General I-69

[NE2]

*SIU 3 (I-465 Indianapolis to I-64 Evansville): 26 miles (I-465 Indianapolis to SR 39 Martinsville), 21.1 miles (SR 39 Martinsville to SR 37 Bloomington), 26.7 miles (SR 37 Bloomington to US 231 Crane), 66.3 miles (US 231 Crane to I-64 Evansville per Goog): total 140 miles
*SIU 4 (I-64 Evansville to Pennyrile Parkway south of KY 425 (near the curve in US 41) Henderson): 31.5 miles
*SIU 5 (Henderson to I-24 Eddyville): 78.4 miles (per Goog)
*SIU 6 (I-24 Eddyville to US 45E South Fulton): 68.6 miles (per Goog)
*SIU 7 (US 45E South Fulton to US 412 Dyersburg): 47 miles
*SIU 8 (US 412 Dyersburg to SR 385 Millington): 65 miles
*SIU 9 (SR 385 Millington to I-55/MS 304): 44 miles
*SIU 10 (along MS 304): 13.2 miles (per Goog)
*SIU 11 (county line near MS 304 to MS 1): 120 miles
*SIU 12 (MS 1 to US 65 McGehee): 23 miles
*SIU 13 (US 65 McGehee to US 82 El Dorado): 103 miles
*SIU 14 (US 82 El Dorado to I-20 Haughton): 63.17 miles
*SIU 15 (I-20 Haughton to US 171 Stonewall): 35 miles
*SIU 16 (US 171 Stonewall to US 59 Nacogdoches): couldn't find info on this; via existing roads is 71.6 miles to the northwest corner of the Nacogdoches beltway

In summary:
*I-465 to WK Parkway: 212 miles
*WK Parkway to I-155: 154 miles
*I-155 to downtown Memphis: 89 miles
*I-55 to I-20 (17 miles from Shreveport): 322 miles

With these distances, we can compare I-69 to existing routes.

First, north of the WK Parkway. Obviously I-69 is the most direct from Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, but even from Toledo and Detroit US 24 to I-69 is about the same distance, though probably a bit faster depending on traffic.

Memphis to Indy: I-69 saves only six miles over 55-57-70, and adds seven miles if going to Toledo/Detroit.

Shreveport to Memphis is where I-69 really starts to suck. 49-30-40 is 12 miles shorter than proposed I-69. And if you're going beyond Memphis on the I-69 corridor, you can bypass Memphis and still save 9 miles by going 67-412. Approximately the same savings are had if starting at Nacogdoches rather than Shreveport.

In other words, I-69 is two regional projects, south of Texarkana-Shreveport and north of Memphis, linked by an utterly bullshit segment through Arkansas.

[hbelkins]

Which Arkansas politician was responsible for it route through that state?

[dfwmapper]

Probably a fan of the razorbacks.

[Scott5114]

Probably a fan of the razorbacks.

Wrong Interstate–Fayetteville's on I-49.

[dfwmapper]

Wrong Interstate–Fayetteville's on I-49.

Little r, not big R. A lover of all things porcine.

[triplemultiplex]

Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system.  Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful.  But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it.  (I-47 anyone?!)

Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere.  I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it.  Problem solved.  Money saved.

Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling.  You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.

Finally, Memphis-Indy.  Okay, but it should've been I-61.  I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.

I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing.  Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way.  It's a joke.  A bad idea from another era.  It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.

It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada.  It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69.  There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it.  The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway.  So I declare open season.

[NE2]

Finally, Memphis-Indy.  Okay, but it should've been I-61.  I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.

(holy crap fictional) Given what's being built, it seems like it would make the most sense to take I-69 to I-24 near Hopkinsville and assign one even number to Hayti-Dyersburg-Union City-Mayfield-Elizabethtown-Versailles. Evansville-Nashville isn't a major corridor by itself, and I-65 is shorter between Indy and Nashville, but it's already all built or under construction except SR 37 and the Ohio River crossing.

Even the older part of I-69 is indirect. I wonder how much Indy-Toronto traffic will switch to the Toledo route (40 miles shorter) when the new bridge at Detroit is built, if most traffic doesn't already go that way. I-69 is two separate corridors there: a Detroit bypass for I-94 (only 7 miles longer) and the Indy-Lansing part of a north-south corridor to Soo.

PS: 73/74 is worse.

[cjk374]

It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada.  It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."

Also, whoever said it was our job to connect those 2 countries anyway?    Did Canada and Mexico ever help pay for these roads to connect them?  I didn't think so.  (no, Mexico contributing laborers doesn't count  )

[roadman65]

I-69 is just as useless as I-74 is between Cincinnati and Myrtle Beach is.  I am glad that this is brought out finally as I have always stated it is a total waste.

I-69 E and I-69 C are too close to each other and I-69C does not even make it to Mexico either as it stops short of the Rio Grande at I-2 (another wasted number).  Plus I-69E is taking over US 77, a 75 mph expressway with no slowdowns as it mostly runs through Kenedy County which has no services, no towns, and when upgraded to interstate standards will still take the same amount of time to surpass.  Why even waste the money to upgrade that one.

As the OP suggests, there are shorter routes between the dots along the way.  Even NE 2 years ago stated why not route I-69 along I-30 and then north of I-40 along the existing US 67 and now mentions US 412 in addition to it. It routing through Arkansas is total nonsense!  Thank God that I-49 is drawing attention away from it at the moment, which is why it is not being constructed yet!

I agree that it is all different corridors and that you will not find that much traffic going to use the whole length of it when completed.  Heck, I wonder if anyone even completes the journey from Indy to Port Huron as NE 2 implies?

This and I-74's routing in NC (a separate story) are a bunch of different corridors all linked together.

[NE2]

I-69 E and I-69 C are too close to each other and I-69C does not even make it to Mexico either as it stops short of the Rio Grande at I-2 (another wasted number).  Plus I-69E is taking over US 77, a 75 mph expressway with no slowdowns as it mostly runs through Kenedy County which has no services, no towns, and when upgraded to interstate standards will still take the same amount of time to surpass.  Why even waste the money to upgrade that one.

Unfortunately you can't just put all the traffic on 69C or 69E (compare distances for San Antonio-McAllen and Houston-Brownsville). But yes, there's no reason to get rid of ranch driveways. Or is FHWA going to get on TXDOT's ass about the ones on I-10 and I-40?

[Grzrd]

*SIU 14 (US 82 El Dorado to I-20 Haughton): 80 miles (fuck you URS Corporation for letting the domain expire before the FEIS with perhaps a more precise figure could be archived)

LaDOTD has an I-69 SIU 14 page with links to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the signed Record of Decision.

[NE2]

Oh cool. I just made archive.org save those. Looks like the final distance is 63.17 miles - I wonder how they got 80 originally.

[NE2]

If anyone cares, here's a future I-69 exit list from US 171 to South Fulton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NE2/I-69

[Grzrd]

IIRC only Mississippi calls it the "Charles W. Dean Bridge"; AHTD still calls it the "Great River Bridge".  I doubt anyone here in Arkansas cares a flying rat's behind about Dean; IMO, if we ever name it it's more likely to be for Robert S. Moore, Jr., a highway commissioner from nearby Arkansas City, much like the Bobby Hopper Tunnel.  (Maybe it'll be the Dean-Moore or Moore-Dean Bridge, like the Hoover Dam Bypass' O'Callaghan-Tillman Bridge which also crosses a state line and was hyphenated to honor each state's wishes.)

(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread)

In a July 23, 2014 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission, AHTD Director Scott Bennett included a slide about the Great River Bridge (page 56/82 of pdf):

(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge thread)

If anyone cares, here's a future I-69 exit list from US 171 to South Fulton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NE2/I-69

A snip from the list:



After a brief look, I found what appears to be a 2003 proposed bill from the Arkansas House which urges AHTD to designate the Great River Bridge as the Charles W. Dean bridge:

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2003/R/Bills/HCR1011.pdf

However, judging by RBBrittain's post and AHTD's July, 2014 slide, it appears that either the bill was never passed or the bill was passed and AHTD simply ignored the urging.  Also, the cited Wikipedia article only mentions the 1999 Mississippi legislation.  Maybe it should be "Great River/ Charles W. Dean Bridge".



Also, this article provides a six-state I-69 status report.

[triplemultiplex]

Name it after Bill Clinton.
Something on I-69 should carry his name.

[mvak36]

Name it after Bill Clinton.
Something on I-69 should carry his name.

[silverback1065]

Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system.  Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful.  But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it.  (I-47 anyone?!)

Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere.  I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it.  Problem solved.  Money saved.

Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling.  You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.

Finally, Memphis-Indy.  Okay, but it should've been I-61.  I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.

I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing.  Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way.  It's a joke.  A bad idea from another era.  It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.

It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada.  It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69.  There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it.  The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway.  So I declare open season.

US 62's routing is stupid.  And yes all these new routes are gimmicks created by politicians and lobbyists.  We didn't need 69 for its connection from Mexico to Canada, how many interstates already do that? But the buzzwords "connects Canada to Mexico" and "Jobs" and "increase in trade" will get anything built now.  and to the point about route numbers not following rules anymore, wasn't there an I-3 planned somewhere around Northern Georgia?

[codyg1985]

Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system.  Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful.  But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it.  (I-47 anyone?!)

Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere.  I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it.  Problem solved.  Money saved.

Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling.  You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.

Finally, Memphis-Indy.  Okay, but it should've been I-61.  I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.

I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing.  Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way.  It's a joke.  A bad idea from another era.  It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.

It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada.  It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69.  There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it.  The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway.  So I declare open season.

US 62's routing is stupid.  And yes all these new routes are gimmicks created by politicians and lobbyists.  We didn't need 69 for its connection from Mexico to Canada, how many interstates already do that? But the buzzwords "connects Canada to Mexico" and "Jobs" and "increase in trade" will get anything built now.  and to the point about route numbers not following rules anymore, wasn't there an I-3 planned somewhere around Northern Georgia?

I-3 was supposed to connect Knoxville with Savannah. Thankfully, it hasn't received much traction.

[adventurernumber1]

Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system.  Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful.  But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it.  (I-47 anyone?!)

Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere.  I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it.  Problem solved.  Money saved.

Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling.  You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.

Finally, Memphis-Indy.  Okay, but it should've been I-61.  I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.

I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing.  Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way.  It's a joke.  A bad idea from another era.  It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.

It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada.  It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69.  There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it.  The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway.  So I declare open season.

US 62's routing is stupid.  And yes all these new routes are gimmicks created by politicians and lobbyists.  We didn't need 69 for its connection from Mexico to Canada, how many interstates already do that? But the buzzwords "connects Canada to Mexico" and "Jobs" and "increase in trade" will get anything built now.  and to the point about route numbers not following rules anymore, wasn't there an I-3 planned somewhere around Northern Georgia?

I-3 was supposed to connect Knoxville with Savannah. Thankfully, it hasn't received much traction.

Yes, there was a proposed Interstate 3. The freeway connection from Savannah to Augusta to Knoxville (I think the proposed route may have served Greenville as well) isnt half bad of an idea, but that numbering really is crazy.

Also, for my own words on future I-69, I think I-69 through all of Texas is very important (except for the suffixes near Brownsville; either have one freeway down there or make one of them a 3di, simple as that), and up to Shreveport. Shreveport to Evansville I can't say is needed at all. Then, as for Evansville to Indianapolis, I think that will be very useful.

But all of the I-69 extension may very well eventually be built, and if so we'll have to deal with it. But if so, that planned Great River Bridge is sure to be pretty cool!

[NE2]

Ignoring the numbering, I-3 is just a stupid proposal. If there's a real need to connect Augusta to Knoxville, a corridor incorporating I-26 and I-40 via Asheville, with new construction only south of Clinton, would likely be just as short, and would be much cheaper and much less damaging to the Smokies.

[ajlynch91]

There are too many routes now that I think using longer 3di's wouldn't be a bad idea, especially for 2di's that are around 100 miles or so. This really wouldn't be an option for the I-3 Corridor, as it would be about 375 miles I'd imagine, but using I-26 and I-95 to get from Knoxville to Savannah is only another fifty miles. Is there really that much need for this corridor?

[Grzrd]

This August 20 Alliance for I-69 Texas article describes sections of the Senate's proposed six-year bill that could provide funding for I-69:

The Senate has approved a version of a six-year bill but there is no agreement in Washington on how to fund the full multi-year program.
The Senate bill does include important amendments sought by the Alliance for I-69 Texas. These include designation of State Highway 44 between Corpus Christi and Freer as part of future I-69, the creation of a new freight program totaling over $1 billion a year, and the revival of the Projects of Regional and National Significance and the Assistance for Major Projects Program (AMP) which is anticipated to provide new funds for critical, high-cost projects.

I had been aware of the new freight program, but I had missed the revival of the Projects of Regional and National Significance and the Assistance for Major Projects Program.  The I-69 Ohio River bridge and I-69 SIU 7 in Tennessee from the Kentucky state line to I-155 come immediately to mind for me, as well as providing Missouri with some help to finish the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass.  That said, it all depends on how much money would be available for such projects.

edit

I skimmed the text of the bill and there's $2 billion dollars set aside in 2016, going up to $2.5 billion in 2021 for projects to upgrade the National Freight Network.  The definition of what's eligible for funding seems pretty broad though.
There's also a pool of money for "assistance for major projects (that would cost over $350 million)" that starts at $300 million and ends at $450 million in 2021.  The min. federal grant is $50 million.

(above quote from I-69 in MS thread)

I had also forgotten about the above post by thefro.

[Rothman]

Ah yes, the Projects of Regional and National Significance (PORNs).

[mukade]

First, north of the WK Parkway. Obviously I-69 is the most direct from Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, but even from Toledo and Detroit US 24 to I-69 is about the same distance, though probably a bit faster depending on traffic.

I-69 to US 24 is definitely easier than I-69 to I-94 as I-94 is busy and under-engineered.

Memphis to Indy: I-69 saves only six miles over 55-57-70, and adds seven miles if going to Toledo/Detroit.

Shreveport to Memphis is where I-69 really starts to suck. 49-30-40 is 12 miles shorter than proposed I-69. And if you're going beyond Memphis on the I-69 corridor, you can bypass Memphis and still save 9 miles by going 67-412. Approximately the same savings are had if starting at Nacogdoches rather than Shreveport.

In other words, I-69 is two regional projects, south of Texarkana-Shreveport and north of Memphis, linked by an utterly bullshit segment through Arkansas.

It definitely should be two unrelated projects, and the middle part would be a waste. The original system used to favor long routes, and I-69 as planned seems to be a throwback to the the original idea for the I-x5 routes.  The Canada-Mexico routing, in this case, seems contrived.

On the opposite end, Wisconsin gets short north-south Interstates that really should be extensions of longer routes.

As for the comparison of the number of miles, I bet I-69 out of Indy will be faster and a much more relaxing drive than I-55, I-65, and I-70 even if it is a few more miles.

I agree that it is all different corridors and that you will not find that much traffic going to use the whole length of it when completed.  Heck, I wonder if anyone even completes the journey from Indy to Port Huron as NE 2 implies?

I am not sure how much traffic really travels an entire Interstate corridor anywhere. I bet a very small percentage, and I-69 is not really unique. If you were travelling from Port Huron to Billings, would you really take I-94 all the way there? If you were going from Chicago to Memphis, would you take I-55 all the way? I think you could find many examples like that. I-69 simply provides an alternate route that serves different cities.

That said, I think I-69 from Lansing to Port Huron would now be better as an even east-west route. When I-69 was extended to Flint and Port Huron in the 1970s, it probably made sense as Indiana (Anderson, in particular) and Flint (and Lansing to a lesser extent) had a high concentration of GM facilities, and back then GM was king with almost 50% of the automotive market share. So I would guess there was a lot of GM traffic on I-69.

To extend that to 2015, a lot of GM parts are now made in the maquiladoras in Matamoras, Reynosa, Laredo, and Juarez so the Texas-Michigan routing would serve a similar function as the Indy to Flint route.

[US 41]

I can't believe how many roads we are building / going to build that go to Mexico period. The US Government issues travel warnings telling everyone not to go to Mexico because it's a war zone (which is mostly not true) but then we spend billions of dollars to build roads that lead there. I-69 is a great example of this. All 3 spurs (E, C, and W) will lead into the Mexican state of Tamaulipas which is #1 on the state departments avoid list. The most laughable part is that 69E and 69C both lead into Mexican Highway 101 (which is famous for cartels) which is only a 2 lane highway.