Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[capt.ron]

Definitely hindsight is 20/20 when Tennessee could have (and should have) upgraded their section of US 78 when they had a good chance to...like in the early 1980's for example. But for me, it's moot since I will now take I-55 south out of Memphis until reaching I-269 and running that over to I-22 if I ever make my way down to Florida again (I-55 -> I-269 -> I-22 -> I-65 -> US 231 to PCB).

[bwana39]

More Practically, I-22 should follow I-69 /269 to near US-61 and cross the Mississippi River and either go straight to Brinkley or follow US-79 to I-40.

Memphis needs a 3rd bridge.  I personally think that the I-69 bridge should be north of the Arkansas and White rivers confluences, but that is not what Arkansas wants. I get that the crossings of both of them would be needed, but still it makes sense in every realm except up front costs and perhaps some hoped economic development in Desha and Arkansas Counties.  My thoughts on the economic development is that it only is going to benefit the people who sell their land for the R.O.W.  Interstate 20 has minimally helped Beinville or Lincoln Parishes in LA. I-49 has done little for the places between Alexandria and Shreveport.  Perhaps the town on the freeways in the truly rural areas have SHRUNK less, but none the less, they still continue to at best remain fairly constant in population with the average income shrinking.

[MikieTimT]

More Practically, I-22 should follow I-69 /269 to near US-61 and cross the Mississippi River and either go straight to Brinkley or follow US-79 to I-40.

Memphis needs a 3rd bridge.  I personally think that the I-69 bridge should be north of the Arkansas and White rivers confluences, but that is not what Arkansas wants. I get that the crossings of both of them would be needed, but still it makes sense in every realm except up front costs and perhaps some hoped economic development in Desha and Arkansas Counties.  My thoughts on the economic development is that it only is going to benefit the people who sell their land for the R.O.W.  Interstate 20 has minimally helped Beinville or Lincoln Parishes in LA. I-49 has done little for the places between Alexandria and Shreveport.  Perhaps the town on the freeways in the truly rural areas have SHRUNK less, but none the less, they still continue to at best remain fairly constant in population with the average income shrinking.

Up front costs are a big deal in a state like Arkansas with it being poor.  Due to its central location, it should be getting much more help federally than it has as I-49 and I-57 are routes that will trim quite a lot of AADT from other currently overburdened and somewhat less direct routes with out-of-state through traffic.  Many of the richer states have well developed Interstate Highway systems due to there being a much larger federal match back when they were initially built, which was in wealthier locales back then to begin with, so it wasn't the relative burden on their taxpayers that the current federal matches place upon new builds now.  I would personally like as much of I-69 built in Arkansas as possible as it would benefit the poorer half of the state more, but if we can't even fund a single bridge over the Arkansas River for connecting up 2 completed sections of I-49 now, I don't see anything other than a wholesale change in highway funding at the federal level to even have a chance at I-69 being completed along any route in MS, LA, or AR in our lifetimes, much less changing the routing to cross 3 major navigable rivers.

[Bobby5280]

In a perfect world, with proper input of federal oversight and funding, the Memphis area could use four Mississippi River bridge crossings. Really, the federal government should be heavily involved and heavily invested in the Memphis area bridge crossings due to the major impact they have on the entirety of the Interstate highway system.

As I said earlier, the existing 71 year old I-55 bridge needs to be replaced. The I-40 crossing, aka the Hernando De Soto Bridge, was built in 1957. It's six lanes wide with no shoulders; an adequate bridge for that crossing would sport 8 lanes as well as inner and outer shoulders.

The other two Mississippi River crossings would involve I-269. The logical Southern crossing would start its approach in the vicinity of where MS-304 leaves I-69 to end at US-61. That's in the same general area as the Tunica casino resorts. A bridge crossing there followed by a freeway curving up to I-40 in Arkansas would provide a very effective Southern bypass of Memphis. And it would be a more direct path for Tunica tourists coming from Arkansas and points farther West. The road could work being signed as I-22. The Northern I-269 crossing would go from Millington, TN to Clarkedale, AR. The last NW quadrant of the I-269 outer loop could then curve down to I-40, meeting the SW quadrant of the outer loop.

Of course these bridges have nothing to do with the Great River Bridge farther South between McGehee, AR and Benoit, MS.

[MikieTimT]

In a perfect world, with proper input of federal oversight and funding, the Memphis area could use four Mississippi River bridge crossings. Really, the federal government should be heavily involved and heavily invested in the Memphis area bridge crossings due to the major impact they have on the entirety of the Interstate highway system.

As I said earlier, the existing 71 year old I-55 bridge needs to be replaced. The I-40 crossing, aka the Hernando De Soto Bridge, was built in 1957. It's six lanes wide with no shoulders; an adequate bridge for that crossing would sport 8 lanes as well as inner and outer shoulders.

The other two Mississippi River crossings would involve I-269. The logical Southern crossing would start its approach in the vicinity of where MS-304 leaves I-69 to end at US-61. That's in the same general area as the Tunica casino resorts. A bridge crossing there followed by a freeway curving up to I-40 in Arkansas would provide a very effective Southern bypass of Memphis. And it would be a more direct path for Tunica tourists coming from Arkansas and points farther West. The road could work being signed as I-22. The Northern I-269 crossing would go from Millington, TN to Clarkedale, AR. The last NW quadrant of the I-269 outer loop could then curve down to I-40, meeting the SW quadrant of the outer loop.

Of course these bridges have nothing to do with the Great River Bridge farther South between McGehee, AR and Benoit, MS.

True, and I would argue would be a higher priority to the motoring public as well.  But with 3 states involved instead of 2, a federal project rather than one led by 3 states with their own budgetary priorities in an area far from their respective capitals is the only way it happens.

[Bobby5280]

3 cash strapped states combined with all their respective bureaucracies and mountains of red tape are all the more reason for the federal government to get in there and get 'er done.

[bwana39]

In a perfect world, with proper input of federal oversight and funding, the Memphis area could use four Mississippi River bridge crossings. Really, the federal government should be heavily involved and heavily invested in the Memphis area bridge crossings due to the major impact they have on the entirety of the Interstate highway system.

As I said earlier, the existing 71 year old I-55 bridge needs to be replaced. The I-40 crossing, aka the Hernando De Soto Bridge, was built in 1957. It's six lanes wide with no shoulders; an adequate bridge for that crossing would sport 8 lanes as well as inner and outer shoulders.

The other two Mississippi River crossings would involve I-269. The logical Southern crossing would start its approach in the vicinity of where MS-304 leaves I-69 to end at US-61. That's in the same general area as the Tunica casino resorts. A bridge crossing there followed by a freeway curving up to I-40 in Arkansas would provide a very effective Southern bypass of Memphis. And it would be a more direct path for Tunica tourists coming from Arkansas and points farther West. The road could work being signed as I-22. The Northern I-269 crossing would go from Millington, TN to Clarkedale, AR. The last NW quadrant of the I-269 outer loop could then curve down to I-40, meeting the SW quadrant of the outer loop.

Of course these bridges have nothing to do with the Great River Bridge farther South between McGehee, AR and Benoit, MS.

I agree in full that the I-269 loop would be a good fit.  A second new crossing would be really nice. I agree that the existing bridges are both really under the needed capacity and design. I think they would suffice if there were two new bridges. A new bridge in Northwest Mississippi would really help the Memphis and Arkansas Bridge out if there was a freeway that went all the way from I-55 to the new bridge. I am fully on-board for Memphis area improvements.

While it may be set in permanent stone. NOTHING will convince me that the Great River Bridge where envisioned is anything but a giant homage (patronage?) to Bob Moore and the past power of Trent Lott. It makes ZERO sense. It might have made sense to Arkansas when Trent Lott promised a giant Valentine with little cost. It certainly hasn't worked that way. Perhaps Senator Lott saw the costs to Mississippi and figured the bridge would get built, Mississippi would have no stomach to build the so closely parallel to I-55 freeway and figure out they would extend it from the bridge to I-55 near Grenada MS (Mr. Lott's home town).

As to spacing of the bridges, from Caruthersville Mo to Memphis is around 100 river miles (around 75 highway miles). From Memphis to Helena is around 70 miles both river and highway.  From Helena to the Greenville Bridge is a round 160 River miles but just over 100 road miles on the Mississippi side. It is markedly farther on the Arkansas Side. That has  to do with the Arkansas and White Rivers.  Admittedly Arkansas and Desha Counties are isolated by in the armpit (confluence) of the rivers, but some times isolation is just a part of it.  As to the proposed I-69 river crossing, it is around thirty miles closer to Helena. It would be the closest state to state rural crossing on the lower Mississippi (the same state Louisiana to Louisiana ones are close to the same.) The traffic on the Audubon bridge is 3,000 per day.

Back to the Great River Bridge... Local traffic is less than 7,000 vehicles per day at Greenville. Less than 5,000 at Helena. My fears is if I-69 were built with the Arkansas County crossing, it would still be a fairly disused routing. The mileage difference from Nacogdoches to Memphis is insignificant over the future I-369 to I-30 / I-40.  You would miss Little Rock and come into Memphis in a less congested manner, but fuel contracts would negate the minimal benefits. It would take decades for the services to build up to a level for the travel to increase.

I think that I-49 north from Texarkana will make a far larger difference on traffic pattern shift than I-69 north of Shreveport.  What I-49 actually means to traffic volumes on I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock is still up in the air. The traffic going to Saint Louis and west probably would choose I-49 going through Texarkana

As to your last comment, they have nothing to do with the proposed great river bridge. They have everything to do with it. This is not a perfect world. I believe there will be no more than one new route bridge built on the lower Mississippi in Arkansas or Missouri.  There MIGHT be a replacement (only if there is a failure or anticipated failure. NOT a capacity issue).  Arkansas County is NOT the place to build it. 

I do believe Louisiana will build one if not two in metro Baton Rouge. That is neither Arkansas nor Mississippi.

I also believe the Feds will have to do any of this that gets done beyond the minimums.

[Bobby5280]

If I could pick only one location for a brand new Mississippi River bridge crossing from the Memphis area down South, I would emphatically choose the site near Tunica. That bridge site would be the most beneficial for the whole Interstate system and provide perhaps a more logical start/end point for I-22 at I-40 in Eastern Arkansas. Such a bridge would re-route a significant amount of traffic from the stressed I-40 & I-55 bridges.

I, too, don't like the proposed location of the Great River Bridge. A new crossing at Helena would shift I-69 into a more direct path between Shreveport and Memphis. And that's even if I-69 is built as previously proposed between Shreveport and Monticello. But a more direct crossing would require two new bridges, one over the Arkansas River and another over the White River. That's in addition to building a brand new Mississippi River crossing at Helena. Obviously the powers that be would prefer building only one big bridge, but farther South.

I don't think the Great River Bridge design and location is permanently set in stone. Overall I think the project is at considerable risk of just never getting built at all.

The need for new I-40 & I-55 bridges (and I-269 bridges) in the Memphis region is great. The traffic burden is the first concern. Redundancy is another big concern. The existing bridges in Memphis are old and may not withstand a disaster, such as a major earthquake up river near the New Madrid area. Terrorists have had plans to target major pieces of infrastructure. Having new Mississippi River bridges in the Memphis area and more than one of them would help prevent a major part of our highway network from being crippled in the event of a disaster.

[BrandonC_TX]

Redundancy is another big concern. The existing bridges in Memphis are old and may not withstand a disaster, such as a major earthquake up river near the New Madrid area.

There is an even closer fault line in the vicinity of Marianna, AR, which could produce a 7.0 earthquake.  I know the I-40 bridge has seen seismic retrofits over the years, but I'm not too sure about the I-55 (Memphis-Arkansas) bridge.

Memphis is a major logistics center, so you are completely correct about the need for redundancy.  A New Madrid (or Marianna Fault) earthquake would be a region-wide disaster, so preserving the ability to get supplies in (and out) of the region in the aftermath is essential.  Travel, due to damaged roads and bridges, may be unsafe for some time afterwards.

[Revive 755]

^ But if there was a major earthquake, would a temporary floating bridge or two across the Mississippi be unfeasible, possibly due to river currents or allowing barge traffic for relief efforts?

[Bobby5280]

Even if ship and barge traffic wasn't a factor, I have doubts a floating bridge (temporary or not) would be feasible across the Mississippi River near Memphis. The river is pretty wide and its currents are strong. Plus there is a considerable amount of debris large and small floating through it from time to time, like uprooted trees for instance. Lake Washington by Seattle has large, floating pontoon bridges carrying a couple of major highways (like I-90). But Lake Washington is a pretty stable body of water compared to the Mississippi River.

If the I-40 & I-55 bridges were destroyed or rendered impassible due to an earthquake or other disaster all traffic in that area would be stuck having to use ferries to cross the river until one or more new bridges could be built. A lot of long distance traffic would be diverted a good distance to the nearest, functional bridge crossings. In a bad enough disaster could mean going as far as I-20 or I-70.

[Wayward Memphian]

Even if ship and barge traffic wasn't a factor, I have doubts a floating bridge (temporary or not) would be feasible across the Mississippi River near Memphis. The river is pretty wide and its currents are strong. Plus there is a considerable amount of debris large and small floating through it from time to time, like uprooted trees for instance. Lake Washington by Seattle has a large, floating pontoon bridges carrying a couple of major highways (like I-90). But Lake Washington is a pretty stable body of water compared to the Mississippi River.

If the I-40 & I-55 bridges were destroyed or rendered impassible due to an earthquake or other disaster all traffic in that area would be stuck having to use ferries to cross the river until one or more new bridges could be built. A lot of long distance traffic would be diverted a good distance to the nearest, functional bridge crossings. In a bad enough disaster could mean going as far as I-20 or I-70.

I have fished the Mississippi all my life. Whole trees can pop up from nowhere when it's a bit high. The idea of a floating bridge is insane. Oh the Corp would love to try a modern Mulberry Harbor but come on.

[rte66man]

As I said earlier, the existing 71 year old I-55 bridge needs to be replaced. The I-40 crossing, aka the Hernando De Soto Bridge, was built in 1957 1975. It's six lanes wide with no shoulders; an adequate bridge for that crossing would sport 8 lanes as well as inner and outer shoulders.

FTFY

[US71]

^ But if there was a major earthquake, would a temporary floating bridge or two across the Mississippi be unfeasible, possibly due to river currents or allowing barge traffic for relief efforts?

I thought the I-40 bridge retrofitted to resist earthquakes.  Then again, if you get a 6 or 7 the bridges may be your least concern.

[bwana39]

^ But if there was a major earthquake, would a temporary floating bridge or two across the Mississippi be unfeasible, possibly due to river currents or allowing barge traffic for relief efforts?

I thought the I-40 bridge retrofitted to resist earthquakes.  Then again, if you get a 6 or 7 the bridges may be your least concern.

The I-40 bridge was retrofitted, but I think the theme of the thread is that modern designed bridges would survive Armageddon and older ones would not. While the older(truss) bridges do tend to have certain points that if they fail, the entire bridge MIGHT fail, at the same time, I think we have a bigger worry in the concrete approaches and concrete  bridges on surrounding creeks and overpasses. The Bay bridge failed in one place. The Nimitz and Embarcadero Freeways were damaged far worse than the  Bay Bridge.  I think that cable stayed bridges MIGHT hold up better than the rigid trusses  that are there now, but maybe not. There is very limited earthquake exposure of cable stayed bridges outside the lab. While we have experience based data with trusses and true suspension bridges, there is still lots to learn about cable stayed bridges.

My take on Memphis is if the trusses are damaged beyond repair, the infrastructure leading to them will not be usable to get the traffic to the bridge that is out of service. Like US71 said, the bridges may be your least concern. (and that is just discussing the transportation woes.)

[Wayward Memphian]

In a perfect world, with proper input of federal oversight and funding, the Memphis area could use four Mississippi River bridge crossings. Really, the federal government should be heavily involved and heavily invested in the Memphis area bridge crossings due to the major impact they have on the entirety of the Interstate highway system.

As I said earlier, the existing 71 year old I-55 bridge needs to be replaced. The I-40 crossing, aka the Hernando De Soto Bridge, was built in 1957. It's six lanes wide with no shoulders; an adequate bridge for that crossing would sport 8 lanes as well as inner and outer shoulders.

The other two Mississippi River crossings would involve I-269. The logical Southern crossing would start its approach in the vicinity of where MS-304 leaves I-69 to end at US-61. That's in the same general area as the Tunica casino resorts. A bridge crossing there followed by a freeway curving up to I-40 in Arkansas would provide a very effective Southern bypass of Memphis. And it would be a more direct path for Tunica tourists coming from Arkansas and points farther West. The road could work being signed as I-22. The Northern I-269 crossing would go from Millington, TN to Clarkedale, AR. The last NW quadrant of the I-269 outer loop could then curve down to I-40, meeting the SW quadrant of the outer loop.

Of course these bridges have nothing to do with the Great River Bridge farther South between McGehee, AR and Benoit, MS.

[msunat97]

The relatively new Highway 82 bridge in Greenville, MS could be an option to cross the river if the Memphis area was shutdown.  That would highlight the need for finishing the Greenville bypass.  However, a earthquake large enough to knockout the Memphis bridges might also do damage to the Helena & Greenville bridges as well.  There would be a ton of freight moving across I-20 & thru St. Louis in this scenario.

[bwana39]

The relatively new Highway 82 bridge in Greenville, MS could be an option to cross the river if the Memphis area was shutdown.  That would highlight the need for finishing the Greenville bypass.  However, a earthquake large enough to knockout the Memphis bridges might also do damage to the Helena & Greenville bridges as well.  There would be a ton of freight moving across I-20 & thru St. Louis in this scenario.

You are describing Armageddon if it is going to wreck bridges from Helena to the ones in Memphis.  The Greenville Bridge is supposedly earthquake resistant.  Resistant not earthquake-proof. I think the bridges across the Mississippi will be a secondary worry in the short-term.

The US-82 bridge is closer to Vicksburg than to Memphis.  The proposed great river bridge (I HATE the proposed location) itself is still 30 miles closer to Vicksburg than Memphis. (and only around 30 miles from the US-82 bridge.)

The need is for a new bridge in a new location located near Memphis. The best choice is near Tunica Lakes. By completing the loop to West Memphis, it gets the I-55 and I-22  through traffic out of Memphis proper. It leaves the Memphis and Arkansas Bridge for local traffic .  I think everyone can be on the same page for the overly narrow Memphis and Arkansas  bridge to have a dramatically lower traffic load. Whether a potential earthquake is part of the equation or not.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
If by chance a Mississippi River bridge at Tunica were to be built, the optimal designation for such, as well as a connector looping north to both I-40 and I-55, would be as a rerouted I-55.  This would obviate the need to deal with the old Memphis & Arkansas bridge as well as the Crump Blvd. cloverleaf.  Current I-55 north from I-269 to I-240 would be solely I-69 as would the current I-240 north to I-40 near downtown.  I-240 would replace I-55 over the M & A bridge to I-40 in W. Memphis. 

But all that probably won't happen in the near term for two simple reasons:  #1 -- Arkansas has multiple "plates" already piled up with Interstate projects (49, 57, 30 widening, etc.); scant room for any more of the same.  #2 -- MS is effectively broke -- at least in terms of major projects such as any connected with new Interstate mileage.  Unless there's room within a Biden transportation package for really substantial federal funding (I'm talking about the 90% level or even above) for such a project, it's all merely speculation at this point.   Such funding would also need to include reconstruction of the 55/69/269 interchange to provide multilane flyovers and ramp upgrades for the throughput of both I-55 and I-69.   

That being said -- the saving grace of a Tunica-area bridge is that while MSA's connected with greater Memphis would naturally be involved, TDOT and its Nashville handlers, who generally seem loath to provide more than scraps to the Memphis area, won't likely have a significant part in the process save some re-designation issues.     

[Wayward Memphian]

We are into hypotheticals and some hate those a reroute of I-55 needs to happen at about Jericho is and run to near the Intermodal/Supersite near Lehi.

Arkansas 'could'  build the bridge and cross the Mississippi without leaving the state as a toll bridge without taking in to account any engineering aspects but it is the narrowest part of the river around. It would run over what was the gun club aspect of the former MGM Grand Casino

[bwana39]

We are into hypotheticals and some hate those a reroute of I-55 needs to happen at about Jericho is and run to near the Intermodal/Supersite near Lehi.

Arkansas 'could'  build the bridge and cross the Mississippi without leaving the state as a toll bridge without taking in to account any engineering aspects but it is the narrowest part of the river around. It would run over what was the gun club aspect of the former MGM Grand Casino

Yes, the space to do it is there. Probably a good place to build a bridge.    That said, Arkansas has a constitutional ban on toll roads and bridges.  The only way it gets built with tolls is if the tolls are collected in Mississippi or if it is a privately owned bridge.

[Tomahawkin]

Can we get a Buc'ees on 269??? That place is the #### as a truck-stop! People who have seen them in Texas know about this place. There will be ones in Alabama and Georgia!

[codyg1985]

Can we get a Buc'ees on 269??? That place is the #### as a truck-stop! People who have seen them in Texas know about this place. There will be ones in Alabama and Georgia!

One small problem with Buc-ees: no trucks are allowed.

[Bobby5280]

Yep, that's right. No big rigs allowed at Buc-ee's

The Buc-ee's company has some ambitious expansion plans for the Deep South and Florida. A new location outside Birmingham on I-20 (Leeds) is opening this month. Buc-ee's is opening new locations in Daytona Beach and St Augustine this quarter. A store on I-95 in Florence, SC will open in 2022. They have a recently opened location in Warner Robbins, GA and another one in Calhoun, GA in the works. One location in Boerne, TX (near San Antonio) has been held up by upgrades to I-10. A third location in Alabama is proposed for Athens. A second location in South Carolina is proposed for Anderson County (on I-85).

Buc-ee's wants to build a big location in North Carolina near Raleigh by the Efland Station development (exit 161 on I-40/85). But they're facing some unexpected community resistence there. And there is a decent amount of blow-back happening in response to Buc-ee's first location outside of Texas: I-10 at the Baldwin Beach Express, the main road to Gulf Shores, AL. Apparently traffic is really bad at the I-10 exit and around the new Buc-ee's store.

Sadly, there are no signs Buc-ee's will build any of its huge stores in Oklahoma any time soon. I can think of several locations where Buc-ee's would do well. I think Buc-ee's needs to build a location in Amarillo just west of the US-287 merge into I-40.

Getting back to the topic of I-269 (and Buc-ee's), it might make sense to build a Buc-ee's super store along I-40 just East of the I-40/I-269 interchange. But in the Memphis area, I think it might be even better to build in West Memphis, AR along the short overlap of I-40 and I-55.

[Tomahawkin]

Good 411 you just posted! A location in West Memphis would be Awesome! That area looks the same as it did 30 years ago!