AARoads Forum

Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2017, 04:52:30 PM
So whatever happened to the I-55/Crump upgrade?  IIRC, plans were published that showed the details of the rework -- as of a few short years ago, this seemed to be a done deal!  Obviously funding (and in-state priorities) had something to do with the inaction here -- if any local/regional posters have any further info regarding this project's status, please let the rest of us know! (apologies for using this thread to ask a Mid-South question)

(above quote from I-67: TN, KY, IN (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5513.msg2230327#msg2230327) thread)

I decided to start a Mid-South thread for a Mid-South question. Here is the latest from TDOT:

http://www.tn.gov/tdot/topic/i-55-crump

The project is temporarily on hold for the reasons stated in the link.

Quote from: Grzrd on May 26, 2017, 02:44:34 PM

Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2017, 04:52:30 PM
So whatever happened to the I-55/Crump upgrade?  IIRC, plans were published that showed the details of the rework -- as of a few short years ago, this seemed to be a done deal!  Obviously funding (and in-state priorities) had something to do with the inaction here -- if any local/regional posters have any further info regarding this project's status, please let the rest of us know! (apologies for using this thread to ask a Mid-South question)

(above quote from I-67: TN, KY, IN (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5513.msg2230327#msg2230327) thread)

I decided to start a Mid-South thread for a Mid-South question. Here is the latest from TDOT:

http://www.tn.gov/tdot/topic/i-55-crump

The project is temporarily on hold for the reasons stated in the link.

So it looks like the last physical traffic counts done at/near the location didn't correspond with the modeling algorithm of the Memphis MPO planners -- and either they're going to change the projection methodology, take another physical count, or both.  Sounds like a way to affect a postponement until they actually have available funding -- or, in an alternate scenario, there are factions in the MPO (or elsewhere in the TN transportation arena) who don't think this project (which does principally benefit out-of-state traffic movement) warrants priority.  Either way, it looks like I-55 NB traffic will be "looping it" for the near term. 

 :-D

I actually looked this up a week ago. (Before this thread was made)

We drove around the interchange (SB I-55) and I thought "why isn't this project started yet?" :pan:

Even my family was like "Wow, this is awfully narrow roadway here"

It seems to still slowly be inching through the process. Hopefully it might even be a priority item in Biden's idea of infrastructure.

https://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2021/02/16/i-55-crump-boulevard-update.html

Quote from: bwana39 on April 28, 2021, 12:16:00 PM
It seems to still slowly be inching through the process. Hopefully it might even be a priority item in Biden's idea of infrastructure.

https://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2021/02/16/i-55-crump-boulevard-update.html

Just imagine if this project would have been under construction as originally proposed with the I-55 bridge being closed and then the I-40 bridge fracture occurred. That would have been crippling for Memphis and beyond.

Quote from: codyg1985 on May 13, 2021, 04:17:45 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on April 28, 2021, 12:16:00 PM
It seems to still slowly be inching through the process. Hopefully it might even be a priority item in Biden's idea of infrastructure.

https://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2021/02/16/i-55-crump-boulevard-update.html

Just imagine if this project would have been under construction as originally proposed with the I-55 bridge being closed and then the I-40 bridge fracture occurred. That would have been crippling for Memphis and beyond.

I made that point on the other thread.  The only real option is a new southern bridge first.

Why not add ferry service?

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 07:45:05 AM
Why not add ferry service?

That's funny

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 07:45:05 AM
Why not add ferry service?

Don't think ferry service is a good fit for an interstate. Besides. The bank structure on the Tennessee side is nor really conducive for it.  The river is too swift too.

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 15, 2021, 08:42:05 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 07:45:05 AM
Why not add ferry service?

That's funny

Any solution other than to build, maintain, or repair roads/bridges with this one.

I do not know why they don't build a bridge at the west end of MS 304.  Extend the freeway into AR and make it tie into I-40 west of West Memphis.   You could apply I-269 to it or make it another x40 interstate.  Then you would have another route for I-55 NB to I-40 WB, or EB I-40 to I-55 SB and have a three quarter  outer beltway around Memphis.

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 15, 2021, 11:51:48 AM

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 15, 2021, 08:42:05 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 07:45:05 AM
Why not add ferry service?

That's funny

Any solution other than to build, maintain, or repair roads/bridges with this one.

I think they should repair the Desoto bridge.  I just don't agree with a I-69 or I-269 additional bridge.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 01:03:56 PM

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 15, 2021, 11:51:48 AM

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 15, 2021, 08:42:05 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 07:45:05 AM
Why not add ferry service?

That's funny

Any solution other than to build, maintain, or repair roads/bridges with this one.

I think they should repair the Desoto bridge.  I just don't agree with a I-69 or I-269 additional bridge.

Redundancy is needed across the river. There's only 2 bridges in a hundred mile span, let alone those in a major urban area. What happens when both I-40 and I-55 fail?

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 01:03:56 PM

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 15, 2021, 11:51:48 AM

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 15, 2021, 08:42:05 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 15, 2021, 07:45:05 AM
Why not add ferry service?

That's funny

Any solution other than to build, maintain, or repair roads/bridges with this one.

I think they should repair the Desoto bridge.  I just don't agree with a I-69 or I-269 additional bridge.

At some point, they are going to have to replace both of them. The M&A was opened in 1949. It is 72 + years old. The HDB was opened in 1973. It is 48+ years old. It makes a lot of sense to build an additional span and then when replacement or major overhaul is required, that closing it will not be so painful. The capacity of the M&A is already a problem even before the HDB was closed. A new span just south of Memphis would solve much if not all of that capacity issue.

Reopen the Harahan lanes!!!  <ducks for cover>  :bigass:

Quote from: rte66man on May 15, 2021, 03:50:19 PM
Reopen the Harahan lanes!!!  <ducks for cover>  :bigass:

They already did.  It's the only way to bike across the Mississippi for 200 miles (Helena, AR to the south and Cairo, IL to the north...the I-155 bridge prohibits bikes).

Quote from: roadman65 on May 15, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
I do not know why they don't build a bridge at the west end of MS 304.  Extend the freeway into AR and make it tie into I-40 west of West Memphis.   You could apply I-269 to it or make it another x40 interstate.  Then you would have another route for I-55 NB to I-40 WB, or EB I-40 to I-55 SB and have a three quarter  outer beltway around Memphis.

I would presume that it's because Mississippi and Arkansas would have to build it, and neither of them have any motivation to spend money to make traffic better in Tennessee.

I honestly think the previously proposed crossing tying into TN-300 (the stub where I-69 would split off I-40) would be a reasonable proposal to be built, as opposed to the outer crossings. Less new location freeway needed on the Arkansas side.

Get all three states a piece. Go south of West Memphis across Presidents Islandand curve it down to US 61 at the MS. Line and upgrade it to interstate standard to the I- 69 junction. There's huge container port proposed for the old Allen Fossil Fuel plant on President's along with CN's intermodal yard. Would make a good route for I-22 one day to continue through Arkansas. The road should connect to I-40 between Lehi and the US 79 south exit. Extend it north to US 64 and near the UP intermodal and eventually up to I-55/I-5544 around between Clarkdale and Turrell where it would eventually then meet a new northern crossing one day.

Anywho, Rep Crawford's words here:
"There's some question about the global integrity of this structure. So, we're going to have to start having a conversation about the costs associated with a new bridge, and then, are we in a position now with the amount of the volume of traffic that traverses the Mississippi River at that point, do we need to think about a third bridge? And, so this is a major national concern because of the significance of this logistics hub."

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 16, 2021, 05:56:44 AM
I honestly think the previously proposed crossing tying into TN-300 (the stub where I-69 would split off I-40) would be a reasonable proposal to be built, as opposed to the outer crossings. Less new location freeway needed on the Arkansas side.

The river and the oxbow lakes are way too wide / involved there.  A bridge in that location would be more expensive than any amount of road that would be built to the south. Not to mention the airport it would have to close.

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 16, 2021, 03:23:28 PM
Get all three states a piece. Go south of West Memphis across Presidents Islandand curve it down to US 61 at the MS. Line and upgrade it to interstate standard to the I- 69 junction. There's huge container port proposed for the old Allen Fossil Fuel plant on President's along with CN's intermodal yard. Would make a good route for I-22 one day to continue through Arkansas. The road should connect to I-40 between Lehi and the US 79 south exit. Extend it north to US 64 and near the UP intermodal and eventually up to I-55/I-5544 around between Clarkdale and Turrell where it would eventually then meet a new northern crossing one day.

Anywho, Rep Crawford's words here:
"There's some question about the global integrity of this structure. So, we're going to have to start having a conversation about the costs associated with a new bridge, and then, are we in a position now with the amount of the volume of traffic that traverses the Mississippi River at that point, do we need to think about a third bridge? And, so this is a major national concern because of the significance of this logistics hub."

While the idea of sharing the costs might be notable, the route stinks AND the more principals you involve, the greater the problems.
I think the US congress should give them the 80 or 90 percent specifically for a bridge. Then, I bet they come up with their cost sharing portions whatever it takes....

Quote from: froggie on May 15, 2021, 11:18:06 PM

Quote from: rte66man on May 15, 2021, 03:50:19 PM
Reopen the Harahan lanes!!!  <ducks for cover>  :bigass:

They already did.  It's the only way to bike across the Mississippi for 200 miles (Helena, AR to the south and Cairo, IL to the north...the I-155 bridge prohibits bikes).

I saw a post on the Memphis subreddit where they had to close the Big River crossing due to motorcycles trying to use it to bypass the I-55 traffic.

I do like that they will eliminate Exit 12C since I think it is too close to the Crump Blvd./Riverside Dr. interchange. If they ever do replace the Memphis & Arkansas Bridge, the new bridge should have full shoulders on both sides.

Agreed, and a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, ideally 4. Same with the I-40 bridge.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 17, 2021, 01:42:49 PM
Agreed, and a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, ideally 4. Same with the I-40 bridge.

Since I-55 -- and I-240 beyond their shared interchange -- is the direct truck route from the west to the FedEx hub as well as the rail offloading facilities in the south end of Memphis -- dedicated truck lanes might be a part of any full-scale expansion of the river crossing itself -- possibly a 3rd (or even 3rd/4th) parallel span, with one or more reserved for trucks.  Crump east of the 55 interchange is a direct route to a number of these offload facilities (CN, BNSF/CSX in particular) so a significant portion of the commercial traffic would likely diverge from I-55 at that location.   

In that case, two truck and two car lanes in each direction could work. Question is how you tie into the Crump interchange.

After the DeSoto settles down, this interchange needs to be completely torn out.

- Remove the Metal Museum exit ramp
- Remove the Alston Street ramp
- Condemn the square block of DeSoto/Illinois/Pennsylvania Streets
- Remove the Riverside South to Crump East ramp

After the condemnation, shift the highway east and create a primary bridged curve towards the A-M bridge.

- Create a eastbound Crump Exit from I-55 that goes under the new bridge
- Create a Crump westbound to I-55 that passes under the new bridge and provide enough merge lane space before crossing the A-M bridge.
- Shift all remaining local traffic to the Riverside/McLemore exit. Start the exit lane for southbound I-55 right after the turn south to give trucks enough exit room
- Move the Riverside South to I-55 west ramp to merge with Westbound Crump traffic under the new bridge.
- New ramp to Riverside north and allow left turn from eastbound Crump after it goes under the new I-55 bridge or if traffic volume warrants it, put it as a viaduct under Crump due to the limited room due to the railroad bridge on north Riverside.

Quote from: edwaleni on May 23, 2021, 02:50:22 PM
After the DeSoto settles down, this interchange needs to be completely torn out.

- Remove the Metal Museum exit ramp
- Remove the Alston Street ramp
- Condemn the square block of DeSoto/Illinois/Pennsylvania Streets
- Remove the Riverside South to Crump East ramp

After the condemnation, shift the highway east and create a primary bridged curve towards the A-M bridge.

- Create a eastbound Crump Exit from I-55 that goes under the new bridge
- Create a Crump westbound to I-55 that passes under the new bridge and provide enough merge lane space before crossing the A-M bridge.
- Shift all remaining local traffic to the Riverside/McLemore exit. Start the exit lane for southbound I-55 right after the turn south to give trucks enough exit room
- Move the Riverside South to I-55 west ramp to merge with Westbound Crump traffic under the new bridge.
- New ramp to Riverside north and allow left turn from eastbound Crump after it goes under the new I-55 bridge or if traffic volume warrants it, put it as a viaduct under Crump due to the limited room due to the railroad bridge on north Riverside.

IIRC, TDOT has a plan in place that was back-burnered because of the agency's deeming necessary the closing down of the full A-M bridge to effect a new approach to the revamped interchange.  The recent I-40 shutdown -- and the ensuing repairs -- may well prompt a revisiting of the 55/Crump project -- and it would be expected that the original rebuild plans would be followed.  As would have been the case if and when the A-M bridge shut down, I-55 traffic would, naturally, be detoured via I-240(69) and west on I-40 across the DeSoto, which has intrinsically 50% more capacity than I-55 over the river.  Once the DeSoto opens again, it would be an optimal time to shut down I-55 for the rebuild; the current Crump situation is likely causing local and interstate drivers considerable grief while the current detour is operating; maximizing the potential of I-55 via the modification would probably get a lot of public support right now, even if it means closing down the A-M bridge for a while.  But since the letting process would take some time before actual construction began and the bridge closed; both would be in operation for a protracted period, letting any steam off prior to addressing I-55.  Since the Crump project has been designed, building it to those specifications would at least speed up the whole process; doing it sooner than later is simply a matter of striking while the "iron" is hot as regards the necessity for doing so.

The full closure was shelved a couple of years ago. Not sure why they have not started the construction.

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


http://theeveningtimes.com/theeveningtimes/2019/10/28/tdot-moving-forward-with-bridge-project/

They have made some tweaks to the exits and entrances onto/ off of I-55 near the Crump Interchange.

https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/local/some-i-55-lanes-ramps-will-close-restriping-during-i-40-bridge-shutdown-officials-say/2ZHEPTXUBBEFXOS6522BDGIC5A/

Think the old I-55 bridge across the river will be replaced in its entirety in the next 10 years with a completely new 6 lane bridge or, if the old bridge is found to still be structurally sound, twinned with a new bridge immediately south of it as a parallel span for 3 lanes of eastbound/southbound and the old bridge rehabbed for 3 lanes of westbound/northbound traffic?

Quote from: bwana39 on May 24, 2021, 12:15:35 AM
They have made some tweaks to the exits and entrances onto/ off of I-55 near the Crump Interchange.

https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/local/some-i-55-lanes-ramps-will-close-restriping-during-i-40-bridge-shutdown-officials-say/2ZHEPTXUBBEFXOS6522BDGIC5A/

Nice. That westbound-to-southbound loop ramp ought to have been closed decades ago, especially after they put two lanes on the I-55 loop ramp in 2011-12. Hopefully they never reopen it.

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on May 24, 2021, 02:55:15 AM
Think the old I-55 bridge across the river will be replaced in its entirety in the next 10 years with a completely new 6 lane bridge or, if the old bridge is found to still be structurally sound, twinned with a new bridge immediately south of it as a parallel span for 3 lanes of eastbound/southbound and the old bridge rehabbed for 3 lanes of westbound/northbound traffic?

I agree the "I-55 bridge" should be replaced.  Replaced at a different location farther south. The Memphis and Arkansas Bridge should remain to service the local streets.

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on May 24, 2021, 02:55:15 AM
Think the old I-55 bridge across the river will be replaced in its entirety in the next 10 years with a completely new 6 lane bridge or, if the old bridge is found to still be structurally sound, twinned with a new bridge immediately south of it as a parallel span for 3 lanes of eastbound/southbound and the old bridge rehabbed for 3 lanes of westbound/northbound traffic?

That configuration would certainly be an improvement; but there doesn't seem to be any momentum for actually doing this or something similar from either side of the river.  If any expansion idea does gain traction, I'd guess the schedule for doing so would be more like 20 years (give or take a few), given (a) TN reluctance to spend money down Memphis way, and (b) other priorities occupying ARDOT's agenda for the near term. 

Quote from: sparker on May 24, 2021, 12:20:54 PM

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on May 24, 2021, 02:55:15 AM
Think the old I-55 bridge across the river will be replaced in its entirety in the next 10 years with a completely new 6 lane bridge or, if the old bridge is found to still be structurally sound, twinned with a new bridge immediately south of it as a parallel span for 3 lanes of eastbound/southbound and the old bridge rehabbed for 3 lanes of westbound/northbound traffic?

That configuration would certainly be an improvement; but there doesn't seem to be any momentum for actually doing this or something similar from either side of the river.  If any expansion idea does gain traction, I'd guess the schedule for doing so would be more like 20 years (give or take a few), given (a) TN reluctance to spend money down Memphis way, and (b) other priorities occupying ARDOT's agenda for the near term.

There is less possibility to actually put six lanes either in a same location replacement or a twinned span. The neighborhoods around the Riverside / Crump intersection south of Crump are seemingly sacrosanct.  The French Fort area itself is not open for any incursion (and the boundaries of this area are not as fixed as it would appear) .  Simply anything south of the current I-55 (Crump) and west of Riverside (I-55 going south) is not even a possibility to be considered.  It would be seemingly less difficult to finish I-40 / Sam Cooper Blvd on through than to touch this area. (By-the-way, much of it is mid-twentieth century dwellings, not  antiquities.)

I say mark I-55 from the I-40/I-55 split in the West Memphis area as I-55 Business Loop.  That way you take away the deficiency.  I-55 would now run along I-40 to I-69 back to where it is now.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 12:55:03 PM
I say mark I-55 from the I-40/I-55 split in the West Memphis area as I-55 Business Loop.  That way you take away the deficiency.  I-55 would now run along I-40 to I-69 back to where it is now.

Considering business-loop freeways to be something of an oxymoron, IMO I-240 and I-55 should be swapped, with I-55 continuing north in Memphis to I-40 then turning left to share the DeSoto bridge.  I-240 then would be signed over the former I-55, serving as a "mileage shortcut" as well as the direct route to the FedEx hub from the west.  At least it directs I-55 through traffic away from the decidedly substandard configuration.  If both the Crump interchange and the substandard bridge are successfully addressed, the matter could be revisited or even reversed down the line. 

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 12:55:03 PM
I say mark I-55 from the I-40/I-55 split in the West Memphis area as I-55 Business Loop.  That way you take away the deficiency.  I-55 would now run along I-40 to I-69 back to where it is now.

That's dumb though and it's not how business loops are really supposed to be used. Business loops are supposed to take you to... businesses... that got bypassed by interstates, not be routed along freeways that got replaced.

Yes, I know a few freeway-grade business routes that were old interstate alignments do exist. That doesn't make them any less dumb. If we're moving I-55 to I-40 and I-240/unsigned I-69, I'd rather post the old route as a 3di. Something like I-255. (EDIT: or just reroute 240 that way per sparker's suggestion above.)

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 12:55:03 PM
I say mark I-55 from the I-40/I-55 split in the West Memphis area as I-55 Business Loop.  That way you take away the deficiency.  I-55 would now run along I-40 to I-69 back to where it is now.

If you want to talk technical minimums for an modern Interstate, sure. The problem is the HDB doesn't have the capacity for the combined traffic. While its traffic count is minimally lower than the M&A, The HDB is already carrying more traffic than its design. It was built as a proper 2X2 and is striped as 3x3 without significant shoulders. The HDB is actually the downtown bridge and the M&A is "out south of the railroads".  Even with the seeming superiority of the  HDB, the lanes are less than a foot wider.

As far as that goes, I-240's western portion through mid-town (that Google Maps may prematurely identify as I-69) was originally I-255, It only extended from the point I-55 split off from US-51 to the junction with US-78/ 72 /79/64 in Midtown.  When it eventually was extended, it became I-240. 

I-55 went across to meet US-61 and Crossed the M&A Bridge.

Both bridges fail to meet the modern standards for their width versus the number of lanes and shoulders available.  The real gain of the new bridge over the old one (beyond the extra two lanes) is the fact there is a horrible intersection on I-55 just east of the bridge.  The new bridge's truss structure also is more open and you sense that it is far less closed in and close to the truss or center barrier than you FEEL on the old bridge.


Previous to 2015, they were both (called) functionally obsolete. That term is disused as it left those who did not understand the term feeling that the bridges were old and ready to break. Do you want anything obsolete? Functionally obsolete only meant that if failed to meet current design standards for width, clearance above the deck, and traffic capacity. None of them relate to the bridges' ability to hold the weight of the traffic, but instead a bridge's ability to conveniently allow traffic to flow in a safe and efficient manner.  The bridges have not changed, the terminology did.

Folks...despite what Google Maps may claim, I-69 does not currently exist in Memphis, according to TDOT.  (I asked a few years ago, when I was sucked into a Wikipedia edit war over the extension of the I-269 designation.)

While they may have approvals to extend the designation up to the TN300/US51 interchange, TDOT has no plans to do so until SIU9 is completed (assuming it is ever completed).

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 24, 2021, 03:28:09 PM
Folks...despite what Google Maps may claim, I-69 does not currently exist in Memphis, according to TDOT.

Not to mention, I-69 is not even signposted in Tennessee. It's still I-240 and I-40.

Tennessee probably thought it would be overkill to sign Interstate 69 along Interstates 55, 240 and 40 before any of the Memphis-to-Dyersburg segments were built. Mississippi probably signed 69 along 55 so that 69 would not terminate at 269, as it would have after 2018.

As far as I am concerned I see no use for I-69 in Tennessee anyway.  US 51 already covers the West Tennessee and does a fine job.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 04:28:53 PM
As far as I am concerned I see no use for I-69 in Tennessee anyway.  US 51 already covers the West Tennessee and does a fine job.

I'll remember that next time I'm stuck in traffic in Covington, Brighton, Atoka, etc.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 04:28:53 PM
As far as I am concerned I see no use for I-69 in Tennessee anyway any new building or expansion project ever

FTFY

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 04:28:53 PM
As far as I am concerned I see no use for I-69 in Tennessee anyway.  US 51 already covers the West Tennessee and does a fine job.

IMO, I-69's southern terminus should be at I-40 in TN with the proposed sections in MS, AR and LA cancelled and the various branches of I-69 in TX renumbered  with new numbers.

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on May 24, 2021, 09:42:51 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 04:28:53 PM
As far as I am concerned I see no use for I-69 in Tennessee anyway.  US 51 already covers the West Tennessee and does a fine job.

IMO, I-69's southern terminus should be at I-40 in TN with the proposed sections in MS, AR and LA cancelled and the various branches of I-69 in TX renumbered  with new numbers.

I say that it should terminate that the state line KY/TN.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 25, 2021, 08:01:01 AM

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on May 24, 2021, 09:42:51 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 04:28:53 PM
As far as I am concerned I see no use for I-69 in Tennessee anyway.  US 51 already covers the West Tennessee and does a fine job.

IMO, I-69's southern terminus should be at I-40 in TN with the proposed sections in MS, AR and LA cancelled and the various branches of I-69 in TX renumbered  with new numbers.

I say that it should terminate that the state line KY/TN.

I say that it should be at the Mexico border  :D

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2021, 08:57:46 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 25, 2021, 08:01:01 AM

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on May 24, 2021, 09:42:51 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 04:28:53 PM
As far as I am concerned I see no use for I-69 in Tennessee anyway.  US 51 already covers the West Tennessee and does a fine job.

IMO, I-69's southern terminus should be at I-40 in TN with the proposed sections in MS, AR and LA cancelled and the various branches of I-69 in TX renumbered  with new numbers.

I say that it should terminate that the state line KY/TN.

I say that it should be at the Mexico border  :D

I second Mexico. All those in favor say "aye".

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.

If the Crump Park/Metal Museum/French Fort area are untouchable, then i would look at the options TDOT are looking at for a proposed south bypass of Memphis and redirect I-55 on it.

Rip out the existing I-55 from the M-A Bridge all the way to McLemore and turn it into a park. Reconnect Crump to the M-A but make it 1 lane each way with no access to Riverside. Remove the interstate access in Arkansas so it becomes more local. (or just tear down the M-A completely and terminate Crump at Riverside)

Have the former I-55 from McLemore to I-240 be a stub. There is too much industrial between McLemore and I-240 with the need for heavy truck access, so ripping out the whole thing is a non-starter.

Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2021, 10:30:35 AM
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.

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 12:15:18 PM
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.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2021, 12:43:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 12:15:18 PM
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.

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 03:58:29 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2021, 12:43:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 12:15:18 PM
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!   

Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2021, 04:53:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 03:58:29 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2021, 12:43:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 12:15:18 PM
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!

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 25, 2021, 05:26:30 PM

Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2021, 04:53:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 03:58:29 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2021, 12:43:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 12:15:18 PM
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!).

Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2021, 06:05:25 PM

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 25, 2021, 05:26:30 PM

Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2021, 04:53:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 03:58:29 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2021, 12:43:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2021, 12:15:18 PM
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"!

Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2021, 06:05:25 PM
(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...

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.

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 26, 2021, 02:14:36 PM
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?

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 26, 2021, 02:14:36 PM
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAH4WVMy.jpg&hash=be86974dd28c445f519077eacb5af86df4cf779e)
(https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/jcr%3acontent/content/tn_columnctrl/column_parsys1/tn_image_2128980325.img.jpg/1508356666417.jpg)

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2021, 03:36:14 PM

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 26, 2021, 02:14:36 PM
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?

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 26, 2021, 02:14:36 PM
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAH4WVMy.jpg&hash=be86974dd28c445f519077eacb5af86df4cf779e)
(https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/jcr%3acontent/content/tn_columnctrl/column_parsys1/tn_image_2128980325.img.jpg/1508356666417.jpg)

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 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.

Quote from: edwaleni on May 26, 2021, 04:41:27 PM
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.

Quote from: edwaleni on May 26, 2021, 04:41:27 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2021, 03:36:14 PM

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 26, 2021, 02:14:36 PM
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?

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 26, 2021, 02:14:36 PM
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAH4WVMy.jpg&hash=be86974dd28c445f519077eacb5af86df4cf779e)
(https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/jcr%3acontent/content/tn_columnctrl/column_parsys1/tn_image_2128980325.img.jpg/1508356666417.jpg)

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.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2021, 03:36:14 PM

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 26, 2021, 02:14:36 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 12:12:17 PM
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.

Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2021, 04:29:53 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 12:12:17 PM
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.

Quote from: edwaleni on June 02, 2021, 04:56:50 PM

Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2021, 04:29:53 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 12:12:17 PM
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. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2021, 03:36:14 PM
This was TDOT's original plans for the project... not sure if anything has changed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAH4WVMy.jpg&hash=be86974dd28c445f519077eacb5af86df4cf779e)

(https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/jcr%3acontent/content/tn_columnctrl/column_parsys1/tn_image_2128980325.img.jpg/1508356666417.jpg)

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

Quote

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.

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.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:51:03 AM
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  :bigass:

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:51:03 AM
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.

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

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 10:47:48 AM
So what will be completed first I-73, I-74 or I-69?

What does that have to do with the I-55 Crump Boulevard Interchange?

Quote from: edwaleni on June 03, 2021, 11:07:16 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 10:47:48 AM
So what will be completed first I-73, I-74 or I-69?

What does that have to do with the I-55 Crump Boulevard Interchange?

It's just become a troll at this point.

Maybe Interstate 55 should have followed Interstate 240 northward, and then followed Interstate 40 westward into Arkansas. Existing 55 between 240 and 40 in West Memphis could have been Interstate 255 (which Interstate 240 was between Exits 25 and 31 prior to 1974). An interchange like Crump Blvd. should not exist on a two-digit mainline Interstate Highway.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2021, 01:59:31 PM
Maybe Interstate 55 should have followed Interstate 240 northward, and then followed Interstate 40 westward into Arkansas. Existing 55 between 240 and 40 in West Memphis could have been Interstate 255 (which Interstate 240 was between Exits 25 and 31 prior to 1974). An interchange like Crump Blvd. should not exist on a two-digit mainline Interstate Highway.

I proposed this very thing.  The old I-55 would then become Business Loop I-55.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 03:25:27 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2021, 01:59:31 PM
Maybe Interstate 55 should have followed Interstate 240 northward, and then followed Interstate 40 westward into Arkansas. Existing 55 between 240 and 40 in West Memphis could have been Interstate 255 (which Interstate 240 was between Exits 25 and 31 prior to 1974). An interchange like Crump Blvd. should not exist on a two-digit mainline Interstate Highway.

I proposed this very thing.  The old I-55 would then become Business Loop I-55.

Or, even simpler, just reroute I-240 over the old I-55 between West Memphis and the current 55/240 interchange.  There's no I-240 in AR, so it shouldn't pose an issue.   Of course, the DeSoto Bridge will have to be appropriately repaired before this would take place.  Please, no more freeway-bound business loops! 

Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2021, 05:00:09 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 03:25:27 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2021, 01:59:31 PM
Maybe Interstate 55 should have followed Interstate 240 northward, and then followed Interstate 40 westward into Arkansas. Existing 55 between 240 and 40 in West Memphis could have been Interstate 255 (which Interstate 240 was between Exits 25 and 31 prior to 1974). An interchange like Crump Blvd. should not exist on a two-digit mainline Interstate Highway.

I proposed this very thing.  The old I-55 would then become Business Loop I-55.

Or, even simpler, just reroute I-240 over the old I-55 between West Memphis and the current 55/240 interchange.  There's no I-240 in AR, so it shouldn't pose an issue.   Of course, the DeSoto Bridge will have to be appropriately repaired before this would take place.  Please, no more freeway-bound business loops!

I would be interested in finding out some history around that I-55/Crump Exit. Why did TnDOT have it included in the interstate highway system and then leave it this way? Surely the AADT for this intersection has been high enough to justify a change?  I remember driving down to/from New Orleans in 1995 and seeing this and wondering how it ended up like this. I get that it used to be a US route and they wanted to use the M-A bridge, but is there a website that goes through all the failed attempts to modernize it and why it never happened?

Quote from: edwaleni on June 03, 2021, 10:03:34 PMI would be interested in finding out some history around that I-55/Crump Exit. Why did TnDOT have it included in the interstate highway system and then leave it this way? Surely the AADT for this intersection has been high enough to justify a change?  I remember driving down to/from New Orleans in 1995 and seeing this and wondering how it ended up like this. I get that it used to be a US route and they wanted to use the M-A bridge, but is there a website that goes through all the failed attempts to modernize it and why it never happened?

I'm not aware of such a site...but I'm also not aware of there having historically been too many efforts to upgrade the interchange (aside from the construction of the original cloverleaf, and the removal of the WB»NB petal), up until the past few years.

I-55 hasn't been much of a priority for TDOT for the obvious reason.  And in terms of interstate interchanges in Memphis...there were other interchanges that demanded greater attention for TDOT's limited funds.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 03, 2021, 11:13:43 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on June 03, 2021, 10:03:34 PMI would be interested in finding out some history around that I-55/Crump Exit. Why did TnDOT have it included in the interstate highway system and then leave it this way? Surely the AADT for this intersection has been high enough to justify a change?  I remember driving down to/from New Orleans in 1995 and seeing this and wondering how it ended up like this. I get that it used to be a US route and they wanted to use the M-A bridge, but is there a website that goes through all the failed attempts to modernize it and why it never happened?

I'm not aware of such a site...but I'm also not aware of there having historically been too many efforts to upgrade the interchange (aside from the construction of the original cloverleaf, and the removal of the WB»NB petal), up until the past few years.

I-55 hasn't been much of a priority for TDOT for the obvious reason.  And in terms of interstate interchanges in Memphis...there were other interchanges that demanded greater attention for TDOT's limited funds.

Looking at the historical aerials, it appears when the M-A bridge was built, it simply did the "dump on Crump" with a signal at Riverside.

Around 1963 the city started clearing out the rail yards north of Crump (now Rivermont Park) and the row houses west of Riverside south of Crump along the French Fort neighborhood. (now part of DeSoto Park)

Interestingly, the city left behind the rail bridge for that yard over Riverside and that is now Channel 3 Drive.

Shortly after the 1963 urban renewal effort, the city cleared out entire blocks between Illinois and Alston except for 1 spot. It appears there was a large hotel-restaurant at the corner of Illinois, Crump and Riverside.

This lot appears to have caused a problem because it was the only lot not taken in the renewal effort. By not taking it, it kept highway planners later on from allowing I-55 to take a safe, graduated turn south once you cross the M-A bridge.

Mysteriously, when I-55 was finally built, this same hotel was in the way of the new ramp coming off the bridge and going south on the new ROW. It was condemned and removed to make room for the exit ramp. Today it is a vacant lot with a billboard on it.

Seeing how they went all out to maintain that access to Crump in 1967 when I-55 was built, I can only speculate that the city fathers did not want I-55 to become a "passthrough" road from Arkansas to Mississippi.

Since the M-A bridge was designed in the 1950's to bring people into the city from the west, I suspect the city fathers saw I-55 as a way for more people to reach the city from the south and forced the highway planners into the abbreviated clover that it is today.

This makes sense now. M-A brings in people from the west, I-55 brings people from the south, why would anyone want to just drive through without stopping?

But looking back, in 1963 they most definitely had the opportunity to make I-55 a smooth transition to go south.  All the land they cleared out eventually became a typical suburban neighborhood.

The land between Alston and Illinois is vacant once again today. A new hotel was built in 1970 but sat as a vacant hulk for several years until it was torn down in 2017.

Makes me wonder if that was a land swap with the hotel that was condemned for the new ramps.

Quote from: edwaleni on June 04, 2021, 03:01:31 AM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 03, 2021, 11:13:43 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on June 03, 2021, 10:03:34 PMI would be interested in finding out some history around that I-55/Crump Exit. Why did TnDOT have it included in the interstate highway system and then leave it this way? Surely the AADT for this intersection has been high enough to justify a change?  I remember driving down to/from New Orleans in 1995 and seeing this and wondering how it ended up like this. I get that it used to be a US route and they wanted to use the M-A bridge, but is there a website that goes through all the failed attempts to modernize it and why it never happened?

I'm not aware of such a site...but I'm also not aware of there having historically been too many efforts to upgrade the interchange (aside from the construction of the original cloverleaf, and the removal of the WB»NB petal), up until the past few years.

I-55 hasn't been much of a priority for TDOT for the obvious reason.  And in terms of interstate interchanges in Memphis...there were other interchanges that demanded greater attention for TDOT's limited funds.

Looking at the historical aerials, it appears when the M-A bridge was built, it simply did the "dump on Crump" with a signal at Riverside.

Around 1963 the city started clearing out the rail yards north of Crump (now Rivermont Park) and the row houses west of Riverside south of Crump along the French Fort neighborhood. (now part of DeSoto Park)

Interestingly, the city left behind the rail bridge for that yard over Riverside and that is now Channel 3 Drive.

Shortly after the 1963 urban renewal effort, the city cleared out entire blocks between Illinois and Alston except for 1 spot. It appears there was a large hotel-restaurant at the corner of Illinois, Crump and Riverside.

This lot appears to have caused a problem because it was the only lot not taken in the renewal effort. By not taking it, it kept highway planners later on from allowing I-55 to take a safe, graduated turn south once you cross the M-A bridge.

Mysteriously, when I-55 was finally built, this same hotel was in the way of the new ramp coming off the bridge and going south on the new ROW. It was condemned and removed to make room for the exit ramp. Today it is a vacant lot with a billboard on it.

Seeing how they went all out to maintain that access to Crump in 1967 when I-55 was built, I can only speculate that the city fathers did not want I-55 to become a "passthrough" road from Arkansas to Mississippi.

Since the M-A bridge was designed in the 1950's to bring people into the city from the west, I suspect the city fathers saw I-55 as a way for more people to reach the city from the south and forced the highway planners into the abbreviated clover that it is today.

This makes sense now. M-A brings in people from the west, I-55 brings people from the south, why would anyone want to just drive through without stopping?

But looking back, in 1963 they most definitely had the opportunity to make I-55 a smooth transition to go south.  All the land they cleared out eventually became a typical suburban neighborhood.

The land between Alston and Illinois is vacant once again today. A new hotel was built in 1970 but sat as a vacant hulk for several years until it was torn down in 2017.

Makes me wonder if that was a land swap with the hotel that was condemned for the new ramps.

In 1963, you have to remember, the HDB was still a decade away. Crump BLVD was still the path for the E/W roads.  It was the crossing for US-72, US-78, US-70, US-72, and US-79 which crossed Memphis from east to west. US-61 was the only crossing that linked to the south.  The PRIMARY road from the M&A bridge was CRUMP. US-61 (I-55) was secondary back then. 

The real question is why it has taken them nearly 50 years since the HDB opened to address the fact that most of the E/W traffic no longer crosses on the M&A.

As an aside, so I understand TDOT already has the ROW for the new flyover set up. It is a monetary / priority (state AND local) issue.

The political clout died off in West Tennessee starting around 2010.  They had to power and the cash to get that done years ago.  I wonder if they just don't want the traffic using the route and they are keeping it as is?

Quote from: bwana39 on June 04, 2021, 11:54:03 AM

Quote from: edwaleni on June 04, 2021, 03:01:31 AM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 03, 2021, 11:13:43 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on June 03, 2021, 10:03:34 PMI would be interested in finding out some history around that I-55/Crump Exit. Why did TnDOT have it included in the interstate highway system and then leave it this way? Surely the AADT for this intersection has been high enough to justify a change?  I remember driving down to/from New Orleans in 1995 and seeing this and wondering how it ended up like this. I get that it used to be a US route and they wanted to use the M-A bridge, but is there a website that goes through all the failed attempts to modernize it and why it never happened?

I'm not aware of such a site...but I'm also not aware of there having historically been too many efforts to upgrade the interchange (aside from the construction of the original cloverleaf, and the removal of the WB»NB petal), up until the past few years.

I-55 hasn't been much of a priority for TDOT for the obvious reason.  And in terms of interstate interchanges in Memphis...there were other interchanges that demanded greater attention for TDOT's limited funds.

Looking at the historical aerials, it appears when the M-A bridge was built, it simply did the "dump on Crump" with a signal at Riverside.

Around 1963 the city started clearing out the rail yards north of Crump (now Rivermont Park) and the row houses west of Riverside south of Crump along the French Fort neighborhood. (now part of DeSoto Park)

Interestingly, the city left behind the rail bridge for that yard over Riverside and that is now Channel 3 Drive.

Shortly after the 1963 urban renewal effort, the city cleared out entire blocks between Illinois and Alston except for 1 spot. It appears there was a large hotel-restaurant at the corner of Illinois, Crump and Riverside.

This lot appears to have caused a problem because it was the only lot not taken in the renewal effort. By not taking it, it kept highway planners later on from allowing I-55 to take a safe, graduated turn south once you cross the M-A bridge.

Mysteriously, when I-55 was finally built, this same hotel was in the way of the new ramp coming off the bridge and going south on the new ROW. It was condemned and removed to make room for the exit ramp. Today it is a vacant lot with a billboard on it.

Seeing how they went all out to maintain that access to Crump in 1967 when I-55 was built, I can only speculate that the city fathers did not want I-55 to become a "passthrough" road from Arkansas to Mississippi.

Since the M-A bridge was designed in the 1950's to bring people into the city from the west, I suspect the city fathers saw I-55 as a way for more people to reach the city from the south and forced the highway planners into the abbreviated clover that it is today.

This makes sense now. M-A brings in people from the west, I-55 brings people from the south, why would anyone want to just drive through without stopping?

But looking back, in 1963 they most definitely had the opportunity to make I-55 a smooth transition to go south.  All the land they cleared out eventually became a typical suburban neighborhood.

The land between Alston and Illinois is vacant once again today. A new hotel was built in 1970 but sat as a vacant hulk for several years until it was torn down in 2017.

Makes me wonder if that was a land swap with the hotel that was condemned for the new ramps.

In 1963, you have to remember, the HDB was still a decade away. Crump BLVD was still the path for the E/W roads.  It was the crossing for US-72, US-78, US-70, US-72, and US-79 which crossed Memphis from east to west. US-61 was the only crossing that linked to the south.  The PRIMARY road from the M&A bridge was CRUMP. US-61 (I-55) was secondary back then. 

The real question is why it has taken them nearly 50 years since the HDB opened to address the fact that most of the E/W traffic no longer crosses on the M&A.

As an aside, so I understand TDOT already has the ROW for the new flyover set up. It is a monetary / priority (state AND local) issue.

Excellent point on the HDB and I had that in mind when I was literally thinking out loud on this.

I just wanted to highlight that the opportunity did exist back in 1963 when they started their urban renewal project on the southside. But by 1967 they clearly didn't put to much thought into regional logistics.

Auto traffic between Memphis and New Orleans was probably not as significant and the railroads still had a large share of freight at the time so trucks didn't play such a large role as it does today.

Fed Ex wasn't a thing at the time either.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 04, 2021, 01:43:06 PM
Fed Ex wasn't a thing at the time either.

I wonder how much of the push for the original Crump/55 rebuild plan came from FedEx, since their hub is more accessible from the west via I-55 than I-40 through downtown. 

Quote from: edwaleni on June 04, 2021, 03:01:31 AM
Looking at the historical aerials, it appears when the M-A bridge was built, it simply did the "dump on Crump" with a signal at Riverside.

Around 1963 the city started clearing out the rail yards north of Crump (now Rivermont Park) and the row houses west of Riverside south of Crump along the French Fort neighborhood. (now part of DeSoto Park)

Interestingly, the city left behind the rail bridge for that yard over Riverside and that is now Channel 3 Drive.

Shortly after the 1963 urban renewal effort, the city cleared out entire blocks between Illinois and Alston except for 1 spot. It appears there was a large hotel-restaurant at the corner of Illinois, Crump and Riverside.

This lot appears to have caused a problem because it was the only lot not taken in the renewal effort. By not taking it, it kept highway planners later on from allowing I-55 to take a safe, graduated turn south once you cross the M-A bridge.

Mysteriously, when I-55 was finally built, this same hotel was in the way of the new ramp coming off the bridge and going south on the new ROW. It was condemned and removed to make room for the exit ramp. Today it is a vacant lot with a billboard on it.

Seeing how they went all out to maintain that access to Crump in 1967 when I-55 was built, I can only speculate that the city fathers did not want I-55 to become a "passthrough" road from Arkansas to Mississippi.

Since the M-A bridge was designed in the 1950's to bring people into the city from the west, I suspect the city fathers saw I-55 as a way for more people to reach the city from the south and forced the highway planners into the abbreviated clover that it is today.

This makes sense now. M-A brings in people from the west, I-55 brings people from the south, why would anyone want to just drive through without stopping?

But looking back, in 1963 they most definitely had the opportunity to make I-55 a smooth transition to go south.  All the land they cleared out eventually became a typical suburban neighborhood.

The land between Alston and Illinois is vacant once again today. A new hotel was built in 1970 but sat as a vacant hulk for several years until it was torn down in 2017.

Makes me wonder if that was a land swap with the hotel that was condemned for the new ramps.

A couple of points:

First, the bridge opened in 1949, rather than having been developed in the 1950's.   Crump Blvd was created as a new approach road to the "new" bridge.  There was indeed a complex-for-the day intersection at the foot of the bridge between Crump and Pennsylvania, and aerial photos from 1949 show hints of an upgrade as they started work on the creation of Riverside Drive.

I've mentioned in another thread the Crème de Memph blog, which is maintained by one of my father's former coworkers from the Memphis/Shelby County Office of Planning and Development.  He's run three articles on the "old bridge"; the one that's relevant to our discussion is here: http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2014/10/memphis-arkansas-bridge-3.html?q=bridge

Josh also has a post dedicated to the now-demolished hotel at Alston and Illinois: http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2017/07/lost-memphis-31-quality-inn.html?q=riverside  ... and the French Fort neighborhood: http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2015/10/french-fort.html

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:51:03 AM
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.

For once, I actually agree with you. I-69 is a complete waste even between Indianapolis and Memphis, considering the I-57 extension will serve the purpose as well. TDOT needs to spend their money elsewhere, including full replacements of both the I-40 and I-55 bridges.

Quote from: I-39 on June 04, 2021, 10:27:51 PM
I-69 is a complete waste even between Indianapolis and Memphis

Disagree, and given INDOT, KYTC, and TDOT all have invested into the corridor and have virtually completed the vast majority of it, they disagree as well.

Worth noting that the 1955 Yellow Book (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/memphis.jpg) did not envision any Interstate utilizing the M&A, nor did it envision what is now I-240 through Midtown.  The proposal at the time had I-55 continuing north of Crump along the Riverside corridor, intersecting I-40 in the middle of Mud Island then crossing the river concurrent with I-40.

Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2021, 12:43:33 AM
Worth noting that the 1955 Yellow Book (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/memphis.jpg) did not envision any Interstate utilizing the M&A, nor did it envision what is now I-240 through Midtown.  The proposal at the time had I-55 continuing north of Crump along the Riverside corridor, intersecting I-40 in the middle of Mud Island then crossing the river concurrent with I-40.

Was the original cloverleaf constructed with the intent to eventually continue said freeway north along Riverside Dr up to I-40, or had that section of Downtown freeway been canceled by the time it was built?

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2021, 01:51:50 AM

Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2021, 12:43:33 AM
Worth noting that the 1955 Yellow Book (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/memphis.jpg) did not envision any Interstate utilizing the M&A, nor did it envision what is now I-240 through Midtown.  The proposal at the time had I-55 continuing north of Crump along the Riverside corridor, intersecting I-40 in the middle of Mud Island then crossing the river concurrent with I-40.

Was the original cloverleaf constructed with the intent to eventually continue said freeway north along Riverside Dr up to I-40, or had that section of Downtown freeway been canceled by the time it was built?

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2021, 01:51:50 AM

Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2021, 12:43:33 AM
Worth noting that the 1955 Yellow Book (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/memphis.jpg) did not envision any Interstate utilizing the M&A, nor did it envision what is now I-240 through Midtown.  The proposal at the time had I-55 continuing north of Crump along the Riverside corridor, intersecting I-40 in the middle of Mud Island then crossing the river concurrent with I-40.

Was the original cloverleaf constructed with the intent to eventually continue said freeway north along Riverside Dr up to I-40, or had that section of Downtown freeway been canceled by the time it was built?

In 1955 the vision was to use the Riverside Expressway (Freeway). I think it is safe to say that I-55 would not have followed Riverside to the south if they had not still had that in mind.  In the sixties, they would have just gone ahead and either followed 3rd street to Crump or extended the freeway to the eventual I-155, I-240, I-69 (MLK / Midtown Freeway) or to East Parkway.

Regardless, everything EXCEPT US-61 (I-55) that crossed the river at that point utilized Crump.  In 1963 when I-55 opened, the HDB was, as I said before, still a decade off.  While ALL of the plans had the HDB in them, it was by no means a certainty.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2021, 01:51:50 AM
Was the original cloverleaf constructed with the intent to eventually continue said freeway north along Riverside Dr up to I-40, or had that section of Downtown freeway been canceled by the time it was built?

IIRC the Riverside Drive corridor was still proposed after I-55 had been opened on its current alignment.

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 05, 2021, 12:37:18 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2021, 01:51:50 AM
Was the original cloverleaf constructed with the intent to eventually continue said freeway north along Riverside Dr up to I-40, or had that section of Downtown freeway been canceled by the time it was built?

IIRC the Riverside Drive corridor was still proposed after I-55 had been opened on its current alignment.

They even built the ramps off of the approaches to the HDB for it.

Does the traffic actually warrant another lane?  Seems like there really isn't anything wrong with the interchange.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 05, 2021, 01:56:13 PM
Does the traffic actually warrant another lane?  Seems like there really isn't anything wrong with the interchange.

You CLEARLY have never driven through the area, and it shows.

Or simply believe that the congestion is acceptable.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 04, 2021, 05:06:09 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on June 04, 2021, 03:01:31 AM
Looking at the historical aerials, it appears when the M-A bridge was built, it simply did the "dump on Crump" with a signal at Riverside.

Around 1963 the city started clearing out the rail yards north of Crump (now Rivermont Park) and the row houses west of Riverside south of Crump along the French Fort neighborhood. (now part of DeSoto Park)

Interestingly, the city left behind the rail bridge for that yard over Riverside and that is now Channel 3 Drive.

Shortly after the 1963 urban renewal effort, the city cleared out entire blocks between Illinois and Alston except for 1 spot. It appears there was a large hotel-restaurant at the corner of Illinois, Crump and Riverside.

This lot appears to have caused a problem because it was the only lot not taken in the renewal effort. By not taking it, it kept highway planners later on from allowing I-55 to take a safe, graduated turn south once you cross the M-A bridge.

Mysteriously, when I-55 was finally built, this same hotel was in the way of the new ramp coming off the bridge and going south on the new ROW. It was condemned and removed to make room for the exit ramp. Today it is a vacant lot with a billboard on it.

Seeing how they went all out to maintain that access to Crump in 1967 when I-55 was built, I can only speculate that the city fathers did not want I-55 to become a "passthrough" road from Arkansas to Mississippi.

Since the M-A bridge was designed in the 1950's to bring people into the city from the west, I suspect the city fathers saw I-55 as a way for more people to reach the city from the south and forced the highway planners into the abbreviated clover that it is today.

This makes sense now. M-A brings in people from the west, I-55 brings people from the south, why would anyone want to just drive through without stopping?

But looking back, in 1963 they most definitely had the opportunity to make I-55 a smooth transition to go south.  All the land they cleared out eventually became a typical suburban neighborhood.

The land between Alston and Illinois is vacant once again today. A new hotel was built in 1970 but sat as a vacant hulk for several years until it was torn down in 2017.

Makes me wonder if that was a land swap with the hotel that was condemned for the new ramps.

A couple of points:

First, the bridge opened in 1949, rather than having been developed in the 1950's.   Crump Blvd was created as a new approach road to the "new" bridge.  There was indeed a complex-for-the day intersection at the foot of the bridge between Crump and Pennsylvania, and aerial photos from 1949 show hints of an upgrade as they started work on the creation of Riverside Drive.

I've mentioned in another thread the Crème de Memph blog, which is maintained by one of my father's former coworkers from the Memphis/Shelby County Office of Planning and Development.  He's run three articles on the "old bridge"; the one that's relevant to our discussion is here: http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2014/10/memphis-arkansas-bridge-3.html?q=bridge

Josh also has a post dedicated to the now-demolished hotel at Alston and Illinois: http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2017/07/lost-memphis-31-quality-inn.html?q=riverside  ... and the French Fort neighborhood: http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2015/10/french-fort.html

Thanks for the links. I enjoy highway history so i will definitely take a look at these. I could only surmise based on the aerials, but really needed some newspaper or historical recollections to understand the thinking behind it, Much appreciated.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2021, 02:01:26 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 05, 2021, 01:56:13 PM
Does the traffic actually warrant another lane?  Seems like there really isn't anything wrong with the interchange.

You CLEARLY have never driven through the area, and it shows.

Or simply believe that the congestion is acceptable.

Or is just an extremist who believes in not building any new roads or any new lanes for existing roads.

Quote from: ran4sh on June 05, 2021, 03:07:49 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2021, 02:01:26 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 05, 2021, 01:56:13 PM
Does the traffic actually warrant another lane?  Seems like there really isn't anything wrong with the interchange.

You CLEARLY have never driven through the area, and it shows.

Or simply believe that the congestion is acceptable.

Or is just an extremist who believes in not building any new roads or any new lanes for existing roads.

It's merely trolling, it's obvious.

I have certainly driven over the M/A bridge.  I am merely stating that the situation has been ongoing for years and I am not sure if it needs a change.  Not every road needs to be fully controlled access from point A to point B. 

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 05, 2021, 08:21:27 PM
Not every road needs to be fully controlled access from point A to point B.

I agree with you BUT this one is and has been a problem.

I question the need for some of the rural segments of US-59 north of Cleveland needing to be Controlled access. The small town bypasses are badly needed.  Likewise for US-287 east of Amarillo. Much of the port-to-plains south of Lubbock (and north of Amarillo). There are numerous others in Texas and out of it.

On the other hand, The Crump interchange is a relic from the early sixties. It might be better if there were a traffic signal there instead of the mess that is there. It was designed for US-61  through traffic to be secondary. The intent at the time was for I-55 to continue north there and cross at the Hernando Desoto Bridge.  The connecting freeway along the riverside was never completed (and probably a good thing ).  Even if this intersection were "good enough" (it isn't), the condition of the elements is such that it needs replacing regardless. 

The traffic patterns in Memphis are such that this routing is a heavier traffic routing than the new bridge. For a casual driver, it might be unexceptional. For someone who drives this route regularly or driver a TT Combo, it is entirely unacceptable and needs to be done!

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2021, 11:41:01 PM

Quote from: I-39 on June 04, 2021, 10:27:51 PM
I-69 is a complete waste even between Indianapolis and Memphis

Disagree, and given INDOT, KYTC, and TDOT all have invested into the corridor and have virtually completed the vast majority of it, they disagree as well.

Just because they built it doesn't mean it necessary. It reeks of pork barrel spending. The extension is very redundant to the I-70 > I-57 corridor (which will be cheaper and easier to extend to Little Rock than building I-69 in TN).

Quote from: I-39 on June 05, 2021, 11:36:24 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2021, 11:41:01 PM

Quote from: I-39 on June 04, 2021, 10:27:51 PM
I-69 is a complete waste even between Indianapolis and Memphis

Disagree, and given INDOT, KYTC, and TDOT all have invested into the corridor and have virtually completed the vast majority of it, they disagree as well.

Just because they built it doesn't mean it necessary. It reeks of pork barrel spending. The extension is very redundant to the I-70 > I-57 corridor (which will be cheaper and easier to extend to Little Rock than building I-69 in TN).

No different in the I-57 extension being "redundant"  to I-55 and I-40.

Having a redundant corridor to 2 busy interstate highways is not a bad thing. I fully support the completion of both I-57 and I-69 for these reasons. It will take pressure off of the current main routes.

Both routes certainly have more importance, particularly on the national level, than "I-39" .

May have found an EIS for the Riverside facility:  https://hdl.handle.net/2027/ien.35556030804082 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/ien.35556030804082)

The map on Page 43 of 154 also shows what appears to be a higher type facility almost reaching the Crump Boulevard Interchange from the east.

Quote from: ITB on June 06, 2021, 03:56:06 PM
On April 27, 2021, TDOT released its proposed Comprehensive Multimodal Program for FY 2022—2024. That document can be found here. (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/programdevelopment/Final%20TDOT%20FY%2022-24%20Comprehensive%20Multimodal%20Program%204-27-21.pdf) There are no I-69 projects listed.

ITB made this post over on the I-69 in TN thread.

Quickly reading thru the projects, the I-55/Crump interchange IS listed, for 2022

The document is dated April 27, 2021 - I think that was before the I-40 Bridge closure

Quote from: ran4sh on June 05, 2021, 03:07:49 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2021, 02:01:26 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 05, 2021, 01:56:13 PM
Does the traffic actually warrant another lane?  Seems like there really isn't anything wrong with the interchange.

You CLEARLY have never driven through the area, and it shows.

Or simply believe that the congestion is acceptable.

Or is just an extremist who believes in not building any new roads or any new lanes for existing roads.

Or is just a troll who people here keep feeding.

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 06, 2021, 01:49:44 PM
May have found an EIS for the Riverside facility:  https://hdl.handle.net/2027/ien.35556030804082 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/ien.35556030804082)

Thanks for that!  :clap:

In true form for Google-scanned docs, though, the maps in that EIS do not properly show the proposed alignment.

However, the aforementioned Crème de Memph blog (http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2018/06/mud-island-history-2.html?q=bridge) has a piece discussing Mud Island which also includes maps of the 1971 Location and Design Report for the Riverside Expressway between 55/Crump and I-40.

They are supposed to be adding an additional ramp lane temporarily to alleviate some of the EB (SB ) backup

Will it be a temporary increase of lanes or will it remain?

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 02:21:01 PM
Will it be a temporary increase of lanes or will it remain?

It will likely remain until a complete rebuild of the interchange.

Is there any update when the complete rebuild will get underway? I really feel like this and Lamar Ave are the reason for the bad perception through travelers have of Memphis.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2021, 10:56:17 AM
Is there any update when the complete rebuild will get underway? I really feel like this and Lamar Ave are the reason for the bad perception through travelers have of Memphis.

Years ago my kids saw us taking the circle exit on NB I-55 to get on the A-M bridge and said "what kind of town is this?"

It wasn't until we crossed the Cairo bridge the following week did that impression die.

Why not reroute I-55 in Memphis along I-240 north to the I-40 interchange east of downtown then west across the Hernando Desoto bridge? 

Quote from: cbalducc on January 08, 2022, 01:28:49 PM
Why not reroute I-55 in Memphis along I-240 north to the I-40 interchange east of downtown then west across the Hernandez Desoto bridge?

They could do that, but there are still capacity issues.  I-240 (I-69) is not bereft of traffic itself. The Hernando Desoto bridge is at or near its capacity as it is. While it seems like an easy way to solve this problem, The HDB is no better choice to handle all of the traffic across the river than the older Arkansas and Tennessee bridge was this past fall.

Even if they rerouted the numbers, the traffic would still follow the route of their choice.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2021, 10:56:17 AM
Is there any update when the complete rebuild will get underway? I really feel like this and Lamar Ave are the reason for the bad perception through travelers have of Memphis.

I'm not too familiar with Memphis, so out of curiosity what are the issues with Lamar Ave?

Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2022, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2021, 10:56:17 AM
Is there any update when the complete rebuild will get underway? I really feel like this and Lamar Ave are the reason for the bad perception through travelers have of Memphis.

I'm not too familiar with Memphis, so out of curiosity what are the issues with Lamar Ave?

An arterial 4-6 lane roadway that carries traffic towards the southeast from Memphis / I-240 towards I-22 in Mississippi, that is heavily congested and carries interstate volumes of traffic, including high truck percentages.

US-78 immediately becomes a 70 mph freeway upon entering Mississippi.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2022, 06:24:38 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2022, 05:16:07 PMI'm not too familiar with Memphis, so out of curiosity what are the issues with Lamar Ave?

An arterial 4-6 lane roadway that carries traffic towards the southeast from Memphis / I-240 towards I-22 in Mississippi, that is heavily congested and carries interstate volumes of traffic, including high truck percentages.

US-78 immediately becomes a 70 mph freeway upon entering Mississippi.

That and the fact that it'd be really nice if I-22 ended at a logical junction with Memphis' freeway system instead of at the state line. I find it rather astonishing that the authorities didn't connect I-22 to TN 385-Nonconnah Parkway instead of doing what they did.

Quote from: Tom958 on January 08, 2022, 06:51:23 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2022, 06:24:38 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2022, 05:16:07 PMI'm not too familiar with Memphis, so out of curiosity what are the issues with Lamar Ave?

An arterial 4-6 lane roadway that carries traffic towards the southeast from Memphis / I-240 towards I-22 in Mississippi, that is heavily congested and carries interstate volumes of traffic, including high truck percentages.

US-78 immediately becomes a 70 mph freeway upon entering Mississippi.

That and the fact that it'd be really nice if I-22 ended at a logical junction with Memphis' freeway system instead of at the state line. I find it rather astonishing that the authorities didn't connect I-22 to TN 385-Nonconnah Parkway instead of doing what they did.

I-22 actually does stop there. The US-78 freeway continues onward. IIRC, US-78 was freeway to the state line BEFORE  TN-385 / I-269 was built.

Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2022, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2021, 10:56:17 AM
Is there any update when the complete rebuild will get underway? I really feel like this and Lamar Ave are the reason for the bad perception through travelers have of Memphis.

I'm not too familiar with Memphis, so out of curiosity what are the issues with Lamar Ave?

It is lined with DCs and converting it to interstate standard would be an all out mess. The only real.way would be by building it as a viaduct at extreme costs. The cost acquiring right of way would astronomical the other way as well.

[quote author=bwana39 link=topic=20377.msg2696191#msg2696191 date=1641678126

They could do that, but there are still capacity issues.  I-240 (I-69) is not bereft of traffic itself. The Hernando Desoto bridge is at or near its capacity as it is. While it seems like an easy way to solve this problem, The HDB is no better choice to handle all of the traffic across the river than the older Arkansas and Tennessee bridge was this past fall.

Even if they rerouted the numbers, the traffic would still follow the route of their choice.
[/quote]


I just don't see how a new interchange and bridge can be constructed without destroying the French Fort neighborhood.  That subdivision was built in the 1960s and was the first one open to blacks.
http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2015/10/french-fort.html

There are nearby industries that might have to be torn down, followed by a costly removal of toxic materials.

Quote from: cbalducc on January 09, 2022, 02:12:58 PM
I just don't see how a new interchange and bridge can be constructed without destroying the French Fort neighborhood.  That subdivision was built in the 1960s and was the first one open to open to blacks.
http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2015/10/french-fort.html

I don't know about the bridge, but the plan for the interchange was this:

(https://i.imgur.com/YTxky78.png)

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 09, 2022, 03:20:31 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 09, 2022, 02:12:58 PM
I just don't see how a new interchange and bridge can be constructed without destroying the French Fort neighborhood.  That subdivision was built in the 1960s and was the first one open to open to blacks.
http://cremedememph.blogspot.com/2015/10/french-fort.html

I don't know about the bridge, but the plan for the interchange was this:

(https://i.imgur.com/YTxky78.png)

And this doesn't destroy French Fort, nor necessitate changes to the old bridge, although it could certainly use a refresh/replace regardless.  As usual, it comes down to money/priorities.

It will be stupid for them to remodel that interchange yet keep the main lanes of I-55 at only a 2x2 configuration thru the interchange. They should at least build out the new lanes to be capable of holding a 3x3 configuration even if it has to be striped 2x2 for some time. That old I-55 Memphis-Arkansas bridge badly needs to be replaced. Any replacement would likely carry at least 3x3 lanes.

Yeah that was my first thought as well. It should be 3x3.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 09, 2022, 03:53:59 PM
Yeah that was my first thought as well. It should be 3x3.

Oh, I agree completely.  In the presence of funding limitations, I'd take the interchange reconstruction over the bridge reconstruction, although both are needed.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 09, 2022, 03:49:53 PM
It will be stupid for them to remodel that interchange yet keep the main lanes of I-55 at only a 2x2 configuration thru the interchange. They should at least build out the new lanes to be capable of holding a 3x3 configuration even if it has to be striped 2x2 for some time. That old I-55 Memphis-Arkansas bridge badly needs to be replaced. Any replacement would likely carry at least 3x3 lanes.

I don't know. Nine lanes seems excessive.  :-D

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 09, 2022, 03:49:53 PM
It will be stupid for them to remodel that interchange yet keep the main lanes of I-55 at only a 2x2 configuration thru the interchange. They should at least build out the new lanes to be capable of holding a 3x3 configuration even if it has to be striped 2x2 for some time. That old I-55 Memphis-Arkansas bridge badly needs to be replaced. Any replacement would likely carry at least 3x3 lanes.

My guess is that it will be designed for an ultimate 3x3 build, though will be striped for 2x2 initially. It's pointless to build it fully out to 3x3 now when the bridge is 2x2.

At the very least they should build any I-55 main lanes overpasses capable of holding 3x3 lanes even if the connecting roadways are initially built for 2x2. I do understand having an initial 2x2 configuration to avoid a bottleneck occurring at the 4 lane Mississippi River bridge approach. But they do need to do at least some future-proofing in the new interchange.

What's the split in traffic going to/from Crump vs. staying on I-55 through that area?  I would think whether a 3rd lane each way on a new bridge would be added/exit only for the interchange vs. following I-55 through the interchange would be dependent on the traffic split.

Can't they build a new bridge further away from that alignment?

That was my thought as well. Build a new Eastern bypass and sign it as I 55.

The thought is that at some point, I-55 will take a track significantly farther south. With a new bridge probably around the Seacor location.

The M&A would still have years of life for the traffic destined for downtown and along Crump Blvd.

3-laning the new NB mainlanes would not be prudent as the bridge would immediately be a choke point. 3 lanes SB might be in line, but maybe not as the (local) traffic merging from Riverside still will need a place to go.

Quote from: bwana39 on January 09, 2022, 09:44:37 PM
The thought is that at some point, I-55 will take a track significantly farther south. With a new bridge probably around the Seacor location.

The M&A would still have years of life for the traffic destined for downtown and along Crump Blvd.

3-laning the new NB mainlanes would not be prudent as the bridge would immediately be a choke point. 3 lanes SB might be in line, but maybe not as the (local) traffic merging from Riverside still will need a place to go.

There's no way Arkansas would shoulder the shared maintenance costs for an old obsolete bridge just to serve traffic for Crump Blvd., nor for the carriageway to get there from I-40/I-55.  Once there's an alternative further south that Arkansas shares the cost with, either with Tennessee, or Mississippi, they'll drop it like a hot rock as it doesn't serve Arkansas' needs much.  BASF is the only thing down there on Arkansas' side of the river, and the bridge isn't necessary for their needs if an I-55 crossing swings further south.

Physically, they could build a new replacement I-55 bridge next to the old one. Such things have been done many times previously.  A fairly big chunk of Crump Park would be taken by the new bridge, but some of that park land would be restored by the removal of the old truss bridge.

Memphis is a big enough city to justify having at least 2 highway bridges across the Mississippi River. The Hernando de Soto Bridge isn't sufficient to carry both I-40 and I-55 traffic. Even it doesn't live up to modern Interstate standard for its complete lack of shoulders.

Regardless of whatever happens for downtown Memphis a new separate Mississippi River bridge crossing is needed down by Tunica to connect I-40 in Arkansas with I-69 and the I-269 loop. IMHO, that should be a bigger priority than the decades-delayed Great River Bridge project.

This has worked for years.  I say let it ride.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 10, 2022, 12:48:01 PM
This has worked for years.  I say let it ride.

Forcing through traffic to go through a loop ramp to continue?  No, I don't think so.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 10, 2022, 05:01:51 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 10, 2022, 12:48:01 PM
This has worked for years.  I say let it ride.

Forcing through traffic to go through a loop ramp to continue?  No, I don't think so.

Just ignore such silliness as it's clearly ignorance on the part of the author.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 10, 2022, 11:28:02 AM
Physically, they could build a new replacement I-55 bridge next to the old one. Such things have been done many times previously.  A fairly big chunk of Crump Park would be taken by the new bridge, but some of that park land would be restored by the removal of the old truss bridge.

Memphis is a big enough city to justify having at least 2 highway bridges across the Mississippi River. The Hernando de Soto Bridge isn't sufficient to carry both I-40 and I-55 traffic. Even it doesn't live up to modern Interstate standard for its complete lack of shoulders.

Regardless of whatever happens for downtown Memphis a new separate Mississippi River bridge crossing is needed down by Tunica to connect I-40 in Arkansas with I-69 and the I-269 loop. IMHO, that should be a bigger priority than the decades-delayed Great River Bridge project.

There might be a way or ways to to build a new bridge adjacent to the current M&A bridge and the westernmost portion of Crump Boulevard, but there is not enough room to keep the cultural upheaval to a minimum. Building anything more than revamping the E.H. Crump / W.B Fowler Sr. curve on I-55 is a non-starter.  If they build a bridge, it almost surely will be built elsewhere.

The discussion of the M&A bridge on here sounds like it it is ready to fall into the river any moment or at minimum it is  a giant money pit.  Neither seem to be the case. It is fracture critical in the case of a MAJOR earthquake as are several other bridges across the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. In a MAJOR earthquake, it MIGHT fail partially or completely. That in itself is not a reason to tear it down.  The second issue with the M&A is capacity. How many vehicles per hour can pass through it versus the demand for a greater number to pass through it. If you reduce the demand with a separate bridge, it should be just fine.
The bigger reason the OLD Vicksburg Bridge closed to cars and trucks was Madison Parish and the Town of Delta couldn't / wouldn't pay to keep the surface road to the bridge open.  The Long-Allen Bridge at Morgan City LA is a redundant older structure that is cheaper to keep open than to  demolish. the M&A would still have far more local utility than the Long-Allen if a redundant bridge were built nearby.

This project should be beginning construction soon right?

Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2022, 11:42:07 AM
This project should be beginning construction soon right?

TDOT has dragged their feet on this project for 10 years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Well given this news today seems like now is a better time than ever to start planning for new Tennessee/Arkansas bridge replacements

https://www.roadsbridges.com/us-dot-announces-bridge-investment-program-under-infrastructure-law

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 12:29:41 PM

Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2022, 11:42:07 AM
This project should be beginning construction soon right?

TDOT has dragged their feet on this project for 10 years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

The I-55 curve construction  was scheduled to start in mid-2020, then it was halted with no startup date.  IE: Put on a back burner with no fire under it.....

Quote from: bwana39 on January 14, 2022, 02:06:57 PM

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 12:29:41 PM

Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2022, 11:42:07 AM
This project should be beginning construction soon right?

TDOT has dragged their feet on this project for 10 years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

The I-55 curve construction  was scheduled to start in mid-2020, then it was halted with no startup date.  IE: Put on a back burner with no fire under it.....

Precisely. I believe this is the third or fourth time they have delayed this project.

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 02:57:50 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 14, 2022, 02:06:57 PM

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 12:29:41 PM

Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2022, 11:42:07 AM
This project should be beginning construction soon right?

TDOT has dragged their feet on this project for 10 years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

The I-55 curve construction  was scheduled to start in mid-2020, then it was halted with no startup date.  IE: Put on a back burner with no fire under it.....

Precisely. I believe this is the third or fourth time they have delayed this project.

Tennessee is a very frugal state to begin with. Memphis is not favored by Nashville (the state government).  So getting funding for any project in Tennessee is as difficult as in a truly poor state like Mississippi and doubly hard for projects in and around Memphis.

Quote from: bwana39 on January 15, 2022, 10:58:46 AM

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 02:57:50 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 14, 2022, 02:06:57 PM

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 12:29:41 PM

Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2022, 11:42:07 AM
This project should be beginning construction soon right?

TDOT has dragged their feet on this project for 10 years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

The I-55 curve construction  was scheduled to start in mid-2020, then it was halted with no startup date.  IE: Put on a back burner with no fire under it.....

Precisely. I believe this is the third or fourth time they have delayed this project.

Tennessee is a very frugal state to begin with. Memphis is not favored by Nashville (the state government).  So getting funding for any project in Tennessee is as difficult as in a truly poor state like Mississippi and doubly hard for projects in and around Memphis.

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2022, 11:04:45 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 15, 2022, 10:58:46 AM

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 02:57:50 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 14, 2022, 02:06:57 PM

Quote from: Brooks on January 14, 2022, 12:29:41 PM

Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2022, 11:42:07 AM
This project should be beginning construction soon right?

TDOT has dragged their feet on this project for 10 years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

The I-55 curve construction  was scheduled to start in mid-2020, then it was halted with no startup date.  IE: Put on a back burner with no fire under it.....

Precisely. I believe this is the third or fourth time they have delayed this project.

Tennessee is a very frugal state to begin with. Memphis is not favored by Nashville (the state government).  So getting funding for any project in Tennessee is as difficult as in a truly poor state like Mississippi and doubly hard for projects in and around Memphis.

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority.

This statement is NOT true, Nashville is larger. even the metro area population is larger.

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 15, 2022, 01:56:57 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2022, 11:04:45 AM
Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority.

This statement is NOT true, Nashville is larger. even the metro area population is larger.

Nashville proper passed Memphis proper with the 2020 census. (2020 Memphis = 633,104, 2020 Nashville = 689,447).  Memphis had been larger than Nashville for many years prior.

Shelby County remains larger than Davidson County. (929,744 vs 715,884).

Nashville's metro area population is considerably larger than Memphis' (2.0m vs 1.3m)

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn’t surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I’d be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that’s the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM
There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

African or Asian?

What, this elephant?
(https://i.imgur.com/pkY2Ys0.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/FpvrMG6.png)

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 17, 2022, 10:14:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

and this is relevant how? now back to road talk.

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 17, 2022, 10:17:20 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 17, 2022, 10:14:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

and this is relevant how? now back to road talk.

About as relevant as elephants and anything Indiana in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

21   Nashville[k]   Tennessee   689,447   601,222   +14.67%   
28   Memphis   Tennessee   633,104   646,889   −2.13%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

36   Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro—Franklin, TN MSA   1,989,519   1,646,200   +20.86%   
43   Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA   1,337,779   1,316,100   +1.65%

Will the new Memphis/Arkansas Bridge be a cable-stayed one? I know they don't build truss bridges anymore.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 17, 2022, 10:14:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

I'm black just so you know.

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:06:25 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 17, 2022, 10:14:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

I'm black just so you know.

That's cool!

Quote from: bwana39 on January 19, 2022, 06:18:11 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:06:25 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 17, 2022, 10:14:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

I'm black just so you know.

That's cool!

Thank you!

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:03:24 PM
Will the new Memphis/Arkansas Bridge be a cable-stayed one? I know they don't build truss bridges anymore.

I think unicorn hair and troll farts are just as likely to form the basis for a new bridge design as anything else, for the next few decades.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 19, 2022, 07:24:00 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:03:24 PM
Will the new Memphis/Arkansas Bridge be a cable-stayed one? I know they don't build truss bridges anymore.

I think unicorn hair and troll farts are just as likely to form the basis for a new bridge design as anything else, for the next few decades.

I think that a new bridge design will result from the debris of the current bridge, however that happens.

Quote from: MikieTimT on January 19, 2022, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 19, 2022, 07:24:00 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:03:24 PM
Will the new Memphis/Arkansas Bridge be a cable-stayed one? I know they don't build truss bridges anymore.

I think unicorn hair and troll farts are just as likely to form the basis for a new bridge design as anything else, for the next few decades.

I think that a new bridge design will result from the debris of the current bridge, however that happens.

I don't think they've stopped making steel truss bridges altogether, since I can think of ones in Cincinnati, WV, and SC off the top of my head that have been built in the last ~ 30 years.  But they're simply not as pretty as cable-stayed, cable suspension, tied arch, or a number of other bridges.  Many new bridges are built the way that they are because they're going for that signature look.

Quote from: wriddle082 on January 20, 2022, 03:07:19 AM

Quote from: MikieTimT on January 19, 2022, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 19, 2022, 07:24:00 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:03:24 PM
Will the new Memphis/Arkansas Bridge be a cable-stayed one? I know they don't build truss bridges anymore.

I think unicorn hair and troll farts are just as likely to form the basis for a new bridge design as anything else, for the next few decades.

I think that a new bridge design will result from the debris of the current bridge, however that happens.

I don't think they've stopped making steel truss bridges altogether, since I can think of ones in Cincinnati, WV, and SC off the top of my head that have been built in the last ~ 30 years.  But they're simply not as pretty as cable-stayed, cable suspension, tied arch, or a number of other bridges.  Many new bridges are built the way that they are because they're going for that signature look.

If they ever were to replace the bridges in Memphis, then it's likely that they would replace with one like was done for US-82/278 at Greenville, MS.

https://goo.gl/maps/ugLodRA38HihGQzi7 (https://goo.gl/maps/ugLodRA38HihGQzi7)

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:06:25 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 17, 2022, 10:14:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

I'm black just so you know.

me too. also i didn't see the previous posts, which explained my confusion. seemed so out of context when i saw it.  :-D

I wonder why Memphis didn't get a dedicated highway bridge across the Mississippi River until the late 1940s.

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 21, 2022, 08:40:18 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:06:25 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 17, 2022, 10:14:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2022, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on January 15, 2022, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: roadman65

Yet Memphis is the states most populous city, it should get priority. 

If Metro Nashville hasn't surpassed Memphis in population yet, it will soon.
Would a new wider Memphis Arkansas Bridge somehow incorporate the Frisco Bridge?

I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis. Nashville seems much larger and way more vibrant than Memphis. Like it or not Tennessee seems to not care much about Memphis. At least that's the impression I get.

Guys,


There is an elephant in this room and I am not going to be the one who points it out......

That 95% of the posters to AAroads are white?

I'm black just so you know.

me too. also i didn't see the previous posts, which explained my confusion. seemed so out of context when i saw it.  :-D

For those who missed it: I'd be very surprised if Memphis has a larger metro population than Memphis.

i have heard that Memphis has been de-annexing

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 15, 2022, 08:49:02 PM
i have heard that Memphis has been de-annexing

A few years ago, Tennessee almost passed legislation that would have allowed folks in recently annexed areas to sue to essentially secede from the annexing city, brought about by residents who were dissatisfied with city taxes and inconsistent expansion of city services to the new areas.

As part of the debate on the bill, Memphis agreed to study de-annexing areas where the cost of expanding full city services didn't make sense in light of the tax revenues collected.

Here's a map of the deannexed areas.
(https://www.memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/deannexation-map-2019.png)

I can't quickly find the complete estimates of impacted population, but the population decline of Memphis proper since 2010 is probably a combination of migration and deannexation.  (I think the impacted areas were between 1% and 2% of the city, population-wise.)

Quote from: cbalducc on February 15, 2022, 04:04:25 PM
I wonder why Memphis didn't get a dedicated highway bridge across the Mississippi River until the late 1940s.

$$$. It was not uncommon for roads to be attached in some way to an existing RR bridge (EX: MacArthur Bridge in STL and Huey Long bridge in NOLA). There wasn't a lot of money for roads in the 30's due to the Depression then WW2 came along.

When did they announce a new bridge, Googled the subject and it shows nothing.

Quote from: longhorn on February 16, 2022, 02:43:08 PM
When did they announce a new bridge, Googled the subject and it shows nothing.

I think they are speculating. Right now the discussion is only about the reconstruction of I-55 and Crump.

Quote from: wriddle082 on January 20, 2022, 03:07:19 AM

Quote from: MikieTimT on January 19, 2022, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 19, 2022, 07:24:00 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 06:03:24 PM
Will the new Memphis/Arkansas Bridge be a cable-stayed one? I know they don't build truss bridges anymore.

I think unicorn hair and troll farts are just as likely to form the basis for a new bridge design as anything else, for the next few decades.

I think that a new bridge design will result from the debris of the current bridge, however that happens.

I don't think they've stopped making steel truss bridges altogether, since I can think of ones in Cincinnati, WV, and SC off the top of my head that have been built in the last ~ 30 years.  But they're simply not as pretty as cable-stayed, cable suspension, tied arch, or a number of other bridges.  Many new bridges are built the way that they are because they're going for that signature look.

I am not an engineer  and I only know what I read. I have read that truss bridges are cost effective for bridges spanning 100-300 meters and cable-stayed bridges become cost effective for 250 m -750 m.
http://hotrails.net/2014/09/an-empirical-rough-order-of-magnitude-cost-function-for-bridge-structures/
Can't guarantee these numbers, but it does appear that length of span needed plays a big role in determining the type of bridge.

First, reconstruct the Crump Boulevard Interchange to its proper proposed configuration. Then maybe we can discuss new bridges over the Mississippi River.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2022, 02:11:08 PM
First, reconstruct the Crump Boulevard Interchange to its proper proposed configuration. Then maybe we can discuss new bridges over the Mississippi River.

Agreed.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2022, 02:11:08 PM
First, reconstruct the Crump Boulevard Interchange to its proper proposed configuration. Then maybe we can discuss new bridges over the Mississippi River.

According to the TDOT website (which is rarely updated besides Middle TN projects), construction on the Crump interchange is supposed to start this year (or at least the contract should be let during FY 2022). I'm crossing my fingers that it's real this time. They've been talking about this project since i was in middle school, and now I'm 23 and they have nothing to show for it

Quote from: Brooks on February 18, 2022, 03:24:18 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2022, 02:11:08 PM
First, reconstruct the Crump Boulevard Interchange to its proper proposed configuration. Then maybe we can discuss new bridges over the Mississippi River.

According to the TDOT website (which is rarely updated besides Middle TN projects), construction on the Crump interchange is supposed to start this year (or at least the contract should be let during FY 2022). I'm crossing my fingers that it's real this time. They've been talking about this project since i was in middle school, and now I'm 23 and they have nothing to show for it

Saw that too but they made no official announcement. So idk if its real

Quote from: tolbs17 on February 19, 2022, 12:02:01 AM

Quote from: Brooks on February 18, 2022, 03:24:18 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2022, 02:11:08 PM
First, reconstruct the Crump Boulevard Interchange to its proper proposed configuration. Then maybe we can discuss new bridges over the Mississippi River.

According to the TDOT website (which is rarely updated besides Middle TN projects), construction on the Crump interchange is supposed to start this year (or at least the contract should be let during FY 2022). I'm crossing my fingers that it's real this time. They've been talking about this project since i was in middle school, and now I'm 23 and they have nothing to show for it

Saw that too but they made no official announcement. So idk if its real

Of course the TDOT page for this is as current as of 2015. https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange.html (Today is 02/22/2022)

The last newspaper posting was a year ago. https://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2021/02/16/i-55-crump-boulevard-update.html

Looks like US-78 S (Lamar Avenue) is the priority right now.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220301/278988bf198e6ed809cb0f2393093583.jpg)
Look what I found hidden in the March 25 letting!

^ Can't read that image.

Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2022, 03:31:09 PM
^ Can't read that image.

I found the link: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/construction/2022_bid_lettings/march-25,-2022-letting/20220325_NoticeOfMandatoryPre-Bid_CNW055_Shelby.pdf

Thanks Mvak. Posting a picture is way too complicated on here. Regardless, I'm finally starting to believe that it's real this time (even with a completion date in 2026!)

I'd be interested to see what kind of closures they're gonna have. IMO after what happened with the I-40 bridge last year, they're probably going to have to do this construction with at least part of I-55 open. I would prefer if they just close it off and do it all in one go but I don't think that's going to happen.

Quote from: mvak36 on March 01, 2022, 04:10:15 PM
I'd be interested to see what kind of closures they're gonna have. IMO after what happened with the I-40 bridge last year, they're probably going to have to do this construction with at least part of I-55 open. I would prefer if they just close it off and do it all in one go but I don't think that's going to happen.

I agree. They previously planned to close the bridge completely for 9 months but the city fought hard to keep the bridge at least partially open.

I suppose a temporary bridge is out of the question. . .

Honest question, is the desire to always keep roads open when they're being worked on resulting in construction being drawn out common in other countries? Because I'm usually in the boat of just shut the entire thing down and get it done faster. I realize this isn't always viable and especially in this case where Memphis has a lack of river crossings as it is.

Southwest Tennessee really could use 2 or perhaps 3 additional new river bridges. It blows my mind there is only two bridges over the Mississippi River in the area.

Quote from: Brooks on March 01, 2022, 03:37:48 PM
Thanks Mvak. Posting a picture is way too complicated on here. Regardless, I'm finally starting to believe that it's real this time (even with a completion date in 2026!)

Hmmmph....I assume this is the long-awaited modification of that idiotic TOTSO cloverleaf that will allow for free flow on I-55, am I right? Took them long enough.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2022, 07:02:56 PM
I suppose a temporary bridge is out of the question. . .

Honest question, is the desire to always keep roads open when they're being worked on resulting in construction being drawn out common in other countries? Because I'm usually in the boat of just shut the entire thing down and get it done faster. I realize this isn't always viable and especially in this case where Memphis has a lack of river crossings as it is.

Southwest Tennessee really could use 2 or perhaps 3 additional new river bridges. It blows my mind there is only two bridges over the Mississippi River in the area.

The absolute most preferred location for a new bridge would IMO be a straight shot west from the curve south of the Mallory St exit, since that is the most direct route to the numerous distribution centers near the 240 southern corridor.  However that area is riddled with the Valero oil refinery, other moderate to heavy industry on both sides of the river, and numerous other bodies of water.  It would amount to miles and miles of elevated roadway, and even more miles of environmental studies/hurdles.  And even though both states involved would be genuinely interested, it's not gonna get done.

The second choice, extending MS 304 due west from US 61, has two unfortunate problems: Mississippi is involved, and Tennessee isn't.  Mississippi has much more pressing statewide needs than to cross the river again.

The third and fourth choices unfortunately have their own obstacles:  Extending TN 300 west across the river has a small airport runway in its path right on the river, and extending TN 385 west across the river has the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in its path.  These locations aren't as desirable as it is since they don't lead directly to the distribution/logistics centers.  This is why the current I-55 crossing is generally preferred by most truckers whose origin and/or destination is Memphis, and that's a pretty high percentage.  I would imagine that most trucks that are just passing through, which can't be many, choose to take I-40 across the river.  And it's definitely more desirable for passenger cars to take the I-40 crossing just to avoid the trucks on I-55.

Quote from: wriddle082 on March 01, 2022, 11:18:54 PM
Extending TN 300 west across the river has a small airport runway in its path right on the river, and extending TN 385 west across the river has the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in its path.  These locations aren't as desirable as it is since they don't lead directly to the distribution/logistics centers.  This is why the current I-55 crossing is generally preferred by most truckers whose origin and/or destination is Memphis, and that's a pretty high percentage.  I would imagine that most trucks that are just passing through, which can't be many, choose to take I-40 across the river.  And it's definitely more desirable for passenger cars to take the I-40 crossing just to avoid the trucks on I-55.

The TN 300/Future I-69 area extending westward and across the river isn't completely nullified by the airport runway due west of the existing trumpet. A potential roadway extending could easily swing south of the Runway...but then the issue is the Runway would become a One Way Runway, since there would be an elevated/elevating bridge structure for the approach to the MS River bridge, effectively making the south end of the runway useless. That said, the General DeWitt Spain Airport appears to be a publicly-owned facility, so if Memphis agrees that would be a good location for a 3rd bridge, they can find another strip of land to relocate the landing strip and airport facilities, or merely consolidate that function into Memphis International Airport

I would think that would be the ideal spot for a 3rd Crossing - the Arkansas side of the bridge could easily tie directly into the western I-40/I-55 Interchange. I'm getting into Fictional here, but I'd go ahead and route I-40 over such a bridge should it ever come to pass, and give the existing I-40 bridge and approach roadway a x55 or x69 3DI

The TN 385/Future I-269 Northern end extension to the river is also intriguing. Yes, a State Park is in the way, but could a path be cut and a bridge constructed, that could tie in nicely to the existing I-55/I-555 interchange in Arkansas. I doubt it would attract many commuters nor much freight traffic, tho, at least not at present. Thru I-55 traffic wouldn't be likely to use it, anyway (short of another bridge "situation"  downtown).

While a northern bridge would be nice, the south end is where the need is.

Generally the discussion of a new bridge in South Memphis centers on a route near the Seacor Facility. It would fork off near Trigg Avenue. and land to the north of the BASF plant in West Memphis.

On the other hand, more of the discussion centers on crossings in Northern Mississippi.

The BIGGEST negative about  a lone additional bridge on the northern side is it moves ALL of the through traffic up I-240 (I-69). Midtown traffic would likely become horrible. As an aside; a crossing at the Spain Airport would also be ALL in Tennessee. Look at the state line. It also would have to cross both the river AND the oxbow there.

Quote from: ilpt4u on March 02, 2022, 12:56:06 AMYes, a State Park is in the way, but could a path be cut and a bridge constructed

You might want to refresh your memory about the alginment of I-40 through Memphis.  ;)

Quote from: ilpt4u on March 02, 2022, 12:56:06 AM

Quote from: wriddle082 on March 01, 2022, 11:18:54 PM
Extending TN 300 west across the river has a small airport runway in its path right on the river, and extending TN 385 west across the river has the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in its path.  These locations aren't as desirable as it is since they don't lead directly to the distribution/logistics centers.  This is why the current I-55 crossing is generally preferred by most truckers whose origin and/or destination is Memphis, and that's a pretty high percentage.  I would imagine that most trucks that are just passing through, which can't be many, choose to take I-40 across the river.  And it's definitely more desirable for passenger cars to take the I-40 crossing just to avoid the trucks on I-55.

The TN 300/Future I-69 area extending westward and across the river isn't completely nullified by the airport runway due west of the existing trumpet. A potential roadway extending could easily swing south of the Runway...but then the issue is the Runway would become a One Way Runway, since there would be an elevated/elevating bridge structure for the approach to the MS River bridge, effectively making the south end of the runway useless. That said, the General DeWitt Spain Airport appears to be a publicly-owned facility, so if Memphis agrees that would be a good location for a 3rd bridge, they can find another strip of land to relocate the landing strip and airport facilities, or merely consolidate that function into Memphis International Airport

I would think that would be the ideal spot for a 3rd Crossing - the Arkansas side of the bridge could easily tie directly into the western I-40/I-55 Interchange. I'm getting into Fictional here, but I'd go ahead and route I-40 over such a bridge should it ever come to pass, and give the existing I-40 bridge and approach roadway a x55 or x69 3DI

The TN 385/Future I-269 Northern end extension to the river is also intriguing. Yes, a State Park is in the way, but could a path be cut and a bridge constructed, that could tie in nicely to the existing I-55/I-555 interchange in Arkansas. I doubt it would attract many commuters nor much freight traffic, tho, at least not at present. Thru I-55 traffic wouldn't be likely to use it, anyway (short of another bridge "situation"  downtown).

The last proposed route of I-69 from Millington south shows it taking curve between the Spain Airport and the Fullen Warehouses with no ramps to accommodate any future bridge.

If one was considered and the Spain Airport is retained, it would have to come down the Wolf River ravine, use the Loosahatchie Bar to cross over into the remnant of TN west of the Mississippi.

The M-A Bridge can be replaced with a span just south of it *or* simply build a one way span south of it and perform bidirectional running. Westbound on old bridge, east bound on new bridge.

Then when the M-A starts to reach it EOL, do a temp carryover on the new span and demolish the M-A with and put a new one in the same place.

Quote from: edwaleni on March 02, 2022, 11:36:08 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The M-A Bridge can be replaced with a span just south of it *or* simply build a one way span south of it and perform bidirectional running. Westbound on old bridge, east bound on new bridge.

Then when the M-A starts to reach it EOL, do a temp carryover on the new span and demolish the M-A with and put a new one in the same place.

This makes perfect sense so it will NEVER happen

Quote from: mvak36 on March 01, 2022, 03:34:11 PM

Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2022, 03:31:09 PM
^ Can't read that image.

I found the link: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/construction/2022_bid_lettings/march-25,-2022-letting/20220325_NoticeOfMandatoryPre-Bid_CNW055_Shelby.pdf

In the news today:

https://dailymemphian.com/section/metro/article/27526/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange

• Bid letting on 25 March
  
• Construction begins "this spring"
  
• They haven't worked through what sort of closures there might be
  
• Completion target of 31 October 2026
  

The TDOT page appears to have been updated: https://www.tn.gov/tdot/projects/region-4/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange.html

Looks like the design is unchanged from what was discussed here most recently: the mainline curves, and there will be a roundabout as part of the interchange with Riverside Drive and Crump.

(Additional trivia -- I traded emails with the author of the Daily Memphian article, after the pre-bid meeting was announced here.  He apparently enjoyed looking around aaroads. :)  )

I don't actively collect Tennessee DOT signing plans, but I did see that there was a set of plans for this project with over a dozen pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets.

Definitely a long awaited project that REALLY needs to begin.

This reminds me of the I-295/I-76 interchange in NJ which is substandard and is still under construction.

Same with the East End Connector which is taking a very long time to complete

If remains, artifacts, or other archaeological materials are uncovered during construction, all construction in the area of the find will cease, and the Tennessee Division of Archaeology and recognized Native American tribes will be contacted immediately.

The odds of finding artifacts is probably pretty close to 99%.

With Chickasaw Mound just a few hundred yards away from the prime construction zone, I would guess that they will find not only Mississippian era artifacts, but probably some Cahokian as well.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they pull up some French Colonial and Civil War stuff if it wasn't destroyed during the original construction of the freeway.

is there a better map of the new design?

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 23, 2022, 08:33:45 AM
is there a better map of the new design?

Final EIS:

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/documents/region-4-documents/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/Approved-I-55Interchange-FinalEIS_6-28-2011.pdf (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/documents/region-4-documents/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/Approved-I-55Interchange-FinalEIS_6-28-2011.pdf)

Quote from: edwaleni on March 23, 2022, 11:17:47 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 23, 2022, 08:33:45 AM
is there a better map of the new design?

Final EIS:

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/documents/region-4-documents/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/Approved-I-55Interchange-FinalEIS_6-28-2011.pdf (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/documents/region-4-documents/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/Approved-I-55Interchange-FinalEIS_6-28-2011.pdf)

Let us remember the date on this document is 6-2011.

Quote from: bwana39 on March 23, 2022, 08:22:38 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on March 23, 2022, 11:17:47 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 23, 2022, 08:33:45 AM
is there a better map of the new design?

Final EIS:

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/documents/region-4-documents/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/Approved-I-55Interchange-FinalEIS_6-28-2011.pdf (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/documents/region-4-documents/interstate-55-crump-boulevard-interchange/Approved-I-55Interchange-FinalEIS_6-28-2011.pdf)

Let us remember the date on this document is 6-2011.

The EIS may be pushing 11 years old, but it's the approved one, and the Hershey's parking lot has already been reconfigured for the selected Z-1 alignment.

i like this alternative. least amount of r/w needed and doesnt look like any homes will be taken so that won't hold it up either. doesnt look like this can be built with 55 open the whole time though.

TNDOT should get off their lazy butts and reconfigure this interchange already! They shouldn't put it off any longer. Just like the under-reconstruction Interstate 26/240 interchange at Patton Ave. in Asheville, North Carolina, one should not have to exit to remain on the mainline Interstate.

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 24, 2022, 08:16:03 AM
i like this alternative. least amount of r/w needed and doesnt look like any homes will be taken so that won't hold it up either. doesn't look like this can be built with 55 open the whole time though.

I really don't see why not. At least not closed over a few days (perhaps a weekend or two). I think I could have built it less expensively than this design.

First you build the ramps that will remain for US-70/78. They flank the entry and exit for north /west end of the flyovers. They tie into the existing intersection which would remain.

You do the same thing for the southern end. They tie in to the existing intersection. It MIGHT require a one lane in each direction but I think a 2x2 could fit.

Once the flyovers are built, the ramps could be used as the Riverside / Crump intersection with each other as well as I-55.
Wish I had software to draw it out. It would work and would reduce the short-term costs by 40% more or less.

Hopefully they build it to be stripped as a 3x3 if/when the bridge is replaced.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 25, 2022, 12:05:05 AM
Hopefully they build it to be stripped as a 3x3 if/when the bridge is replaced.

I do not believe they will EVER build a replacement bridge for I-55 at this location.  It is probably as much why they haven't replaced the intersection, because if they build a new bridge (in a different place) the M&A Bridge would become US-79 and not I-55 again.

If the replacement bridge were built further south, the rework of the intersection would become moot.

So no 3x3 intersection should or will be built

Quote from: bwana39 on March 26, 2022, 10:07:55 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 25, 2022, 12:05:05 AM
Hopefully they build it to be stripped as a 3x3 if/when the bridge is replaced.

I do not believe they will EVER build a replacement bridge for I-55 at this location.  It is probably as much why they haven't replaced the intersection, because if they build a new bridge (in a different place) the M&A Bridge would become US-79 and not I-55 again.

If the replacement bridge were built further south, the rework of the intersection would become moot.

So no 3x3 intersection should or will be built

I seriously doubt TnDOT even knows what they are going to do at this point. 

It took 11 years from EIS to funding for this stretch. If they agree to "give it up" it will probably be in a horse trade for something else.

Quote from: edwaleni on March 27, 2022, 02:05:43 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on March 26, 2022, 10:07:55 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 25, 2022, 12:05:05 AM
Hopefully they build it to be stripped as a 3x3 if/when the bridge is replaced.

I do not believe they will EVER build a replacement bridge for I-55 at this location.  It is probably as much why they haven't replaced the intersection, because if they build a new bridge (in a different place) the M&A Bridge would become US-79 and not I-55 again.

If the replacement bridge were built further south, the rework of the intersection would become moot.

So no 3x3 intersection should or will be built

I seriously doubt TnDOT even knows what they are going to do at this point. 

It took 11 years from EIS to funding for this stretch. If they agree to "give it up" it will probably be in a horse trade for something else.

The real tough part is FUNDING. TDOT announced a start date at least twice before then never did anything. The funding was in place, then they reallocated it (or this project was the victim of the choice of how to distribute funds in an  overall funding shortfall.)

The Hernando DeSoto Bridge problem PROBABLY makes them realize they should not continue to put it off. Then again, this is the state of Tennessee and their ways of dealing with Memphis.

Memphis has no political clout anymore?

I guess not. Maybe Tennessee's DOT should give the city of Memphis some more love and attention.

Quote from: cbalducc on March 28, 2022, 05:38:29 PM
Memphis has no political clout anymore?

Not since the Boss Crump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Crump) days, and the situation has only gotten worse with the increased political polarization in the country due to the political makeup of Memphis vs the state as a whole.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 28, 2022, 08:05:45 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on March 28, 2022, 05:38:29 PM
Memphis has no political clout anymore?

Not since the Boss Crump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Crump) days, and the situation has only gotten worse with the increased political polarization in the country due to the political makeup of Memphis vs the state as a whole.

Well, what stance does FedEx have toward a third Mississippi River bridge, or the Crump Blvd interchange, and have they done their own lobbying in Nashville for either? FedEx, after all, is the corporate power in Memphis, even if its CEO (Fred Smith) doesn't want to act like it at times.

WalMart eventually got Arkansas to pay attention regarding building I-49 through NWA; there's no reason why FedEx can't do the same for its hometown.

Quote from: brad2971 on March 28, 2022, 08:37:52 PM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 28, 2022, 08:05:45 PM

Quote from: cbalducc on March 28, 2022, 05:38:29 PM
Memphis has no political clout anymore?

Not since the Boss Crump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Crump) days, and the situation has only gotten worse with the increased political polarization in the country due to the political makeup of Memphis vs the state as a whole.

Well, what stance does FedEx have toward a third Mississippi River bridge, or the Crump Blvd interchange, and have they done their own lobbying in Nashville for either? FedEx, after all, is the corporate power in Memphis, even if its CEO (Fred Smith) doesn't want to act like it at times.

WalMart eventually got Arkansas to pay attention regarding building I-49 through NWA; there's no reason why FedEx can't do the same for its hometown.

FedEx seems to be rather low key politically even in its home town. UPS at least makes it known they are from Louisville.

Quote repaired.  --J.N.W.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2022, 07:54:03 PM
I guess not. Maybe Tennessee's DOT should give the city of Memphis some more love and attention.

Not sure on that. The entire I-269 bypass was a considerable investment by TnDOT.

If TnDOT asked the powers that be 25 years ago, what do you prefer, a massive loop bypass or a Crump Redux with a MA Bridge replacement?

I-840 spend got delayed significantly and took 25 years to finish, I am sure that had some impact to how much could be spent in the Memphis metro.

Quote from: brad2971 on March 28, 2022, 08:37:52 PMWell, what stance does FedEx have toward a third Mississippi River bridge, or the Crump Blvd interchange, and have they done their own lobbying in Nashville for either? FedEx, after all, is the corporate power in Memphis

....and that doesn't translate to much in Tennessee politics.

At the moment, Ford might have more political clout, although that political capital is mostly being spent with the new "megasite" development in Haywood County.

TDOT actually awarded a $141 million contract to reconstruct the I-55/Crump interchange.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/news/2022/4/1/tdot-awards-contract-to-improve-i-55-and-crump-interchange-.html

Quote from: codyg1985 on April 04, 2022, 02:33:25 PM
TDOT actually awarded a $141 million contract to reconstruct the I-55/Crump interchange.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/news/2022/4/1/tdot-awards-contract-to-improve-i-55-and-crump-interchange-.html

As recently as a few days ago, TDOT estimated the project would be complete by October 2026 but now they are saying Q1 of 2025. Then again, phase 1 of the Lamar Avenue project was supposed to be complete last November, so I guess we'll eventually find out.

I'm very glad that Bell and Associates won the contract.  They seem to do quality work, and efficiently.  I remember one of their first TDOT contracts about 20 years ago was rebuilding the I-65 Harding Place (TN 255) interchange and replacing the old four lane Harding Place bridge over CSX Radnor Yards with a massive 11-lane wide bridge.  Bell and Associates won awards for their work.  I think they also built both phases of the I-40/Briley Pkwy/White Bridge Rd interchange reconstruction (including the huge flyovers) starting in the mid-00's.

I wish they would bid on contracts in the Carolinas.  Anything to get rid of Archer Western and Blythe, who have been screwing up road projects in this region for years.

Quote from: wriddle082 on April 04, 2022, 02:52:25 PM
I'm very glad that Bell and Associates won the contract.  They seem to do quality work, and efficiently.  I remember one of their first TDOT contracts about 20 years ago was rebuilding the I-65 Harding Place (TN 255) interchange and replacing the old four lane Harding Place bridge over CSX Radnor Yards with a massive 11-lane wide bridge.  Bell and Associates won awards for their work.  I think they also built both phases of the I-40/Briley Pkwy/White Bridge Rd interchange reconstruction (including the huge flyovers) starting in the mid-00's.

I wish they would bid on contracts in the Carolinas.  Anything to get rid of Archer Western and Blythe, who have been screwing up road projects in this region for years.

Is their a thread on AARoads on highway General Contractor's and the quality of their work?

An interesting bit from the award announcement:

QuoteThe I-55 bridge and work zone area could see up to eight weekend full closures from 8:00 P.M. Friday to 6:00 A.M. Monday and two two-week closures will be allowed for work that cannot be performed while maintaining traffic through the worksite.

...which seems more acceptable than the months-long closure they discussed earlier.

Quote from: wriddle082 on April 04, 2022, 02:52:25 PM
I wish they would bid on contracts in the Carolinas.  Anything to get rid of Archer Western and Blythe, who have been screwing up road projects in this region for years.

I remember Archer Western got into a big beef with ALDOT over schedule delays and quality issues over the I-22/65 interchange in Birmingham. I am not sure that contractor can bid on project with ALDOT anymore.

Quote from: codyg1985 on April 04, 2022, 03:34:17 PM

Quote from: wriddle082 on April 04, 2022, 02:52:25 PM
I wish they would bid on contracts in the Carolinas.  Anything to get rid of Archer Western and Blythe, who have been screwing up road projects in this region for years.

I remember Archer Western got into a big beef with ALDOT over schedule delays and quality issues over the I-22/65 interchange in Birmingham. I am not sure that contractor can bid on project with ALDOT anymore.

Archer Western and Blythe have teamed up for the absolute tragedy that is widening I-85 from Spartanburg to the NC line.  SCDOT isn't innocent either by any means, but with partners like that, the only way you can go is down IMO.

since the mississippi river bridge was brought up, is it a remote possibility that 269 will snake into arkansas to make a 3rd bridge for the metro area?

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 05, 2022, 08:24:08 AM
since the mississippi river bridge was brought up, is it a remote possibility that 269 will snake into arkansas to make a 3rd bridge for the metro area?

It is a question that is asked a lot, but it appears ARDOT is focused on I-49 and I-57 at the moment.

TNDOT would have to initiate it and while they aren't very transparent, I haven't found anything on any bridging expansions.

If another inflationary overspend on environmental infrastructure is passed in our Congress and it gets a rider from the TN/AR delegation for funding, then and only then would I expect *anything*.

Also, isn't the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in the way of a possible TN 385 (future Interstate 269) extension westward toward Interstate 55 in Arkansas? I don't see how 385 could possibly bypass the state park.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2022, 11:44:29 AM
Also, isn't the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in the way of a possible TN 385 (future Interstate 269) extension westward toward Interstate 55 in Arkansas? I don't see how 385 could possibly bypass the state park.

Yes, it is directly west of where 385 currently ends at US 51. I've seen a lot of comments stating that TDOT could just build through/around the park but I think a certain Supreme Court case from the 70s would beg to differ.

Quote from: Brooks on April 05, 2022, 12:01:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2022, 11:44:29 AM
Also, isn't the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in the way of a possible TN 385 (future Interstate 269) extension westward toward Interstate 55 in Arkansas? I don't see how 385 could possibly bypass the state park.

Yes, it is directly west of where 385 currently ends at US 51. I've seen a lot of comments stating that TDOT could just build through/around the park but I think a certain Supreme Court case from the 70s would beg to differ.

If they did it, it would probably be the "other" beltway farther south by Wolf River.  The Hopefield Chute and the Loosahatchie Bar falls inside the TN state line due to an old oxbow in the river ages ago. TNDOT could build the entire bridge themselves, ARDOT would only build the approach to the state line.

The original plans for I-69 here didn't have any accommodations for a ramp to a bridge here, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Quote from: Brooks on April 05, 2022, 12:01:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2022, 11:44:29 AM
Also, isn't the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in the way of a possible TN 385 (future Interstate 269) extension westward toward Interstate 55 in Arkansas? I don't see how 385 could possibly bypass the state park.

Yes, it is directly west of where 385 currently ends at US 51. I've seen a lot of comments stating that TDOT could just build through/around the park but I think a certain Supreme Court case from the 70s would beg to differ.

seems pretty easy to just route it north of the park and completely miss it.

Quote from: edwaleni on April 05, 2022, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Brooks on April 05, 2022, 12:01:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2022, 11:44:29 AM
Also, isn't the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in the way of a possible TN 385 (future Interstate 269) extension westward toward Interstate 55 in Arkansas? I don't see how 385 could possibly bypass the state park.

Yes, it is directly west of where 385 currently ends at US 51. I've seen a lot of comments stating that TDOT could just build through/around the park but I think a certain Supreme Court case from the 70s would beg to differ.

If they did it, it would probably be the "other" beltway farther south by Wolf River.  The Hopefield Chute and the Loosahatchie Bar falls inside the TN state line due to an old oxbow in the river ages ago. TNDOT could build the entire bridge themselves, ARDOT would only build the approach to the state line.

The original plans for I-69 here didn't have any accommodations for a ramp to a bridge here, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

That would seem to be more a northerly reroute of the current I-40 river crossing rather than bypassing Memphis to the north.  Maybe something to consider if the Hernando De Soto bridge were to require complete replacement.

Looking at GSV of the I-55/Crump Boulevard interchange in Memphis, it looks like construction is well underway to reconfigure the interchange to allow through movements for I-55 traffic.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1238166,-90.068022,3a,75y,183.58h,92.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp5oob12i4uZ2p06KjpW0hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Nice! I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. It's arguably one of the worst bottlenecks in the entire country.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:19:34 PM
Nice! I’m surprised this isn’t getting more attention. It’s arguably one of the worst bottlenecks in the entire country.

They were originally planning for a 9-month long full closure of the I-55 bridge over the Mississippi River to facilitate reconstruction of the Crump Boulevard interchange, but TDOT abandoned that plan (probably due to a lot of opposition the local community and motorists) and will now reconstruct the Crump interchange in stages over the course of four years.

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

So then the next question will be...are there any plans by either Arkansas or Tennessee to replace the existing I-55 Mississippi River Bridge, or perhaps build a parallel span and rehabilitate/reconfigure the existing bridge?

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 08:25:49 PM
So then the next question will be...are there any plans by either Arkansas or Tennessee to replace the existing I-55 Mississippi River Bridge, or perhaps build a parallel span and rehabilitate/reconfigure the existing bridge?

The only hope, in my opinion, is an earmark from the Feds.
That, or wait for New Madrid to drop the existing bridge into the damn river.  :paranoid:

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 02, 2023, 01:01:32 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 08:25:49 PM
So then the next question will be...are there any plans by either Arkansas or Tennessee to replace the existing I-55 Mississippi River Bridge, or perhaps build a parallel span and rehabilitate/reconfigure the existing bridge?

The only hope, in my opinion, is an earmark from the Feds.
That, or wait for New Madrid to drop the existing bridge into the damn river.  :paranoid:

Yup...

See I-35/40 bridge disasters over the past couple of decades for insight on how these things get prioritized.  We just got lucky with the Hernando de Soto bridge that it wasn't a replay.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 08:25:49 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:19:34 PM
Nice! I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. It's arguably one of the worst bottlenecks in the entire country.

They were originally planning for a 9-month long full closure of the I-55 bridge over the Mississippi River to facilitate reconstruction of the Crump Boulevard interchange, but TDOT abandoned that plan (probably due to a lot of opposition the local community and motorists) and will now reconstruct the Crump interchange in stages over the course of four years.

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

So then the next question will be...are there any plans by either Arkansas or Tennessee to replace the existing I-55 Mississippi River Bridge, or perhaps build a parallel span and rehabilitate/reconfigure the existing bridge?

There are no "plans", but the repetitive delays in fixing the interchange may be surrounded by the HOPE that it might happen.  If a new bridge were to be built (either in southern Memphis ) or Northern Mississippi, the reconfigured intersection would be more of a disruption than a help. If / when I-55 was rerouted, US-78 (Crump Boulevard) would become the primary route here all of the time instead of just morning and evening commute times.

I just took a gander at the TDOT project page, and I like what I'm seeing. For one, Crump Blvd will go through a roundabout where the existing interchange is, and for another, I-55 will become a free-flowing route with the new flyovers. Hopefully, there won't be another delay this time.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 08:16:26 PM
Looking at GSV of the I-55/Crump Boulevard interchange in Memphis, it looks like construction is well underway to reconfigure the interchange to allow through movements for I-55 traffic.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1238166,-90.068022,3a,75y,183.58h,92.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp5oob12i4uZ2p06KjpW0hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The specific link you provided looks more like soundwall construction (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1238911,-90.0673328,3a,72.4y,250.44h,94.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sadn98k5K07WAVgxRSbuXXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), but the December imagery in my link definitely looks like things have begun.

Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2023, 08:29:33 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2023, 08:16:26 PM
Looking at GSV of the I-55/Crump Boulevard interchange in Memphis, it looks like construction is well underway to reconfigure the interchange to allow through movements for I-55 traffic.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1238166,-90.068022,3a,75y,183.58h,92.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp5oob12i4uZ2p06KjpW0hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The specific link you provided looks more like soundwall construction (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1238911,-90.0673328,3a,72.4y,250.44h,94.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sadn98k5K07WAVgxRSbuXXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), but the December imagery in my link definitely looks like things have begun.

I was in Memphis back in January. There is real construction on that interchange, not just for a soundwall.

Yeah this will be nice. The next big things after this they need to focus on are the I-40 and I-55 bridges. Both will require cooperation with Arkansas, I-55 bridge being more of an Arkansas thing. I wonder if that will help the odds of federal grants being awarded. The bullet just needs to be bit this decade to get both bridges replaced while all of this infrastructure money is going around.

At the same TDOT can also work on Lamar Ave. 3 major projects for Memphis shouldn't be too much of a dilemma for them to take on. Everything else can come later with the new bridges having a 70+ year span plenty of time for other projects then.

Quote from: Henry on March 03, 2023, 07:16:38 PM
I just took a gander at the TDOT project page, and I like what I'm seeing. For one, Crump Blvd will go through a roundabout where the existing interchange is, and for another, I-55 will become a free-flowing route with the new flyovers. Hopefully, there won't be another delay this time.

That roundabout is going to be a mess. During morning rush, the SB / EB traffic across the bridge goes north on  Riverside or BB King to downtown or straight to Crump and vice versa in the afternoon.  This thing is going to look like Piccadilly circus. It is not going to be pretty. There are better ways to do this. I agree this is best for I-55, but I-55 is not the only road that crosses here and I-55 will likely be relocated within a decade or two.

Relocated to where exactly?

^ Considering there has not been any official studies, let alone any talks to begin with, I highly doubt I-55 is going anywhere for the next 20-30 years at the minimum.

At the minimum, how about a parallel I-55 bridge and rehabilitation of the existing one? Complete replacement? I'm doubtful a full new alignment is coming anytime soon, however. That would entail not only a new bridge but also miles of connecting freeway to be constructed.

The only relocation that would possibly make sense would be to make an I-55 bypass using the orphaned I-69 at Tunica, extended across the Mississippi to connect with I-40, and then connecting with I-55 again south of the I-555 terminus near Terrell. Problem with that is, what would you do with the current I-55 between I-269/relocated I-55 and downtown Memphis, or the current section of I-55? Unless you are willing to build out the I-69 extension from downtown Memphis to Dyersburg and the Union City bypass section, you have no real connection alternative to downtown Memphis other than I-40.

A rebuild and strengthening of the current I-55 bridge might be the only real option.

They need to add safety standards like shoulders and expand it to 3 lanes each way.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 06, 2023, 01:07:15 AM
They need to add safety standards like shoulders and expand it to 3 lanes each way.

To do that, they would have to build a completely new bridge, or build a parallel span to carry traffic in one direction and rehabilitate/reconfigure the existing bridge to carry traffic in the other direction, much like what was done with the I-65 bridges over the Ohio River between Louisville, KY and southern Indiana.

Quote from: bwana39 on March 05, 2023, 10:17:31 PM

Quote from: Henry on March 03, 2023, 07:16:38 PM
I just took a gander at the TDOT project page, and I like what I'm seeing. For one, Crump Blvd will go through a roundabout where the existing interchange is, and for another, I-55 will become a free-flowing route with the new flyovers. Hopefully, there won't be another delay this time.

That roundabout is going to be a mess. During morning rush, the SB / EB traffic across the bridge goes north on  Riverside or BB King to downtown or straight to Crump and vice versa in the afternoon.  This thing is going to look like Piccadilly circus. It is not going to be pretty. There are better ways to do this. I agree this is best for I-55, but I-55 is not the only road that crosses here and I-55 will likely be relocated within a decade or two.

They did a traffic study to see if a roundabout would work. they probably found from that data that it will work, hence why they went with it. give the engineer's credit, they don't just throw things in random areas and see if they'll work or not  :-D they have a reason for everything.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 06, 2023, 12:17:55 AM
The only relocation that would possibly make sense would be to make an I-55 bypass using the orphaned I-69 at Tunica, extended across the Mississippi to connect with I-40, and then connecting with I-55 again south of the I-555 terminus near Terrell. Problem with that is, what would you do with the current I-55 between I-269/relocated I-55 and downtown Memphis, or the current section of I-55? Unless you are willing to build out the I-69 extension from downtown Memphis to Dyersburg and the Union City bypass section, you have no real connection alternative to downtown Memphis other than I-40.

A rebuild and strengthening of the current I-55 bridge might be the only real option.

It isn't like they are going to remove the Arkansas and Tennessee (Current I-55) bridge. The only issues with this bridge are capacity and earthquake resilience. Once (IF) I -55 moves, the capacity issue will be markedly lessened. The earthquake resilience issue is IF the big one hits, that it MIGHT partially or completely fail.  The simple fact is IF that happens, the damage to approaches and bridges across lesser bodies of water would be more likely to close the roads with no regard to the status of the A&T.

The primary reason the extended discussion of the earthquake damage to the existing bridge is more about the traffic that would be unable to transverse if it failed. This is an argument for a new bridge, but not necessarily removing this one when (if) it is bypassed.

I agree the northern Mississippi alternative SEEMS better to me, but there is a viable site extending from east of the BASF plant in West Memphis to around the Seacor site in Memphis tying in to the existing I-55 around South Parkway.  Expanding in place while feasible from a river and land perspective, from a cultural perspective, there is no willingness to allow any further expansion of the footprint here.  Expanding anything on the existing US-78 alignment (and to a lesser extent the southward I-55) is a no-go.

I don't think re-locating I-55 to another alignment is a realistic thing. Yes, it could be routed along an extension of the I-269 loop across the Mississippi River near Tunica. But the city of Memphis itself needs the two bridge crossings it has.

The current I-55 bridge sucks. It's just 4 lanes with zero shoulders at all. The bridge was completed in 1949; so it's getting up there in the years. I don't know if it's worth trying to rehabilitate the bridge versus starting over. The current trend with Interstate highway bridges over major rivers or navigation channels is building twin spans. The old Goethals Bridge (I-278) in Staten Island was a bit similar to the I-55 bridge, with just 4 lanes. Its replacement, two cable-stay bridges each have 3 lanes plus ample shoulders. And the North (Westbound) span has a barrier separated pedestrian/bike path. That's really the kind of thing needed at that I-55 bridge crossing.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 06, 2023, 12:17:55 AM
The only relocation that would possibly make sense would be to make an I-55 bypass using the orphaned I-69 at Tunica, extended across the Mississippi to connect with I-40, and then connecting with I-55 again south of the I-555 terminus near Terrell. Problem with that is, what would you do with the current I-55 between I-269/relocated I-55 and downtown Memphis, or the current section of I-55? Unless you are willing to build out the I-69 extension from downtown Memphis to Dyersburg and the Union City bypass section, you have no real connection alternative to downtown Memphis other than I-40.

I'm confused... what exactly what would need to change with the existing I-55? It would remain in place... any new bypass would be a separate / alternate routing altogether.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AM
I don't think re-locating I-55 to another alignment is a realistic thing. Yes, it could be routed along an extension of the I-269 loop across the Mississippi River near Tunica. But the city of Memphis itself needs the two bridge crossings it has.

Agreed, and any "re-routing" of 55 will be a very minor shift, such as to accommodate a new bridge or twin span.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AMThe current I-55 bridge sucks. It's just 4 lanes with zero shoulders at all. The bridge was completed in 1949; so it's getting up there in the years. I don't know if it's worth trying to rehabilitate the bridge versus starting over. The current trend with Interstate highway bridges over major rivers or navigation channels is building twin spans. The old Goethals Bridge (I-278) in Staten Island was a bit similar to the I-55 bridge, with just 4 lanes. Its replacement, two cable-stay bridges each have 3 lanes plus ample shoulders. And the North (Westbound) span has a barrier separated pedestrian/bike path. That's really the kind of thing needed at that I-55 bridge crossing.

The pedestrian path at I-55 is already there on the RR bridge, so no need to create an additional one. The current bridge is about 50 feet wide between the bridge rails including the concrete median. The existing framework could probably be salvaged and upgraded for another 50+ years of service, with a new deck in one direction with an additional span placed aside it similar to US 24 in Peoria IL. The existing bridge is just wide enough to fit 3 lanes, a full width right shoulder, and a teeny safety margin on the inside shoulder for one direction. But would still be an expensive proposition.

Quote from: Rick Powell on March 06, 2023, 12:24:34 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AM
I don't think re-locating I-55 to another alignment is a realistic thing. Yes, it could be routed along an extension of the I-269 loop across the Mississippi River near Tunica. But the city of Memphis itself needs the two bridge crossings it has.

Agreed, and any "re-routing" of 55 will be a very minor shift, such as to accommodate a new bridge or twin span.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AMThe current I-55 bridge sucks. It's just 4 lanes with zero shoulders at all. The bridge was completed in 1949; so it's getting up there in the years. I don't know if it's worth trying to rehabilitate the bridge versus starting over. The current trend with Interstate highway bridges over major rivers or navigation channels is building twin spans. The old Goethals Bridge (I-278) in Staten Island was a bit similar to the I-55 bridge, with just 4 lanes. Its replacement, two cable-stay bridges each have 3 lanes plus ample shoulders. And the North (Westbound) span has a barrier separated pedestrian/bike path. That's really the kind of thing needed at that I-55 bridge crossing.

The pedestrian path at I-55 is already there on the RR bridge, so no need to create an additional one. The current bridge is about 50 feet wide between the bridge rails including the concrete median. The existing framework could probably be salvaged and upgraded for another 50+ years of service, with a new deck in one direction with an additional span placed aside it similar to US 24 in Peoria IL. The existing bridge is just wide enough to fit 3 lanes, a full width right shoulder, and a teeny safety margin on the inside shoulder for one direction. But would still be an expensive proposition.

There virtually assuredly will not be a "twin span" here... EVER. It is doubtful they would close it for 2-3 years to build a replacement span in the same place.   Nine months to redo the curve south was unacceptable.  The bottom line is what ever is to be done except for reconfiguring the southbound curve in I-55 will have to be done somewhere else.  The community is not going to tolerate giving up any more of the French Fort area. Just like I-40 through the park / zoo, it is not going to happen. Eventually I-55 will relocate and this bridge will be on a limited access link between I-55 and downtown Memphis.

Quote from: bwana39 on March 06, 2023, 11:11:15 AM


It isn't like they are going to remove the Arkansas and Tennessee (Current I-55) bridge. The only issues with this bridge are capacity and earthquake resilience. Once (IF) I -55 moves, the capacity issue will be markedly lessened. The earthquake resilience issue is IF the big one hits, that it MIGHT partially or completely fail.  The simple fact is IF that happens, the damage to approaches and bridges across lesser bodies of water would be more likely to close the roads with no regard to the status of the A&T.

The primary reason the extended discussion of the earthquake damage to the existing bridge is more about the traffic that would be unable to transverse if it failed. This is an argument for a new bridge, but not necessarily removing this one when (if) it is bypassed.

I agree the northern Mississippi alternative SEEMS better to me, but there is a viable site extending from east of the BASF plant in West Memphis to around the Seacor site in Memphis tying in to the existing I-55 around South Parkway.  Expanding in place while feasible from a river and land perspective, from a cultural perspective, there is no willingness to allow any further expansion of the footprint here.  Expanding anything on the existing US-78 alignment (and to a lesser extent the southward I-55) is a no-go.

Quote from: bwana39 on March 06, 2023, 02:09:59 PM

Quote from: Rick Powell on March 06, 2023, 12:24:34 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AM
I don't think re-locating I-55 to another alignment is a realistic thing. Yes, it could be routed along an extension of the I-269 loop across the Mississippi River near Tunica. But the city of Memphis itself needs the two bridge crossings it has.

Agreed, and any "re-routing" of 55 will be a very minor shift, such as to accommodate a new bridge or twin span.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AMThe current I-55 bridge sucks. It's just 4 lanes with zero shoulders at all. The bridge was completed in 1949; so it's getting up there in the years. I don't know if it's worth trying to rehabilitate the bridge versus starting over. The current trend with Interstate highway bridges over major rivers or navigation channels is building twin spans. The old Goethals Bridge (I-278) in Staten Island was a bit similar to the I-55 bridge, with just 4 lanes. Its replacement, two cable-stay bridges each have 3 lanes plus ample shoulders. And the North (Westbound) span has a barrier separated pedestrian/bike path. That's really the kind of thing needed at that I-55 bridge crossing.

The pedestrian path at I-55 is already there on the RR bridge, so no need to create an additional one. The current bridge is about 50 feet wide between the bridge rails including the concrete median. The existing framework could probably be salvaged and upgraded for another 50+ years of service, with a new deck in one direction with an additional span placed aside it similar to US 24 in Peoria IL. The existing bridge is just wide enough to fit 3 lanes, a full width right shoulder, and a teeny safety margin on the inside shoulder for one direction. But would still be an expensive proposition.

There virtually assuredly will not be a "twin span" here... EVER. It is doubtful they would close it for 2-3 years to build a replacement span in the same place.   Nine months to redo the curve south was unacceptable.  The bottom line is what ever is to be done except for reconfiguring the southbound curve in I-55 will have to be done somewhere else.  The community is not going to tolerate giving up any more of the French Fort area. Just like I-40 through the park / zoo, it is not going to happen. Eventually I-55 will relocate and this bridge will be on a limited access link between I-55 and downtown Memphis.

Building a parallel span to the north of the existing I-55 bridge could theoretically be done, but doing so would require demolition of the Frisco Railroad Bridge and reconstructing it closer to the Harrihan Railroad Bridge (or demolishing both railroad bridges and building a wider 3-track railroad bridge in the footprint of the Harrihan Bridge). A parallel span for I-55 could then be built where the Frisco Bridge stands today.

While that would not disturb the historic parkland that sits immediately to the south of the current I-55 span, it would be a very costly solution, as TDOT and ArDOT would have to pay for the relocation/reconstruction of the railroad bridges in addition to building the new or parallel I-55 span. I would figure a project like that would end up costing over a billion dollars to complete.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 06, 2023, 02:53:03 PM
Building a parallel span to the north of the existing I-55 bridge could theoretically be done, but doing so would require demolition of the Frisco Railroad Bridge and reconstructing it closer to the Harrihan Railroad Bridge (or demolishing both railroad bridges and building a wider 3-track railroad bridge in the footprint of the Harrihan Bridge). A parallel span for I-55 could then be built where the Frisco Bridge stands today.

While that would not disturb the historic parkland that sits immediately to the south of the current I-55 span, it would be a very costly solution, as TDOT and ArDOT would have to pay for the relocation/reconstruction of the railroad bridges in addition to building the new or parallel I-55 span. I would figure a project like that would end up costing over a billion dollars to complete.

I dunno, I have been involved with several major river bridges that had about 10' clearance face to face with the existing bridge while under construction. I think a 60 foot deck could fit in the space that could carry temporary 2 way traffic while the old bridge was rehabbed. Would be interesting to see any of the conceptual preliminary engineering that has been done on this. Agree that the staging on this to get it back on alignment on the east end would be very tight and expensive.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 06, 2023, 02:53:03 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on March 06, 2023, 02:09:59 PM

Quote from: Rick Powell on March 06, 2023, 12:24:34 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AM
I don't think re-locating I-55 to another alignment is a realistic thing. Yes, it could be routed along an extension of the I-269 loop across the Mississippi River near Tunica. But the city of Memphis itself needs the two bridge crossings it has.

Agreed, and any "re-routing" of 55 will be a very minor shift, such as to accommodate a new bridge or twin span.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2023, 11:50:50 AMThe current I-55 bridge sucks. It's just 4 lanes with zero shoulders at all. The bridge was completed in 1949; so it's getting up there in the years. I don't know if it's worth trying to rehabilitate the bridge versus starting over. The current trend with Interstate highway bridges over major rivers or navigation channels is building twin spans. The old Goethals Bridge (I-278) in Staten Island was a bit similar to the I-55 bridge, with just 4 lanes. Its replacement, two cable-stay bridges each have 3 lanes plus ample shoulders. And the North (Westbound) span has a barrier separated pedestrian/bike path. That's really the kind of thing needed at that I-55 bridge crossing.

The pedestrian path at I-55 is already there on the RR bridge, so no need to create an additional one. The current bridge is about 50 feet wide between the bridge rails including the concrete median. The existing framework could probably be salvaged and upgraded for another 50+ years of service, with a new deck in one direction with an additional span placed aside it similar to US 24 in Peoria IL. The existing bridge is just wide enough to fit 3 lanes, a full width right shoulder, and a teeny safety margin on the inside shoulder for one direction. But would still be an expensive proposition.

There virtually assuredly will not be a "twin span" here... EVER. It is doubtful they would close it for 2-3 years to build a replacement span in the same place.   Nine months to redo the curve south was unacceptable.  The bottom line is what ever is to be done except for reconfiguring the southbound curve in I-55 will have to be done somewhere else.  The community is not going to tolerate giving up any more of the French Fort area. Just like I-40 through the park / zoo, it is not going to happen. Eventually I-55 will relocate and this bridge will be on a limited access link between I-55 and downtown Memphis.

Building a parallel span to the north of the existing I-55 bridge could theoretically be done, but doing so would require demolition of the Frisco Railroad Bridge and reconstructing it closer to the Harrihan Railroad Bridge (or demolishing both railroad bridges and building a wider 3-track railroad bridge in the footprint of the Harrihan Bridge). A parallel span for I-55 could then be built where the Frisco Bridge stands today.

While that would not disturb the historic parkland that sits immediately to the south of the current I-55 span, it would be a very costly solution, as TDOT and ArDOT would have to pay for the relocation/reconstruction of the railroad bridges in addition to building the new or parallel I-55 span. I would figure a project like that would end up costing over a billion dollars to complete.

Who owns the railway bridges? If it is a railroad or a consortium of railroads, it becomes a huge competition over "what is in it for me?" It generally goes well beyond the bridge itself into closing grade crossings, allowing them to change, delete, or add routes.  Nobody has "it's mine" down like the rail lines.

Even beyond that, I think we are gravely underestimating the cost of both the highway bridge and the railroad bridges.  I figure at least $1.5B each.

I'd say each bridge would at least be 1.5b each likely being closer to 2-3 billion each.

Quote from: Rick Powell on March 06, 2023, 03:07:42 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 06, 2023, 02:53:03 PM
Building a parallel span to the north of the existing I-55 bridge could theoretically be done, but doing so would require demolition of the Frisco Railroad Bridge and reconstructing it closer to the Harrihan Railroad Bridge (or demolishing both railroad bridges and building a wider 3-track railroad bridge in the footprint of the Harrihan Bridge). A parallel span for I-55 could then be built where the Frisco Bridge stands today.

While that would not disturb the historic parkland that sits immediately to the south of the current I-55 span, it would be a very costly solution, as TDOT and ArDOT would have to pay for the relocation/reconstruction of the railroad bridges in addition to building the new or parallel I-55 span. I would figure a project like that would end up costing over a billion dollars to complete.

I dunno, I have been involved with several major river bridges that had about 10' clearance face to face with the existing bridge while under construction. I think a 60 foot deck could fit in the space that could carry temporary 2 way traffic while the old bridge was rehabbed. Would be interesting to see any of the conceptual preliminary engineering that has been done on this. Agree that the staging on this to get it back on alignment on the east end would be very tight and expensive.

Yeah, there's definitely room for a 60' bridge with 40' on each side between the existing bridge and the rail bridge.  The only issue is that this path (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1351544,-90.0855782,207m/data=!3m1!1e3) would need to be relocated and exit 12C would need to be closed.

Another possibility might be to run the northbound lanes something like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/5ZaLsnb.png)

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 06, 2023, 09:08:35 PM
Another possibility might be to run the northbound lanes something like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/5ZaLsnb.png)

Can you imagine what the Railroads would want for that? That is are least 6 tracks crossed.  It would probably cost 24 grade crossings (closed) and 10-15 million dollars.

The "north of the railroad bridge" alignment would also face a LOT of opposition due to the impact on the Great River Crossing -- the ped/bikeway on the north side of the northernmost bridge.  Part of the attraction of that bridge is the views afforded from the crossing.

The fact that the TV station with the leading local newscast would have its broadcast studio taken for such an alignment probably also wouldn't help.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 07, 2023, 07:59:25 AM
The "north of the railroad bridge" alignment would also face a LOT of opposition due to the impact on the Great River Crossing -- the ped/bikeway on the north side of the northernmost bridge.  Part of the attraction of that bridge is the views afforded from the crossing.

The fact that the TV station with the leading local newscast would have its broadcast studio taken for such an alignment probably also wouldn't help.

I think expansion at this location while possible is neither a good choice or even politically viable.

I prefer a crossing in DeSoto County (MS), but there is a viable crossing point just a couple of miles to the south of the existing bridge that MOSTLY misses occupied properties and is south of the historic and tourist areas. It is on the radar of the states.

It has an advantage over the current bridge location as there will not be as severe a curve as will exist even after the new intersection / curve is built at I-55 /US-78.

A new bridge for 55 should go a little further south; kind of like this:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)
Note that I consider this draft outdated as I didn't think about the utility of retaining the existing span.  Been meaning to revisit, but the urge to play with fictional maps comes in waves.
In my head, the old span could be reconfigured into a 3 lane facility with a movable barrier that lets the bridge have two inbound lanes and one outbound lane in the morning and the reverse for the evening commute.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 07, 2023, 07:59:25 AM
The "north of the railroad bridge" alignment would also face a LOT of opposition due to the impact on the Great River Crossing -- the ped/bikeway on the north side of the northernmost bridge.  Part of the attraction of that bridge is the views afforded from the crossing.

The fact that the TV station with the leading local newscast would have its broadcast studio taken for such an alignment probably also wouldn't help.

Ah.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2023, 09:38:22 AM
A new bridge for 55 should go a little further south; kind of like this:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)

This seems interesting, though. I can imagine that the cost would be pretty high since it's considerably longer, but still it's a good idea.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 07, 2023, 11:03:05 AM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 07, 2023, 07:59:25 AM
The "north of the railroad bridge" alignment would also face a LOT of opposition due to the impact on the Great River Crossing -- the ped/bikeway on the north side of the northernmost bridge.  Part of the attraction of that bridge is the views afforded from the crossing.

The fact that the TV station with the leading local newscast would have its broadcast studio taken for such an alignment probably also wouldn't help.

Ah.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2023, 09:38:22 AM
A new bridge for 55 should go a little further south; kind of like this:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)

This seems interesting, though. I can imagine that the cost would be pretty high since it's considerably longer, but still it's a good idea.

This is about what the Tennessee folks proposed . Between over-water and approaches, there won't be that much difference. While the approaches would be mostly slab bridges and main spans would probably be cable stayed, You are probably looking at 2 cable stayed spans even on the shorter distance where the existing bridge is.  So either place, probably two towers in the water.  The added over water distance will cost more, but the each tower is what really adds  expense.

In terms of span length, what matters is the width of the navigation channel. 
The total bridge length is going to be basically the same no matter where one places a new bridge around Memphis because while the channel width and the navigation channel width can vary, the floodplain width is functionally the same from Shelby Forest to the casinos.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 08, 2023, 10:26:40 AM
In terms of span length, what matters is the width of the navigation channel. 
The total bridge length is going to be basically the same no matter where one places a new bridge around Memphis because while the channel width and the navigation channel width can vary, the floodplain width is functionally the same from Shelby Forest to the casinos.

While that's true, the angle bridged between the levees on either side does have an impact on the length required to be bridged.  That's why DOTs try as hard as possible to cross perpendicular to the body of water.  The picture noted above would be certainly preferable to the status quo, but it would require more bridge length for sure.

Quote from: MikieTimT on March 08, 2023, 12:21:54 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 08, 2023, 10:26:40 AM
In terms of span length, what matters is the width of the navigation channel. 
The total bridge length is going to be basically the same no matter where one places a new bridge around Memphis because while the channel width and the navigation channel width can vary, the floodplain width is functionally the same from Shelby Forest to the casinos.

While that's true, the angle bridged between the levees on either side does have an impact on the length required to be bridged.  That's why DOTs try as hard as possible to cross perpendicular to the body of water.  The picture noted above would be certainly preferable to the status quo, but it would require more bridge length for sure.

I agree there is more span over the water. I still think it would be the same 2 pylons in the water that there would be at the existing site. I don't particularly see a significant additional distance in the complete bridge + approach bridges though.  My mind is boggled by the expense of any of it. When new construction of surface pavement is running in excess of $2M per lane mile, it is getting staggering.

Work is ongoing, as seen in this pic from April 17.

(https://i.imgur.com/bfcdIEI.png)

Also, next weekend the bridge will be closed to set up a new traffic configuration.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 04, 2023, 01:50:08 PM
Work is ongoing, as seen in this pic from April 17.

(https://i.imgur.com/bfcdIEI.png)

Also, next weekend the bridge will be closed to set up a new traffic configuration.

Bridge was closed this weekend for construction.

I think that when the DISASTER they have planned opens, that EB traffic will back up over the bridge worse than it ever does now. Between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM more of the traffic follows Crump Blvd or Riverside Drive than I-55. They could have left most of the existing intersection in place and built flyovers for I-55.

I think the roundabout will just be something that slows everything to a stop.

If used correctly roundabouts can handle a really good sized amount of traffic. Problem is people in the states just don't seem to know how or have the confidence to use them correctly.

Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

the roundabout will handle traffic just fine. they aren't stupid, they did a traffic study to justify it, just like any DOT installing one.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2023, 07:52:15 PM
Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

Or Indiana.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2023, 06:27:59 PM
If used correctly roundabouts can handle a really good sized amount of traffic. Problem is people in the states just don't seem to know how or have the confidence to use them correctly.

Confidence is right.  It's amazing how many people don't go when they have an opportunity, instead waiting for the roundabout to be completely clear.  It's as if they don't factor in the fact that they will have moved on by the time they car they're yielding to gets to the point where they're entering.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 11, 2023, 08:42:44 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2023, 07:52:15 PM
Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

Or Indiana.

And both Wisconsin and Indiana have a couple good examples of overloaded roundabouts.

Something interesting with the newest traffic configuration at the interchange is that southbound I-55 traffic now takes the northbound I-55 loop ramp (A in the diagram), since the area of the old southbound ramp (H in the diagram) is needed for the new mainlines.

I don't think I've ever seen a loop ramp used in the opposite direction before.

(https://i.imgur.com/WsFEW7D.png)

Quote from: https://www.tn.gov/tdot/news/2023/5/30/i-55-mississippi-river-bridge-closure.html
-          I-55 SB outside lane will be closed from the west end of the I-55 bridge through the project site and the SB inside lane will cross over at the east end of the I-55 bridge and share the current I-55 NB cloverleaf ramp with I-55 NB

-          I-55 NB outside lane of the cloverleaf ramp will be closed to allow for I-55 SB use

I assume the Crump Boulevard Interchange was constructed the way it was, because the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge and the connection with W.E.H. Crump Blvd. was constructed before Interstate 55 and the connection to Riverside Dr. was constructed. Is this accurate?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2023, 03:01:15 PM
I assume the Crump Boulevard Interchange was constructed the way it was, because the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge and the connection with W.E.H. Crump Blvd. was constructed before Interstate 55 and the connection to Riverside Dr. was constructed. Is this accurate?

Yes, as seen in the image below from Historical Aerials. The interchange between I-55 and Crump lies in the same location as that large intersection on the right, although I-55 doesn't follow the street, but moves a bit to the west.

(https://i.imgur.com/AqNRMMB.png)

Its basically acting like the NJ end of the Lincoln  Tunnel

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 15, 2023, 03:23:51 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2023, 03:01:15 PM
I assume the Crump Boulevard Interchange was constructed the way it was, because the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge and the connection with W.E.H. Crump Blvd. was constructed before Interstate 55 and the connection to Riverside Dr. was constructed. Is this accurate?

Yes, as seen in the image below from Historical Aerials. The interchange between I-55 and Crump lies in the same location as that large intersection on the right, although I-55 doesn't follow the street, but moves a bit to the west.

(https://i.imgur.com/AqNRMMB.png)

Wow. I forget the great resource of that site.

SM-G715U1

Someone should get down there and film the 2-way operations on the loop ramp while it's in operation.

Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2023, 08:32:35 AM
Someone should get down there and film the 2-way operations on the loop ramp while it's in operation.

This is the closest traffic camera I've found; still picture, but yesterday afternoon it was pointing along NB I-55 towards the bridge.
https://smartway.tn.gov/traffic/text/region/4/cameras/route/I-55/id/2207

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2023, 06:27:59 PM
If used correctly roundabouts can handle a really good sized amount of traffic. Problem is people in the states just don't seem to know how or have the confidence to use them correctly.

Yes but the traffic from I-55 will be going too fast. The sudden slowdown is what causes a backup. As far as that goes, WB Crump will have to slow down for it.

I have no doubt they considered the traffic volumes. I am not sure the traffic conditions after the flyover is completed will be ANYTHING like they are with the cloverleafs.  Then again, it is Riverside to the North and Crump to the east that cause most of the backups already. 

I believe that the roundabout will cause the flyovers to have negligible improvement effect during rush hours. It should make it easier during low traffic hours.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 15, 2023, 02:10:20 PM
Something interesting with the newest traffic configuration at the interchange is that southbound I-55 traffic now takes the northbound I-55 loop ramp (A in the diagram), since the area of the old southbound ramp (H in the diagram) is needed for the new mainlines.

I don't think I've ever seen a loop ramp used in the opposite direction before.

The express lane part of the Springfield Interchange (I-95 & Washington Beltway/495) has a loop ramp, which is used in "reverse" direction, for eastbound/outer loop -> southbound I-95 traffic.

And for another example that's similar, the I-95 & I-87 interchange in New York, is not a cloverleaf configuration but it does have ramps similar to "loop ramps" - in that interchange, SB I-87 to SB I-95 traffic, as well as NB I-95 to SB I-87 traffic, turns left 270 degrees to make a "right" turn.

Quote from: bwana39 on June 16, 2023, 04:40:20 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2023, 06:27:59 PM
If used correctly roundabouts can handle a really good sized amount of traffic. Problem is people in the states just don't seem to know how or have the confidence to use them correctly.

Yes but the traffic from I-55 will be going too fast. The sudden slowdown is what causes a backup. As far as that goes, WB Crump will have to slow down for it.

I have no doubt they considered the traffic volumes. I am not sure the traffic conditions after the flyover is completed will be ANYTHING like they are with the cloverleafs.  Then again, it is Riverside to the North and Crump to the east that cause most of the backups already. 

I believe that the roundabout will cause the flyovers to have negligible improvement effect during rush hours. It should make it easier during low traffic hours.

What does speed have to do with it? Most off ramps have you decelerate to a stop at a stop sign or traffic signal. this just happens to be a roundabout. It should be fine.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 15, 2023, 02:10:20 PM
Something interesting with the newest traffic configuration at the interchange is that southbound I-55 traffic now takes the northbound I-55 loop ramp (A in the diagram), since the area of the old southbound ramp (H in the diagram) is needed for the new mainlines.

I don't think I've ever seen a loop ramp used in the opposite direction before.

(https://i.imgur.com/WsFEW7D.png)

Quote from: https://www.tn.gov/tdot/news/2023/5/30/i-55-mississippi-river-bridge-closure.html
-          I-55 SB outside lane will be closed from the west end of the I-55 bridge through the project site and the SB inside lane will cross over at the east end of the I-55 bridge and share the current I-55 NB cloverleaf ramp with I-55 NB

-          I-55 NB outside lane of the cloverleaf ramp will be closed to allow for I-55 SB use

I think it's interesting that they're now making the cloverleaf ramp two-way. I don't recall any other such ramp used this way, but I guess it makes sense given that the ramp has served as the NB through movement on I-55 for many years.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2023, 07:52:15 PM
Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

There are too many as is. If anything some should be eliminated.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 16, 2023, 10:49:37 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2023, 07:52:15 PM
Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

There are too many as is. If anything some should be eliminated.

Perhaps. But IMO, too many is better than not enough.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 16, 2023, 10:49:37 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2023, 07:52:15 PM
Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

There are too many as is. If anything some should be eliminated.

Wut.

Too many?  By what measure?

Quote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on June 16, 2023, 04:40:20 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2023, 06:27:59 PM
If used correctly roundabouts can handle a really good sized amount of traffic. Problem is people in the states just don't seem to know how or have the confidence to use them correctly.

Yes but the traffic from I-55 will be going too fast. The sudden slowdown is what causes a backup. As far as that goes, WB Crump will have to slow down for it.

I have no doubt they considered the traffic volumes. I am not sure the traffic conditions after the flyover is completed will be ANYTHING like they are with the cloverleafs.  Then again, it is Riverside to the North and Crump to the east that cause most of the backups already. 

I believe that the roundabout will cause the flyovers to have negligible improvement effect during rush hours. It should make it easier during low traffic hours.

What does speed have to do with it? Most off ramps have you decelerate to a stop at a stop sign or traffic signal. this just happens to be a roundabout. It should be fine.

I guess it is the Texas showing in me. In Texas you might slow 10 MPH then  the exiting traffic would flow freely. I think everyone is underestimating the traffic volume through on Crump and Riverside during rush. I think everyone is looking at this SOLELY as an IH exit. Riverside and Crump BOTH continued for over half an additional mile until the first traffic signal. IDK about where you come from, but the roundabouts here and in NW Arkansas are used more as speed regulators than as a way to efficiently get traffic through an intersection. The existing intersection could and should be adapted for that motion after the IH through traffic is removed. OH well. I didn't design it. I am not directly paying for it.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 15, 2023, 03:23:51 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2023, 03:01:15 PM
I assume the Crump Boulevard Interchange was constructed the way it was, because the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge and the connection with W.E.H. Crump Blvd. was constructed before Interstate 55 and the connection to Riverside Dr. was constructed. Is this accurate?

Yes, as seen in the image below from Historical Aerials. The interchange between I-55 and Crump lies in the same location as that large intersection on the right, although I-55 doesn't follow the street, but moves a bit to the west.

(https://i.imgur.com/AqNRMMB.png)

If you look closely, you can see where the old highway ran north at the first crossover west of the intersection of Riverside and Crump. It went under the Frisco tracks, turned sharply west and ran along the other track, passed under them, then turned west to climb up to the roadway hanging off the Harahan bridge.

Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2023, 11:00:11 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on June 16, 2023, 10:49:37 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2023, 07:52:15 PM
Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

There are too many as is. If anything some should be eliminated.

Wut.

Too many?  By what measure?

Don't get him started again. :P

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 20, 2023, 11:04:13 AM

Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2023, 11:00:11 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on June 16, 2023, 10:49:37 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2023, 07:52:15 PM
Come to Wisconsin. We have had many, many roundabouts constructed, and plenty more will be constructed in the future.

There are too many as is. If anything some should be eliminated.

Wut.

Too many?  By what measure?

Don't get him started again.

My bad.

There is new Google Street View imagery from August 2023 which shows the new ramp configuration at the I-55/Crump interchange where all traffic is diverted to the loop ramp in the northeast quadrant of the interchange.

It looks like the driver of the Street View imagery updated this month came from the west, looped around, and then proceeded southbound. Trying to follow any other movements through the interchange gave me Street View imagery from preceding dates.

Quote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on June 16, 2023, 04:40:20 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2023, 06:27:59 PM
If used correctly roundabouts can handle a really good sized amount of traffic. Problem is people in the states just don't seem to know how or have the confidence to use them correctly.

Yes but the traffic from I-55 will be going too fast. The sudden slowdown is what causes a backup. As far as that goes, WB Crump will have to slow down for it.

I have no doubt they considered the traffic volumes. I am not sure the traffic conditions after the flyover is completed will be ANYTHING like they are with the cloverleafs.  Then again, it is Riverside to the North and Crump to the east that cause most of the backups already. 

I believe that the roundabout will cause the flyovers to have negligible improvement effect during rush hours. It should make it easier during low traffic hours.

What does speed have to do with it? Most off ramps have you decelerate to a stop at a stop sign or traffic signal. this just happens to be a roundabout. It should be fine.

The traffic signals are nearly a mile away both on Riverside and on Crump. A whole lot longer deceleration lane. THis is not gonna be pretty....