I-69 in TN

[sparker]

Theoretically, the TN route shouldn't take too long to build, with only 120-ish miles from Memphis to the Kentucky state line. The only issue that is holding back is funding. TN reportedly wants Congress to commit to finding.

IIRC, an alignment from Memphis (TN 300) north to I-155 at Dyersburg hasn't been finalized; though initially planned to remain west of US 51, incursions into wetlands (and some toxic dumping areas at its southern end) have thrown facility design into disarray.  Those issues would need resolution before funding would be forthcoming.  But so far no alternatives have been seriously posed much less found their way into any official planning efforts.  It being the last I-69 segment from Memphis to Indianapolis lacking solid plans doesn't seem to faze TDOT, however; it appears that there's no hurry to address the lack of progress on this corridor section.

When was the map shown issued?  Is the alternative "04F" shown by the green line well to the east of the existing route an alternative that's been around for a while or a more recent modification?  And is there some intrinsic problem with the area to the east of the corridor boundaries shown (even as far to the east as SR 14) that eliminated it from consideration, either originally or continuing?  Also, from the way the corridor turns back to the present US 51/TN 385 intersection (as shown, future interchange #4) the basic corridor was laid out at the time when it was unclear whether I-69 would continue through downtown Memphis or bypass the area via what is now I-269 and TN 385 -- and that was back in the early 2000's. 

If the corridor as shown is still an active concept, and the only issue to be resolved is funding, then that's an issue to be resolved within TDOT or possibly an earmark in upcoming transportion outlays.  If there are remaining issues with the alignment as shown -- environmental or otherwise -- then an alternative corridor route needs to be identified and placed in the funding queue.  This particular can has been kicked down the road about as far as it can be;  some resolution is long overdue.

[Rick Powell]

When was the map shown issued?  Is the alternative "04F" shown by the green line well to the east of the existing route an alternative that's been around for a while or a more recent modification?  And is there some intrinsic problem with the area to the east of the corridor boundaries shown (even as far to the east as SR 14) that eliminated it from consideration, either originally or continuing?  Also, from the way the corridor turns back to the present US 51/TN 385 intersection (as shown, future interchange #4) the basic corridor was laid out at the time when it was unclear whether I-69 would continue through downtown Memphis or bypass the area via what is now I-269 and TN 385 -- and that was back in the early 2000's. 

If the corridor as shown is still an active concept, and the only issue to be resolved is funding, then that's an issue to be resolved within TDOT or possibly an earmark in upcoming transportation outlays.  If there are remaining issues with the alignment as shown -- environmental or otherwise -- then an alternative corridor route needs to be identified and placed in the funding queue.  This particular can has been kicked down the road about as far as it can be;  some resolution is long overdue.

If there is not a federal Final EIS and Record of Decision, the route cannot be considered final. From TnDOTs website it looks like a Draft EIS then a Supplemental Draft EIS were done, but not finalized. That same map is online here too. The SDEIS is dated May 2008 so it has been sitting around for nearly a decade and a half without another federal follow up action. Wetlands disappear and form, additional species are listed and occasionally de-listed, hazardous waste is buried and removed in the interim, and the federal rules of what represents full disclosure of impacts keep changing, so there's some work ahead on updating the studies even if they settled on the current route, and much more work if additional alternatives are looked at.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-69-segment-8/interstate-69-segment-8-library.html

[sparker]

When was the map shown issued?  Is the alternative "04F" shown by the green line well to the east of the existing route an alternative that's been around for a while or a more recent modification?  And is there some intrinsic problem with the area to the east of the corridor boundaries shown (even as far to the east as SR 14) that eliminated it from consideration, either originally or continuing?  Also, from the way the corridor turns back to the present US 51/TN 385 intersection (as shown, future interchange #4) the basic corridor was laid out at the time when it was unclear whether I-69 would continue through downtown Memphis or bypass the area via what is now I-269 and TN 385 -- and that was back in the early 2000's. 

If the corridor as shown is still an active concept, and the only issue to be resolved is funding, then that's an issue to be resolved within TDOT or possibly an earmark in upcoming transportation outlays.  If there are remaining issues with the alignment as shown -- environmental or otherwise -- then an alternative corridor route needs to be identified and placed in the funding queue.  This particular can has been kicked down the road about as far as it can be;  some resolution is long overdue.

If there is not a federal Final EIS and Record of Decision, the route cannot be considered final. From TnDOTs website it looks like a Draft EIS then a Supplemental Draft EIS were done, but not finalized. That same map is online here too. The SDEIS is dated May 2008 so it has been sitting around for nearly a decade and a half without another federal follow up action. Wetlands disappear and form, additional species are listed and occasionally de-listed, hazardous waste is buried and removed in the interim, and the federal rules of what represents full disclosure of impacts keep changing, so there's some work ahead on updating the studies even if they settled on the current route, and much more work if additional alternatives are looked at.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-69-segment-8/interstate-69-segment-8-library.html

Question:  is the federal follow-up action contingent upon request from TDOT or would it be undertaken at the federal level (USDOT and/or EPA) absent any further action at the state level?  Since 13 years have passed since the SDEIS, it would appear that one party or another is not in any particular hurry to see a resolution.  With that in mind, one would wonder if starting from scratch on an alignment not impinging upon the wetlands traversed by US 51 (and I have driven that route a few times and seen the terrain firsthand -- and there's no shortage of channels and bayous crossed by the current facility) might be an alternative to be explored, even with all-new paperwork involved.   In short -- it looks like a standoff, standstill, or perpetual procrastination with the current plan; perhaps going back to square #1 might break the logjam -- just a thought!

[hbelkins]

Giving some thought to going down that way this weekend (western Kentucky) and a short side trip to the Union City area would be an easy diversion. Last time i was there, I got some photos at the TN 22/TN 5 interchange. Any other suggestions for good photo opportunities? I wouldn't want to go as far as Dyersburg, since most of the road on is already up to interstate standards and is signed as "Future I-69 Corridor."

[Rick Powell]

Question:  is the federal follow-up action contingent upon request from TDOT or would it be undertaken at the federal level (USDOT and/or EPA) absent any further action at the state level? 

The state DOTs drive the process, even though EISs are federal documents. The Federal Highway Administration depends on the state DOTs to hire the consultants and to do most of the study work, and the feds mostly process the paperwork, review documents and attend meetings. If there is no push from the state DOT on a project, the study sits.

[sparker]

Question:  is the federal follow-up action contingent upon request from TDOT or would it be undertaken at the federal level (USDOT and/or EPA) absent any further action at the state level? 

The state DOTs drive the process, even though EISs are federal documents. The Federal Highway Administration depends on the state DOTs to hire the consultants and to do most of the study work, and the feds mostly process the paperwork, review documents and attend meetings. If there is no push from the state DOT on a project, the study sits.

Sounds like the regional "Memphis Blues" are at work here; little love for that part of the state from the powers that be in Nashville.  Hopefully it won't sit another 13 years until someone at least pulls it off the shelf (for purposes other than dusting!). 

[wriddle082]

Giving some thought to going down that way this weekend (western Kentucky) and a short side trip to the Union City area would be an easy diversion. Last time i was there, I got some photos at the TN 22/TN 5 interchange. Any other suggestions for good photo opportunities? I wouldn't want to go as far as Dyersburg, since most of the road on is already up to interstate standards and is signed as "Future I-69 Corridor."

Take the TN 22 freeway down to Martin and check out the TN 22/US 45E/TN 431 interchange on the east side.  Interesting 3-level deal that came about when they originally built the northern bypass to end and merge seamlessly into 22 east, but then later they added the ramps for the southeastern segment of the bypass.  Most of the bridges are good old TDOT-style concrete box girders.

[Avalanchez71]

What is the feasibility of putting a truck lane or express lane in and around said towns along US 51 and forgoing the completion of I-69?

[rte66man]

Giving some thought to going down that way this weekend (western Kentucky) and a short side trip to the Union City area would be an easy diversion. Last time i was there, I got some photos at the TN 22/TN 5 interchange. Any other suggestions for good photo opportunities? I wouldn't want to go as far as Dyersburg, since most of the road on is already up to interstate standards and is signed as "Future I-69 Corridor."

Don't know the cost but it might be worth it to go up in that tower at Discovery Park on the west side of Union City. I'll bet you could get some great shots of I69 from up there.

[TNObion]

Giving some thought to going down that way this weekend (western Kentucky) and a short side trip to the Union City area would be an easy diversion. Last time i was there, I got some photos at the TN 22/TN 5 interchange. Any other suggestions for good photo opportunities? I wouldn't want to go as far as Dyersburg, since most of the road on is already up to interstate standards and is signed as "Future I-69 Corridor."

Don't know the cost but it might be worth it to go up in that tower at Discovery Park on the west side of Union City. I'll bet you could get some great shots of I69 from up there.

That would be a fantastic place for some pictures, I believe it's 15 bucks or so. The TN 21 overpass is completed and open now, that would also be a good place. I believe the Brevard Rd overpass is done now as well.

[sparker]

What is the feasibility of putting a truck lane or express lane in and around said towns along US 51 and forgoing the completion of I-69?

Slim & none; HPC #18/I-69 is written into federal code; to change/delete it would literally take an act of Congress.  It's functionally mandated to be constructed to Interstate standards; while present plans (seemingly shelved) keep the planned alignment close to extant US 51, the lack of final EIS approval for those plans means any alignment with Dyersburg and Memphis as the endpoints remains possible (if not probable) -- but regardless of location, it'll be required to follow Interstate standards regarding facility characteristics.   

[sprjus4]

^ Not to mention, when you take in account the substandard conditions of US-51, the amount of towns on the corridor, etc., it simply makes logical sense to relocate the corridor onto new location and build it as a limited access highway.

US-51 is not some high quality roadway today. It's 4 lanes, sure, but has a substandard design, passes through a number of towns, etc. It needs improvements, and given the cost it would take to make US-51 a free-flowing expressway with town bypasses, it seems more worthwhile to just relocate the entire roadway.

I-69 aside, improving the outlet up US-51 provides an improved connection to Kentucky's parkway system, and could provide redundancy to I-40 and I-65 and the traditional via Nashville routing to destinations such as Louisville, etc. Then of course, redundancy to I-55, I-57, and I-70 by providing a shorter, more direct, more reliable corridor between Indianapolis and Memphis.

There's zero reason to cancel the route.

[Avalanchez71]

There is not a need when you have I-55 just the other side of the river, I-65 just east of the location and the facility is already 4 lane.  US 45 just to the east is now 4 lanes as well to I-40.

[rte66man]

^ Not to mention, when you take in account the substandard conditions of US-51, the amount of towns on the corridor, etc., it simply makes logical sense to relocate the corridor onto new location and build it as a limited access highway.

US-51 is not some high quality roadway today. It's 4 lanes, sure, but has a substandard design, passes through a number of towns, etc. It needs improvements, and given the cost it would take to make US-51 a free-flowing expressway with town bypasses, it seems more worthwhile to just relocate the entire roadway.

I-69 aside, improving the outlet up US-51 provides an improved connection to Kentucky's parkway system, and could provide redundancy to I-40 and I-65 and the traditional via Nashville routing to destinations such as Louisville, etc. Then of course, redundancy to I-55, I-57, and I-70 by providing a shorter, more direct, more reliable corridor between Indianapolis and Memphis.

There's zero reason to cancel the route.

Just think if 69 was built, then an incident like the DeSoto bridge wouldn't cause nearly as much backup. I55 traffic could be diverted up 69 and back across the Mississippi at Caruthersville on 155.

[sprjus4]

There is not a need when you have I-55 just the other side of the river, I-65 just east of the location and the facility is already 4 lane.

Both corridors are overcapacity and a "no build" along US-51 does nothing to improve traffic flow north out of the Memphis. For long term sustainability, a new freeway along the existing US-51 corridor would provide long term sustainability, a reliable corridor, a more direct route to the north, and needed redundancy in the system.

US 45 just to the east is now 4 lanes as well to I-40.

That corridor is no better than US-51. Towns, substandard segments, traffic signals, etc.

[Bobby5280]

"I-65 is just east of the location."

Um, try about 200 MILES EAST. The level of trolling from this guy is reaching new levels of stupid.

[sprjus4]

"I-65 is just east of the location."

Um, try about 200 MILES EAST. The level of trolling from this guy is reaching new levels of stupid.

I believe it was in response to me saying that an upgraded US-51 corridor connecting to Kentucky's parkways would provide redundancy and a more reliable connection to points like Louisville, outside of the I-69 scope, to which he refuted saying I-40, I-65, and going through Nashville is perfectly adequate and needs no new corridor or improvements, which we all know based on actual reality on the ground, is false. Heavy truck traffic, high volumes in general, backups, city congestion, etc. But he will strongly defend in any way he can that I-65 needs zero improvements without any actual facts or evidence to support his case. He does like to say you can just take alternative, non interstate routes though, and claim those are viable enough for long distance traffic 

[hbelkins]

Giving some thought to going down that way this weekend (western Kentucky) and a short side trip to the Union City area would be an easy diversion. Last time i was there, I got some photos at the TN 22/TN 5 interchange. Any other suggestions for good photo opportunities? I wouldn't want to go as far as Dyersburg, since most of the road on is already up to interstate standards and is signed as "Future I-69 Corridor."

Take the TN 22 freeway down to Martin and check out the TN 22/US 45E/TN 431 interchange on the east side.  Interesting 3-level deal that came about when they originally built the northern bypass to end and merge seamlessly into 22 east, but then later they added the ramps for the southeastern segment of the bypass.  Most of the bridges are good old TDOT-style concrete box girders.

I drove through there on 45E a few years ago, and I can't remember for sure, but we may have also driven that when Jason took us out for a road trip the day of your wedding.

"I-65 is just east of the location."

Um, try about 200 MILES EAST. The level of trolling from this guy is reaching new levels of stupid.

I believe it was in response to me saying that an upgraded US-51 corridor connecting to Kentucky's parkways would provide redundancy and a more reliable connection to points like Louisville, outside of the I-69 scope, to which he refuted saying I-40, I-65, and going through Nashville is perfectly adequate and needs no new corridor or improvements, which we all know based on actual reality on the ground, is false. Heavy truck traffic, high volumes in general, backups, city congestion, etc. But he will strongly defend in any way he can that I-65 needs zero improvements without any actual facts or evidence to support his case. He does like to say you can just take alternative, non interstate routes though, and claim those are viable enough for long distance traffic 

As I've often said, after having driven I-40 between Nashville and Memphis once, and knowing traffic conditions on I-65 and in Nashville, I will choose the Kentucky parkways and US 51 over going through Nashville anytime I have to go to Memphis or a destination to the west or south of there.

[rickmastfan67]

There is not a need when you have I-55 just the other side of the river, I-65 just east of the location and the facility is already 4 lane.  US 45 just to the east is now 4 lanes as well to I-40.

The issues and backups on I-55 due to the I-40 bridge closure says otherwise.

[sparker]

There is not a need when you have I-55 just the other side of the river, I-65 just east of the location and the facility is already 4 lane.  US 45 just to the east is now 4 lanes as well to I-40.

The issues and backups on I-55 due to the I-40 bridge closure says otherwise.

This particular poster's primary motivation, expressed in virtually every situation, seems to be:  I don't think there should be public expenditure on facilities or facility upgrades that make driving any more efficient or more pleasant than it is now!  If this isn't what he's attempting to convey, he can respond in kind. 

[froggie]

There is not a need when you have I-55 just the other side of the river, I-65 just east of the location and the facility is already 4 lane.

Both corridors are overcapacity

55 is only "over capacity" through West Memphis.  Once you get north of Marion, it is not.

65, on the other hand...though even there one could argue it doesn't have any capacity needs between Columbia and Athens.

[sprjus4]

55 is only "over capacity" through West Memphis.  Once you get north of Marion, it is not.

True, by sheer volume, it's under 20,000 AADT, though truck percentages are in the ~50-60% range in that segment so that somewhat is a factor.

Either way, routing via I-55 and I-155 adds 40 miles, and 10-15 minutes time wise off peak. Add in congestion, the bridges, West Memphis, etc. and could easily be longer. There is some merit to having an additional interstate highway corridor, or at minimum free-flowing 65 mph expressway with no signals, between Memphis and I-155 along the US-51 corridor.

65, on the other hand...though even there one could argue it doesn't have any capacity needs between Columbia and Athens.

The segment between Columbia and Athens isn't on the routing, so that is irrelevant to this particular example. North of Nashville to the Kentucky border there are capacity issues, high truck volumes, etc. plus dealing with Nashville itself.

[sparker]

55 is only "over capacity" through West Memphis.  Once you get north of Marion, it is not.

True, by sheer volume, it's under 20,000 AADT, though truck percentages are in the ~50-60% range in that segment so that somewhat is a factor.

Either way, routing via I-55 and I-155 adds 40 miles, and 10-15 minutes time wise off peak. Add in congestion, the bridges, West Memphis, etc. and could easily be longer. There is some merit to having an additional interstate highway corridor, or at minimum free-flowing 65 mph expressway with no signals, between Memphis and I-155 along the US-51 corridor.

65, on the other hand...though even there one could argue it doesn't have any capacity needs between Columbia and Athens.

The segment between Columbia and Athens isn't on the routing, so that is irrelevant to this particular example. North of Nashville to the Kentucky border there are capacity issues, high truck volumes, etc. plus dealing with Nashville itself.

Since for the time being the combination of I-65 and I-40 remains the commercial corridor of choice between Louisville and Memphis (at least until I-69 is fully completed, with the WKY as a connector), expanding 65 north of Nashville would be a no-brainer (and apparently TDOT concurs).  But as our resident BANANA seems to blithefully ignore, not all corridors provide that combination of directness and efficiency that an Interstate or at least an access-controlled expressway does (one would guess he's never been behind the controls of a big rig on a significant commercial run!).  When completed, I-69 will function at least as a relief route to the Nashville option, especially with its lateral connections in KY. 

[edwaleni]

What is the feasibility of putting a truck lane or express lane in and around said towns along US 51 and forgoing the completion of I-69?

Who would pay for it?

[sparker]

What is the feasibility of putting a truck lane or express lane in and around said towns along US 51 and forgoing the completion of I-69?

Who would pay for it?

No one; that corridor specification change just isn't going to happen, at least under the auspices of the high priority corridor legislation that governs the I-69 corridor.  If the project were suspended or diverted, any US 51 projects would then be relegated to the usual funding-application/get-in-line process for any federal assistance -- but TDOT would still have to request those funds, which would be considerably less than available for a NHS/HPC listed project, unless some local congressperson can secure an earmark.  And if that hasn't happened for a national corridor, it likely wouldn't happen for a truck lane on an existing surface facility.