I-69 in TN

[lordsutch]

Maybe they don't have sufficient funding for the Troy Bypass. Another possible explanation is that the Troy Bypass is a low-priority at Tennessee's DOT. And considering how long it has taken to build the Union City Bypass, even if the Troy Bypass was shovel-ready, it might take just as long to complete it as well.

Not sure what the deal is, since the first section of the Troy bypass is in the 2023–26 STIP (page 81) with construction programmed for FY2025, and there's no proposed amendment to remove it from the STIP.

[Rick Powell]

Not sure what the deal is, since the first section of the Troy bypass is in the 2023–26 STIP (page 81) with construction programmed for FY2025, and there's no proposed amendment to remove it from the STIP.

The 10-year plan devotes $127.7M to I-69 in Obion County. The S Fulton interchange is a $60M project in the STIP, so there is apparently $68M of funding remaining for other work on I-69 in the county, according to the 10-year plan. Not quite the $90M estimated for the Troy bypass segment in the STIP, but not nothing, either.

I noticed that the proposed segment would be more of a half bypass of Troy with no apparent useful connections, and my first thought was that it would get built in some fashion and sit there unused for 10 years until the remainder was completed...not unlike the Union City bypass to the north.

[Rothman]

It's in FFY 25?  Lots and lots of time to remove it from the STIP before then.

The real question is if it is programmed as an active project by the DOT...(i.e., the DOT should have a database of all projects, not just the federally-funded/significant state-funded projects required to be on the STIP).

[GreenLanternCorps]

Apple Maps is showing the Southbound lanes of the Union City bypass as open and labeled as I-69.  The Northbound lanes are marked with a dark red dashed line.


Update:  Apple Maps has a road closed icon at the US 51 - I-69/TN 690 interchange South of Union City saying road closed until Jan 8, 2024

[GreenLanternCorps]

Apple Maps is showing the Southbound lanes of the Union City bypass as open and labeled as I-69.  The Northbound lanes are marked with a dark red dashed line.


Update:  Apple Maps has a road closed icon at the US 51 - I-69/TN 690 interchange South of Union City saying road closed until Jan 8, 2024

In the several days since I posted the above I have seen no other articles about the bypass.  So I can only assume someone at Apple Maps jumped the gun.

[abqtraveler]

Apple Maps is showing the Southbound lanes of the Union City bypass as open and labeled as I-69.  The Northbound lanes are marked with a dark red dashed line.


Update:  Apple Maps has a road closed icon at the US 51 - I-69/TN 690 interchange South of Union City saying road closed until Jan 8, 2024

In the several days since I posted the above I have seen no other articles about the bypass.  So I can only assume someone at Apple Maps jumped the gun.

I would think if the Union City Bypass were to open, it would be all over the news. I haven't seen anything regarding an opening or even a ribbon-cutting ceremony.  So it remains a mystery as to when the bypass will actually open.  Maybe they might wait until they finish the bypass around Troy and open it all at once.

[Rick Powell]

Update:  Apple Maps has a road closed icon at the US 51 - I-69/TN 690 interchange South of Union City saying road closed until Jan 8, 2024

Looking at my iPhone today, I see I-69 shields on the bypass and no road closed icons or dashed lines. Maybe the January 8 date kicked in, whether it represents a true road opening or not.

[triplemultiplex]

Someone born the day they started construction will be able to legally drive it by the time it opens at this rate.

[The Ghostbuster]

I wonder if the proposal to extend Interstate 69 from Indianapolis to the Mexican border (via Brownsville for 69E and Laredo for 69W) was too big of an undertaking for the six states the 69 extension is going through. While Texas has been gung-ho about building its segments, and Kentucky had it easy since most of its portion of 69 follows pre-existing parkways. As for the other three states, it's still completely unknown whether they will complete their portions of Interstate 69. None of Louisiana's segments of 69 have been constructed, the only segment of 69 in Arkansas that exists is the two-lane Bypass 278 around Monticello (and the future eastern extension to AR 293 and US 65). Only the northern-most 23.39 miles of Mississippi's has been completed, with the rest of the route within the state of Mississippi in doubt. In Tennessee, Interstate 69 is unsigned through Memphis, the segment between Memphis and Dyersburg is dormant, the Union City bypass is taking forever to construct, and the construction of the Troy Bypass to connect with the existing US 51 freeway is up-in-the-air. Like the canceled Interstate 66 proposal and the Interstate 73/74 proposal, the Interstate 69 extension may have been a bridge way too far.

[Bobby5280]

I think a potential surge of near-shoring activity (manufacturers moving production from overseas locations like China to closer foreign locations like Mexico) could give I-69 efforts a boost. But I think Texas would draw the greatest benefit for new highway construction related to that economic activity. In that scenario it's possible neighboring states might see more commercial traffic on major corridors as well.

As for I-69 in Tennessee, I don't know. The proposed route thru LA, AR and MS is very indirect (the same goes for the route in TN and KY). I think the most likely outcome is I-369 gets completed to Texarkana and forces more upgrades along the I-30 and I-40 corridors leading up to the Mississippi River. But then we have the situation with the two bridges in Memphis. Those are enormous projects on their own. I can just imagine the TN state government slow-walking the build-out of its portion of I-69 until those bridge issues are addressed.

The original intentions behind the I-69 extension to the Mexican border were good. The follow through on it has been poorly designed. The route's path has probably been guided more by politics than standards of traffic engineering. What we'll probably get as an end result is new Interstates in Texas that are fairly functional. A bunch of the other portions may only ever see small segments completed. I think there is even an outside chance the I-69 routes in Texas could potentially be re-numbered to something else.

[vdeane]

I don't see additional movement in the middle states regardless of what happens in Mexico unless we move back to the direct federal funding/planning that we had to build the interstate system in the first place.  If those states are told "we'll pay the vast majority of the cost to build I-69 and you can't use that money for anything else", we'll probably see it done eventually.  If instead they're told "this money can be used to build I-69, or it could be used for something of more local benefit", as happens today, then it won't.

As for renumbering the Texas routes, I don't see that happening.  Far more likely there would be a permanent gap like with I-74.

[Strider]

There are lack of funds in AR, MS and some areas in TN where I-69 will go through (except for completed segments). Nothing is cheaper anymore. It may be after our lifetime that I-69 is fully built, or it may never be as there can be gaps just like we have seen with I-74 in my state. Or it may never be connected, leaving two separate segments of I-69 just like I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, and I-88.

I think I-369 probably will be finished first, and the temporary I-69 could follow I-369, I-30, I-40, I-55 and I-155 to Dyserburg, TN and going forward from there.

At least Kentucky and Indiana will have their sections of I-69 completed sooner.

[Bobby5280]

Since Texas can prioritize the different I-69 projects within the state it seems very likely they'll complete I-69 from Houston to Tenaha and I-369 from Tenaha up to Texarkana before they do anything with the short leg going to the Louisiana border. The I-69 route in East Texas may simply just turn into I-369 at a certain point in Tenaha.

If those states are told "we'll pay the vast majority of the cost to build I-69 and you can't use that money for anything else", we'll probably see it done eventually.

That's just what the feds should have been doing all along. Giving a state money specifically for a section of Interstate only to let them blow it other things is just stupid.

[vdeane]

If those states are told "we'll pay the vast majority of the cost to build I-69 and you can't use that money for anything else", we'll probably see it done eventually.

That's just what the feds should have been doing all along. Giving a state money specifically for a section of Interstate only to let them blow it other things is just stupid.

That's the thing - states don't get money for specific sections of interstate anymore.  Federal funding (outside of competitive grants) comes down in specific pots with specific dollar amounts attached that can be used statewide but have varying rules for how they can be spent (such as needing to be on the NHS, or to improve documented safety issues, etc.).  The newer interstates are basically unfunded mandates with neither deadlines nor penalties attached, so the states basically do whatever with them.

[civilengineeringnerd]

perhaps a better option is to toll I-69 from michigan to texas, have the private sector build 95% of it from design to completion, and have the funds from the feds and states earmarked for I-69s completion.
even have it setup where its potentially better designed as well, with a better routing. i for once perfer it if there was a I-469 from I-69 going around union city to I-40 by parkers crossroads, so it creates a truck bypass when theres accidents and such on I-40 and it gives truckers and travelers a chance to stop at various places along the route.
i know its a bit of a pipe dream at this point but i have to agree with what others have said, and see I-69 is nothing short of a mismanaged mess.

[abqtraveler]

perhaps a better option is to toll I-69 from michigan to texas, have the private sector build 95% of it from design to completion, and have the funds from the feds and states earmarked for I-69s completion.
even have it setup where its potentially better designed as well, with a better routing. i for once perfer it if there was a I-469 from I-69 going around union city to I-40 by parkers crossroads, so it creates a truck bypass when theres accidents and such on I-40 and it gives truckers and travelers a chance to stop at various places along the route.
i know its a bit of a pipe dream at this point but i have to agree with what others have said, and see I-69 is nothing short of a mismanaged mess.

This is what happens when Congress imposes "unfunded mandates" on states like I-69. Some states like Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana figure out how to pay for it and get it built, while the other states will do nothing until Congress earmarks the funding for their sections.  Ironically, Indiana and Texas both considered building their portions of I-69 as toll roads, but residents of both states were roundly opposed to tolling. Additionally, Tennessee and Mississippi put forth legislation about 10-15 years ago to allow I-69 to be tolled in those states. Again, the idea to toll I-69 there gained no traction due to the lack of public support, and more importantly, those stretches likely would not generate enough traffic---and revenue--to make them financially viable. Even the new Ohio River Bridge between Henderson, KY and Evansville, IN that will be tolled, toll revenue is expected to cover only about one-third to one-half of the bridge's construction, with the remainder of the funding coming from the feds, and the states of Kentucky and Indiana.   

[Rothman]

I-69 is hardly a mandate.  The States don't have to build it.

[The Ghostbuster]

Of course, they don't have to build it. It's just that I think it would look awkward if Interstate 69 has permanent gaps within the states of Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. I hope Interstate 69 is eventually fully continuous from Laredo, TX (69W), Pharr, TX (69C), and Brownsville TX (69E), all the way to Port Huron, MI, even if it takes 100 years to build out the corridor.

[jlam]

Of course, they don't have to build it. It's just that I think it would look awkward if Interstate 69 has permanent gaps within the states of Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. I hope Interstate 69 is eventually fully continuous from Laredo, TX (69W), Pharr, TX (69C), and Brownsville TX (69E), all the way to Port Huron, MI, even if it takes 100 years to build out the corridor.

They may never build it. Going from Laredo to Memphis, going I-35 -> I-30 -> I-40 is almost faster than the proposed I-69. Its functionality is near peak with two segments: The I-69 trident in TX to maybe Shreveport, and the Memphis to Port Huron segment. Construction in southern Arkansas and western Mississippi is pushing it. Of course, this segment still has traffic, but not enough to necessitate a full-out freeway.

[hbelkins]

It's worth mentioning that the idea of tolling the Ohio River bridge on I-69 is now off the table. Kentucky's governor has said he is opposed to tolls on that bridge. The current highway plan now before the Kentucky legislature makes no mention of toll revenues.

[abqtraveler]

It's worth mentioning that the idea of tolling the Ohio River bridge on I-69 is now off the table. Kentucky's governor has said he is opposed to tolls on that bridge. The current highway plan now before the Kentucky legislature makes no mention of toll revenues.

Okay, well that's new. All the way up to when the Final EIS and ROD were signed in late 2022, everyone was saying there wouldn't be enough money to build the Ohio River Bridge without tolls. So when did they decide to take tolls off the table, and find the money elsewhere? I haven't seen anything to that effect.

[Rick Powell]

It's worth mentioning that the idea of tolling the Ohio River bridge on I-69 is now off the table. Kentucky's governor has said he is opposed to tolls on that bridge. The current highway plan now before the Kentucky legislature makes no mention of toll revenues.

The FAQ they have up at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/faqs/ has an opposite message, unless it is outdated.

"Will I-69 ORX be tolled?
The new I-69 bridge will be tolled. After receiving public comments and developing a financial plan for the project, INDOT and KYTC determined the US 41 bridge that will remain in use after construction of the I-69 river crossing will not be tolled."

In addition, the latest article I found from August 2023 had ORX spokesperson Mindy Peterson stating "We do know that tolling is part of that funding equation as well. So, when we do build that new river crossing...we will have the interstate crossing [that] will be tolled; that's still part of the funding equation as well. Both of the states have identified a schedule that works for their funding resources." https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/federal-funding-could-speed-up-ohio-river-crossing-timeline

[MikieTimT]

Of course, they don't have to build it. It's just that I think it would look awkward if Interstate 69 has permanent gaps within the states of Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. I hope Interstate 69 is eventually fully continuous from Laredo, TX (69W), Pharr, TX (69C), and Brownsville TX (69E), all the way to Port Huron, MI, even if it takes 100 years to build out the corridor.

They may never build it. Going from Laredo to Memphis, going I-35 -> I-30 -> I-40 is almost faster than the proposed I-69. Its functionality is near peak with two segments: The I-69 trident in TX to maybe Shreveport, and the Memphis to Port Huron segment. Construction in southern Arkansas and western Mississippi is pushing it. Of course, this segment still has traffic, but not enough to necessitate a full-out freeway.

If I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from Little Rock to W. Memphis were upgraded from 2x2 to 4x4, then I'd agree with your assessment as that's how much pavement it would take to replace I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas, and south Mississippi.  But since there's no plans to fund even the full 3x3 upgrade of both segments in Arkansas within the next 25 years to handle the already truck-choked facilities, then all I can figure is that we have folks here who comment without having ever driven what they're recommending as backup plans.

[seicer]

It's worth mentioning that the idea of tolling the Ohio River bridge on I-69 is now off the table. Kentucky's governor has said he is opposed to tolls on that bridge. The current highway plan now before the Kentucky legislature makes no mention of toll revenues.

The FAQ they have up at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/faqs/ has an opposite message, unless it is outdated.

"Will I-69 ORX be tolled?
The new I-69 bridge will be tolled. After receiving public comments and developing a financial plan for the project, INDOT and KYTC determined the US 41 bridge that will remain in use after construction of the I-69 river crossing will not be tolled."

In addition, the latest article I found from August 2023 had ORX spokesperson Mindy Peterson stating "We do know that tolling is part of that funding equation as well. So, when we do build that new river crossing...we will have the interstate crossing [that] will be tolled; that's still part of the funding equation as well. Both of the states have identified a schedule that works for their funding resources." https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/federal-funding-could-speed-up-ohio-river-crossing-timeline

I can't find any mention of a change in tolling status for the I-69 ORX project, either. The latest article mentions that even with increased federal funding, tolling of the bridge is still part of the funding package: https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/federal-funding-could-speed-up-ohio-river-crossing-timeline

[edwaleni]

Of course, they don't have to build it. It's just that I think it would look awkward if Interstate 69 has permanent gaps within the states of Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. I hope Interstate 69 is eventually fully continuous from Laredo, TX (69W), Pharr, TX (69C), and Brownsville TX (69E), all the way to Port Huron, MI, even if it takes 100 years to build out the corridor.

They may never build it. Going from Laredo to Memphis, going I-35 -> I-30 -> I-40 is almost faster than the proposed I-69. Its functionality is near peak with two segments: The I-69 trident in TX to maybe Shreveport, and the Memphis to Port Huron segment. Construction in southern Arkansas and western Mississippi is pushing it. Of course, this segment still has traffic, but not enough to necessitate a full-out freeway.

Don't forget that this highway is not just about timing, its also about capacity and resiliency.