I-69 in TN

[Rothman]

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.

Heh.  The current route may be faster from the get-go, so it doesn't sound like there's a significant enough problem to rationalize the longer "detour" along I-69.

In terms of resiliency, just building a redundant route for redundancy's sake when DOTs are struggling to maintain conditions otherwise is a questionable use of funding.

[sprjus4]

Heh.  The current route may be faster from the get-go, so it doesn't sound like there's a significant enough problem to rationalize the longer "detour" along I-69.

Not sure if you've ever driven on I-30 or especially I-40 between Little Rock or Memphis, but it suffers the problem of significant truck congestion. Both routes warrant at minimum 6 lanes, and are only 4 lanes.

A complete I-69 route would allow traffic from southeastern Texas heading north to bypass the I-30 and I-40 corridor, and avoid Texarkana, Little Rock, and Memphis (if going to I-40 East) entirely. Being someone who's come up this way before, it undoubtly would be my choice over I-30 and I-40 due to similar distance and significantly less traffic.

Additionally, the I-69 routing will not be any longer distance than I-30 / I-40 is today, so that point is moot.

[Bobby5280]

It will be decades before I-69 is ever finished across Southern Arkansas and NW Mississippi. The Great River Bridge is a giant roadblock. The Feds will have to step in and provide pretty much all the funding for that bridge as well as all of the portion in Mississippi for to ever get completed.

Meanwhile: the segment of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is in much more immediate, urgent need of capacity upgrades -going from 2x2 lanes to 3x3 or even 4x4 in some places. They need to be doing that NOW. Not decades later.

Texas is in a better position to complete its sections of I-69 and I-369 long before the segments of I-69 are built in Louisiana and Southern Arkansas. That will translate into more traffic loading onto I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas. It will also mean a greater burden to the Mississippi River bridges in Memphis (especially the I-40 bridge).

Anyway, I-40 in Eastern Arkansas has to be a top priority for that state's DOT issues. That's going to be followed by capacity upgrade needs on I-30. Currently I-30 is 3x3 from Little Rock down to Exit 117 in Benton. After that it drops to 2x2 lanes. Construction work extends down to the US-70 interchange for Hot Springs. When TX DOT builds I-369 up to Texarkana it will increase the need to make I-30 at least 3x3 lanes for its entire length in Arkansas.

[hbelkins]

All I know is that I was told in a meeting earlier this week that the governor is opposed to tolls on the bridge and a reporter had noticed that tolls are not mentioned as a source of funding in the newest highway plan.

[sprjus4]

It will be decades before I-69 is ever finished across Southern Arkansas and NW Mississippi. The Great River Bridge is a giant roadblock. The Feds will have to step in and provide pretty much all the funding for that bridge as well as all of the portion in Mississippi for to ever get completed.

Meanwhile: the segment of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is in much more immediate, urgent need of capacity upgrades -going from 2x2 lanes to 3x3 or even 4x4 in some places. They need to be doing that NOW. Not decades later.

Texas is in a better position to complete its sections of I-69 and I-369 long before the segments of I-69 are built in Louisiana and Southern Arkansas. That will translate into more traffic loading onto I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas. It will also mean a greater burden to the Mississippi River bridges in Memphis (especially the I-40 bridge).

Anyway, I-40 in Eastern Arkansas has to be a top priority for that state's DOT issues. That's going to be followed by capacity upgrade needs on I-30. Currently I-30 is 3x3 from Little Rock down to Exit 117 in Benton. After that it drops to 2x2 lanes. Construction work extends down to the US-70 interchange for Hot Springs. When TX DOT builds I-369 up to Texarkana it will increase the need to make I-30 at least 3x3 lanes for its entire length in Arkansas.

Texas would be in the better position, but it is important to note that outside of a couple of bypass projects, they have made virtually no progress north of Cleveland. It will be at least two more decades, if not longer, before those segments are complete. I-369 hasn't seen any construction at all either.

All of their priority seems to be on I-69 south of Houston, and I-69E - along with some on I-69C.

[abqtraveler]

It will be decades before I-69 is ever finished across Southern Arkansas and NW Mississippi. The Great River Bridge is a giant roadblock. The Feds will have to step in and provide pretty much all the funding for that bridge as well as all of the portion in Mississippi for to ever get completed.

Meanwhile: the segment of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is in much more immediate, urgent need of capacity upgrades -going from 2x2 lanes to 3x3 or even 4x4 in some places. They need to be doing that NOW. Not decades later.

Texas is in a better position to complete its sections of I-69 and I-369 long before the segments of I-69 are built in Louisiana and Southern Arkansas. That will translate into more traffic loading onto I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas. It will also mean a greater burden to the Mississippi River bridges in Memphis (especially the I-40 bridge).

Anyway, I-40 in Eastern Arkansas has to be a top priority for that state's DOT issues. That's going to be followed by capacity upgrade needs on I-30. Currently I-30 is 3x3 from Little Rock down to Exit 117 in Benton. After that it drops to 2x2 lanes. Construction work extends down to the US-70 interchange for Hot Springs. When TX DOT builds I-369 up to Texarkana it will increase the need to make I-30 at least 3x3 lanes for its entire length in Arkansas.

Texas would be in the better position, but it is important to note that outside of a couple of bypass projects, they have made virtually no progress north of Cleveland. It will be at least two more decades, if not longer, before those segments are complete. I-369 hasn't seen any construction at all either.

All of their priority seems to be on I-69 south of Houston, and I-69E - along with some on I-69C.

They've been prioritizing I-69E because of a law that allowed the existing freeways in the Lower RGV to be added to the interstate highway system had to be connected to the rest of the interstate highway system within 25 years of their designation. so the big push right now is to get US-77 upgraded to interstate standards from Raymondville to I-37 to meet that deadline.

Eventually, you'll see more activity from Cleveland north to Texarkana, but from what I'm seeing it looks like TxDOT is prioritizing the completion of bypasses around the towns that US-59 goes through to first enable nonstop travel from Houston to Texarkana. Once that's done, it looks like then they'll go back and finish upgrading the rural sections to interstate standards.

[civilengineeringnerd]

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.

even if it was about that, there should be at minimum 3 new spans across the mississippi river that are earthquake proof, and tornado proof cable stayed bridges or better bridges.
the reason being is because of the region it goes through. the new madrid fault zone to the north, combined with the older north american plate, is gonna be a big factor, and there should be some level of proofing against liquefaction to some degree.
on top of it, tornadoes during the fall, winter and spring months are also common along the mississippi river valley. don't think for a second thats not gonna be a problem.
rebuilding both bridges for I-40 and I-55 to have a 4x4 configuration, and to be earthquake and tornado proof cable stayed bridges, and having a new I-69 cable stayed bridge and maybe even a I-269 bridge across the mississippi should all be in the plans.
but i don't think its about resiliency or capacity, as I-69 was part of the trade agreement between canada and mexico. im not gonna go too much into detail, but thats basically what it boils down to.
why did our government not at least fund the interstate using the tariffs tho, is beyond me.
in any case, you won't see a I-69 bridge span for a long time, and probably never will. by the time any plans come to the table on that, we'd have flying cars and going to space, or even better, colonizing mars and the moon.

[Bobby5280]

Texas would be in the better position, but it is important to note that outside of a couple of bypass projects, they have made virtually no progress north of Cleveland.

You have bypass projects for Corrigan and Diboll well under way. Then there is ongoing work in Lufkin and Nacogdoches with their existing bypasses as well as some work outside of those towns. Some miscellaneous "spot upgrades" have been taking place at a few intersections along the way.

While actual construction hasn't started, plans are well underway for the I-369 bypass of Marshall. IIRC, an alignment has been chosen for I-369 going South from Texarkana (upgrading along the existing US-59 alignment).

While that amount of progress on I-69 between Houston and Texarkana may not seem like much it still adds up to far more than what has taken place in either Louisiana or Arkansas. TX DOT may be putting a higher priority on I-69 between Houston and Corpus Christi. But Texas is a big state with an immense population (and tax base). And some of the upgrades needed on US-59 North of Houston won't be difficult to complete.

Even if it takes TX DOT another 20 or more years to complete I-69 and I-369 North of Houston, I still think those highways will be built many years before the I-69 segments in Arkansas and Louisiana. In the meantime Arkansas will have to deal with I-40 East of Little Rock to Memphis.

[MikieTimT]

Texas would be in the better position, but it is important to note that outside of a couple of bypass projects, they have made virtually no progress north of Cleveland.

You have bypass projects for Corrigan and Diboll well under way. Then there is ongoing work in Lufkin and Nacogdoches with their existing bypasses as well as some work outside of those towns. Some miscellaneous "spot upgrades" have been taking place at a few intersections along the way.

While actual construction hasn't started, plans are well underway for the I-369 bypass of Marshall. IIRC, an alignment has been chosen for I-369 going South from Texarkana (upgrading along the existing US-59 alignment).

While that amount of progress on I-69 between Houston and Texarkana may not seem like much it still adds up to far more than what has taken place in either Louisiana or Arkansas. TX DOT may be putting a higher priority on I-69 between Houston and Corpus Christi. But Texas is a big state with an immense population (and tax base). And some of the upgrades needed on US-59 North of Houston won't be difficult to complete.

Even if it takes TX DOT another 20 or more years to complete I-69 and I-369 North of Houston, I still think those highways will be built many years before the I-69 segments in Arkansas and Louisiana. In the meantime Arkansas will have to deal with I-40 East of Little Rock to Memphis.

AR already has 2 6-lane upgrades for eastern I-40 in the STIP at the Little Rock and W. Memphis ends, so it's starting to roll.  I figure they'll do the entire remaining 100 mile (Exits/MM 165-265) facility piecemeal, working their way towards the middle as tax revenue allows unless earmarks expedite the process.  I-30 currently doesn't have anything else in the works in SW AR, but I'd bet on more 6 laning progressively SW from US-70 where they're currently upgrading to 6 lane.  I figure the next segment will be to US-270, where they'll be done for a bit until they can swing a 6 lane upgrade of the Ouachita River bridge.  Texarkana is likely not to need a 6 lane upgrade for a while as there is a good beltway around the Arkansas side already to I-30 for US-59 traffic.  I-57 will likely be completed to Sikeston before Texas dumps enough traffic onto I-30 with I-369, so that takes some of the pressure off eastern I-40 as well for anything that was routed on I-40 Little Rock<-->I-55 Sikeston.

[hbelkins]

Regarding the question of tolls on the I-69 Kentucky bridge, I refer you to this video, start at 1:11:30.

https://www.youtube.com/live/3CTtO5xRk1w?si=Q6GzWL-la17Hs5-W&t=4294

[rickmastfan67]

Regarding the question of tolls on the I-69 Kentucky bridge, I refer you to this video, start at 1:11:30.

https://www.youtube.com/live/3CTtO5xRk1w?si=Q6GzWL-la17Hs5-W&t=4294

That's because it's a 'live' link.  Our parser doesn't support those, thus it just shows it as a URL.

[hbelkins]

Regarding the question of tolls on the I-69 Kentucky bridge, I refer you to this video, start at 1:11:30.

https://www.youtube.com/live/3CTtO5xRk1w?si=Q6GzWL-la17Hs5-W&t=4294

That's because it's a 'live' link.  Our parser doesn't support those, thus it just shows it as a URL.

Yes, I tried to embed the link in the "Youtube" plug-in (from the second row of formatting options above) and that's what I got. Clicking on the link I posted should work.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Getting back to I-69 in Tennessee, Apple Maps still has the Union City bypass marked as I-69, and listed as closed, but due to open tomorrow at 12:55am CST.

Still no news items about the bypass opening that I can find.

[The Road Warrior]

Honestly, at this point, I-369 is probably just going to become "I-69" and the LA, AR, and MS sections will never get built. I-69 will just be co-signed along I-30 and I-40 until it gets to the Memphis area. After that, its just a matter of routing. They might just build a new connection between I-40 and I-55 west of West Memphis, make I-69 co-signed with I-55 till about Steele, AR, then have 1-69 break away and travel a new route till it reaches I-155 west of the bridge, eliminating the need for a new interstate between Memphis and Dyersburg.

[codyg1985]

Honestly, at this point, I-369 is probably just going to become "I-69" and the LA, AR, and MS sections will never get built. I-69 will just be co-signed along I-30 and I-40 until it gets to the Memphis area. After that, its just a matter of routing. They might just build a new connection between I-40 and I-55 west of West Memphis, make I-69 co-signed with I-55 till about Steele, AR, then have 1-69 break away and travel a new route till it reaches I-155 west of the bridge, eliminating the need for a new interstate between Memphis and Dyersburg.

I agree to a point; I don't think I-69 will be co-signed with any other interstate; there will just be a gap in it.

[sprjus4]

Honestly, at this point, I-369 is probably just going to become "I-69" and the LA, AR, and MS sections will never get built. I-69 will just be co-signed along I-30 and I-40 until it gets to the Memphis area. After that, its just a matter of routing. They might just build a new connection between I-40 and I-55 west of West Memphis, make I-69 co-signed with I-55 till about Steele, AR, then have 1-69 break away and travel a new route till it reaches I-155 west of the bridge, eliminating the need for a new interstate between Memphis and Dyersburg.

Assuming Texas I-369 / I-69 is even built north of Houston. They haven't made much of any progress either, outside of a couple bypass projects. Still long segments of arterial highway, and even undivided 4 lane "poor boy" as you get more north on US-59.

[MikieTimT]

Assuming Texas I-369 / I-69 is even built north of Houston. They haven't made much of any progress either, outside of a couple bypass projects. Still long segments of arterial highway, and even undivided 4 lane "poor boy" as you get more north on US-59.

It'll get built, just not before south of Houston.

[MikieTimT]

Honestly, at this point, I-369 is probably just going to become "I-69" and the LA, AR, and MS sections will never get built. I-69 will just be co-signed along I-30 and I-40 until it gets to the Memphis area. After that, its just a matter of routing. They might just build a new connection between I-40 and I-55 west of West Memphis, make I-69 co-signed with I-55 till about Steele, AR, then have 1-69 break away and travel a new route till it reaches I-155 west of the bridge, eliminating the need for a new interstate between Memphis and Dyersburg.

I agree to a point; I don't think I-69 will be co-signed with any other interstate; there will just be a gap in it.

If the traffic is shoehorned onto I-30/I-40, it NEEDS to have the concurrency signed so that the impetus to add enough lanes to handle additional traffic is obvious, even if it's a 90/10 fed/state split that makes it happen.

[wdcrft63]

Interesting discussion here but I'd really like to know, is the Union City Bypass open or not??

[ilpt4u]

Interesting discussion here but I'd really like to know, is the Union City Bypass open or not??

Not sure, but local Weather forcaster maps on local news now shows the Union City Bypass marked as an Interstate, all by its lonesome, in northwestern TN

[Strider]

Interesting discussion here but I'd really like to know, is the Union City Bypass open or not??

Bing Maps show it open and complete, designed as I-69. OpenStreetMap and Google Maps doesn't show it as open. I guess someone will have to drive there and find out. I have not found or heard of anything about it being open on news.

[abqtraveler]

Interesting discussion here but I'd really like to know, is the Union City Bypass open or not??

Bing Maps show it open and complete, designed as I-69. OpenStreetMap and Google Maps doesn't show it as open. I guess someone will have to drive there and find out. I have not found or heard of anything about it being open on news.

There's been nothing in the news about the Union City Bypass being opened, and nothing suggesting when it might open.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Union City Bypass should have been completed by now. Then again, I also think the Greenville, MS Bypass should have been completed by now as well.

[sprjus4]

The Union City Bypass should have been completed by now. Then again, I also think the Greenville, MS Bypass should have been completed by now as well.

Well, obviously.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

The Union City Bypass should have been completed by now. Then again, I also think the Greenville, MS Bypass should have been completed by now as well.

Well, obviously.

Any volunteers to drive out to Union City?