Print

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

[bwana39]

Nay.

Given the unlikely construction (and questionable need) between Shreveport and Memphis, the sections in Texas should be given different numbers.

But this is really for another thread.


Back on topic, it's worth noting that the proposed temporary changes to I-55 in the area will restrict the Metal Museum Dr interchange to a single southbound off-ramp.

I agree with the lack of need from Shreveport to Memphis. The real question is what to do with the I-69 Gulf Coast traffic. It might be as expensive to upgrade I-30 / I-40 to handle the I-69 traffic as it would be to actually build I-69 through NW Louisiana and across Arkansas.  Mississippi is another problem altogether.

[sprjus4]

The real question is what to do with the I-69 Gulf Coast traffic. It might be as expensive to upgrade I-30 / I-40 to handle the I-69 traffic as it would be to actually build I-69 through NW Louisiana and across Arkansas.

Well see, you could build I-69 to accommodate that I-69 traffic... which is why it was proposed.

The only problem is funding. It's not a useless segment, it will have viability once completed, if ever.

[bwana39]

The real question is what to do with the I-69 Gulf Coast traffic. It might be as expensive to upgrade I-30 / I-40 to handle the I-69 traffic as it would be to actually build I-69 through NW Louisiana and across Arkansas.

Well see, you could build I-69 to accommodate that I-69 traffic... which is why it was proposed.

The only problem is funding. It's not a useless segment, it will have viability once completed, if ever.

I agree with you. The problem is Arkansas and Louisiana are not going to build it until the feds force their hands.  Mississippi might not be able to come up with any money for it even if it was.  I will add one thing. The traffic volume demands a new road somewhere. I just am unsure that west of I-55 in Mississippi is the right place for a multitude of reasons.

[sparker]

The real question is what to do with the I-69 Gulf Coast traffic. It might be as expensive to upgrade I-30 / I-40 to handle the I-69 traffic as it would be to actually build I-69 through NW Louisiana and across Arkansas.

Well see, you could build I-69 to accommodate that I-69 traffic... which is why it was proposed.

The only problem is funding. It's not a useless segment, it will have viability once completed, if ever.

I agree with you. The problem is Arkansas and Louisiana are not going to build it until the feds force their hands.  Mississippi might not be able to come up with any money for it even if it was.  I will add one thing. The traffic volume demands a new road somewhere. I just am unsure that west of I-55 in Mississippi is the right place for a multitude of reasons.

OK -- presume that the end points of I-69's central segment remain static -- Shreveport & Memphis.  The most direct route more or less follows US 79 through Pine Bluff; in fact ages ago congressman Dickey tried to get that road approved at least as a branch of the corridor, but was rebuffed because at the time (mid-'90's) Trent Lott, using his bully position in the Senate, wanted to make sure his state got a "piece of the pie".  AR reconsidered their position and opted for a compromise:  I-69 would cross the southern tier of their state before entering MS, there would be considerable mileage within MS as a result, but AR would get an extension of I-530 (AR 530 for the time being) down to the I-69 corridor at Monticello, which satisfied their wish to serve Pine Bluff and LR as well.  Well, Lott had to skedaddle in disgrace, his power dissipated (now lying with McConnell), so sliding funds through the back door to MS was no longer a given.  So MS is back to its impecunious state, AR is juggling previously prioritized projects (say that three times in a row!), and I-69, except for a short section of 2-lane expressway (and the Clarksdale bypass freeway) remains a dotted line on a planning map.  But that dotted line has to go somewhere; at least Lott did recognize that the MS Delta region along US 61 could benefit from a bit of "make-work" money input, so US 61 became, at least in part, the default alignment.  But the potential alternatives within MS just aren't that great either -- if the corridor headed east along MS 8 to Grenada, it would still involve about 56 miles of construction from US 61 to I-55, while the current plan features a 30-mile stretch north to Clarksdale and its bypass freeway.  If taken directly east from there on US 278, it's still another 36 miles or so to get to I-55.  But it's only 50 miles from Clarksdale to the stub-end of extant I-69 northeast of Tunica.  So there's about 80 miles of construction between Cleveland and current I-69 versus 56 miles east to Grenada and 66 miles to Batesville via Clarksdale.  Something of a mileage saving for sure by shunting directly to I-55 -- but at a distinct inconvenience in terms of both mileage and time to the driver -- particularly the commercial driver who is concerned about such things. 

In a policy world more rational than seen today, IMO the optimal solution from a C/B basis would be to (a) relegate the current construction along US 278 in AR to local use, and (b) reroute I-69 straight south on US 61 to US 82, where it could (c) cross the river on a nice new multilane bridge before continuing to US 425 before (d) turning south to Bastrop and Monroe, LA (and extending 530 south to the new US 82 alignment in the process).  (e) I-69 would multiplex with I-20 west to Barksdale AFB, where it could turn south onto its Shreveport bypass alignment per existing plans.  AR would still get its N-S "spine" 530 freeway, and MS would be spared a bunch of new-terrain construction west from Cleveland.  Yeah, it drags commercial I-69 traffic through less of southern AR, but the prospects of using that corridor to provoke development was at best purely speculative anyway.  However, the chances of that scenario happening are pretty slim; too many folks have reputations tied up with the current proposal.   I for one think we're going to be looking at that dotted line for some time to come!   

[MikieTimT]

The real question is what to do with the I-69 Gulf Coast traffic. It might be as expensive to upgrade I-30 / I-40 to handle the I-69 traffic as it would be to actually build I-69 through NW Louisiana and across Arkansas.

Well see, you could build I-69 to accommodate that I-69 traffic... which is why it was proposed.

The only problem is funding. It's not a useless segment, it will have viability once completed, if ever.

I agree with you. The problem is Arkansas and Louisiana are not going to build it until the feds force their hands.  Mississippi might not be able to come up with any money for it even if it was.  I will add one thing. The traffic volume demands a new road somewhere. I just am unsure that west of I-55 in Mississippi is the right place for a multitude of reasons.

OK -- presume that the end points of I-69's central segment remain static -- Shreveport & Memphis.  The most direct route more or less follows US 79 through Pine Bluff; in fact ages ago congressman Dickey tried to get that road approved at least as a branch of the corridor, but was rebuffed because at the time (mid-'90's) Trent Lott, using his bully position in the Senate, wanted to make sure his state got a "piece of the pie".  AR reconsidered their position and opted for a compromise:  I-69 would cross the southern tier of their state before entering MS, there would be considerable mileage within MS as a result, but AR would get an extension of I-530 (AR 530 for the time being) down to the I-69 corridor at Monticello, which satisfied their wish to serve Pine Bluff and LR as well.  Well, Lott had to skedaddle in disgrace, his power dissipated (now lying with McConnell), so sliding funds through the back door to MS was no longer a given.  So MS is back to its impecunious state, AR is juggling previously prioritized projects (say that three times in a row!), and I-69, except for a short section of 2-lane expressway (and the Clarksdale bypass freeway) remains a dotted line on a planning map.  But that dotted line has to go somewhere; at least Lott did recognize that the MS Delta region along US 61 could benefit from a bit of "make-work" money input, so US 61 became, at least in part, the default alignment.  But the potential alternatives within MS just aren't that great either -- if the corridor headed east along MS 8 to Grenada, it would still involve about 56 miles of construction from US 61 to I-55, while the current plan features a 30-mile stretch north to Clarksdale and its bypass freeway.  If taken directly east from there on US 278, it's still another 36 miles or so to get to I-55.  But it's only 50 miles from Clarksdale to the stub-end of extant I-69 northeast of Tunica.  So there's about 80 miles of construction between Cleveland and current I-69 versus 56 miles east to Grenada and 66 miles to Batesville via Clarksdale.  Something of a mileage saving for sure by shunting directly to I-55 -- but at a distinct inconvenience in terms of both mileage and time to the driver -- particularly the commercial driver who is concerned about such things. 

In a policy world more rational than seen today, IMO the optimal solution from a C/B basis would be to (a) relegate the current construction along US 278 in AR to local use, and (b) reroute I-69 straight south on US 61 to US 82, where it could (c) cross the river on a nice new multilane bridge before continuing to US 425 before (d) turning south to Bastrop and Monroe, LA (and extending 530 south to the new US 82 alignment in the process).  (e) I-69 would multiplex with I-20 west to Barksdale AFB, where it could turn south onto its Shreveport bypass alignment per existing plans.  AR would still get its N-S "spine" 530 freeway, and MS would be spared a bunch of new-terrain construction west from Cleveland.  Yeah, it drags commercial I-69 traffic through less of southern AR, but the prospects of using that corridor to provoke development was at best purely speculative anyway.  However, the chances of that scenario happening are pretty slim; too many folks have reputations tied up with the current proposal.   I for one think we're going to be looking at that dotted line for some time to come!

Until those with the reputations die off.  And maybe us too!

[sparker]

The real question is what to do with the I-69 Gulf Coast traffic. It might be as expensive to upgrade I-30 / I-40 to handle the I-69 traffic as it would be to actually build I-69 through NW Louisiana and across Arkansas.

Well see, you could build I-69 to accommodate that I-69 traffic... which is why it was proposed.

The only problem is funding. It's not a useless segment, it will have viability once completed, if ever.

I agree with you. The problem is Arkansas and Louisiana are not going to build it until the feds force their hands.  Mississippi might not be able to come up with any money for it even if it was.  I will add one thing. The traffic volume demands a new road somewhere. I just am unsure that west of I-55 in Mississippi is the right place for a multitude of reasons.

OK -- presume that the end points of I-69's central segment remain static -- Shreveport & Memphis.  The most direct route more or less follows US 79 through Pine Bluff; in fact ages ago congressman Dickey tried to get that road approved at least as a branch of the corridor, but was rebuffed because at the time (mid-'90's) Trent Lott, using his bully position in the Senate, wanted to make sure his state got a "piece of the pie".  AR reconsidered their position and opted for a compromise:  I-69 would cross the southern tier of their state before entering MS, there would be considerable mileage within MS as a result, but AR would get an extension of I-530 (AR 530 for the time being) down to the I-69 corridor at Monticello, which satisfied their wish to serve Pine Bluff and LR as well.  Well, Lott had to skedaddle in disgrace, his power dissipated (now lying with McConnell), so sliding funds through the back door to MS was no longer a given.  So MS is back to its impecunious state, AR is juggling previously prioritized projects (say that three times in a row!), and I-69, except for a short section of 2-lane expressway (and the Clarksdale bypass freeway) remains a dotted line on a planning map.  But that dotted line has to go somewhere; at least Lott did recognize that the MS Delta region along US 61 could benefit from a bit of "make-work" money input, so US 61 became, at least in part, the default alignment.  But the potential alternatives within MS just aren't that great either -- if the corridor headed east along MS 8 to Grenada, it would still involve about 56 miles of construction from US 61 to I-55, while the current plan features a 30-mile stretch north to Clarksdale and its bypass freeway.  If taken directly east from there on US 278, it's still another 36 miles or so to get to I-55.  But it's only 50 miles from Clarksdale to the stub-end of extant I-69 northeast of Tunica.  So there's about 80 miles of construction between Cleveland and current I-69 versus 56 miles east to Grenada and 66 miles to Batesville via Clarksdale.  Something of a mileage saving for sure by shunting directly to I-55 -- but at a distinct inconvenience in terms of both mileage and time to the driver -- particularly the commercial driver who is concerned about such things. 

In a policy world more rational than seen today, IMO the optimal solution from a C/B basis would be to (a) relegate the current construction along US 278 in AR to local use, and (b) reroute I-69 straight south on US 61 to US 82, where it could (c) cross the river on a nice new multilane bridge before continuing to US 425 before (d) turning south to Bastrop and Monroe, LA (and extending 530 south to the new US 82 alignment in the process).  (e) I-69 would multiplex with I-20 west to Barksdale AFB, where it could turn south onto its Shreveport bypass alignment per existing plans.  AR would still get its N-S "spine" 530 freeway, and MS would be spared a bunch of new-terrain construction west from Cleveland.  Yeah, it drags commercial I-69 traffic through less of southern AR, but the prospects of using that corridor to provoke development was at best purely speculative anyway.  However, the chances of that scenario happening are pretty slim; too many folks have reputations tied up with the current proposal.   I for one think we're going to be looking at that dotted line for some time to come!

Until those with the reputations die off.  And maybe us too!

I've got 6 dozen years behind me; the odds against my seeing I-69 completed in any fashion are pretty damn steep!   Maybe some of you young whippersnappers will see it done north of Memphis and within TX, but that's probably going to be it for most of us posters (save for the introduction of a cure for the byproducts of aging!).

[MikieTimT]

The real question is what to do with the I-69 Gulf Coast traffic. It might be as expensive to upgrade I-30 / I-40 to handle the I-69 traffic as it would be to actually build I-69 through NW Louisiana and across Arkansas.

Well see, you could build I-69 to accommodate that I-69 traffic... which is why it was proposed.

The only problem is funding. It's not a useless segment, it will have viability once completed, if ever.

I agree with you. The problem is Arkansas and Louisiana are not going to build it until the feds force their hands.  Mississippi might not be able to come up with any money for it even if it was.  I will add one thing. The traffic volume demands a new road somewhere. I just am unsure that west of I-55 in Mississippi is the right place for a multitude of reasons.

OK -- presume that the end points of I-69's central segment remain static -- Shreveport & Memphis.  The most direct route more or less follows US 79 through Pine Bluff; in fact ages ago congressman Dickey tried to get that road approved at least as a branch of the corridor, but was rebuffed because at the time (mid-'90's) Trent Lott, using his bully position in the Senate, wanted to make sure his state got a "piece of the pie".  AR reconsidered their position and opted for a compromise:  I-69 would cross the southern tier of their state before entering MS, there would be considerable mileage within MS as a result, but AR would get an extension of I-530 (AR 530 for the time being) down to the I-69 corridor at Monticello, which satisfied their wish to serve Pine Bluff and LR as well.  Well, Lott had to skedaddle in disgrace, his power dissipated (now lying with McConnell), so sliding funds through the back door to MS was no longer a given.  So MS is back to its impecunious state, AR is juggling previously prioritized projects (say that three times in a row!), and I-69, except for a short section of 2-lane expressway (and the Clarksdale bypass freeway) remains a dotted line on a planning map.  But that dotted line has to go somewhere; at least Lott did recognize that the MS Delta region along US 61 could benefit from a bit of "make-work" money input, so US 61 became, at least in part, the default alignment.  But the potential alternatives within MS just aren't that great either -- if the corridor headed east along MS 8 to Grenada, it would still involve about 56 miles of construction from US 61 to I-55, while the current plan features a 30-mile stretch north to Clarksdale and its bypass freeway.  If taken directly east from there on US 278, it's still another 36 miles or so to get to I-55.  But it's only 50 miles from Clarksdale to the stub-end of extant I-69 northeast of Tunica.  So there's about 80 miles of construction between Cleveland and current I-69 versus 56 miles east to Grenada and 66 miles to Batesville via Clarksdale.  Something of a mileage saving for sure by shunting directly to I-55 -- but at a distinct inconvenience in terms of both mileage and time to the driver -- particularly the commercial driver who is concerned about such things. 

In a policy world more rational than seen today, IMO the optimal solution from a C/B basis would be to (a) relegate the current construction along US 278 in AR to local use, and (b) reroute I-69 straight south on US 61 to US 82, where it could (c) cross the river on a nice new multilane bridge before continuing to US 425 before (d) turning south to Bastrop and Monroe, LA (and extending 530 south to the new US 82 alignment in the process).  (e) I-69 would multiplex with I-20 west to Barksdale AFB, where it could turn south onto its Shreveport bypass alignment per existing plans.  AR would still get its N-S "spine" 530 freeway, and MS would be spared a bunch of new-terrain construction west from Cleveland.  Yeah, it drags commercial I-69 traffic through less of southern AR, but the prospects of using that corridor to provoke development was at best purely speculative anyway.  However, the chances of that scenario happening are pretty slim; too many folks have reputations tied up with the current proposal.   I for one think we're going to be looking at that dotted line for some time to come!

Until those with the reputations die off.  And maybe us too!

I've got 6 dozen years behind me; the odds against my seeing I-69 completed in any fashion are pretty damn steep!   Maybe some of you young whippersnappers will see it done north of Memphis and within TX, but that's probably going to be it for most of us posters (save for the introduction of a cure for the byproducts of aging!).

Or alter your definition of "completed"!

[froggie]

(save for the introduction of a cure for the byproducts of aging!).

Given that the two major political parties are continuing further and further down the rabbit hole of partisan bickering, you're more likely to see your cure happen than you are funding to fully finish I-69...

[Ryctor2018]

You will hopefully be around in 5 years. By then I-69 will be completed in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee from Dyersburg-Fulton and the bridge over the Ohio started.

Back to the topic, how much are we talking in $$$ to reconstruct the I-55/Crump Blvd interchange. Could a flyover ramp for I-55 nb-wb work? Widening for I-55 eb-sb ramp? This is assuming that the money is not there for a full reconstruction.

[sprjus4]

You will hopefully be around in 5 years. By then I-69 will be completed in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee from Dyersburg-Fulton and the bridge over the Ohio started.

Is Troy - Union City in planning stages / funded / under construction already?

Back to the topic, how much are we talking in $$$ to reconstruct the I-55/Crump Blvd interchange. Could a flyover ramp for I-55 nb-wb work? Widening for I-55 eb-sb ramp? This is assuming that the money is not there for a full reconstruction.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange.html

This was TDOT's original plans for the project... not sure if anything has changed.

[edwaleni]

You will hopefully be around in 5 years. By then I-69 will be completed in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee from Dyersburg-Fulton and the bridge over the Ohio started.

Is Troy - Union City in planning stages / funded / under construction already?

Back to the topic, how much are we talking in $$$ to reconstruct the I-55/Crump Blvd interchange. Could a flyover ramp for I-55 nb-wb work? Widening for I-55 eb-sb ramp? This is assuming that the money is not there for a full reconstruction.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange.html

This was TDOT's original plans for the project... not sure if anything has changed.

I like this. I am not a big fan of roundabouts in high traffic areas, especially when large truck volumes are in play.

Just too many accidents between trucks trying to navigate the circle properly against white knucklers who don't know how to merge.

I would deny trucks an exit for Crump Eastbound and make them exit at McLemore instead.

But I like that the I-55 flows better and leaves just enough room for a replacement bridge next to the M-A at Crump Park.

[MikeTheActuary]

I think the only change would have been to adjust the design to permit keeping the bridge open during construction. 

I don't know if the present circumstances will impact West Memphis' feelings about a bridge closure.  They're getting to see first hand what sorts of backups can form with only one bridge open...and a traffic situation made worse due to the existing I-55/Crump interchange.

[MikeTheActuary]

I like this. I am not a big fan of roundabouts in high traffic areas, especially when large truck volumes are in play.

Just too many accidents between trucks trying to navigate the circle properly against white knucklers who don't know how to merge.

I would deny trucks an exit for Crump Eastbound and make them exit at McLemore instead.

But I like that the I-55 flows better and leaves just enough room for a replacement bridge next to the M-A at Crump Park.

Given the qualities of Memphis drivers, and how road rage in the Memphis area has become blood sport...I don't know whether to cringe in thought about what would happen with that roundabout if built, or to hope someone keeps a traffic cam on the circle for us watch over fresh popcorn.

[bwana39]

You will hopefully be around in 5 years. By then I-69 will be completed in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee from Dyersburg-Fulton and the bridge over the Ohio started.

Is Troy - Union City in planning stages / funded / under construction already?

Back to the topic, how much are we talking in $$$ to reconstruct the I-55/Crump Blvd interchange. Could a flyover ramp for I-55 nb-wb work? Widening for I-55 eb-sb ramp? This is assuming that the money is not there for a full reconstruction.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange.html

This was TDOT's original plans for the project... not sure if anything has changed.

I like this. I am not a big fan of roundabouts in high traffic areas, especially when large truck volumes are in play.

Just too many accidents between trucks trying to navigate the circle properly against white knucklers who don't know how to merge.

I would deny trucks an exit for Crump Eastbound and make them exit at McLemore instead.

But I like that the I-55 flows better and leaves just enough room for a replacement bridge next to the M-A at Crump Park.

I cannot find the media I read it from, but the plan supposedly has been changed in a couple of ways. The first is that there will not have to be a 100% shutdown.  The second is that the roundabout may not be built.  It appears there would be single lane exits from I-55 EB to Crump and from Crump to I-55WB. I realize the freeway is N-S but he geography at that point is E-W. These ramps would be built first then all of the traffic would be routed along them as the E/W portion was built. Then they would do the same thing on the North / South portion of I-55.
They could run out of money and leave the current intersection in place with just narrowing the lanes going toward I-55.  The yellow lines (which are existing I-55 and the to-be constructed ramps) outside the roundabout would constitute the through I-55 route during construction.

[Ryctor2018]

You will hopefully be around in 5 years. By then I-69 will be completed in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee from Dyersburg-Fulton and the bridge over the Ohio started.

Is Troy - Union City in planning stages / funded / under construction already?

Construction started on I-69 around Union City in the last year or two. It should be completed in 2022 or '23. Troy will probably start after Union City is opened.

[sprjus4]

I knew about Union City, that’s been going on for over a decade at this point, then they finally restarted to finish the portion connecting either end of US-51 around the town.

I was not aware of anything south of there, but good news to hear if they are indeed starting soon.

Then of course, Troy to I-155 is already interstate standards.

Also, any plans as far as the state line at Kentucky goes?

[sparker]

I knew about Union City, that’s been going on for over a decade at this point, then they finally restarted to finish the portion connecting either end of US-51 around the town.

I was not aware of anything south of there, but good news to hear if they are indeed starting soon.

Then of course, Troy to I-155 is already interstate standards.

Also, any plans as far as the state line at Kentucky goes?

AFAIK, the alignment has been chosen (just east of the current end of the Purchase Pkwy) but not let as of now (if anyone has an update regarding this, please chime in!).  That and the Wingo "bowtie" replacement are the two major issues for this last section of KY's share of I-69 to be addressed before it's ready for prime time, after which, except for the Ohio River bridge/approaches, will complete KY's portion of the corridor.

[edwaleni]

I knew about Union City, that’s been going on for over a decade at this point, then they finally restarted to finish the portion connecting either end of US-51 around the town.

I was not aware of anything south of there, but good news to hear if they are indeed starting soon.

Then of course, Troy to I-155 is already interstate standards.

Also, any plans as far as the state line at Kentucky goes?

AFAIK, the alignment has been chosen (just east of the current end of the Purchase Pkwy) but not let as of now (if anyone has an update regarding this, please chime in!).  That and the Wingo "bowtie" replacement are the two major issues for this last section of KY's share of I-69 to be addressed before it's ready for prime time, after which, except for the Ohio River bridge/approaches, will complete KY's portion of the corridor.

From 2018:

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet District One Chief Engineer Mike McGregor said the agency is now turning attention to completing upgrades along the remaining 20 miles of the parkway. He said they have started design work for upgrades to the Kentucky 339 Exit 14 Wingo Interchange and upgrades that will extend I-69 southward toward the Kentucky-Tennessee state line.

The work at the Wingo interchange is included in the highway plan and is labeled as "Improve the Purchase Parkway from southwest of the U.S. 51 interchange to Cardinal Road near Mayfield, including the Ky. 339 interchange in Wingo. (I-69 corridor improvement.)" Right of way funding is listed as $1 million with additional utility funding of $500,000. The project is listed for 2023-2024.

[sparker]

I knew about Union City, that’s been going on for over a decade at this point, then they finally restarted to finish the portion connecting either end of US-51 around the town.

I was not aware of anything south of there, but good news to hear if they are indeed starting soon.

Then of course, Troy to I-155 is already interstate standards.

Also, any plans as far as the state line at Kentucky goes?

AFAIK, the alignment has been chosen (just east of the current end of the Purchase Pkwy) but not let as of now (if anyone has an update regarding this, please chime in!).  That and the Wingo "bowtie" replacement are the two major issues for this last section of KY's share of I-69 to be addressed before it's ready for prime time, after which, except for the Ohio River bridge/approaches, will complete KY's portion of the corridor.

From 2018:

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet District One Chief Engineer Mike McGregor said the agency is now turning attention to completing upgrades along the remaining 20 miles of the parkway. He said they have started design work for upgrades to the Kentucky 339 Exit 14 Wingo Interchange and upgrades that will extend I-69 southward toward the Kentucky-Tennessee state line.

The work at the Wingo interchange is included in the highway plan and is labeled as "Improve the Purchase Parkway from southwest of the U.S. 51 interchange to Cardinal Road near Mayfield, including the Ky. 339 interchange in Wingo. (I-69 corridor improvement.)" Right of way funding is listed as $1 million with additional utility funding of $500,000. The project is listed for 2023-2024.

So it's still in the ROW acquisition phase; that makes an actual construction start of FY '23-24 more or less in line with that.  Given the "leisurely" pace TDOT is making progress on Troy-Union City- S. Fulton, the sections in the two states just might be completed at or near the same time.  When that occurs, the pressure to at least finalize an alignment south to Memphis might be ratcheted up -- especially when commercial drivers start complaining about the slog along US 51 or the alternative all-freeway 155/55 combination through MO and AR, which adds substantial mileage. 

[CtrlAltDel]

This was TDOT's original plans for the project... not sure if anything has changed.

Interestingly, it looks like the land for the curve just to the west of the Hershey plant has already been acquired.

[bwana39]

Interestingly, it looks like the land for the curve just to the west of the Hershey plant has already been acquired.

From what I rremember from 2 or 3 years ago, they were ready to start. As I understood it they had all or virtually all of the ROW.  They had a plan in place that did NOT require a total bridge shutdown except for spot closures.

Then they announced a delay of the project. There wasn't much discussion as to the hows and whys.
The statement given is "Federally funded projects, they kind of take their own time." said MPO administrator Pragati Srivastav

There is more there than the feds Dragging their feet. Either someone powerful hates the project or Memphis just lacks the pull (with Nashville) to get this portion of federal funds.  I know the people on the French Fort community were originally opposed to it. But it seemed they had compromise on that. There were issues of stop orders if archeological finds were uncovered by the construction, but that is a given on any federally funded project. There MIGHT be a greater chance here, but I don't think this was the issue.

[Avalanchez71]

I wish a Congressman could introduce a bill to repeal the mandated completion of I-69.  The routing is just ridiculous and now serves no real purpose with the dog legs and zig-zags.

[sprjus4]

I wish a Congressman could introduce a bill to repeal the mandated completion of I-69.  The routing is just ridiculous and now serves no real purpose with the dog legs and zig-zags.

There's certainly purpose and viability north of Memphis, and south of Texarkana. And debatably viability between Memphis and Texas assuming the corridor is complete.

"Dog legs" and "zig-zags"... the section between Memphis and Indianapolis has a shorter mileage than I-55, I-57, and I-70, and the section between Memphis and Texas is roughly the same, if not a few miles shorter than I-40 and I-30, and avoids that congested corridor entirely for southeastern Texas-bound traffic. The Texas portion of the corridor is the most direct path. Overall, I'd say the most "zig zag" portion is in Kentucky taking the 90 degree turn it does, and that's merely cause it was either use those existing freeways or build 50+ miles of new location route for over a billion dollars. And even with the right angle, it's still shorter than the existing interstate route.

You being the anti-highway, anti-expansion person you are, now, I don't expect much support from you regarding... well anything new, but the odds of Congress canceling an entire corridor that has had billions funded into its completion over the last 3 decades now... just because an anti-progress poster says they should... very slim to none. But good luck 

[edwaleni]

I wish a Congressman could introduce a bill to repeal the mandated completion of I-69.  The routing is just ridiculous and now serves no real purpose with the dog legs and zig-zags.

Feel free to start a new thread called "Why I-69 should be cancelled" and let the world respond in kind.

[Avalanchez71]

So what will be completed first I-73, I-74 or I-69?