I-69 in TN

[abqtraveler]

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.

With Trump's intent to renegotiate NAFTA, I would think the need for completing I-69 would become less a priority since there would no longer be the need for a seamless route from Canada to Mexico.  Most of the route has been finished north of Dyersburg, so I would say complete what's left to be finished between Indianapolis and Dyersburg, and call it good.  I'm curious if legislation will emerge in Congress to kill off I-69 south of Dyersburg, since there is no real need for the highway (and no real hope of it ever being built) south of that point.

[Bobby5280]

Progress should be allowed to continue on most of the I-69 projects in Texas regardless of NAFTA. There is well over one million people living in the Brownsville-Harlingen-McAllen-Edinburg MSA. It's by far the most populated area in the United States not directly connected to the rest of the Interstate highway system. It's pretty easy to justify a Houston-Corpus Christi Interstate connection. US-59 NE of Houston is a major trucking route, so that's another one that's easy to justify. Maybe those upgraded roads in Texas could carry a different Interstate number. But I don't know how costly it would be to change all those I-69 signs to something like "I-47".

Out of I-69 projects in Texas, I think the I-69W Victoria-George West-Freer-Laredo segment would be the very last to be completed. US-281 (I-69C) connects San Antonio with the far South Rio Grande Valley.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

With Trump's intent to renegotiate NAFTA, I would think the need for completing I-69 would become less a priority since there would no longer be the need for a seamless route from Canada to Mexico.  Most of the route has been finished north of Dyersburg, so I would say complete what's left to be finished between Indianapolis and Dyersburg, and call it good.  I'm curious if legislation will emerge in Congress to kill off I-69 south of Dyersburg, since there is no real need for the highway (and no real hope of it ever being built) south of that point.

I can't see Congress killing I-69 between Dyersburg and Memphis, especially since I-269 needs a northern terminus for its loop around Greater Memphis, and I don't really think Memphis would take too kindly to being bypassed, which would especially happen if the Southern Gateway bypass was built and I-69 rerouted through there. (Would I-269 be extended along the old I-69 alignment between Tunica and I-55 if that happened?)

If the LA/southern AR/MS segments of I-69 were indeed revoked, then the Memphis/Union City/Evansville/Indianapolis segment should be redesignated with a new number...say, I-61 or I-63. Then, you could make a case for Laredo-Fleer-Corpus Christi-Victoria-Houston-Texarkana being I-47.

Still don't see it happening, since the consensus so far is to keep a single corridor defined by law.

[Buck87]

If the LA/southern AR/MS segments of I-69 were indeed revoked, then the Memphis/Union City/Evansville/Indianapolis segment should be redesignated with a new number...say, I-61 or I-63. Then, you could make a case for Laredo-Fleer-Corpus Christi-Victoria-Houston-Texarkana being I-47.

I can agree on making the Texas portion I-47, but don't see any reason to change the number of the Indy-Memphis portion.

[Bobby5280]

I can't see Congress killing I-69 between Dyersburg and Memphis, especially since I-269 needs a northern terminus for its loop around Greater Memphis, and I don't really think Memphis would take too kindly to being bypassed, which would especially happen if the Southern Gateway bypass was built and I-69 rerouted through there. (Would I-269 be extended along the old I-69 alignment between Tunica and I-55 if that happened?)

I think it would make more sense to build a new Mississippi River bridge near Tunica than 100 miles farther South where I-69 is currently proposed to cross.

A river crossing near Tunica would be more useful to a wider variety of traffic. It would do a lot more than just let gambling traffic on I-40 in Arkansas get to Tunica more easily. I-40 would have a more direct connection with I-22 and points farther Southeast. I-69 could possibly be directed on a route in Arkansas more likely to be built. If the bridge had tolls it would more likely generate the revenue needed to pay for itself. The Great River Bridge is not likely to have traffic counts high enough to place tolls on it; the entire thing would have to be funded with tax money.

[sparker]

With Trump's intent to renegotiate NAFTA, I would think the need for completing I-69 would become less a priority since there would no longer be the need for a seamless route from Canada to Mexico.

HPC 18 has been there for 26 years and as a designated Interstate for 22 of those.  Somehow, I think the concept will outlast the Trump presidency, although any new development activities may be less forthcoming for the next few years (at least outside of TX and KY, where such impetus is motivated by local interests and the presence of existing facilities, respectively).

[GreenLanternCorps]

Google maps has updated their satellite photos around Union City, Tenn.  It now shows the construction of Section 3 of Segment 7.

You can make out the roadbed and the interchanges with TN 184 and US 51

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4094609,-89.0908863,5035m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Anthony_JK]

I can't see Congress killing I-69 between Dyersburg and Memphis, especially since I-269 needs a northern terminus for its loop around Greater Memphis, and I don't really think Memphis would take too kindly to being bypassed, which would especially happen if the Southern Gateway bypass was built and I-69 rerouted through there. (Would I-269 be extended along the old I-69 alignment between Tunica and I-55 if that happened?)

I think it would make more sense to build a new Mississippi River bridge near Tunica than 100 miles farther South where I-69 is currently proposed to cross.

A river crossing near Tunica would be more useful to a wider variety of traffic. It would do a lot more than just let gambling traffic on I-40 in Arkansas get to Tunica more easily. I-40 would have a more direct connection with I-22 and points farther Southeast. I-69 could possibly be directed on a route in Arkansas more likely to be built. If the bridge had tolls it would more likely generate the revenue needed to pay for itself. The Great River Bridge is not likely to have traffic counts high enough to place tolls on it; the entire thing would have to be funded with tax money.

The big issue, though, is that a Tunica Southern Crossing would be more suitable as either an extension of I-269 or a possible extension of I-22 to the west and northwest. Simply rerouting I-69 along I-30 and I-40 to West Memphis, then overlaying I-55 north of there would essentially bypass Metro Memphis, which would be a non-starter. The proposed location for the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge at least fills a feasible gap between the US 82 and US 49 bridges, while allowing for a direct access between Houston/Shreveport and Memphis.

I'm still under the assumption that I-69 will ultimately be built under its current alignment, even if delayed a bit due to funding issues. Simply pushing traffic onto existing corridors without upgrading them to meet the additional traffic is not smart planning, even if it saves money in the immediate smart term.

[Bobby5280]

I wasn't suggesting pushing I-69 onto I-40 and I-30. Nevertheless, a Mississippi River bridge crossing near Tunica (and possibly an extension of I-269 or I-22 to I-40) would be far more useful. My thought is that I-69 could cross there and cut down through Eastern Arkansas (from Marianna to Monticello and El Dorado on the way to Shreveport). I think it's more likely Arkansas would be able to build such an I-69 segment. Mississippi's financial situation casts a lot of doubt they'll be able to build their leg of I-69 in the foreseeable future.

[froggie]

I think it's more likely Arkansas would be able to build such an I-69 segment.

You have far more faith in Arkansas than the rest of us.  AHTD is only now getting a US 67 freeway up to Walnut Ridge and building some sort of bypass around Bella Vista.  Both have been on the books for a number of decades.  And at some point in the not too distant future, they'll have to address the I-55 river crossing with TDOT...it would not survive a "New Madrid" repeat (and it's questionable whether the I-40 DeSoto Bridge would, either).  All this points to priorities elsewhere and an unlikelihood of I-69 in Arkansas in the forseeable future.

[abqtraveler]

I think it's more likely Arkansas would be able to build such an I-69 segment.

You have far more faith in Arkansas than the rest of us.  AHTD is only now getting a US 67 freeway up to Walnut Ridge and building some sort of bypass around Bella Vista.  Both have been on the books for a number of decades.  And at some point in the not too distant future, they'll have to address the I-55 river crossing with TDOT...it would not survive a "New Madrid" repeat (and it's questionable whether the I-40 DeSoto Bridge would, either).  All this points to priorities elsewhere and an unlikelihood of I-69 in Arkansas in the forseeable future.

Unless Congress brings back earmarks, which I don't see happening either.

[Bobby5280]

I didn't mean to imply the state of Arkansas was in great financial shape. But the state does appear to be in better economic shape than Mississippi. If Arkansas is going to complete road projects like US-67 (future I-57) and I-49 at a very slow, glacial pace I think Mississippi will make progress at an even slower pace.

[Life in Paradise]

The Tunica (or north of Tunica) crossing into Arkansas would only be beneficial if you have a spur that would go west to about Forest City, so it would be some sort of bypass of Memphis.  Truth remains, though that if you cross the Mississippi that far north you not only have to span that river, but then require Arkansas to span the Arkansas River as well.  By putting the crossing near McGehee, you only have to cross the Mississippi (at a cost that would be close to that if done near Memphis).  Tis true, that the fact that there are only two crossings from Tenessee to Arkansas for almost 100 miles in each direction (OK, perhaps 50 miles to US49) will cause a major problem sometime in the future.

[Bobby5280]

The Tunica (or north of Tunica) crossing into Arkansas would only be beneficial if you have a spur that would go west to about Forest City, so it would be some sort of bypass of Memphis.

I thought I suggested a Tunica Interstate crossing over the Mississippi hooking into I-40 in Arkansas. A few miles East of Forrest City would be good.

Truth remains, though that if you cross the Mississippi that far north you not only have to span that river, but then require Arkansas to span the Arkansas River as well.  By putting the crossing near McGehee, you only have to cross the Mississippi (at a cost that would be close to that if done near Memphis).  Tis true, that the fact that there are only two crossings from Tenessee to Arkansas for almost 100 miles in each direction (OK, perhaps 50 miles to US49) will cause a major problem sometime in the future.

Another Arkansas River crossing would indeed be a penalty for putting that leg of I-69 on the West side of the Mississippi. But bridges over the Arkansas River do not need to be built nearly as high as those spanning the Mississippi. If the AR-1 bridge had adequate shoulders it could be incorporated into an I-69 route (with twin bridges spanning the river there). But it's not up to Interstate standards.

One bright side is people from Pine Bluff and other parts of SE Arkansas could make far more use of a Tunica crossing to the Memphis area than they would with one down at McGehee.

[adventurernumber1]

I think that the I-69 Great River Bridge should cross the Mississippi River where it is planned to do so. I also absolutely think that the Memphis area could use a third, large bridge across the river. I have always found I-69's planned routing across Arkansas to be quite peculiar - I don't seem to understand why it makes such a big bend in the state - is it meant to connect up with a possible I-530 extension?? Also, while I am aware that both Arkansas and Mississippi do not have much money to spend at all, and the possible fact that Mississippi is even worse off than Arkansas, AR will be quite busy with I-49 and a possible interstate designation for the US 67 corridor - perhaps I am to say that if we routed I-69 over the Mississippi River near Tunica, that would be giving AR a little too much of a burden when it comes to building interstates. While MS will be busy finishing up Interstate 22 and a possible future, far-fetched I-14 - which is all that I am aware of - it is not quite as much work as AR has on its platter. It would probably be best to route I-69 as is through that region of Mississippi, and it will even give the gambling region an interstate corridor.

[adventurernumber1]

Come to think of it, this is in the "I-69 in TN" thread, so we might be getting a bit off-topic. My apologies for contributing to the off-topic-ness.


EDIT: I'm no moderator, but since this has been a pretty lively discussion on I-69 in Mississippi and Arkansas, and where the I-69 Bridge should be, and more, it would probably be advised that this specific discussion be continued onto Page 4 of the "General I-69" thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13977.75

[sparker]

I think that the I-69 Great River Bridge should cross the Mississippi River where it is planned to do so. I also absolutely think that the Memphis area could use a third, large bridge across the river. I have always found I-69's planned routing across Arkansas to be quite peculiar - I don't seem to understand why it makes such a big bend in the state - is it meant to connect up with a possible I-530 extension?? Also, while I am aware that both Arkansas and Mississippi do not have much money to spend at all, and the possible fact that Mississippi is even worse off than Arkansas, AR will be quite busy with I-49 and a possible interstate designation for the US 67 corridor - perhaps I am to say that if we routed I-69 over the Mississippi River near Tunica, that would be giving AR a little too much of a burden when it comes to building interstates. While MS will be busy finishing up Interstate 22 and a possible future, far-fetched I-14 - which is all that I am aware of - it is not quite as much work as AR has on its platter. It would probably be best to route I-69 as is through that region of Mississippi, and it will even give the gambling region an interstate corridor.

The I-69 segment from Shreveport to Memphis was designed to address several regional issues:  the ongoing lack of development in Southern Arkansas (the presence of I-69 is intended to ameliorate the area's isolation), the lack of economic opportunity within the Mississippi Delta area along US 61, and the perceived need for a new (and possibly multimodal) bridge across the Mississippi River.  All are speculative, of course; as is the routing itself; its basic function can be accomplished by extant routings including a largely all-Interstate path that includes I-49, I-30, and I-40 -- although perennial congestion on the latter two may serve as an additional I-69 rationale.  That being said, the cross-AR route paralleling US 278 is specifically intended to segue straight to the Great River Bridge site, chosen because it's below the Arkansas River confluence with the Mississippi.  And, yes, the southern 530 (I- and AR) extension is intended to intersect I-69 west of Monticello; 530 south of Pine Bluff is legislatively a branch of the HPC 18/I-69 corridor.  However, all things considered, this segment of the I-69 overall corridor is widely considered to be the least pressing in terms of present or near-term need -- and equally considered to be the most politically motivated in terms of the planning & development process -- and broadly criticized as such.     

[lordsutch]

Gov. Haslam is rolling out a push for a transportation funding bill that includes increases in the gax tax and other fees; the accompanying project needs map shows several SIU 7 and SIU 8(!) projects being funded as part of the additional stream. It also includes the I-69/240 midtown widening project between I-40 and I-55.

[adventurernumber1]

I think that the I-69 Great River Bridge should cross the Mississippi River where it is planned to do so. I also absolutely think that the Memphis area could use a third, large bridge across the river. I have always found I-69's planned routing across Arkansas to be quite peculiar - I don't seem to understand why it makes such a big bend in the state - is it meant to connect up with a possible I-530 extension?? Also, while I am aware that both Arkansas and Mississippi do not have much money to spend at all, and the possible fact that Mississippi is even worse off than Arkansas, AR will be quite busy with I-49 and a possible interstate designation for the US 67 corridor - perhaps I am to say that if we routed I-69 over the Mississippi River near Tunica, that would be giving AR a little too much of a burden when it comes to building interstates. While MS will be busy finishing up Interstate 22 and a possible future, far-fetched I-14 - which is all that I am aware of - it is not quite as much work as AR has on its platter. It would probably be best to route I-69 as is through that region of Mississippi, and it will even give the gambling region an interstate corridor.

The I-69 segment from Shreveport to Memphis was designed to address several regional issues:  the ongoing lack of development in Southern Arkansas (the presence of I-69 is intended to ameliorate the area's isolation), the lack of economic opportunity within the Mississippi Delta area along US 61, and the perceived need for a new (and possibly multimodal) bridge across the Mississippi River.  All are speculative, of course; as is the routing itself; its basic function can be accomplished by extant routings including a largely all-Interstate path that includes I-49, I-30, and I-40 -- although perennial congestion on the latter two may serve as an additional I-69 rationale.  That being said, the cross-AR route paralleling US 278 is specifically intended to segue straight to the Great River Bridge site, chosen because it's below the Arkansas River confluence with the Mississippi.  And, yes, the southern 530 (I- and AR) extension is intended to intersect I-69 west of Monticello; 530 south of Pine Bluff is legislatively a branch of the HPC 18/I-69 corridor.  However, all things considered, this segment of the I-69 overall corridor is widely considered to be the least pressing in terms of present or near-term need -- and equally considered to be the most politically motivated in terms of the planning & development process -- and broadly criticized as such.     

Thank you for the information. I agree that Interstate 69 in Arkansas will probably be the last of it to be built.


____________________________________________________________________________


Now to stay on topic with Interstate 69 in Tennessee, I have a question about such. I feel silly for not knowing this already, and I also apologize if this has already been answered upthread, but what exactly is going to be the plan with Interstate 155? 

[froggie]

In short (and assuming the latter is ever built), I-155 will end at I-69.

[mvak36]

Gov. Haslam is rolling out a push for a transportation funding bill that includes increases in the gax tax and other fees; the accompanying project needs map shows several SIU 7 and SIU 8(!) projects being funded as part of the additional stream. It also includes the I-69/240 midtown widening project between I-40 and I-55.

So is this going to be voted on by the people or will this just be passed by the legislators? Are the chances good for it passing?

Also, I-65 from Nashville to the Kentucky State line and I-24 from I-40 to I-840 were listed in the projects list. I wonder if they're gonna involve adding new lanes.

[Buck87]

Gov. Haslam is rolling out a push for a transportation funding bill that includes increases in the gax tax and other fees; the accompanying project needs map shows several SIU 7 and SIU 8(!) projects being funded as part of the additional stream. It also includes the I-69/240 midtown widening project between I-40 and I-55.

So is this going to be voted on by the people or will this just be passed by the legislators? Are the chances good for it passing?

Also, I-65 from Nashville to the Kentucky State line and I-24 from I-40 to I-840 were listed in the projects list. I wonder if they're gonna involve adding new lanes.

The I-65 project has a vague title, but it does say an estimated cost of $397.4 Million for 51 miles, which sounds about right for 6 laning it, which is what that section needs IMO.

[Grzrd]

This TDOT press release announces the release, by Gov. Haslam, of two highway project lists: (a) currently backlogged projects, and (b) new projects, as part of his public relations campaign to identify increased transportation funding in Tennessee:

Joined by Department of Transportation (TDOT) Commissioner John Schroer, Haslam also released two transportation projects lists: a list of 181 backlogged projects that will not be completed or at least under contract until 2034; and a list of 765 new project needs that cannot be considered until 2022 at the earliest, if ever.

In a mild surprise to me, I-69 SIU 8 is included in the backlogged projects list (along with the remaining SIU 7 and SIU 9 projects), even though a Final Environmental Impact Statement has not been released ....
In a bit of a disappointment, the state line connection to Kentucky is considered a "new" project that cannot currently be considered until 2022, at the earliest

Gov. Haslam is rolling out a push for a transportation funding bill that includes increases in the gax tax and other fees; the accompanying project needs map shows several SIU 7 and SIU 8(!) projects being funded as part of the additional stream. It also includes the I-69/240 midtown widening project between I-40 and I-55.

Al of the projects necessary to complete SIU 7 have apparently been included (including the Kentucky state line connection). It is interesting which SIU 8 projects were included: they are concentrated in Lauderdale County, in the middle of SIU 8. The IMPROVE Act map provides a good illustration:



I guess it was a "spread the wealth" approach to make it politically feasible.

Also, no new terrain SIU 9 projects were included. Maybe if the Lamar Avenue upgrades get the FASTLANE grant, then the money could be shifted to I-69 SIU 9.

[mvak36]

Gov. Haslam is rolling out a push for a transportation funding bill that includes increases in the gax tax and other fees; the accompanying project needs map shows several SIU 7 and SIU 8(!) projects being funded as part of the additional stream. It also includes the I-69/240 midtown widening project between I-40 and I-55.

Al of the projects necessary to complete SIU 7 have apparently been included (including the Kentucky state line connection). It is interesting which SIU 8 projects were included: they are concentrated in Lauderdale County, in the middle of SIU 8. The IMPROVE Act map provides a good illustration:



I guess it was a "spread the wealth" approach to make it politically feasible.

Also, no new terrain SIU 9 projects were included. Maybe if the Lamar Avenue upgrades get the FASTLANE grant, then the money could be shifted to I-69 SIU 9.

That's great news. It's progress at least. Now I'm really hoping it passes (instead of wondering if it will) .

[GreenLanternCorps]

I think that the I-69 Great River Bridge should cross the Mississippi River where it is planned to do so. I also absolutely think that the Memphis area could use a third, large bridge across the river. I have always found I-69's planned routing across Arkansas to be quite peculiar - I don't seem to understand why it makes such a big bend in the state - is it meant to connect up with a possible I-530 extension?? Also, while I am aware that both Arkansas and Mississippi do not have much money to spend at all, and the possible fact that Mississippi is even worse off than Arkansas, AR will be quite busy with I-49 and a possible interstate designation for the US 67 corridor - perhaps I am to say that if we routed I-69 over the Mississippi River near Tunica, that would be giving AR a little too much of a burden when it comes to building interstates. While MS will be busy finishing up Interstate 22 and a possible future, far-fetched I-14 - which is all that I am aware of - it is not quite as much work as AR has on its platter. It would probably be best to route I-69 as is through that region of Mississippi, and it will even give the gambling region an interstate corridor.

The I-69 segment from Shreveport to Memphis was designed to address several regional issues:  the ongoing lack of development in Southern Arkansas (the presence of I-69 is intended to ameliorate the area's isolation), the lack of economic opportunity within the Mississippi Delta area along US 61, and the perceived need for a new (and possibly multimodal) bridge across the Mississippi River.  All are speculative, of course; as is the routing itself; its basic function can be accomplished by extant routings including a largely all-Interstate path that includes I-49, I-30, and I-40 -- although perennial congestion on the latter two may serve as an additional I-69 rationale.  That being said, the cross-AR route paralleling US 278 is specifically intended to segue straight to the Great River Bridge site, chosen because it's below the Arkansas River confluence with the Mississippi.  And, yes, the southern 530 (I- and AR) extension is intended to intersect I-69 west of Monticello; 530 south of Pine Bluff is legislatively a branch of the HPC 18/I-69 corridor.  However, all things considered, this segment of the I-69 overall corridor is widely considered to be the least pressing in terms of present or near-term need -- and equally considered to be the most politically motivated in terms of the planning & development process -- and broadly criticized as such.     

Thank you for the information. I agree that Interstate 69 in Arkansas will probably be the last of it to be built.


____________________________________________________________________________


Now to stay on topic with Interstate 69 in Tennessee, I have a question about such. I feel silly for not knowing this already, and I also apologize if this has already been answered upthread, but what exactly is going to be the plan with Interstate 155? 

The I-69/I-155 Interchange will be built just to the west of Dyersburg.

https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/tdot/attachments/i-69s03.pdf