I-55 Bridge in Memphis

[The Ghostbuster]

How would a new Memphis & Arkansas Bridge be configurated? I imagine it would be a six-lane bridge with full emergency shoulders. Currently, the bridge is four lanes with no shoulders. Could the right-of-way be expanded enough so that a six-lane bridge could be constructed without infringing on the rail bridge that exists adjacent to the Memphis * Arkansas Bridge?

[abqtraveler]

How would a new Memphis & Arkansas Bridge be configurated? I imagine it would be a six-lane bridge with full emergency shoulders. Currently, the bridge is four lanes with no shoulders. Could the right-of-way be expanded enough so that a six-lane bridge could be constructed without infringing on the rail bridge that exists adjacent to the Memphis * Arkansas Bridge?

It might be possible, but it would be a very tight fit. There is only 150 feet of separation from the I-55 bridge and the Frisco Rail Bridge, and about the same distance separates the Frisco Bridge from the Harrihan Bridge. The existing I-55 bridge is only about 56 feet in width with four narrow lanes and no shoulders. For a single, standard width 6-lane bridge with full shoulders, it would have to be a minimum of 116 feet in width, assuming 3x12 foot travel lanes plus 10-foot inside and outside shoulders in each direction. The other option would be to build two new parallel spans. The first one for northbound traffic built immediately to the north of the existing bridge and the southbound span built within the footprint of the existing bridge after it has been demolished. Alternatively, the existing bridge can be rehabilitated and reconfigured for southbound traffic after the new northbound span is completed.

[lordsutch]

How would a new Memphis & Arkansas Bridge be configurated? I imagine it would be a six-lane bridge with full emergency shoulders. Currently, the bridge is four lanes with no shoulders. Could the right-of-way be expanded enough so that a six-lane bridge could be constructed without infringing on the rail bridge that exists adjacent to the Memphis * Arkansas Bridge?

Since they're talking about building immediately to the south rather than the north, squeezing it in between the existing bridges wouldn't be a consideration. There's really plenty of space there due to the curve I-55 takes before the crossing. The only minor issue I can see is that the new Crump/Riverside interchange isn't designed for three through lanes, but I don't think they're strictly needed and you'd mostly be adding the 3rd lane over the bridge for future-proofing and the marginal incremental cost anyway.

If they did have to build it to the north due to space constraints, I think they'd seriously look at consolidating the rail bridges on a new structure as well. There's actually a pretty strong case for moving the railroad lines out of downtown anyway.

[bwana39]

How would a new Memphis & Arkansas Bridge be configurated? I imagine it would be a six-lane bridge with full emergency shoulders. Currently, the bridge is four lanes with no shoulders. Could the right-of-way be expanded enough so that a six-lane bridge could be constructed without infringing on the rail bridge that exists adjacent to the Memphis * Arkansas Bridge?

Since they're talking about building immediately to the south rather than the north, squeezing it in between the existing bridges wouldn't be a consideration. There's really plenty of space there due to the curve I-55 takes before the crossing. The only minor issue I can see is that the new Crump/Riverside interchange isn't designed for three through lanes, but I don't think they're strictly needed and you'd mostly be adding the 3rd lane over the bridge for future-proofing and the marginal incremental cost anyway.

If they did have to build it to the north due to space constraints, I think they'd seriously look at consolidating the rail bridges on a new structure as well. There's actually a pretty strong case for moving the railroad lines out of downtown anyway.

The plans show it to the south of the existing bridge. The French Fort area will bw disturbed. I just do not see this as viable.

[lordsutch]

The plans show it to the south of the existing bridge. The French Fort area will bw disturbed. I just do not see this as viable.

If you're referring to the 5A and 5B routes shown on the study, they'd disturb a portion of Crump Park and one building, shown as "Economy Boat Store" on Google Maps. I don't think either would be particularly problematic.

[Plutonic Panda]

Surely it'll somehow have to tie in Crump Boulevard Interchange improvements.

[edwaleni]

At one time there were three railroad bridges across the river at Memphis.

One was torn down and is where the DeSoto Bridge is today.

The Harahan Bridge is all UP and is used to reach their exchange with CSX and NS.  CN comes through town but I am not aware any large amount of interchange between the two anymore at Yale Yard..

The Frisco Bridge is all BNSF and is used to reach Tennessee Yard SE of town and where they bring up traffic from Birmingham and CSX from Atlanta.

If you could get UP to share the Harahan Bridge with BNSF (they have switches with each other on both sides just in case), as the Harahan is double track, the Frisco single track.

The Frisco Bridge could be demolished permanently and/or replaced as part of a new combo highway/rail bridge. That would eliminate the clearance issues.

BNSF just invested millions replacing the west approach in 2017. The bridge was started in 1882 and it took 4 years to finish.

Seeing that it is over 120 years old and a registered landmark may make the thought of replacement unbearable, and is a testament to the quality of the engineering used at the time, but someday it will need to be replaced, if not physically, at least operationally.

[abqtraveler]

Just my $0.02, but I think Tennessee and Arkansas should focus on building a third Mississippi River crossing before addressing the I-55 bridge. The shutdown of the I-40 bridge for for months for emergency repairs highlighted the urgent need for a third crossing in the Memphis area.

[The Ghostbuster]

The question is, where would the new bridge be built? I would agree Memphis should have a third Mississippi River Bridge built, but the existing two bridges need to be maintained as well.

[MikeTheActuary]

At one time there were three railroad bridges across the river at Memphis.

One was torn down and is where the DeSoto Bridge is today.

No.

The DeSoto bridge is more-or-less where one of the old rail ferries used to run, but the only rail bridges to have ever crossed the Mississippi at Memphis are the Harahan and Frisco bridges.

FWIW, there was also another rail ferry that used to run at the site of the Harahan and Frisco bridges.

[edwaleni]

At one time there were three railroad bridges across the river at Memphis.

One was torn down and is where the DeSoto Bridge is today.

No.

The DeSoto bridge is more-or-less where one of the old rail ferries used to run, but the only rail bridges to have ever crossed the Mississippi at Memphis are the Harahan and Frisco bridges.

FWIW, there was also another rail ferry that used to run at the site of the Harahan and Frisco bridges.

Thanks for the correction.

[bwana39]

Ignore the removal of the existing I-55 bridge in this image.  (Haven't got around to finishing the version of this that retains the old bridge.) This location solves any problems related to impacting desirable land uses near the existing bridge.


Move a few light industrial buildings and the approach spans bridge over other industrial uses.  Nothing but floodplain on the AR side.  Third bridge achieved.

This is a better choice. It is a little more expensive, but it will clear the environmental hurdles. Should be fine USACOE. and would have better through I-55 flow. If you did not put freeway to freeway exits between the T&A bridge from the new freeway (only continue the current traffic movements) the intersection should be fairly inexpensive and easy to build. It would separate the Downtown and midtown traffic before the bridge.  Rebuilding in-place is just going to create a huge political storm and marginally make the traffic better. One of the savings they mention is the approaches. The approaches (which are all on the Arkansas side) are narrow 2x2 without shoulders. Most of the rest into West Memphis is elevated 2x2 with shoulders (2' inner Maybe 6' outer) Yep... They will suffice. (snark) We are being fed a line so they can say it is cheap then add on the overruns later (or immediately upon completion.)  It is true that all fo the infrastructure will be ready in Tennessee.

[The Ghostbuster]

Do any of you think triplemultiplex's new Interstate 55 alignment and bridge would ever be constructed? While I would agree with making the portion of 55 bypassed by this realignment Interstate 355, I would not tear down the old bridge. Instead, I would retain it as a two-lane bridge for local traffic (connecting it with Dacus Lake Rd. and Bridgeport Rd.). The left lane in each direction on the old bridge would become the main traffic lane, and the right lane in each direction being converted into an emergency shoulder.

[MikeTheActuary]

While I personally like triplemultiplex's idea....I think it's clear from the most recent presentation deck that the two state DOTs mostly want to minimize costs, and the options 5a and 5b are most likely cheaper than the idea presented here (even if you go with the variation that removes the old bridge).

Even so...if it were possible to get some traffic modeling done, it might be interesting to see what would happen to projected congestion levels with the triplemultiplex option -- presumably traffic flow would be better on I-55 and new I-355, but I wonder how much traffic might shift to I-40 due to the new alignment, and I suspect that West Memphis would object to the potential reduced access to Memphis' medical center (especially when the I-40 bridge is taken out of service for one reason or another).

[vdeane]

Not to mention, I doubt TDOT would be replacing the Crump interchange if there was actually a decent chance of I-55 being moved out of the area.

[MikeTheActuary]

Not to mention, I doubt TDOT would be replacing the Crump interchange if there was actually a decent chance of I-55 being moved out of the area.

I wonder if it's a case of the two DOTs having reached the conclusion that the bridge just needs to be replaced, independent of the question of needing a third bridge.   The entire proposal presentation seems to be geared around showing that bridge replacement is cheap when compared to building a new crossing....although there is one new crossing option presented that appears to have a better return on investment if the feds want to throw a couple of billion dollars the states' way.....

Alternatively, it could be a question of sequencing.  The Crump interchange project has been in the works and mostly-committed to for a good decade at this point.  Something occurring after the interchange rebuild project was in motion (I assume the Hernando-Desoto bridge issue) must have started some serious discussion about a new bridge, more serious than the discussions that have happened sporadically over the past 40 years...

[bwana39]

Not to mention, I doubt TDOT would be replacing the Crump interchange if there was actually a decent chance of I-55 being moved out of the area.

I wonder if it's a case of the two DOTs having reached the conclusion that the bridge just needs to be replaced, independent of the question of needing a third bridge.   The entire proposal presentation seems to be geared around showing that bridge replacement is cheap when compared to building a new crossing....although there is one new crossing option presented that appears to have a better return on investment if the feds want to throw a couple of billion dollars the states' way.....

Alternatively, it could be a question of sequencing.  The Crump interchange project has been in the works and mostly-committed to for a good decade at this point.  Something occurring after the interchange rebuild project was in motion (I assume the Hernando-Desoto bridge issue) must have started some serious discussion about a new bridge, more serious than the discussions that have happened sporadically over the past 40 years...

I think the Crump Boulevard interchange project kept getting put off to because they sensed hope a new bridge in a new alignment was possible. They have likely given up. If you read closely, this is still in the request for funds stages. Funds may not come.  The savings on the approaches seem to be fictional in the realm of capacity because the Arkansas side elevated sections are not anywhere close to 3x3. The actual approach immediate to the through truss section is 2x2 without ANY shoulders. The rest of the Arkansas side elevated structures (primarily over an oxbow / slough / old riverbed) are 2X2 + around 8 total feet of shoulders on each. I guess you could PROBABLY stripe 3 almost 11' lanes on each side.

Do I like this solution? No not really . Is it better than what is currently on place? Yes.

I still have concerns about the local input from the French Fort keeping them from getting EIS approved.

On the Tennessee side, the bridge butts hard up against the bank.

[lordsutch]

I wonder if it's a case of the two DOTs having reached the conclusion that the bridge just needs to be replaced, independent of the question of needing a third bridge.   The entire proposal presentation seems to be geared around showing that bridge replacement is cheap when compared to building a new crossing....although there is one new crossing option presented that appears to have a better return on investment if the feds want to throw a couple of billion dollars the states' way.....

Alternatively, it could be a question of sequencing.  The Crump interchange project has been in the works and mostly-committed to for a good decade at this point.  Something occurring after the interchange rebuild project was in motion (I assume the Hernando-Desoto bridge issue) must have started some serious discussion about a new bridge, more serious than the discussions that have happened sporadically over the past 40 years...

If you look through the study document, just maintaining the existing bridge for the next few decades will cost tens of millions of dollars. On top of that, the data shows that unless the new bridge is where the existing I-55 bridge is located, the new bridge won't divert enough traffic to be worth building. Of course, the unspoken part is that if a new bridge is built elsewhere, eventually the Big One will hit and the existing I-55 bridge will collapse and Memphis will have one bridge that is convenient for local traffic (I-40) and one bridge nobody will use unless they're avoiding the city entirely.

[bwana39]

I wonder if it's a case of the two DOTs having reached the conclusion that the bridge just needs to be replaced, independent of the question of needing a third bridge.   The entire proposal presentation seems to be geared around showing that bridge replacement is cheap when compared to building a new crossing....although there is one new crossing option presented that appears to have a better return on investment if the feds want to throw a couple of billion dollars the states' way.....

Alternatively, it could be a question of sequencing.  The Crump interchange project has been in the works and mostly-committed to for a good decade at this point.  Something occurring after the interchange rebuild project was in motion (I assume the Hernando-Desoto bridge issue) must have started some serious discussion about a new bridge, more serious than the discussions that have happened sporadically over the past 40 years...

If you look through the study document, just maintaining the existing bridge for the next few decades will cost tens of millions of dollars. On top of that, the data shows that unless the new bridge is where the existing I-55 bridge is located, the new bridge won't divert enough traffic to be worth building. Of course, the unspoken part is that if a new bridge is built elsewhere, eventually the Big One will hit and the existing I-55 bridge will collapse and Memphis will have one bridge that is convenient for local traffic (I-40) and one bridge nobody will use unless they're avoiding the city entirely.

The point I have tried to make about the roundabouts that quickly follow the exit to Riverside and Crump. Is this exactly. The new lanes on just the bridge could be acceleration / deceleration lanes leading up to / from the 2X2 in Arkansas.

The fact is that most of the traffic during rush follows either Riverside or Crump.  I see these roundabouts as traffic jams waiting to happen. Most of the newer US roundabouts are on lower use roads and are there for speed control, not traffic flow.

Yes for the local traffic. The existing bridge probably  has to stay.  I have said this before, I will say it again. If this bridge were to collapse during a seismic event, the roads leading up to it would probably be impassible. In great likelihood, the river would re-route so dramatically that it might not even run under this or any of the other bridges at  all.  While seismic retrofit is a good investment, unless all of the other infrastructure is seismically ready, you really have not accomplished anything by replacing a bridge on a highway that is not seismically prepared in the lesser bridge structures.

[Wayward Memphian]

How would a new Memphis & Arkansas Bridge be configurated? I imagine it would be a six-lane bridge with full emergency shoulders. Currently, the bridge is four lanes with no shoulders. Could the right-of-way be expanded enough so that a six-lane bridge could be constructed without infringing on the rail bridge that exists adjacent to the Memphis * Arkansas Bridge?

Since they're talking about building immediately to the south rather than the north, squeezing it in between the existing bridges wouldn't be a consideration. There's really plenty of space there due to the curve I-55 takes before the crossing. The only minor issue I can see is that the new Crump/Riverside interchange isn't designed for three through lanes, but I don't think they're strictly needed and you'd mostly be adding the 3rd lane over the bridge for future-proofing and the marginal incremental cost anyway.

If they did have to build it to the north due to space constraints, I think they'd seriously look at consolidating the rail bridges on a new structure as well. There's actually a pretty strong case for moving the railroad lines out of downtown anyway.

The plans show it to the south of the existing bridge. The French Fort area will bw disturbed. I just do not see this as viable.

This is a political no go. Two Republican Govs and the City ran poorly by Dems will fight over  the destruction of a black neighborhood. Grab your popcorn.

[MikeTheActuary]

How would a new Memphis & Arkansas Bridge be configurated? I imagine it would be a six-lane bridge with full emergency shoulders. Currently, the bridge is four lanes with no shoulders. Could the right-of-way be expanded enough so that a six-lane bridge could be constructed without infringing on the rail bridge that exists adjacent to the Memphis * Arkansas Bridge?

Since they're talking about building immediately to the south rather than the north, squeezing it in between the existing bridges wouldn't be a consideration. There's really plenty of space there due to the curve I-55 takes before the crossing. The only minor issue I can see is that the new Crump/Riverside interchange isn't designed for three through lanes, but I don't think they're strictly needed and you'd mostly be adding the 3rd lane over the bridge for future-proofing and the marginal incremental cost anyway.

If they did have to build it to the north due to space constraints, I think they'd seriously look at consolidating the rail bridges on a new structure as well. There's actually a pretty strong case for moving the railroad lines out of downtown anyway.

The plans show it to the south of the existing bridge. The French Fort area will bw disturbed. I just do not see this as viable.

This is a political no go. Two Republican Govs and the City ran poorly by Dems will fight over  the destruction of a black neighborhood. Grab your popcorn.

Take a closer look at pages 13 and 14 of the report.  It looks like the preferred alignments would sacrifice a riverfront commercial building, possibly a dock, and part of a park.   

I expect the neighborhood to complain about additional disruption, after having gone through the current construction project, and there will be resistance to the loss of part of Crump Park....but it won't rise to the level of actual destruction of a neighborhood.

[bwana39]

How would a new Memphis & Arkansas Bridge be configurated? I imagine it would be a six-lane bridge with full emergency shoulders. Currently, the bridge is four lanes with no shoulders. Could the right-of-way be expanded enough so that a six-lane bridge could be constructed without infringing on the rail bridge that exists adjacent to the Memphis * Arkansas Bridge?

Since they're talking about building immediately to the south rather than the north, squeezing it in between the existing bridges wouldn't be a consideration. There's really plenty of space there due to the curve I-55 takes before the crossing. The only minor issue I can see is that the new Crump/Riverside interchange isn't designed for three through lanes, but I don't think they're strictly needed and you'd mostly be adding the 3rd lane over the bridge for future-proofing and the marginal incremental cost anyway.

If they did have to build it to the north due to space constraints, I think they'd seriously look at consolidating the rail bridges on a new structure as well. There's actually a pretty strong case for moving the railroad lines out of downtown anyway.

The plans show it to the south of the existing bridge. The French Fort area will bw disturbed. I just do not see this as viable.

This is a political no go. Two Republican Govs and the City ran poorly by Dems will fight over  the destruction of a black neighborhood. Grab your popcorn.

Take a closer look at pages 13 and 14 of the report.  It looks like the preferred alignments would sacrifice a riverfront commercial building, possibly a dock, and part of a park.   

I expect the neighborhood to complain about additional disruption, after having gone through the current construction project, and there will be resistance to the loss of part of Crump Park....but it won't rise to the level of actual destruction of a neighborhood.

This was  a fight to get to build the new intersection. Much more is not going ot go well.

[lordsutch]

This was  a fight to get to build the new intersection. Much more is not going ot go well.

TDOT and ArDOT are not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more building a bridge somewhere else to appease a few dozen residents of a neighborhood they could buy up and level for a tiny fraction of that price tag. They will either be bought off or bought out if it comes to it.

[MikeTheActuary]

This was  a fight to get to build the new intersection. Much more is not going ot go well.

There was a fight because some of the possibilities considered involved reducing access to the historic / historically disadvantaged neighborhood.

I would expect a fight because of the additional disruption to the neighborhood...but the report does, at least, show no impact to the neighborhood aside from the construction mess.   Claims that options 5A/5B would destroy the neighborhood are grossly exaggerated.

TDOT and ArDOT are not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more building a bridge somewhere else to appease a few dozen residents of a neighborhood they could buy up and level for a tiny fraction of that price tag. They will either be bought off or bought out if it comes to it.

How much of the additional expense and delay for the Crump interchange project is the result of responding to community pressure regarding that neighborhood?

I don't see such pressures as driving the states and the feds to be willing to spend an extra billion dollars for an entirely new alignment, but I do think that there would have to be a significant change in political and judicial climate before any plan that would impact the former veterans' hospital, erode access to the neighborhood, impact the Chickasaw Heritage (formerly Desoto, formerly Jackson) Park, or require residences to be removed.

[bwana39]

This was  a fight to get to build the new intersection. Much more is not going ot go well.

TDOT and ArDOT are not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more building a bridge somewhere else to appease a few dozen residents of a neighborhood they could buy up and level for a tiny fraction of that price tag. They will either be bought off or bought out if it comes to it.

If you say so. This was supposed to be I-40.....

https://maps.app.goo.gl/AXptQ2z8yfyzcQP3A