ARDOT and TNDOT starting joint study for 3rd Memphis Mississippi River crossing

[bwana39]

In an either or scenario I think there would be greater benefits to the national highway network for I-69 to cross the Mississippi River at Tunica. It would provide for an I-22 extension to I-40 in Arkansas. And it would get Mississippi off the hook for building 100 miles of I-69 it cannot afford to build.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to see why the location near McGehee was chosen for The Great River Bridge. The location is at a narrow point of the Mississippi and just south where the Arkansas River merges into the Mississippi. If the I-69 route in Arkansas was built from Monticello directly up toward Tunica it would require some other high bridges to be built. The Arkansas River requires a certain clearance height for barge traffic. I can't tell if barges still use the White River. The L'Anguille and St Francis rivers may only need standard highway bridges. There is also a good amount of swamp land or wet lands on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi River. Building I-69 from Monticello to Tunica mostly in Mississippi would be much easier to do than building it in Arkansas. But Mississippi won't be able to afford funding such a project for possibly many decades if ever.

There is EXACTLY one reason the Arkansas City Crossing was chosen. Robert Moore. When it was initially selected he was Speaker of the State House of Representatives.  After that he was on the Arkansas Highway Commission.  Lastly serving as its Chairman.  Moore is from Outside of Arkansas City in Desha County.  Moore seemingly wants the I-69 freeway for cross from Desha County for primarily community support as opposed to personal gain.

As to the crossing at Arkansas City, yes the river itself is narrow, but the river bottoms, flood plain, and oxbows make it similar from the beginning of elevated roadway to the other side as anywhere else.

I will add one thing, I-69 could use the existing US-79 bridge at Pine Bluff as one span over the Arkansas River. Likewise at the White River at Clarendon. Both would need two more lanes. The current end of I-530 is built to mate to a freeway trending north along US-79. Without Bridgehunter, I can't find the heights above standard pool level, but as goes navigable rivers, the ones across neither are very tall.  As far as goes the WHite, there is not any significant commercial river traffic above Clarendon. Per the COE, there needs to be significant dredging before river traffic can resume. This one is not that far up the COE's list of things to do.  Even considering the potential for river traffic, the HIGH WATER clearance is only 52 feet. The Low water clearance over the navigation channel is 65 feet or less. These would not be particularly high bridges eventhen.

Honestly, I-69 should follow US-79 from Minden LA to Memphis (more or less... Mainly straighten it out a whole lot.)

[MaxConcrete]

There are no easy solutions to adding a third Mississippi River Bridge in the Memphis area. I wouldn't be surprised if the third bridge proposal ends up being scrapped altogether, due to any alternative that is presented to the public will be controversial.

Another possible outcome could be similar to the process for the new bridge in Baton Rouge.

• Start with a large number of options
• The options best for mobility were eliminated for environmental issues or local opposition
• The recommended alternative selected from the three remaining options (with a decision expected in mid 2024) will basically be the path of least resistance and cost
• The selected option will have limited mobility benefits because it does not connect to any freeways, and is not suitable as a bypass for most traffic crossing the river.
• Even if the bridge can be completed by 2031, it could take decades afterward to upgrade the connecting routes (LA 1 and LA 30) to be suitable as a bypass.

https://brac.org/bridge/

That's why my earlier post focuses on the I-55 bridge replacement and expansion. It already has freeway connectivity, no other other work needed.

[Rothman]

Moore seemingly wants the I-69 freeway for cross from Desha County for primarily community support as opposed to personal gain.

And the difference would be?

[Road Hog]

The I-69 Great River Bridge is more than 100 miles downstream of Memphis. Not really within the scope of this thread topic.

[bwana39]

The I-69 Great River Bridge is more than 100 miles downstream of Memphis. Not really within the scope of this thread topic.

But I disagree.  The point here is there MIGHT be one (and ONLY one)  bridge built between Mississippi and Arkansas.  I am more skeptical of the bridge ever being built at Arkansas City than the seeming majority here are of the eventual I-69 path following US-79.

If we limit the scope of this discussion to ONLY Arkansas to Tennessee bridges, I agree. If the discussion is Arkansas to Metro-Memphis, we have a completely different discussion.

I think if we discuss the possibility of an I-22 (or I-69) bridge in N/W MS, it completely takes the Dean bridge off the table permanently.

Absent earmarked federal funds specifically for the Dean Bridge at Arkansas City, it will NEVER be built period with or without a Tunica area bridge.

[edwaleni]

Seems simple to me.

Or build a span directly south of the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge, divert traffic there and demolish the old span and finish the north side lanes thereafter. I mean they want to redo Crump anyway, so you might as well do it all at the same time since they are related. They can probably get air rights over the railroad to help with the curve.

The community makes any idea of  widening the ROW on the Memphis side more than 15-20 feet  an absolute non-starter. This would almost absolutely rule out an adjacent span to the south. The park is NOT the only thing that is not open for discussion. Nothing south and west of the current I-55 ROW is open for use. NOTHING. It took over a decade to negotiate the minimal amounts of change for the current updates.

The railroads don't easily give up air rights. Unless this is part of a railroad district or similar construct who will work with other governmental / neo governmental agencies, it is a would be a very demanding set of fees and conditions. The conditions would generally be demands for closures of multiple grade crossings and / or the highway agency replacing grade crossings with overpasses per the RR's specification in other locations in addition to whatever was done here.

as making some sort of connection at Tunica to get I-55 traffic out of downtown makes sense in the long term, but I-55 south drivers aren't jogging 10-15 miles west to get to a southbound route 30 miles east. Make them go over a north bridge and go down I-40/I-69 (MLK Freeway) to reach the I-55 south route. This essentially gets the "passthrough" traffic out of downtown and the Crump cramp.

I agree that the only advantage for the southern crossing near Tunica ( if I-69 doesn't cross there) would be for I-55 through traffic and POSSIBLY for I-40(eb)  to I-22 traffic and I-22WB to I-40. Regardless, it would require a freeway from  I-40 to the crossing to have virtually any utility.

The I-22 traffic would be better off in this situation if an I-22 extension were built to Forrest City or Brinkley. That would make the Texarkana to Birmingham slightly better and would streamline all the Little Rock to Birmingham traffic. Even if a direct connection from I-55 were built, it will only add around ten miles or so and that might be a win as opposed to driving through Memphis itself.

I will add one thing. DeSoto County MS all in all is NOT Rural. There are almost 200K people living there.

Attached here is am image of the property lines in the area of interest. I see the park line is right up on the highway to the south. (However the deed is held by the KANSAS CITY & MEMPHIS RWY AND BRIDGE CO.)



A couple of thoughts come to mind. 

Build a new half span on the north side of the M-A and you could bring it in without the taking of park property and run it elevated with a retaining wall against the railroad property to the north. (or get air rights over it)

Demolish the M-A span and build an attachment to supplement the new north span and you will have a 6 lane + shoulder bridge.

As you can see, TnDOT owns a large amount of parcels in the Crump area. Crump exits go "low" while the new I-55 stays higher in elevation while it makes the curve south.

It's just a thought.

[bwana39]

Moore seemingly wants the I-69 freeway for cross from Desha County for primarily community support as opposed to personal gain.

And the difference would be?

Nothing beyond personal ethics.

[MikieTimT]

Since it's the 2 states and not involving Mississippi, the logical place for a third bridge is a north connector eventually leading to I-555.

Would probably tie in to I-55 just north of Marion, but there is the matter of an airport in the way of crossing the river where the current beltway ends.

[edwaleni]

Since it's the 2 states and not involving Mississippi, the logical place for a third bridge is a north connector eventually leading to I-555.

Would probably tie in to I-55 just north of Marion, but there is the matter of an airport in the way of crossing the river where the current beltway ends.

Only if you use a straightline west. It would most likely turn SW of the Despain airport and bridge over the city sewage ponds. While the highway would be elevating by then, it wouldn't be enough to block private air operations.

That is why I recommended the "tie in" at the I-40/I-55 merge earlier.

[skluth]

Moore seemingly wants the I-69 freeway for cross from Desha County for primarily community support as opposed to personal gain.

And the difference would be?

Nothing beyond personal ethics.

I'm with Rothman. Getting expensive infrastructure your constituency wants is the most guaranteed way to get reelected. It's hardly being altruistic.

I'm curious if it's possible to work with the owner of the Frisco Bridge to replace both it and the I-55 bridges simultaneously. A two-deck bridge with highway traffic above and several rail tracks below would help both vehicular and train traffic. Frisco Bridge rail traffic would need to use the Harahan Bridge temporarily but the rail bridge owner could then significantly reduce bridge maintenance costs as they would be shared (and probably largely picked up) by the state DOTs.

[bwana39]

Moore seemingly wants the I-69 freeway for cross from Desha County for primarily community support as opposed to personal gain.

And the difference would be?

Nothing beyond personal ethics.

I'm with Rothman. Getting expensive infrastructure your constituency wants is the most guaranteed way to get reelected. It's hardly being altruistic.

He continued his support as a member then the Chair of the Arkansas Highway Commission , that is an appointed, not elected position that is advisory with limited pay.

I'm curious if it's possible to work with the owner of the Frisco Bridge to replace both it and the I-55 bridges simultaneously. A two-deck bridge with highway traffic above and several rail tracks below would help both vehicular and train traffic. Frisco Bridge rail traffic would need to use the Harahan Bridge temporarily but the rail bridge owner could then significantly reduce bridge maintenance costs as they would be shared (and probably largely picked up) by the state DOTs.

I have exactly one question. Why in the world would you want to replace this bridge here? Even with the new curve geometry, you still have a 90 degree curve and a major intersection less than a mile from the bridge.

We keep discussing the pitfalls with specific crossing points. We are absolutely putting the cart before the horse. The fact is if they can get the money to build a bridge, they will likely build a bridge. It almost surely will NOT be co-located with either of the existing highway bridges or a tear out and replace. Like I said, getting the money dedicated to metro-Memphis is the presenting problem. 

I want to add one additional thing. States do not build replacement railroad bridges except is cases where a governmental or neo-governmental agency already own and operate the bridge. About the only things DOT's pay for on railroads are upgrades negotiated for the railroad granting use of air rights. There may be transportation grants for Rail, but replacement of the Frisco bridge in this project would add an amount nearly half of the TOTAL federal grant amounts for all states combined. That is certainly a nonstarter.

There are places to the south still within Memphis, places north of I-40 and places in NW Mississippi where a bridge can be built. I really don't think that the difference in costs between one location versus another will be the dealbreaker. Getting ANY money for the replacement is the problem. I feel like the difference in $50 to $100 million dollars will be seemingly negligible in a $1B overall project. (The Musial Bridge in St Louis cost just under $700M.) Just the increase in prices would make it close to a $B.

[edwaleni]

https://memphismagazine.com/ask-vance/from-the-vault-building-the-frisco-bridge/

[triplemultiplex]

Ignore the removal of the existing I-55 bridge in this image.  (Haven't got around to finishing the version of this that retains the old bridge.) This location solves any problems related to impacting desirable land uses near the existing bridge.


Move a few light industrial buildings and the approach spans bridge over other industrial uses.  Nothing but floodplain on the AR side.  Third bridge achieved.

[bwana39]

Ignore the removal of the existing I-55 bridge in this image.  (Haven't got around to finishing the version of this that retains the old bridge.) This location solves any problems related to impacting desirable land uses near the existing bridge.


Move a few light industrial buildings and the approach spans bridge over other industrial uses.  Nothing but floodplain on the AR side.  Third bridge achieved.

EXACTLY. This route has been suggested for years.

The problem is NOT where to build it, it is getting money to build it ANYWHERE.

[Razorback19]

This is the exact 3rd bridge that should be built.

Ignore the removal of the existing I-55 bridge in this image.  (Haven't got around to finishing the version of this that retains the old bridge.) This location solves any problems related to impacting desirable land uses near the existing bridge.


Move a few light industrial buildings and the approach spans bridge over other industrial uses.  Nothing but floodplain on the AR side.  Third bridge achieved.

[rte66man]

Ignore the removal of the existing I-55 bridge in this image.  (Haven't got around to finishing the version of this that retains the old bridge.) This location solves any problems related to impacting desirable land uses near the existing bridge.


Move a few light industrial buildings and the approach spans bridge over other industrial uses.  Nothing but floodplain on the AR side.  Third bridge achieved.

Just what I suggested earlier.....

Considering the lack (or total absence) of feasible locations for a new crossing, it seems like a new bridge at the I-55 location may be the best option.
1. The river is at its narrowest point in the entire region
2. Using an existing alignment minimizes environmental problems
3. The existing bridge is old and decrepit, in need of replacement
4. The existing railroad bridges at the location mean the spans would need to match the existing spans, which are about 620 feet. This would be less expensive than longer spans that would likely be needed elsewhere.
5. It is preferable to avoid creating new navigation hazards (new bridge) across the river
6. The path on the Memphis side is clear of buildings, but the park could be a problem

Is my assessment missing something?

Although the best option is farther north or south, you could come west off 55 just north  of the golf course and make a northwest beeline back to 55 in Arkansas running north of the BASF facility.

Personal preference is for a north crossing but, as said upthread, there's not as much benefit to Memphis in that.

[rlb2024]

https://memphismagazine.com/ask-vance/from-the-vault-building-the-frisco-bridge/

Thanks for posting.  Vance Lauderdale is a veritable fountain of knowledge on Memphis history, and as a native Memphian I love reading his work.

[Wayward Memphian]

Here we go again.

There are two logical spots for a new bridge. One that connects I-55/I-555 the Millington terminus of TN 385/I--269. The problems...Shelby Forest State Park.and possibly Wappanocca NWR.

The other spot is to connect I-40 and and the current terminus of I-69 at Tunica. You'd build a connector to I-55 that runs by the industrial park and intermodal yard in Marion and connects to I-55 around Jericho. Either could act as an extension of I-22 if Memphis performs magic and upgrades Lamar to interstate specs or allows I-55 and I-240 to be  rebranded I-22 and the old bridge to be a 3 number offshoot of  I-55.

That other bridge planned down stream is needless and could be perfectly served by the one at Lake Village. If anything, a new 4 layer at Helena would be better along with upgrading US-79 from Pine Bluff to Stuttgart to Helena. That should be I-69.

[bwana39]

*** and the old bridge to be a 3 number offshoot of  I-55.

Or just US-78....

That other bridge planned down stream is needless and could be perfectly served by the one at Lake Village. .

Hear Here! I feel really comfortable the Arkansas City routing will just fade away as Commissioner Moore's influence continues to wane since his 2022 retirement.

If anything, a new 4 layer at Helena would be better along with upgrading US-79 from Pine Bluff to Stuttgart to Helena. That should be I-69

Helena is too far south.  Building it around Tunica / Brickeys gives both states more capacity . It is also closer to the existent US-79 routing. The Helena bridge still has life left in it and the COE has no problems with its placement. 

As to I-69, a US-82 routing from El Dorado adds virtually no mileage (it could actually be less). Can use the existing bridge but the drawback is the additional Mississippi mileage (but it would probably be FULLY recouped by Mississippi in not having to build the bridge. ) The overall mileage from El DOrado to Clarksdale should be almost identical.  I will say that I prefer the US-79 routing, but as  a Greenville route I prefer US-82.

We have the arguments that Arkansas is already building up for I-69 along US-278. These improvements to US-278 need to be made regardless. I think even ArDOT isn't invested in this route. I think they are using the guise of developing the freeway corridor to send monies that way. I went from McGehee to Hope on US-278. 147 miles. Over 3 hours. Under 50mph. Lots of 35 MPH. It needs lots of upgrade.

As to wasted development, MDOT started a  loop around the east side of Greenville and  when Arkansas and the US congress foisted the Arkansas City bridge route on them.... There is even one overpass over nothing....

[froggie]

As to wasted development, MDOT started a  loop around the east side of Greenville and  when Arkansas and the US congress foisted the Arkansas City bridge route on them.... There is even one overpass over nothing....

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that isn't a "loop around the east side of Greenville".  That's the planned US 82 bypass of Greenville, which will tie back into existing US 82 in Leland.

[DJStephens]

Ignore the removal of the existing I-55 bridge in this image.  (Haven't got around to finishing the version of this that retains the old bridge.) This location solves any problems related to impacting desirable land uses near the existing bridge.


Move a few light industrial buildings and the approach spans bridge over other industrial uses.  Nothing but floodplain on the AR side.  Third bridge achieved.

Just what I suggested earlier.....

Considering the lack (or total absence) of feasible locations for a new crossing, it seems like a new bridge at the I-55 location may be the best option.
1. The river is at its narrowest point in the entire region
2. Using an existing alignment minimizes environmental problems
3. The existing bridge is old and decrepit, in need of replacement
4. The existing railroad bridges at the location mean the spans would need to match the existing spans, which are about 620 feet. This would be less expensive than longer spans that would likely be needed elsewhere.
5. It is preferable to avoid creating new navigation hazards (new bridge) across the river
6. The path on the Memphis side is clear of buildings, but the park could be a problem

Is my assessment missing something?

Although the best option is farther north or south, you could come west off 55 just north  of the golf course and make a northwest beeline back to 55 in Arkansas running north of the BASF facility.

Personal preference is for a north crossing but, as said upthread, there's not as much benefit to Memphis in that.

This is so obviously the best solution.  A new higher capacity bridge, and Crump interchange bypassing/removal.  Are public officials even aware of this rendering?  A lot of hubris, delay tactics, obfuscation, design regression, and fencesitting in public works decision making in the areas where I've been most of lifetime - New England, W Texas, and New Mexico.   Memphis metro has a history of neglect by the TDOT agency, or is it because of earlier failures to get the infrastructure in place the area needed?       

[bwana39]

As to wasted development, MDOT started a  loop around the east side of Greenville and  when Arkansas and the US congress foisted the Arkansas City bridge route on them.... There is even one overpass over nothing....

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that isn't a "loop around the east side of Greenville".  That's the planned US 82 bypass of Greenville, which will tie back into existing US 82 in Leland.

I used the term LOOP. I meant to infer bypass. Yes it ties back into US-82 east of Leland. US-278 east of Leland, and even US-61 east of Leland. I am guilty of using the words LOOP and BYPASS mostly interchangeably.  Anyone who doesn't see this as a POSSIBLE if the Dean bridge is just a pipe dream is trying hard to fantasize that everything on the I-69 proposal will eventually get built.

The I-69 coalition calls the Arkansas portion of I-69 as "The preferred corridor". I am going to add ...the folks who resolved (as opposed to acted... an act has funding) this are probably 1/2 or better already deceased. 20 years with minimal progress  shows virtually zero priority.

[froggie]

As to wasted development, MDOT started a  loop around the east side of Greenville and  when Arkansas and the US congress foisted the Arkansas City bridge route on them.... There is even one overpass over nothing....

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that isn't a "loop around the east side of Greenville".  That's the planned US 82 bypass of Greenville, which will tie back into existing US 82 in Leland.

I used the term LOOP. I meant to infer bypass. Yes it ties back into US-82 east of Leland. US-278 east of Leland, and even US-61 east of Leland. I am guilty of using the words LOOP and BYPASS mostly interchangeably.  Anyone who doesn't see this as a POSSIBLE if the Dean bridge is just a pipe dream is trying hard to fantasize that everything on the I-69 proposal will eventually get built.

I interpreted your previous posts as implying that the US 82 Greenville bypass was at least indirectly (if not directly) related to I-69 when the reality is that it predates planning for I-69 and has utility whether or not I-69 gets built.

[bwana39]

As to wasted development, MDOT started a  loop around the east side of Greenville and  when Arkansas and the US congress foisted the Arkansas City bridge route on them.... There is even one overpass over nothing....

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that isn't a "loop around the east side of Greenville".  That's the planned US 82 bypass of Greenville, which will tie back into existing US 82 in Leland.

I used the term LOOP. I meant to infer bypass. Yes it ties back into US-82 east of Leland. US-278 east of Leland, and even US-61 east of Leland. I am guilty of using the words LOOP and BYPASS mostly interchangeably.  Anyone who doesn't see this as a POSSIBLE if the Dean bridge is just a pipe dream is trying hard to fantasize that everything on the I-69 proposal will eventually get built.

I interpreted your previous posts as implying that the US 82 Greenville bypass was at least indirectly (if not directly) related to I-69 when the reality is that it predates planning for I-69 and has utility whether or not I-69 gets built.

Yes, but the utility diminished markedly if I-69 gets built at Arkansas City.

[triplemultiplex]

This is so obviously the best solution.  A new higher capacity bridge, and Crump interchange bypassing/removal.  Are public officials even aware of this rendering?  A lot of hubris, delay tactics, obfuscation, design regression, and fencesitting in public works decision making in the areas where I've been most of lifetime - New England, W Texas, and New Mexico.   Memphis metro has a history of neglect by the TDOT agency, or is it because of earlier failures to get the infrastructure in place the area needed?       

Updated version in fictional: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2855492#msg2855492