Print

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

[LM117]

It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.

I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.

[dvferyance]

It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.

I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.

If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.

I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.

If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.

could have fooled me... 
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8526348,-89.9877712,3a,75y,330.03h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQYiT6A3J2GHwQu_OuISkpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[sparker]

If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.

It's not a N-S interstate except in the loosest sense of designation; it's a diagonal with a few right-angles thrown in for good measure (like the parkway configuration in KY and even the E-W segment in Michigan) -- and cost-cutting (again, see KY!). 

[LM117]

It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.

I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.

If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.

There's a much better chance of TN finishing their part than there is MS, AR and LA. AR and LA are focused on I-49 and MS is broke. TN may be having funding issues, but MS is worse off.

There's precedent for N/S interstates having E/W alignments. I-85 in NC uses I-40 between Greensboro and Hillsborough. I-69 in MI also runs E/W between Lansing and Port Huron.

[sparker]

There's a much better chance of TN finishing their part than there is MS, AR and LA. AR and LA are focused on I-49 and MS is broke. TN may be having funding issues, but MS is worse off.

The one thing that is prompting what development there is along the I-69 corridor in AR is a sense of historical resentment that pervades the southern tier of the state regarding attention paid to the region by the state government and its agencies.  Tired of seeing Little Rock and NWA get most of the attention -- and funding -- the region is flexing what political muscle it has -- as witnessed by the activity surrounding the Monticello bypass, the 530 extension, and the nascent plans to construct at least a couple of expressway lanes over the I-69 route east to the site of the Great River bridge.  Primary state focus may indeed be with I-49 (and the US 67 corridor as well), but it seems as if the south-state region is positioning itself as the Glenn Close of Arkansas: it will not be ignored.  Some sort of progress -- even halting -- will likely characterize the I-69 efforts within the state; indeed, I-49 may likely become reality well prior to a single continuous stretch of full freeway (save an interchange or two) being deployed along the 69 corridor.  It won't be a priority, but it will get some attention.

[dvferyance]

It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.

I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.

If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.

There's a much better chance of TN finishing their part than there is MS, AR and LA. AR and LA are focused on I-49 and MS is broke. TN may be having funding issues, but MS is worse off.

There's precedent for N/S interstates having E/W alignments. I-85 in NC uses I-40 between Greensboro and Hillsborough. I-69 in MI also runs E/W between Lansing and Port Huron.

I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.

[rte66man]

I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.

Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis?  The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes.  You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone.  That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg.  Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end.  It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.

[vdeane]

I notice that Google doesn't even suggest going that way as a possible route between those two areas.  The choices are TN 14 and I-55.

[Avalanchez71]

They should designate this as I-69E.

[rte66man]

They should designate this as I-69E.

    

TX is bad enough 

[silverback1065]

letter suffixes should be banned on all interstates, make them all 3 digits.

[sparker]

letter suffixes should be banned on all interstates, make them all 3 digits.

AASHTO actually called for the elimination of suffixed Interstate routes back around 1976 or so; most of the "offenders" were gone by the early '80's (with 35's pair of splits being "grandfathered in" because they served twinned cities and eventually reunited).  It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified).  I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say.   In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!

[hbelkins]

While I disagree with the elimination of directionally-suffixed routes, the E-C-W splits of I-69 are silly. It would have been better to keep the center leg as regular I-69. Precedent: the existence of US 70N, US 70 (instead of US 70C) and US 70S in Tennessee.

[sparker]

While I disagree with the elimination of directionally-suffixed routes, the E-C-W splits of I-69 are silly. It would have been better to keep the center leg as regular I-69. Precedent: the existence of US 70N, US 70 (instead of US 70C) and US 70S in Tennessee.

It is pretty nonsensical at that -- if nothing else due to the dual "split points" along US 59.  Apparently, according to the reports about mileposting in the Houston area, the main I-69 trunk is to begin at Victoria, not George West.  The designation of the stretch that will, if all plans are eventually followed, extend between the two will be strange at best (69C? 69W?).  Since this is the first "trident" of specified designators that I've seen in the era of either US or Interstate highways (the TN situation, which happened well after the N-S split existed on US 70, notwithstanding), there's no precedent or even guidelines to follow.  So either number will be pretty much a coin-flip (or ass-pull!).  It may have been better to extend the I-69 trunk down to George West and just let I-69E peel off of it at Victoria.  I suppose that TXDOT and/or AASHTO figured that 69E was going to be the most heavily-trafficked leg (no shit!) and that Victoria was a more appropriate place to position the major split into, simply, east and west (and let Central more or less exist as an afterthought).  IMHO, it would be better if they'd just renumber I-69C as I-269 (legitimate, as the south end is at I-2) -- but the powers that be still claim to be bound by the original legislation that specifies "I-69 Central".  Awkward -- but it looks like we'll just have to grit our teeth and put up with the nonsense.

[Life in Paradise]

Agreed.  The configuration of I-69 in southern Texas is crazy.  They could have just as easily readjusted I-37 to the eastern route (making Corpus Christi's road a 3-d), I-69 to the middle route, and created an I-6 from Laredo to connect.  If they can get the Feds to create I-2 and I-14, they could certainly do it for I-6.

[silverback1065]

69e should be 37, 69c should be 69, 69w should be 269, and 49 south of 10 in LA should be i-6

[rte66man]

69e should be 37, 69c should be 69, 69w should be 269, and 49 south of 10 in LA should be i-6

Agree to the first 3.  I would disagree about I-49 south of Lafayette.  It just sounds better to say that I-49 runs from New Orleans to Kansas City.

[dvferyance]

I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.

Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis?  The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes.  You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone.  That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg.  Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end.  It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.

That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?

[hbelkins]

Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis?  The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes.  You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone.  That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg.  Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end.  It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.

That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?
[/quote]

The reasoning is that an increase in traffic on I-69/US 51 would funnel that traffic over the I-55 Mississippi River bridge and into the substandard cloverleaf in Memphis.

[silverback1065]

Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis?  The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes.  You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone.  That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg.  Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end.  It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.

That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?

The reasoning is that an increase in traffic on I-69/US 51 would funnel that traffic over the I-55 Mississippi River bridge and into the substandard cloverleaf in Memphis.
[/quote]

aren't they fixing that stupid cloverleaf?

[Avalanchez71]

Well just take the I-40 bridge over the Mississippi then.  You can get right back to I-55 easily via I-240.

[sparker]

The reasoning is that an increase in traffic on I-69/US 51 would funnel that traffic over the I-55 Mississippi River bridge and into the substandard cloverleaf in Memphis.

aren't they fixing that stupid cloverleaf?

Apparently the plans to throughput I-55 through the cloverleaf location are still in play, but funding keeps getting delayed -- not surprising, as the project primarily benefits I-55 drivers ostensibly using TN as a "land bridge" between MS and AR.  That being said, the I-55 bridge -- as opposed to I-40 to the north -- remains the crossing of choice when attempting to access certain regional features from the west, particularly if one's immediate destination is the Memphis airport, the FedEx hub, Graceland, the N. MS suburbs and/or Tunica, and even I-22.  In the long run, both crossings are regionally vital; replacement of the cloverleaf is long overdue!

Well just take the I-40 bridge over the Mississippi then.  You can get right back to I-55 easily via I-240.

As the primary access to downtown Memphis from both west (40) and south (240), it's invariably congested much of the time and is not, except for the sporadic detour, a viable alternative to I-55 -- it certainly wouldn't readily handle the combined traffic of both crossings anywhere near peak hours without major delays. 
   

[rte66man]

I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.

Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis?  The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes.  You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone.  That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg.  Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end.  It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.

That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?

You are quoted as saying that a parallel interstate isn't needed between Dyersburg and Memphis.  My response was to that statement.

[sparker]

The distance between two fixed points: the east end of I-155 near Dyersburg and the I-55/240 interchange in south Memphis is, as the nearest roadway to crow-flying goes (US 51 + TN 300 + I-40 + I-240) is 86 miles; using I-155 into Missouri and then I-55 south to the southern point is 123 miles -- a 43% difference in mileage -- hardly insubstantial.  Once I-69 is completed south to Dyersburg, I-155/55 may be utilized as a temporary all-Interstate route to Memphis -- but it's hardly a permanent solution.