate quality corridor. There is also no debate that Laredo to Houston also needs to be Interstate quality. And the Rio Grand Valley part of Texas way down at the Southern tip is home to well over a million people in a cluster of small to mid-sized cities. I-2 from Brownsville to Laredo is justifiable. Same goes for the "E," "C" and "W" segments of I-69.

The BIG PROBLEM is I-69 has already had its dye cast. It's very difficult, if not downright impossible, for the Texas contingent of I-69 routes to just change the number to I-47. Too much signage has already been installed. Too many businesses and institutions have adjusted their advertising and communications to accommodate that route number. The way it looks is we'll have a perpetually incomplete I-69 for quite a long time until the federal government finally caves and provides the funding needed to complete the job thru Northern Louisiana, Southern Arkansas, NW Mississippi and Tennessee.

[Bill C.]

The I-69 effort has been something of a joke for the past 20+ years.


The BIG PROBLEM is I-69 has already had its dye cast. It's very difficult, if not downright impossible, for the Texas contingent of I-69 routes to just change the number to I-47. Too much signage has already been installed. Too many businesses and institutions have adjusted their advertising and communications to accommodate that route number. The way it looks is we'll have a perpetually incomplete I-69 for quite a long time until the federal government finally caves and provides the funding needed to complete the job thru Northern Louisiana, Southern Arkansas, NW Mississippi and Tennessee.

The solution is to leave I-69 permanently split into two disparate and non-connected highways similar to I-87. Truncate I-69 at Texarkana and in northern Mississippi near Tunica's casinos. Tennessee can finish I-69 to Dyersburg then run it over i-155 and down I-55 to Memphis. That would permanently finish the road and the two ends would never need to be connected.

Having one contiguous roadway for its own sake  which no one would ever use in a single trip is pointless. Spending billions to build a road where traffic counts don't warrant the expense, will never justify to human, environment, and monetary expense is ludicrous. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi don't have any need for this road now or in the foreseeable future.

As to Congress: they'll be too busy pigging out to notice the pork is missing from the plate over the next four years. Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana Congressmen could slip the change in I-69 into a rider on a bill, pass it into law without fanfare, and stop the madness.

Change doesn't have to be complicated. It just takes a leader to be either forceful or stealthy.   

[Life in Paradise]

The I-69 effort has been something of a joke for the past 20+ years. The segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana are pretty much the most crooked looking routes in the entire Interstate highway system. I doubt if I-69 in those areas will attract any sort of high traffic counts.

Meet I-25 in New Mexico, I-75 in Florida, I-40 in Western Arkansas, I-15 in Southern California, I-25 (again) in Wyoming, to name a few crooked routes.  You may not like the I-69 project at all, but the current political climate does not allow roads to head straight through areas like they used to.  TN, MS, and AR were added for some political clout, and I would agree, unless there is some sort of funding from the federal government, those sections are not going to happen.

[Ryctor2018]

To steer the thread back on topic, how much of I-69 around Union City has been paved? There aren't pictures in TNDOT's website I can find, just status reports. Has grading started on the section south of Union City south of the current zone near Troy, TN? I may consider traveling to the area in the spring to check it out.

Would TNDOT consider tolling Dyersburg-Memphis? The question was rejected before, but unless the piggybank is cracked open, that's the only way I see a highway built.

[Rick Powell]

The solution is to leave I-69 permanently split into two disparate and non-connected highways similar to I-87. Truncate I-69 at Texarkana and in northern Mississippi near Tunica's casinos. Tennessee can finish I-69 to Dyersburg then run it over i-155 and down I-55 to Memphis. That would permanently finish the road and the two ends would never need to be connected. 

That solution might also be useful for gaining additional funding for I-55 and I-40 since there would be a de facto concurrency of I-69 from Dyersburg to Texarkana.
Heck, it's a lot easier to add an Interstate shield to an existing I/Route than to build a new one, and lane improvements can come later.

[I-39]

Having one contiguous roadway for its own sake  which no one would ever use in a single trip is pointless. Spending billions to build a road where traffic counts don't warrant the expense, will never justify to human, environment, and monetary expense is ludicrous. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi don't have any need for this road now or in the foreseeable future.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS!

I-69 is a complete political joke between Memphis and Texas. Even the Kentucky and Tennessee sections are questionable. We have much bigger things that our tax dollars need to be spent on. 

[thefro]

The I-69 effort has been something of a joke for the past 20+ years. The segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana are pretty much the most crooked looking routes in the entire Interstate highway system. I doubt if I-69 in those areas will attract any sort of high traffic counts.

More and more the Great River Bridge in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi looks like a pipe dream. Meanwhile the Memphis metro has much more immediate needs with replacing the janky, narrow I-55 tinker toy bridge over the Mississippi (and that stupid cloverleaf crap at Crump Blvd). The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi River is not up to current standards (6 lanes but ZERO shoulders). And there are legit needs to extend I-269 across the Mississippi both North and South of the Memphis metro. I-269 really needs to be a complete outer loop around Memphis.

Out of all the I-69 projects being proposed or in progress, the projects down in Texas are the most legit out of any I-69 effort. But it could all be under a different Interstate number, such as I-47. There is no debate that Houston and Corpus Christi needs to be directly linked with an Interstate quality corridor. There is also no debate that Laredo to Houston also needs to be Interstate quality. And the Rio Grand Valley part of Texas way down at the Southern tip is home to well over a million people in a cluster of small to mid-sized cities. I-2 from Brownsville to Laredo is justifiable. Same goes for the "E," "C" and "W" segments of I-69.

The BIG PROBLEM is I-69 has already had its dye cast. It's very difficult, if not downright impossible, for the Texas contingent of I-69 routes to just change the number to I-47. Too much signage has already been installed. Too many businesses and institutions have adjusted their advertising and communications to accommodate that route number. The way it looks is we'll have a perpetually incomplete I-69 for quite a long time until the federal government finally caves and provides the funding needed to complete the job thru Northern Louisiana, Southern Arkansas, NW Mississippi and Tennessee.

Literally the whole idea was cooked up by people in Washington, IN to get politicians from other states like Texas on board so that the route could get federal money and be prioritized.  Those people were mad that I-64 got routed south instead of following the old Buffalo Trace/US 150 (which the railroads also followed) from Louisville to Washington, IN before going west through Vincennes and on to St. Louis, MO eventually.  Evansville, IN also wanted their interstate highway to Indianapolis.

There's local utility here in Indiana (especially for the Bloomington to Indianapolis leg which already is probably 5th in traffic in terms of routes feeding into Indianapolis) and Kentucky was able to put the I-69 over their existing parkways relatively inexpensively.

I think it'll be fine to end the route at Dyersburg or Memphis and use I-40/I-30 as the connection to the Texas leg.

[Bobby5280]

Meet I-25 in New Mexico, I-75 in Florida, I-40 in Western Arkansas, I-15 in Southern California, I-25 (again) in Wyoming, to name a few crooked routes.  You may not like the I-69 project at all, but the current political climate does not allow roads to head straight through areas like they used to.  TN, MS, and AR were added for some political clout, and I would agree, unless there is some sort of funding from the federal government, those sections are not going to happen.

The non-straight Interstates you mentioned are not good examples.

I-40 in Western Arkansas is not all that crooked. It's nothing like the route I-69 takes through Kentucky and Southern Indiana.

I-25 in New Mexico was routed the way it is North of Albuquerque out of sheer necessity. The highway had to go North to connect to Santa Fe and then zig zag through Glorieta Mesa and the southern limits of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to get around and back up to Las Vegas, NM. The Amtrak line nearby follows an even less straight path and doesn't even get to Santa Fe (any riders from Santa Fe have to get on/off at the station in Lamy). I-25 in Wyoming has a similar situation, having to get around the Laramie Mountain Range between Cheyenne and Casper.

I-75 in Florida originally terminated on the West Coast. Alligator Alley was originally a 2 lane toll road that was later widened to 4-lane divided. Then I-75 was eventually designated on the route.

I-69 is routed the way it is mainly over politics.

[SkyPesos]

We already know how unnecessary I-69 is in MS and AR, with I-40/I-30/I-369 as a direct route between Memphis and Tenaha, but I think that I-69 in TN can wait too. From Indy to Memphis, there's I-70/I-57/I-55. From the 3C cities in Ohio to Memphis (I called I-71 a branch of I-69 many times, this is why they're included), there's I-71/I-65/I-40. Sometimes, I forget how diagonal in the SW-NE direction I-40 is between Memphis and Nashville, and I-65 between Nashville and Louisville. The I-57 extension to Little Rock will also make the TN part of I-69 less needed.

[dvferyance]

Having one contiguous roadway for its own sake  which no one would ever use in a single trip is pointless. Spending billions to build a road where traffic counts don't warrant the expense, will never justify to human, environment, and monetary expense is ludicrous. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi don't have any need for this road now or in the foreseeable future.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS!

I-69 is a complete political joke between Memphis and Texas. Even the Kentucky and Tennessee sections are questionable. We have much bigger things that our tax dollars need to be spent on.

I felt the same way at first about the Kentucky portion as well But it mainly overlaid existing freeways anyways. It was only the portion between Indianapolis and Evansville that has a great benefit.

[sprjus4]

I-40 in Western Arkansas is not all that crooked. It's nothing like the route I-69 takes through Kentucky and Southern Indiana.

25-30 miles longer than a direct shot between Memphis and Conway.
25-30 miles longer than a direct shot between Little Rock and Fort Smith.

Same situation with I-69. It's also important to mention, with your I-75 counter, it's the same situation. I-69 was overlaid on existing mostly interstate-standard parkways instead of building 70-80 miles of new terrain freeway.

[triplemultiplex]

To steer the thread back on topic, how much of I-69 around Union City has been paved?

It's been paved from the US 51 interchange south of Union City to the exit by the tire plant for years now.  Long enough that grass is growing in the seams between the concrete ramps and their asphalt shoulders.

Has grading started on the section south of Union City south of the current zone near Troy, TN?

I don't think they're even going to start on that portion until the UC bypass is done.

[The Ghostbuster]

I suggested running Interstate 69 along 155 and 55 entirely because construction of the freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg is unlikely. After all, the Tennessee DOT has suspended completing environmental studies, right-of-way acquisition and potential construction until Congress supplies federal funding to do so, which seems remote. A toll road might help fund construction, but since Tennessee does not have a history of building toll roads, that might be a tough sell.

[edwaleni]

To steer the thread back on topic, how much of I-69 around Union City has been paved?

It's been paved from the US 51 interchange south of Union City to the exit by the tire plant for years now.  Long enough that grass is growing in the seams between the concrete ramps and their asphalt shoulders.

Has grading started on the section south of Union City south of the current zone near Troy, TN?

I don't think they're even going to start on that portion until the UC bypass is done.

The ground has been broken for the ramps north of Union City from US-51 and they are grading the sections between that and the completed section north of the Titan Tire plant.

In fact a weed choked access ramp for construction trucks north of the tire plant is no longer. It is now quite used and busy.

[MikieTimT]

I-40 in Western Arkansas is not all that crooked. It's nothing like the route I-69 takes through Kentucky and Southern Indiana.

25-30 miles longer than a direct shot between Memphis and Conway.
25-30 miles longer than a direct shot between Little Rock and Fort Smith.

I-40 was never not going to be routed close to Little Rock (state capital and largest city) before the original network, so routing along the US-64, US-65, US-70 existing roads was likely always the plan.   Besides, US-64, even though it connects Ft. Smith to Memphis without leaving the route, isn't very straight either due to terrain(hilly and Arkansas River in west, swampy and several river crossings in east)/WMAs, and has a 27 mile jag of a concurrency with US-67.  That's why the U.P. railroad is much the same across the state, and most of the U.S. highways and Interstates tend to follow the same routes.  Little Rock to Ft. Smith is routed pretty much along the Arkansas River valley just like U.P., but never crosses the river.  Ft. Smith had to get a spur in I-540 to cross the river, and there really isn't much of a possible route on the south side of the river to have straighten anything out before getting into the Ouachita foothills, which are an impediment that also affect Future I-49's routing in the mountainous reaches further west.

[rte66man]

The I-69 effort has been something of a joke for the past 20+ years. The segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana are pretty much the most crooked looking routes in the entire Interstate highway system. I doubt if I-69 in those areas will attract any sort of high traffic counts.

Meet I-25 in New Mexico, I-75 in Florida, I-40 in Western Arkansas, I-15 in Southern California, I-25 (again) in Wyoming, to name a few crooked routes.

Apples and oranges.  All of your examples are interstates that were built along or nearly parallel to existing major routes (except for 75 south of Tampa/St Pete). 25 and US85, 40 and US64, 15 and US395 (mostly), and 25 (again) and various US highways. 69 in Indiana from Evansville to Bloomington doesn't follow any existing route