News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-69 in TN

Started by Grzrd, November 27, 2010, 06:15:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

GreenLanternCorps

As far as I know it is still a proposal.  From what I understand from various web pages (and AA Roads) is that the road is already built to interstate standards.

All they have to do is connect it to I-69.  Not sure how far those plans have gotten.

Hopefully they will build the interchange itself while building I-69, so all they have to do is make a short connection.


froggie

^ Not completely Interstate-standard.  Some shoulder/median work would have to be done along TN 22 as well as lengthening some ramp acceleration lanes (particularly the NB on-ramp from US 45W in Union City), and the existing US 51/TN 22 interchange would need to be upgraded as well as it has at-grade junctions on TN 22.

hbelkins

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 16, 2017, 10:02:40 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
Why has there been nothing done on the north side of Union City? I was there back in the fall, and there is absolutely nothing visible from TN 21 going toward the state line. Seems to me that a bypass of US 51 from the north side of town to the south side would be of more use than the section that's under construction now.

Segments 3, 4, and 5 all need to be complete to bypass Union City.  Segment 4 is built but not paved.  Segment 3 is being built.  Segment 5 has not had work done yet.

I have to assume they will do segment 5 next to complete the bypass and then pave it all at once.  That would give I-69 a functional bypass around Union City.



Your map isn't correct. Either that, or your descriptions are wrong. I was there back in the fall and drove TN 21 north all the way from US 51 to the state line. There is NO work visible where I-69 would cross TN 21.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

rickmastfan67

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 16, 2017, 10:02:40 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
Why has there been nothing done on the north side of Union City? I was there back in the fall, and there is absolutely nothing visible from TN 21 going toward the state line. Seems to me that a bypass of US 51 from the north side of town to the south side would be of more use than the section that's under construction now.

Segments 3, 4, and 5 all need to be complete to bypass Union City.  Segment 4 is built but not paved.  Segment 3 is being built.  Segment 5 has not had work done yet.

I have to assume they will do segment 5 next to complete the bypass and then pave it all at once.  That would give I-69 a functional bypass around Union City.



I thought it was Section 3 that was built but not paved (the gray one).  And no work had been done on 4 (the green one).  And that work has just started on the 'pink' one.  At least this is what the 2016 NAIP imagery from TN supports (it shows grading work at the location for the US-51 interchange in the 'pink' section).

rte66man

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 16, 2017, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 16, 2017, 10:02:40 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
Why has there been nothing done on the north side of Union City? I was there back in the fall, and there is absolutely nothing visible from TN 21 going toward the state line. Seems to me that a bypass of US 51 from the north side of town to the south side would be of more use than the section that's under construction now.

Segments 3, 4, and 5 all need to be complete to bypass Union City.  Segment 4 is built but not paved.  Segment 3 is being built.  Segment 5 has not had work done yet.

I have to assume they will do segment 5 next to complete the bypass and then pave it all at once.  That would give I-69 a functional bypass around Union City.



I thought it was Section 3 that was built but not paved (the gray one).  And no work had been done on 4 (the green one).  And that work has just started on the 'pink' one.  At least this is what the 2016 NAIP imagery from TN supports (it shows grading work at the location for the US-51 interchange in the 'pink' section).

You are correct sir.  Was there a few months ago and visually confirmed.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 16, 2017, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 16, 2017, 10:02:40 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
Why has there been nothing done on the north side of Union City? I was there back in the fall, and there is absolutely nothing visible from TN 21 going toward the state line. Seems to me that a bypass of US 51 from the north side of town to the south side would be of more use than the section that's under construction now.

Segments 3, 4, and 5 all need to be complete to bypass Union City.  Segment 4 is built but not paved.  Segment 3 is being built.  Segment 5 has not had work done yet.

I have to assume they will do segment 5 next to complete the bypass and then pave it all at once.  That would give I-69 a functional bypass around Union City.



I thought it was Section 3 that was built but not paved (the gray one).  And no work had been done on 4 (the green one).  And that work has just started on the 'pink' one.  At least this is what the 2016 NAIP imagery from TN supports (it shows grading work at the location for the US-51 interchange in the 'pink' section).

I think the numbers on that map are off.  My understanding was that:

Green - 5 - Not started
Gray - 4 - Built but not paved
Pink - 3 - Under construction
Blue - 2 - Not started
Red - 1 - Not started (Goes off the map.)

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: froggie on January 16, 2017, 12:56:18 PM
^ Not completely Interstate-standard.  Some shoulder/median work would have to be done along TN 22 as well as lengthening some ramp acceleration lanes (particularly the NB on-ramp from US 45W in Union City), and the existing US 51/TN 22 interchange would need to be upgraded as well as it has at-grade junctions on TN 22.

My mistake.  Though it does not sound like there is not all that much to do, relatively speaking.

The big part is connecting I-x69 (TN-22) to the mainline north of Union City. 

lordsutch

Quote from: LM117 on January 16, 2017, 10:43:00 AM
Wasn't there a proposal for TN-22 to become an I-x69 between Union City and Martin? 

To elaborate on Froggie's response, there was a "proposal" from chamber of commerce types, but I don't think it ever had a lot of serious backing; I'm not even sure the Tyson chicken plant that motivated the extension of the TN 22 freeway as an eastern Union City bypass is still operating.

When I asked TDOT about connectivity to the TN 22 freeway from I-69, they indicated it would be indirect via the residual US 51 freeway stub rather than any connection directly aligned with TN 22.

LM117

Quote from: lordsutch on January 17, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 16, 2017, 10:43:00 AM
Wasn't there a proposal for TN-22 to become an I-x69 between Union City and Martin? 

To elaborate on Froggie's response, there was a "proposal" from chamber of commerce types, but I don't think it ever had a lot of serious backing; I'm not even sure the Tyson chicken plant that motivated the extension of the TN 22 freeway as an eastern Union City bypass is still operating.

When I asked TDOT about connectivity to the TN 22 freeway from I-69, they indicated it would be indirect via the residual US 51 freeway stub rather than any connection directly aligned with TN 22.

According to Google Maps, the Tyson plant is still operating and based on what you just said about TDOT, it sounds like an I-x69 won't be happening anytime soon, if at all.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

The Ghostbuster

Once the Interstate 155-to-Kentucky portion is complete, maybe they can make plans on constructing the Memphis-to-Interstate 155 segment. It probably won't be constructed for a long time, though.

abqtraveler

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
Once the Interstate 155-to-Kentucky portion is complete, maybe they can make plans on constructing the Memphis-to-Interstate 155 segment. It probably won't be constructed for a long time, though.

From what I understand from reading multiple articles concerning I-69 in Tennessee, it appears that TDOT is going to punt on completing SIU-8 between I-155 and I-269 in Millington until the feds commit funding to complete environmental studies, ROW acquisition and construction.  TDOT's current priority is completing the bypass around Union City.  Section 3 is under construction, and my understanding is Section 5 between TN-21 and US-51 north of Union City should be let sometime soon, depending on funding availability.  My suspicion is that TDOT would then focus on completing the bypass around Troy (Sections 1 and 2) and working with Kentucky to reconstruct the interchange with the Purchase Parkway at South Fulton.  Still, just getting I-69 completed from the Kentucky line to Dyersburg is many years off, and I doubt I'll see the road completed between Dyersburg and Millington in my lifetime. 
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

froggie

Quote from: abqtravelerFrom what I understand from reading multiple articles concerning I-69 in Tennessee, it appears that TDOT is going to punt on completing SIU-8 between I-155 and I-269 in Millington until the feds commit funding to complete environmental studies, ROW acquisition and construction.

Given that Federal highway funding is basically given as a block grant to the states, and it's up to the state as to what to do with it (subject to limitations such as which roads it can be used on and providing a state funding match, amongst others), it sounds like it's not enough of a TDOT priority to finish environmental studies.

abqtraveler

Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2017, 01:41:12 PM
Quote from: abqtravelerFrom what I understand from reading multiple articles concerning I-69 in Tennessee, it appears that TDOT is going to punt on completing SIU-8 between I-155 and I-269 in Millington until the feds commit funding to complete environmental studies, ROW acquisition and construction.

Given that Federal highway funding is basically given as a block grant to the states, and it's up to the state as to what to do with it (subject to limitations such as which roads it can be used on and providing a state funding match, amongst others), it sounds like it's not enough of a TDOT priority to finish environmental studies.

I recall some years ago the Tennessee Legislature passed a bill authorizing toll roads with completing certain portions of I-69 in mind, but I think Tennessee would rather try to avoid building the Dyersburg-Millington section of I-69 if they could somehow convince the FHWA (and the states of Missouri and Arkansas) to route I-69 west along I-155 past Dyersburg and over the Mississippi River to I-55 near Hayti, Missouri, and then follow I-55 south to West Memphis, Arkansas.  Of course that would result in I-269 being an Interstate cul-de-sac at its northern end in Millington. 

Once I-69 is rerouted to West Memphis, Arkansas, one can make a decision for I-69 to cross back into Tennessee following I-55 and rejoin its originally planned route into Mississippi, or follow I-40 West to Little Rock and I-30 to Texarkana, where it could take over the planned I-369 spur route into Texas. 
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

codyg1985

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 24, 2017, 11:38:49 PM
Once I-69 is rerouted to West Memphis, Arkansas, one can make a decision for I-69 to cross back into Tennessee following I-55 and rejoin its originally planned route into Mississippi, or follow I-40 West to Little Rock and I-30 to Texarkana, where it could take over the planned I-369 spur route into Texas. 

I contend this is the more direct way to handle it. Spend the money that was going to be poured into I-69 and put it towards widening I-55, I-40, and I-30 along the inevitable multiplexes that would be created.

Or, instead of routing along I-55 and I-40, connect I-155 with the US 67 freeway.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

sparker

Quote from: codyg1985 on January 25, 2017, 09:46:57 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 24, 2017, 11:38:49 PM
Once I-69 is rerouted to West Memphis, Arkansas, one can make a decision for I-69 to cross back into Tennessee following I-55 and rejoin its originally planned route into Mississippi, or follow I-40 West to Little Rock and I-30 to Texarkana, where it could take over the planned I-369 spur route into Texas. 

I contend this is the more direct way to handle it. Spend the money that was going to be poured into I-69 and put it towards widening I-55, I-40, and I-30 along the inevitable multiplexes that would be created.

Or, instead of routing along I-55 and I-40, connect I-155 with the US 67 freeway.

All well and good, but doing anything of the sort would require modifications to or a major rewrite of the HPC-18/20 authorizing legislation -- which wouldn't likely happen unless the congressional delegations of all five states affected -- along with those states' DOT's and the political structure that supports them -- would go along with the truncation and reroute.  And since it would affect AR and MS the most (bye-bye, Great River Bridge), such actions would likely stall or even die soon after introduction.  It's likely I-69 will be developed as planned, but on a very extended (close to glacial!) timeframe.   

hbelkins

I get the feeling that Tennessee wants the feds to pony up 100 percent of the costs of I-69, over and above what other highway money the state might get, since the construction of I-69 is basically a federal mandate -- and what amounts to an unfunded mandate of the money for 69 has to be siphoned from other projects Tennessee wants or needs more.

Of course, I don't think US 51 needs to be an interstate. It's fine as a four-lane surface route.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cjk374

Quote from: codyg1985 on January 25, 2017, 09:46:57 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 24, 2017, 11:38:49 PM
Once I-69 is rerouted to West Memphis, Arkansas, one can make a decision for I-69 to cross back into Tennessee following I-55 and rejoin its originally planned route into Mississippi, or follow I-40 West to Little Rock and I-30 to Texarkana, where it could take over the planned I-369 spur route into Texas. 

I contend this is the more direct way to handle it. Spend the money that was going to be poured into I-69 and put it towards widening I-55, I-40, and I-30 along the inevitable multiplexes that would be created.

Or, instead of routing along I-55 and I-40, connect I-155 with the US 67 freeway.

This would be the biggest money saving move for Arkansas & Louisiana....maybe a couple million dollars of signs versus a few billion dollars of unneeded pavement in unneeded places.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: cjk374 on January 27, 2017, 09:09:00 PM
This would be the biggest money saving move for Arkansas & Louisiana....maybe a couple million dollars of signs versus a few billion dollars of unneeded pavement in unneeded places.

Except that it would kick I-69 completely out of LA and southern AR, and deny Shreveport the chance to complete its full loop. Unless Shreveport gets the I-49 Inner City Connector as a consolation, and US 165/US 425 is upgraded through LA/MS as a I-530 extension, there would be a revolt. Plus, that would violate the original HPC alignment passed by Congress for I-69.

cjk374

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 28, 2017, 02:35:57 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on January 27, 2017, 09:09:00 PM
This would be the biggest money saving move for Arkansas & Louisiana....maybe a couple million dollars of signs versus a few billion dollars of unneeded pavement in unneeded places.

Except that it would kick I-69 completely out of LA and southern AR, and deny Shreveport the chance to complete its full loop.

Shreveport really doesn't need I-69 to complete the loop. If they want it bad enough, they can build it.

QuoteUnless Shreveport gets the I-49 Inner City Connector as a consolation, and US 165/US 425 is upgraded through LA/MS as a I-530 extension, there would be a revolt.

Personally, I don't see a problem with Shreveport getting the ICC built. It will take a lil bit more fighting with the NIMBYs, but I feel the DOTD will win.  I would also love to see the money planned to build I-69 shift to become funds for the US 165/425 upgrades. I feel like it would serve the public better.

Let them eat cake.  :-D

QuotePlus, that would violate the original HPC alignment passed by Congress for I-69.

HPCs can be rewritten & changed...right?
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

sparker

Quote from: cjk374 on January 28, 2017, 09:24:21 AM
QuotePlus, that would violate the original HPC alignment passed by Congress for I-69.

HPCs can be rewritten & changed...right?

In theory, yes -- they're just an amendable piece of legislation.  In practice, not so much.  The HPC's are often the closest thing to institutionalized earmarks in the federal transportation compendium; amending them without the approval of those representatives whose districts a corridor traverses is considered bad form by all but the most ideological of politicos (and can lead to loss of correspondent favors if not outright reprisals!).  The sole form of amendment to any of the 80-odd extant corridors that has passed muster to date is a reiterative corridor definition that adds a specific designation to one previously designated (such as HPC 72 overlaying HPC 1 but adding the I-49 designation to the language; HPC 10 was overwritten by HPC 45, which specified I-22 for the routing). 

However, the most common way to deal with a HPC that garners little local or national support after designation is to simply ignore it -- and just don't fund it!  Plenty of corridors have languished (e.g. 19, 43, 51) with little to show for the legislative effort save a "spot" project or two at best.  However, some corridors like HPC 18/I-69 have been around long enough to have built up a "lore" of sorts, whether positive or negative; that lore can, alternately, often publicize a corridor or call attention to its negative aspects.   

Bobby5280

I certainly do not see Arkansas abandoning its portion of I-69 through the southern part of its state in favor of an I-40 and I-30 multiplexed routing to Texarkana. They're already building parts of the Monticello bypass. They have I-69 plans trying to go forward in the El Dorado and McGehee areas. But that route does involve a leap of faith that Mississippi can get its own portion of I-69 built and help fund construction of the Great River Bridge project.

codyg1985

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 29, 2017, 02:22:48 AM
I certainly do not see Arkansas abandoning its portion of I-69 through the southern part of its state in favor of an I-40 and I-30 multiplexed routing to Texarkana. They're already building parts of the Monticello bypass. They have I-69 plans trying to go forward in the El Dorado and McGehee areas. But that route does involve a leap of faith that Mississippi can get its own portion of I-69 built and help fund construction of the Great River Bridge project.

If Arkansas can move forward with its portion then it would at least provide a nice alternative to US 278 and US 82 across the southern part of the state, assuming that the road is built completely with access control (unlike AR 530).
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Bobby5280

Given the current crappy funding situation for highways I would not be surprised at all to see Arkansas treat its portion of the I-69 corridor the same way it has treated the Belle Vista bypass and AR-530 (future I-530 extension to I-69). Buy up the ROW needed, but only build a Super 2 road either with freeway style exits or just a limited number of at-grade intersections.

Individual states are being forced to pay most of the costs of these highway projects on their own. The federal government is no longer picking up a giant percentage of the tab. That's regardless of the fact the Interstate highway system does as much to benefit the entire nation on the whole as it does any individual state or local area. To compound the lunacy of the funding picture most states rely on flat gasoline tax levels that have done nothing at all to keep up with the insane price inflation rates of road construction costs. Oklahoma's funding model hasn't changed since the early 1990's. But I can guarantee no one anywhere (except maybe China) can build a new highway at early 1990's price levels.

When someone jokes, "we'll all probably be dead and gone before this road is finished," there is a lot more truth to it than mere humor.

Avalanchez71

The juice is not there.  We shall see if State Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris (R) gives the nod to run for office of Governor.  There is a revolt going on in Tennessee at the moment in reference to road construction and taxing.  Middle Tennessee is growing leaps and bounds as compared to this area.  The current governor wants to raise the gas tax.  The majority of Tennesseans' are in opposition to this.

There is no juice and no cash to expand I-69 in NW Tennessee. 

codyg1985

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 30, 2017, 08:35:18 PM
The juice is not there.  We shall see if State Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris (R) gives the nod to run for office of Governor.  There is a revolt going on in Tennessee at the moment in reference to road construction and taxing.  Middle Tennessee is growing leaps and bounds as compared to this area.  The current governor wants to raise the gas tax.  The majority of Tennesseans' are in opposition to this.

There is no juice and no cash to expand I-69 in NW Tennessee. 

I know this is getting a bit off-topic, but I think that for the major freeways feeding into Nashville that clog up during rush hour (I-24 between downtown and Murfreesboro, I-65 between Franklin and downtown, and Vietnam Vets feeding into I-65), would benefit from toll lanes. Tennessee Highway Patrol heavily patrols the use of the HOV lanes, but the HOV lanes aren't having enough of an impact to reduce congestion, it would seem.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.