Print

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

[abqtraveler]

The TN 22 freeway is planned to become Interstate 169, but that is probably a good ways off. If it does become 169, I would terminate it at the interchange where US 45E becomes TN 43.

Is the TN-22 freeway getting extended north to connect to the new I-69 alignment?

Otherwise, it wouldn't touch I-69.

By checking the map, a gap of US-51 between TN-22 and I-69 is already freeway grade, I guess the cheapest option is reconfigurating to get TN-22 as the main throughfare.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=36.45377,-88.98814&z=14&t=M

Google Maps should update its Satellite Map of the Union City area. Construction of the Union City bypass seems to only go from just north of Allie Campbell Road to an electrical substation just north of Perry Browder Road west of TN 21. Has construction started or is construction underway south and/or east of these points?

I founded by luck more recent satellite shots of Union City area.
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=a33d0b6f-d851-4014-ba5b-e3415108560f&cp=36.434776~-89.046702&lvl=13&style=a&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027
https://satellites.pro/USA_map#36.443346,-89.033718,13

The Bing image is a nice overhead shot of the construction on both the US 51 and TN 21 interchanges.  However the Satellites Pro image is not showing me any construction at all.

Unless either (a) the TN 22 freeway is extended north to the new I-69 alignment or (b) the present interchange with US 51 is reconfigured as free-flow for WB22>NB51 and SB51>EB22, the concept of redesignation of TN 22 as an Interstate spur is right out the window.  And something tells me, with the slow pace of mainline I-69 development in the area, that such a TN 22 connection is well down the priority list at this time.   

I would second that sentiment, but what TN-22 does have going for it is that, except for the connection to I-69, the rest of it is pretty much interstate grade between US-51 and Martin. I would predict the next priority for TDOT after the Troy and Union City bypasses are built is to work with Kentucky to reconfigure the US-51/Purchase Parkway interchange at the KY/TN state line.

[froggie]

I'm kind of surprised that TDOT didn't upgrade and use the existing US 51 across the north side of Union City.  It just strikes me as being a duplicative waste.  Also, what are the current plans, if there are any, for tying the TN 22 freeway into this from the southeast?

Mike

The section of US-51 approaching Union city from the south is a commercial strip. The section from the Reelfoot Ave that goes around Union City probably has enough room to support and upgrade to interstate standards, but the real problem would be how to tie in a bypass of the commercial strip further south into the existing alignment. There aren't a whole lot of good options to construct an interchange to connect a new bypass to the existing road that loops around Union City, since there's quite a bit of development on either side of 51 along that loop.  Thus the decision was made to build I-69 on a new alignment further out to minimize impacts to the developed areas in and around Union City.

There's at least one way they could have pulled it off.

[sparker]

I'm kind of surprised that TDOT didn't upgrade and use the existing US 51 across the north side of Union City.  It just strikes me as being a duplicative waste.  Also, what are the current plans, if there are any, for tying the TN 22 freeway into this from the southeast?

Mike

The section of US-51 approaching Union city from the south is a commercial strip. The section from the Reelfoot Ave that goes around Union City probably has enough room to support and upgrade to interstate standards, but the real problem would be how to tie in a bypass of the commercial strip further south into the existing alignment. There aren't a whole lot of good options to construct an interchange to connect a new bypass to the existing road that loops around Union City, since there's quite a bit of development on either side of 51 along that loop.  Thus the decision was made to build I-69 on a new alignment further out to minimize impacts to the developed areas in and around Union City.

There's at least one way they could have pulled it off.

Wild guess -- local politics interfered with any notion of upgrading the original US 51 bypass (access and/or relocation issues), so the "outer arc" alignment that eventually prevailed came into being.  Too bad something like Adam's concept didn't make the cut; the I-69/TN 22 interchange as illustrated certainly would lend itself to potential Interstate status for the latter freeway -- not that the presently functional facility would benefit significantly by such a designation change.

[edwaleni]

I'm kind of surprised that TDOT didn't upgrade and use the existing US 51 across the north side of Union City.  It just strikes me as being a duplicative waste.  Also, what are the current plans, if there are any, for tying the TN 22 freeway into this from the southeast?

Mike

The section of US-51 approaching Union city from the south is a commercial strip. The section from the Reelfoot Ave that goes around Union City probably has enough room to support and upgrade to interstate standards, but the real problem would be how to tie in a bypass of the commercial strip further south into the existing alignment. There aren't a whole lot of good options to construct an interchange to connect a new bypass to the existing road that loops around Union City, since there's quite a bit of development on either side of 51 along that loop.  Thus the decision was made to build I-69 on a new alignment further out to minimize impacts to the developed areas in and around Union City.

There's at least one way they could have pulled it off.

Wild guess -- local politics interfered with any notion of upgrading the original US 51 bypass (access and/or relocation issues), so the "outer arc" alignment that eventually prevailed came into being.  Too bad something like Adam's concept didn't make the cut; the I-69/TN 22 interchange as illustrated certainly would lend itself to potential Interstate status for the latter freeway -- not that the presently functional facility would benefit significantly by such a designation change.

Seems no one can find the original environmental studies for why they bypassed Union City completely, but from what I can recall from discussion many moons ago it had a lot to do with US-51 being a large local traffic manager.  Local hearings did not want the changes at Reelfoot Ave.  Workers who commute to the Titan plant north of town were highly resistant to 2-3 years of construction to reach work. The new Discovery Park is supposed to bring in hotel/restaurant/truck stop development along US-51 back to the future TN-22/Main Street exit. (2 hotels have already been built in fact)

[seicer]

As far back as 2001, the alignment had been selected:

[triplemultiplex]

Another trip through Union City for me and another look at the glacial pace of I-69 construction.
Since TNDOT has such crap info about this project on their website, I was surprised to see they appear to be building a huge semi-directional Y interchange where the Union City bypass returns to the existing US 51 freeway north of town.

It makes me facepalm even harder at the expense they are going through to do this new terrain segment.  Especially when the existing highway east of the curve by the tire plant would upgrade so easily.  It's like they are trying to make this take as long as possible while still technically progressing and part of that process was selecting this enormously expensive, entirely new terrain alignment.

I may be beating a dead horse, but it didn't have to be this way.  If they did something like Froggie or I proposed, at least some part of it would be open to traffic by now instead of construction entering its second decade with no benefit yet for the traveling public.

Froggie:


me:

[mgk920]

Another trip through Union City for me and another look at the glacial pace of I-69 construction.
Since TNDOT has such crap info about this project on their website, I was surprised to see they appear to be building a huge semi-directional Y interchange where the Union City bypass returns to the existing US 51 freeway north of town.

It makes me facepalm even harder at the expense they are going through to do this new terrain segment.  Especially when the existing highway east of the curve by the tire plant would upgrade so easily.  It's like they are trying to make this take as long as possible while still technically progressing and part of that process was selecting this enormously expensive, entirely new terrain alignment.

I may be beating a dead horse, but it didn't have to be this way.  If they did something like Froggie or I proposed, at least some part of it would be open to traffic by now instead of construction entering its second decade with no benefit yet for the traveling public.

Froggie:


me:

Yea, the second one is very much what I was thinking about in my reply from a couple of weeks ago.  The 'KISS' principal at work.

<sigh>   

Mike

[sparker]

For better or worse, the outer arc as profiled in the aerial photos is the one that will be built; everything else is "coulda/woulda" that might have occurred had it not been for TDOT planners and, likely, promises made to Union City and the politicos representing the area.  I'll bet the old bypass gets zoned for commercial development rather quickly, including, at least on the west side where it's visible from the new bypass, some enterprises catering to I-69 traffic.  What may not be immediately apparent is the fact that Union City is only a few miles from Fulton, where the CN rail lines converge/diverge; 2 lines north to Illinois and/or St. Louis, south to Memphis, and southeast to Birmingham.  With the advent of a largely completed I-69, the region could be marketed as an efficient distribution hub, provided there's readily available and accessible properties to place warehousing facilities.  The original US 51 Union City bypass would be a very appropriate place to locate for this purpose -- a couple of blocks from I-69, close enough to the CN main line that short spurs serving those sites could easily be built (it's pretty damn flat around there!).  Wouldn't be surprised if those considerations were embedded in the decision to construct a new-terrain outer arc around the town. 

[GreenLanternCorps]

FYI the construction of I-69 North of Union City, is now showing on Apple Maps.  Google Maps still doesn’t show it.

[abqtraveler]

FYI the construction of I-69 North of Union City, is now showing on Apple Maps.  Google Maps still doesn’t show it.

Apparently accessing Apple Maps requires an Apple device, which I do not have. When I try accessing Apple Maps from my Windows 10 computer, I get stuck on their main page. The "Open Maps" link sends me right back to their main page, so my conclusion is Apple Maps is not designed to work with non-Apple devices.

[edwaleni]

FYI the construction of I-69 North of Union City, is now showing on Apple Maps.  Google Maps still doesn’t show it.

Apparently accessing Apple Maps requires an Apple device, which I do not have. When I try accessing Apple Maps from my Windows 10 computer, I get stuck on their main page. The "Open Maps" link sends me right back to their main page, so my conclusion is Apple Maps is not designed to work with non-Apple devices.

Apple is into Apple unless it is iTunes. It's their only admission there are OS'es besides their own.

[hbelkins]

FYI the construction of I-69 North of Union City, is now showing on Apple Maps.  Google Maps still doesn’t show it.

Apparently accessing Apple Maps requires an Apple device, which I do not have. When I try accessing Apple Maps from my Windows 10 computer, I get stuck on their main page. The "Open Maps" link sends me right back to their main page, so my conclusion is Apple Maps is not designed to work with non-Apple devices.

Try Bing Maps. I've found their aerial views to be more recent than Google's satellite imagery. It's possible Apple and Bing use the same vendors.

[abqtraveler]

FYI the construction of I-69 North of Union City, is now showing on Apple Maps.  Google Maps still doesn’t show it.

Apparently accessing Apple Maps requires an Apple device, which I do not have. When I try accessing Apple Maps from my Windows 10 computer, I get stuck on their main page. The "Open Maps" link sends me right back to their main page, so my conclusion is Apple Maps is not designed to work with non-Apple devices.

Try Bing Maps. I've found their aerial views to be more recent than Google's satellite imagery. It's possible Apple and Bing use the same vendors.

I see that Bing Maps shows construction on the northernmost leg of I-69 around Union City, and it also shows the nearly-completed bypass of Kramer Junction in California. Bing does not show construction of the I-49 bypass around Bella Vista, Arkansas or the Kickapoo Turnpike in Oklahoma, both of which appear under construction in Google Maps. I think it's really a matter of when each company gets updated imagery of a given location.

[Bobby5280]

There are many examples between Google Earth/Maps, Bing Maps and Apple Maps where one will have newer satellite imagery than others or have older imagery. None of them are universally better than the others.

Still, I think it's really odd that Google has such outdated imagery on CA-58 in the Hinkley and Kramer Junction areas. They have Street View imagery of the Hinkley Bypass, but no overhead imagery. Apple Maps shows it complete and the Kramer Junction bypass close to completion. I can understand some areas having a higher priority to update, but we're talking about a significant change to the roadway in that area. That would at least warrant an update of 5+ year old imagery.

[edwaleni]

There are many examples between Google Earth/Maps, Bing Maps and Apple Maps where one will have newer satellite imagery than others or have older imagery. None of them are universally better than the others.

Still, I think it's really odd that Google has such outdated imagery on CA-58 in the Hinkley and Kramer Junction areas. They have Street View imagery of the Hinkley Bypass, but no overhead imagery. Apple Maps shows it complete and the Kramer Junction bypass close to completion. I can understand some areas having a higher priority to update, but we're talking about a significant change to the roadway in that area. That would at least warrant an update of 5+ year old imagery.

As I noted elsewhere, Google is taking a more passive approach to updating their maps.

There are still wide swaths of the US that hasn't had an imagery update in over 12 years. In most cases it was a single car "just passing through".

That said, Google usually waits until a large number of Android phones start appearing at GPS coordinates that don't match with their known road database. If and only if they have an approved Google image contractor available, they will send a car out to image the highway.

I can get better imagery of places in rural Africa now than in much of the US. I can get imagery all the way to Kona Point on a barely driveable dirt path on Oahu, but several reasonably populated cities can't get much more than a 12 year old pass through on Main Street.

It's one of those things that infuriate locals.

[Bobby5280]

From what I've been seeing lately Google seems to update its on-ground Street View imagery more often than it does the overhead satellite imagery. Its Street View imagery along CA-58 is far more current than the badly out of date satellite imagery. Heck, even where I live the satellite imagery is badly out of date (2015) compared to much newer Street View imagery.

[GreenLanternCorps]

FYI the construction of I-69 North of Union City, is now showing on Apple Maps.  Google Maps still doesn’t show it.

Apparently accessing Apple Maps requires an Apple device, which I do not have. When I try accessing Apple Maps from my Windows 10 computer, I get stuck on their main page. The "Open Maps" link sends me right back to their main page, so my conclusion is Apple Maps is not designed to work with non-Apple devices.

Try Bing Maps. I've found their aerial views to be more recent than Google's satellite imagery. It's possible Apple and Bing use the same vendors.

I see that Bing Maps shows construction on the northernmost leg of I-69 around Union City, and it also shows the nearly-completed bypass of Kramer Junction in California. Bing does not show construction of the I-49 bypass around Bella Vista, Arkansas or the Kickapoo Turnpike in Oklahoma, both of which appear under construction in Google Maps. I think it's really a matter of when each company gets updated imagery of a given location.

That I-49 construction is new, it wasn't on Google Maps last time I checked a few weeks ago...  (Off to the I-49 Arkansas thread).

[Henry]

Well, with the KY sections getting upgraded as they connect to the newer parts across the border, we'll just need the Ohio River bridges and the unfinished sections south to Memphis to be built for a continuous high-speed drive to Indianapolis. (At least INDOT is finally building the 27 miles from Martinsville to Indy at the same time, which is certainly welcome news!)

[I-39]

I don't think I-69 in Tennessee is going to be completed for quite a while. TDOT has much bigger things they need to be spending money on.

[Ryctor2018]

The Dyersburg - Memphis section won't be completed for a while. But, as I stated in the I-69 thread, in a few years the Dyersburg to Fulton, KY section will be completed. Other than the Ohio river crossing, a driver (using I-55 to Dyersburg) could travel all the way to Michigan on I-69. I would not be surprised if TN cancels I-155 in favor of I-69, then connects that to I-55 in AR. The two routes can multiplex from Hayti, AR to Memphis to complete the connection for I-69 to Canada.

[I-55]

The Dyersburg - Memphis section won't be completed for a while. But, as I stated in the I-69 thread, in a few years the Dyersburg to Fulton, KY section will be completed. Other than the Ohio river crossing, a driver (using I-55 to Dyersburg) could travel all the way to Michigan on I-69. I would not be surprised if TN cancels I-155 in favor of I-69, then connects that to I-55 in AR. The two routes can multiplex from Hayti, AR to Memphis to complete the connection for I-69 to Canada.

From north of Dyersburg to downtown Memphis it takes the same amount of time to take I-155 to I-55 as it does to take US-412 east to TN-54, getting on I-40 at Brownsville (1h 57 from US-51 near Obion). US-51 south from Dyersburg is the fastest over both, but anything east of downtown is faster to take 412. The other thing to remember is that I-155 to I-55 is already interstate, so it will not become any faster with upgrades, US-51 would be about 30 minutes faster as an interstate as it is 30 miles shorter (to downtown).

From Indianapolis, the difference between the I-155 route and I-70 -> I-57 is 40 minutes in favor of I-70 (6h 52 to 7h 32). I doubt that the upgrades to I-69 in Section 6, the ORX, and Union City will net 40 minutes (since these upgrades are less than 40 miles and the existing speed limit on these stretches averages about 55 mph).

Thus, I doubt TN will go to this routing for two reasons.
1. The I-155 routing is slower for shorter and longer range traffic on the I-69 corridor and
2. I-69 is not signed south of Dyersburg in TN, thus there is less pressure to connect it to I-40 in the short term.

[abqtraveler]

The Dyersburg - Memphis section won't be completed for a while. But, as I stated in the I-69 thread, in a few years the Dyersburg to Fulton, KY section will be completed. Other than the Ohio river crossing, a driver (using I-55 to Dyersburg) could travel all the way to Michigan on I-69. I would not be surprised if TN cancels I-155 in favor of I-69, then connects that to I-55 in AR. The two routes can multiplex from Hayti, AR to Memphis to complete the connection for I-69 to Canada.

From north of Dyersburg to downtown Memphis it takes the same amount of time to take I-155 to I-55 as it does to take US-412 east to TN-54, getting on I-40 at Brownsville (1h 57 from US-51 near Obion). US-51 south from Dyersburg is the fastest over both, but anything east of downtown is faster to take 412. The other thing to remember is that I-155 to I-55 is already interstate, so it will not become any faster with upgrades, US-51 would be about 30 minutes faster as an interstate as it is 30 miles shorter (to downtown).

From Indianapolis, the difference between the I-155 route and I-70 -> I-57 is 40 minutes in favor of I-70 (6h 52 to 7h 32). I doubt that the upgrades to I-69 in Section 6, the ORX, and Union City will net 40 minutes (since these upgrades are less than 40 miles and the existing speed limit on these stretches averages about 55 mph).

Thus, I doubt TN will go to this routing for two reasons.
1. The I-155 routing is slower for shorter and longer range traffic on the I-69 corridor and
2. I-69 is not signed south of Dyersburg in TN, thus there is less pressure to connect it to I-40 in the short term.

Part of the bigger story about the Dyersburg-Memphis section of I-69 that often gets overlooked when talking about whether or not it'll ever get built is the fact that environmental groups have been fighting TDOT tooth and nail over the routing of that section, since this segment goes through a lot of wetlands and floodplains as it follows the Mississippi River and crosses a few of its tributaries along the route.  That's a major reason why you haven't seen a Final EIS or Record of Decision published for Segment 8 that runs from I-155 near Dyersburg to I-269 in Millington, not just because of a lack of funding, but also because of strong opposition from locals and environmental groups.  For the last unbuilt portion of Segment 9 between I-269 in Millington and I-40/TN-300 in Memphis, TDOT was supposed to be working on a Supplemental EIS to address a couple of Superfund sites in the path of I-69 that would first have to be remediated before construction on the highway could proceed. Like Segment 8, there is no money to complete the Supplemental EIS for this last stretch of I-69 in Tennessee, and plenty of local opposition.

[edwaleni]

The Dyersburg - Memphis section won't be completed for a while. But, as I stated in the I-69 thread, in a few years the Dyersburg to Fulton, KY section will be completed. Other than the Ohio river crossing, a driver (using I-55 to Dyersburg) could travel all the way to Michigan on I-69. I would not be surprised if TN cancels I-155 in favor of I-69, then connects that to I-55 in AR. The two routes can multiplex from Hayti, AR to Memphis to complete the connection for I-69 to Canada.

From north of Dyersburg to downtown Memphis it takes the same amount of time to take I-155 to I-55 as it does to take US-412 east to TN-54, getting on I-40 at Brownsville (1h 57 from US-51 near Obion). US-51 south from Dyersburg is the fastest over both, but anything east of downtown is faster to take 412. The other thing to remember is that I-155 to I-55 is already interstate, so it will not become any faster with upgrades, US-51 would be about 30 minutes faster as an interstate as it is 30 miles shorter (to downtown).

From Indianapolis, the difference between the I-155 route and I-70 -> I-57 is 40 minutes in favor of I-70 (6h 52 to 7h 32). I doubt that the upgrades to I-69 in Section 6, the ORX, and Union City will net 40 minutes (since these upgrades are less than 40 miles and the existing speed limit on these stretches averages about 55 mph).

Thus, I doubt TN will go to this routing for two reasons.
1. The I-155 routing is slower for shorter and longer range traffic on the I-69 corridor and
2. I-69 is not signed south of Dyersburg in TN, thus there is less pressure to connect it to I-40 in the short term.

Part of the bigger story about the Dyersburg-Memphis section of I-69 that often gets overlooked when talking about whether or not it'll ever get built is the fact that environmental groups have been fighting TDOT tooth and nail over the routing of that section, since this segment goes through a lot of wetlands and floodplains as it follows the Mississippi River and crosses a few of its tributaries along the route.  That's a major reason why you haven't seen a Final EIS or Record of Decision published for Segment 8 that runs from I-155 near Dyersburg to I-269 in Millington, not just because of a lack of funding, but also because of strong opposition from locals and environmental groups.  For the last unbuilt portion of Segment 9 between I-269 in Millington and I-40/TN-300 in Memphis, TDOT was supposed to be working on a Supplemental EIS to address a couple of Superfund sites in the path of I-69 that would first have to be remediated before construction on the highway could proceed. Like Segment 8, there is no money to complete the Supplemental EIS for this last stretch of I-69 in Tennessee, and plenty of local opposition.

Last I read was that the proposed bridge crossing the Hatchie River north of Covington was requiring a lot of ROW and it was raising some opposition. There is a lot of swamp/wetland there.

The ROW from TN-385 to Millington is known and documented.

The ROW at I-69 & US-51 further south is so messed up they removed it from the TNDOT website. The Superfund site next to the Loosahatchie River (noted above) is causing heartburn with the locals.

[abqtraveler]

The Dyersburg - Memphis section won't be completed for a while. But, as I stated in the I-69 thread, in a few years the Dyersburg to Fulton, KY section will be completed. Other than the Ohio river crossing, a driver (using I-55 to Dyersburg) could travel all the way to Michigan on I-69. I would not be surprised if TN cancels I-155 in favor of I-69, then connects that to I-55 in AR. The two routes can multiplex from Hayti, AR to Memphis to complete the connection for I-69 to Canada.

From north of Dyersburg to downtown Memphis it takes the same amount of time to take I-155 to I-55 as it does to take US-412 east to TN-54, getting on I-40 at Brownsville (1h 57 from US-51 near Obion). US-51 south from Dyersburg is the fastest over both, but anything east of downtown is faster to take 412. The other thing to remember is that I-155 to I-55 is already interstate, so it will not become any faster with upgrades, US-51 would be about 30 minutes faster as an interstate as it is 30 miles shorter (to downtown).

From Indianapolis, the difference between the I-155 route and I-70 -> I-57 is 40 minutes in favor of I-70 (6h 52 to 7h 32). I doubt that the upgrades to I-69 in Section 6, the ORX, and Union City will net 40 minutes (since these upgrades are less than 40 miles and the existing speed limit on these stretches averages about 55 mph).

Thus, I doubt TN will go to this routing for two reasons.
1. The I-155 routing is slower for shorter and longer range traffic on the I-69 corridor and
2. I-69 is not signed south of Dyersburg in TN, thus there is less pressure to connect it to I-40 in the short term.

Part of the bigger story about the Dyersburg-Memphis section of I-69 that often gets overlooked when talking about whether or not it'll ever get built is the fact that environmental groups have been fighting TDOT tooth and nail over the routing of that section, since this segment goes through a lot of wetlands and floodplains as it follows the Mississippi River and crosses a few of its tributaries along the route.  That's a major reason why you haven't seen a Final EIS or Record of Decision published for Segment 8 that runs from I-155 near Dyersburg to I-269 in Millington, not just because of a lack of funding, but also because of strong opposition from locals and environmental groups.  For the last unbuilt portion of Segment 9 between I-269 in Millington and I-40/TN-300 in Memphis, TDOT was supposed to be working on a Supplemental EIS to address a couple of Superfund sites in the path of I-69 that would first have to be remediated before construction on the highway could proceed. Like Segment 8, there is no money to complete the Supplemental EIS for this last stretch of I-69 in Tennessee, and plenty of local opposition.

Last I read was that the proposed bridge crossing the Hatchie River north of Covington was requiring a lot of ROW and it was raising some opposition. There is a lot of swamp/wetland there.

The ROW from TN-385 to Millington is known and documented.

The ROW at I-69 & US-51 further south is so messed up they removed it from the TNDOT website. The Superfund site next to the Loosahatchie River (noted above) is causing heartburn with the locals.

Last I heard they were planning to route I-69 over the existing US-51 across the Hatchie River. Is that still the plan?

[The Ghostbuster]

If Interstate 69 cannot be built along the US 51 corridor from Memphis to Dyersburg, maybe Interstate 69 will have to follow all of Interstate 155 to Interstate 55. Then it might have to follow Interstate 55 through Missouri and Arkansas to reconnect with existing Interstate 69 south of the Mississippi/Tennessee border. Of course, if that happened, the TN 385/future Interstate 269 freeway will have to permanently remain TN 385, or the freeway will have to be extended across the Mississippi River to connect with Interstate 55 in Arkansas, though a state park and a wildlife refuge stand in the way of extending 385 into Arkansas.