I-69 in TN

[ethanhopkin14]

Maybe this has been covered before, but what will happen to the western side of I-240 when I-69 is completed in Tennessee?  I imagine it will be treated like I-635 was when I-20 was routed on it's southern leg.  If so, is there another instance when a full beltway 3DI had multiple sections of it's route re-numbered for a main route of multiple 2DIs, making the 3DI a shell of it's former self?

[The Ghostbuster]

I believe it will be co-signed as Interstate 69/240, unless Exits 25-32 are renumbered to Exits 6-13. The only Memphis route that will likely be decommissioned is the unsigned TN 300 segment.

[triplemultiplex]

Hmm, that's disappointing.  I-240 serves two entirely different functions either side of its junction with I-55.  With I-69 in place, it's N-S piece is redundant and unnecessary.  It should end at I-55 once 69 is in town.
In my opinion, it's more egregious than keeping I-894 in Milwaukee now that the whole thing is also I-41.

[sparker]

Hmm, that's disappointing.  I-240 serves two entirely different functions either side of its junction with I-55.  With I-69 in place, it's N-S piece is redundant and unnecessary.  It should end at I-55 once 69 is in town.
In my opinion, it's more egregious than keeping I-894 in Milwaukee now that the whole thing is also I-41.

Still think that, once the DeSoto/I-40 bridge is back on line, I-55 should be routed up what is now the N-S segment of I-240/future I-69 and west over that bridge with I-40; the current I-55 over the substandard M-A bridge (and the equally substandard Crump interchange) should be given over to I-240; basically eliminating the "double elbow" in south Memphis and creating two through routes there.  Of course, the long-speculated 3rd bridge would immeasurably help in the routing dilemma -- but until that's the subject of definite plans, everyone's just going to have to put up with the two (hopefully!) bridge system. 

[MikeTheActuary]

The current I-40 alignment was considered a dual I-40/I-240 when it first opened.

I forget whether that was actually signed as such.  I think it was for several years, at least until the original intended I-40 alignment was finally officially axed and what became Sam Cooper Blvd was formally downloaded to the city...but I'm not positive.

I wouldn't be surprised if TDOT goes for dropping the remaining western I-240 designation if/when I-69 becomes reality....but I might give even money as to whether a new/third bridge is built, and/or the mess of I-55 is fixed before TDOT posts I-69 shields in Memphis.   Depending on what happens with any bridge-related redesignations....

[abqtraveler]

The current I-40 alignment was considered a dual I-40/I-240 when it first opened.

I forget whether that was actually signed as such.  I think it was for several years, at least until the original intended I-40 alignment was finally officially axed and what became Sam Cooper Blvd was formally downloaded to the city...but I'm not positive.

I wouldn't be surprised if TDOT goes for dropping the remaining western I-240 designation if/when I-69 becomes reality....but I might give even money as to whether a new/third bridge is built, and/or the mess of I-55 is fixed before TDOT posts I-69 shields in Memphis.   Depending on what happens with any bridge-related redesignations....

Before any of that happens though, they need to get I-69 built between Dyersburg and Memphis. Since TDOT is moving at glacial speed in the design and construction of I-69, building what it can with whatever funds it can scrounge up from year-to-year, and the fact there are still a lot of folks fighting the proposed alignment between I-155 and the TN-300 stub, I don't see this segment being built anytime in the forseeable future.

[Thegeet]

What would the new controlled access facility for union city in construction be designated if Kentucky doesn't re-sign the purchase parkway as I-69 SW of mayfield? I-69 (w or w/o KY signing), a US 51 aux route, or a state highway?

[sprjus4]

^ Not sure, might just be US-51 regardless with I-69 co-signed. Even if Kentucky designates that part as I-69 south of Mayfield regardless, the interchange at the state line needs a full reconstruction / reconfiguration before any continuous interstate designation can continue into Tennessee.

[Thegeet]

^ Not sure, might just be US-51 regardless with I-69 co-signed. Even if Kentucky designates that part as I-69 south of Mayfield regardless, the interchange at the state line needs a full reconstruction / reconfiguration before any continuous interstate designation can continue into Tennessee.

Interesting. Would it be a reroute of US 51, or would it just be something like US 51 Bypass?

[sprjus4]

^ Not really sure, to be honest. Either would work, with a US-51 Business taking over the old route if the mainline was re-routed.

[sparker]

The current I-40 alignment was considered a dual I-40/I-240 when it first opened.

I forget whether that was actually signed as such.  I think it was for several years, at least until the original intended I-40 alignment was finally officially axed and what became Sam Cooper Blvd was formally downloaded to the city...but I'm not positive.

I wouldn't be surprised if TDOT goes for dropping the remaining western I-240 designation if/when I-69 becomes reality....but I might give even money as to whether a new/third bridge is built, and/or the mess of I-55 is fixed before TDOT posts I-69 shields in Memphis.   Depending on what happens with any bridge-related redesignations....

Before any of that happens though, they need to get I-69 built between Dyersburg and Memphis. Since TDOT is moving at glacial speed in the design and construction of I-69, building what it can with whatever funds it can scrounge up from year-to-year, and the fact there are still a lot of folks fighting the proposed alignment between I-155 and the TN-300 stub, I don't see this segment being built anytime in the forseeable future.

Question:  who exactly comprises the opposition to I-69 Memphis>Dyersburg?  I would imagine the "usual suspects" comprising the Sierra Club, regional environmental groups citing proximity to the river wetlands, and some locals fearing loss of roadside business if their towns are bypassed.  Except for the "wetlands warriors", corridor opposition sounds like business as usual for such projects and normally taken in stride.  But is there some sort of statewide proactive opposition -- or is it just the latest iteration of folks in Nashville reluctant to funnel money to anything that would involve Memphis?  And does this go back all the way to when the extended I-69 was cobbled up back in 1995 -- was there any objection raised to running the corridor through TN back then by any particular group or individual with clout?  Just saying -- possibly the reasons for the persistent delays on this segment have deeper roots than just a surface view would indicate   

[edwaleni]

If memory serves, there is a wildlife refuge between Covington and Ripley and the alternative routing around it was proposed was never approved.

The only other environmental issue (to my knowledge) is between Millington and Frayser. There is a EPA Superfund Site and the regional landfill.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky fully intends to designate the Purchase Parkway as I-69, probably just as soon as the Wingo toll booth cloverleaf interchange is rebuilt into a diamond.

There is no reason that I-69 cannot be designated piecemeal in Tennessee. Best I can remember, nothing needs to be done between Dyersburg and the point where the freeway begins/ends south of Union City. And the only issue I can think of between the north side of Union City and the 45/45E/45W/51 interchange in South Fulton is the TN 214 (Ken-Tenn Road) intersection.

Once the Union City bypass is finished, Tennessee should designate the segment between I-155 and TN 214 as I-69. Do the same thing that North Carolina has done with its discontinuous segments of I-26.

[Thegeet]

Omg I forgot about I-155. Lulz.

So, would I-69 in Memphis be signed as soon as the Union City-Troy route is finished, or do we still have to wait on Dyersburg-Memphis to be finished (in like 10 years or so?)?

[Scott5114]

Maybe this has been covered before, but what will happen to the western side of I-240 when I-69 is completed in Tennessee?  I imagine it will be treated like I-635 was when I-20 was routed on it's southern leg.  If so, is there another instance when a full beltway 3DI had multiple sections of it's route re-numbered for a main route of multiple 2DIs, making the 3DI a shell of it's former self?

Funnily enough something similar happened to another I-240, the one in Oklahoma City–it once was a ¾ beltway around OKC, but the west and north legs got renumbered to I-44 in 1982.

[abqtraveler]

Omg I forgot about I-155. Lulz.

So, would I-69 in Memphis be signed as soon as the Union City-Troy route is finished, or do we still have to wait on Dyersburg-Memphis to be finished (in like 10 years or so?)?

I don't think I-69 through Memphis will be signed until the section from US-51/TN-300 and I-269, and from I-269 to I-155 are complete.

[The Ghostbuster]

I hope we don't have to wait 50-100 years for that to happen.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Ran across this news report from last July when TN began paving the existing segments of I-69 at Union City.

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/2021/07/16/paving-interstate-69-bypass-obion-county-tennessee/7937940002/

[abqtraveler]

Ran across this news report from last July when TN began paving the existing segments of I-69 at Union City.

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/2021/07/16/paving-interstate-69-bypass-obion-county-tennessee/7937940002/

The information that TDOT has on their site concerning the I-69 corridor is way out of date. On a separate, but related note, will the Union City Bypass be signed as I-69 when it opens, or will it be given a temporary designation until it's connected to another portion of I-69 that's not yet under construction, let alone finished?

[edwaleni]

Ran across this news report from last July when TN began paving the existing segments of I-69 at Union City.

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/2021/07/16/paving-interstate-69-bypass-obion-county-tennessee/7937940002/

The information that TDOT has on their site concerning the I-69 corridor is way out of date. On a separate, but related note, will the Union City Bypass be signed as I-69 when it opens, or will it be given a temporary designation until it's connected to another portion of I-69 that's not yet under construction, let alone finished?

They will probably just relocate US-51 until the intersection with US-45E is redone. It is most definitely not interstate standard.

In the 1960's they used to not care so much as we used to get jogged in and out of the Interstate highway and US highway all the time.

They may put up a joint sign with US-51 with a "Future" above the I-69 shield, so they can just remove it later.

[abqtraveler]

Ran across this news report from last July when TN began paving the existing segments of I-69 at Union City.

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/2021/07/16/paving-interstate-69-bypass-obion-county-tennessee/7937940002/

The information that TDOT has on their site concerning the I-69 corridor is way out of date. On a separate, but related note, will the Union City Bypass be signed as I-69 when it opens, or will it be given a temporary designation until it's connected to another portion of I-69 that's not yet under construction, let alone finished?

They will probably just relocate US-51 until the intersection with US-45E is redone. It is most definitely not interstate standard.

In the 1960's they used to not care so much as we used to get jogged in and out of the Interstate highway and US highway all the time.

They may put up a joint sign with US-51 with a "Future" above the I-69 shield, so they can just remove it later.

Or maybe they could give the new freeway the temporary designation of US-51 BYPASS until either the Fulton interchange gets reconstructed or the Troy Bypass gets finished, whichever comes first.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Ran across this news report from last July when TN began paving the existing segments of I-69 at Union City.

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/2021/07/16/paving-interstate-69-bypass-obion-county-tennessee/7937940002/

The information that TDOT has on their site concerning the I-69 corridor is way out of date. On a separate, but related note, will the Union City Bypass be signed as I-69 when it opens, or will it be given a temporary designation until it's connected to another portion of I-69 that's not yet under construction, let alone finished?

They will probably just relocate US-51 until the intersection with US-45E is redone. It is most definitely not interstate standard.

In the 1960's they used to not care so much as we used to get jogged in and out of the Interstate highway and US highway all the time.

They may put up a joint sign with US-51 with a "Future" above the I-69 shield, so they can just remove it later.

Or maybe they could give the new freeway the temporary designation of US-51 BYPASS until either the Fulton interchange gets reconstructed or the Troy Bypass gets finished, whichever comes first.

I downloaded the plans for the section from west of TN21 to US 51 back when the project started and the signage shown for the bypass is I-69

[Daniel Fiddler]

I remember making a trip up there merely to see the road construction and take pictures.  Not too far from me.

[bwana39]

Hmm, that's disappointing.  I-240 serves two entirely different functions either side of its junction with I-55.  With I-69 in place, it's N-S piece is redundant and unnecessary.  It should end at I-55 once 69 is in town.
In my opinion, it's more egregious than keeping I-894 in Milwaukee now that the whole thing is also I-41.

Still think that, once the DeSoto/I-40 bridge is back on line, I-55 should be routed up what is now the N-S segment of I-240/future I-69 and west over that bridge with I-40; the current I-55 over the substandard M-A bridge (and the equally substandard Crump interchange) should be given over to I-240; basically eliminating the "double elbow" in south Memphis and creating two through routes there.  Of course, the long-speculated 3rd bridge would immeasurably help in the routing dilemma -- but until that's the subject of definite plans, everyone's just going to have to put up with the two (hopefully!) bridge system.

No, JUST NO! I-240 is big enough a mess during rush hour. Re-routing I-55 across the bridge might help the bridge problem (Probably not ...the HDB has a 58% sufficiency rating. )

We may not like the bridge, but few of us actually use paper maps or stay on a route by number in the days of gps routing. In spite of the seemingly universal disdain for the bridge, the traffic volumes still outstrip the ones on the the HDB.  Most of them are not first time drivers who blindly followed the GPS (into the ocean?) Most make the choice to follow it in spite of its narrow gauge. If all the freeway were removed between I-40 in West Memphis and I-240 in south Memphis, it might force the traffic to go the other way, MIGHT!  I will add if they ever redo the way I-55 turns away from Crump Boulevard that will make a huge difference. Something we have to keep in mind is that Crump Boulevard was originally the through route AND during the peak rush hours still takes on around half of the traffic.

The answer is a new bridge in southern Memphis or Northern Desoto County MS.

[sparker]

Hmm, that's disappointing.  I-240 serves two entirely different functions either side of its junction with I-55.  With I-69 in place, it's N-S piece is redundant and unnecessary.  It should end at I-55 once 69 is in town.
In my opinion, it's more egregious than keeping I-894 in Milwaukee now that the whole thing is also I-41.

Still think that, once the DeSoto/I-40 bridge is back on line, I-55 should be routed up what is now the N-S segment of I-240/future I-69 and west over that bridge with I-40; the current I-55 over the substandard M-A bridge (and the equally substandard Crump interchange) should be given over to I-240; basically eliminating the "double elbow" in south Memphis and creating two through routes there.  Of course, the long-speculated 3rd bridge would immeasurably help in the routing dilemma -- but until that's the subject of definite plans, everyone's just going to have to put up with the two (hopefully!) bridge system.

No, JUST NO! I-240 is big enough a mess during rush hour. Re-routing I-55 across the bridge might help the bridge problem (Probably not ...the HDB has a 58% sufficiency rating. )

We may not like the bridge, but few of us actually use paper maps or stay on a route by number in the days of gps routing. In spite of the seemingly universal disdain for the bridge, the traffic volumes still outstrip the ones on the the HDB.  Most of them are not first time drivers who blindly followed the GPS (into the ocean?) Most make the choice to follow it in spite of its narrow gauge. If all the freeway were removed between I-40 in West Memphis and I-240 in south Memphis, it might force the traffic to go the other way, MIGHT!  I will add if they ever redo the way I-55 turns away from Crump Boulevard that will make a huge difference. Something we have to keep in mind is that Crump Boulevard was originally the through route AND during the peak rush hours still takes on around half of the traffic.

The answer is a new bridge in southern Memphis or Northern Desoto County MS.

I still think, at least for navigational purposes, my designation realignment is valid.  That being said -- if the Crump situation is alleviated (I understand the history of the connection, but at this point the present scheme should be consigned to that history!), keeping designations as is would be acceptable.  But when and if I-69 is signed through downtown Memphis (if any of us live that long!), the N-S section of I-240 should be truncated back to the I-55 interchange, leaving the current facility to I-69.