I am curious, i saw a 1955 telephone map of Memphis, it shows I-55 crossing where i-40 crosses today, obviously a proposed routing.
When was I-55 first put on the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge?
On topography maps and aerials it doesn't show the I-55 we have today on the TN side of the bridge until the mid 1960s
When was the Crump blvd Interchange built, and why was it built to have I-55 traffic go through a loop ramp?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa3%2FMemphis%2C_Tennessee_1955_Yellow_Book.jpg&hash=3bdd45c006c26c39454022d5843d873d92e43c51)
You mostly answered your own question. The bridge (http://www.johnweeks.com/river_mississippi/pages/lmiss03.html) was completed in 1949, but Crump Blvd with the four-loop interchange wasn't on the 1963 aerial or topo-- it didn't appear until 1967. I'd just assumed that the interchange was built as part of the bridge project, but obviously I was mistaken.
As for why FHWA signed off on such an inadequate configuration at such a late date... I'd like to know, too.
Quote from: Tom958 on December 26, 2014, 10:14:18 AM
You mostly answered your own question. The bridge (http://www.johnweeks.com/river_mississippi/pages/lmiss03.html) was completed in 1949, but Crump Blvd with the four-loop interchange wasn't on the 1963 aerial or topo-- it didn't appear until 1967. I'd just assumed that the interchange was built as part of the bridge project, but obviously I was mistaken.
As for why FHWA signed off on such an inadequate configuration at such a late date... I'd like to know, too.
When did I-55 get moved onto a different alignment? maybe that interchange was built before that and it was grafted onto it, sort of like I-295 in NJ.
And also another point is that for the most part the Interstate highway 2dis were designed to go to the city center. So route both 55 and 40 on the same bridge straight into Downtown, but then, it was decided to add a second bridge.
Pre-interstate, what bridges existed to cross the Mississsippi in the Memphis area? Were these replaced during the interstate era?
Quote from: mrsman on December 28, 2014, 08:44:20 AM
And also another point is that for the most part the Interstate highway 2dis were designed to go to the city center. So route both 55 and 40 on the same bridge straight into Downtown, but then, it was decided to add a second bridge.
Pre-interstate, what bridges existed to cross the Mississsippi in the Memphis area? Were these replaced during the interstate era?
This is like shooting fish in a barrel...The bridge that now carries I-55 and friends was the only crossing at Memphis from 1949. Before then, the Harahan Bridge (http://www.johnweeks.com/river_mississippi/pages/lmiss18.html), about 150 feet upstream, opened for trains in 1916 and cars in 1917. I don't think that any Mississippi river crossings have been replaced.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 24, 2014, 08:50:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa3%2FMemphis%2C_Tennessee_1955_Yellow_Book.jpg&hash=3bdd45c006c26c39454022d5843d873d92e43c51)
It appears from that map that I-240 would have been run along the unbuilt expressway along the Memphis riverfront.
I wonder if there was a plan to run I-55 along the riverfront route south of I-40 before shifting I-55 to its current route?
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 28, 2014, 01:04:14 PMIt appears from that map that I-240 would have been run along the unbuilt expressway along the Memphis riverfront.
If it would've even been called I-240. Why not just call it I-55?
QuoteI wonder if there was a plan to run I-55 along the riverfront route south of I-40 before shifting I-55 to its current route?
To me it would've made more sense for I-55 to run more or less as it does now, except with a better interchange at Crump Blvd...
UNLESS the route depicted utilized a riverfront expressway corridor that was already in some stage of development. Perhaps the map constitutes circumstantial evidence in favor of that theory.
From the looks of that map, everything has been built out, except the route along the riverfront that was moved further away, and (of course) the I-40 alignment that would've cut through Overton Park and downtown.
Quote from: Henry on December 29, 2014, 11:36:03 AM
From the looks of that map, everything has been built out, except the route along the riverfront that was moved further away, and (of course) the I-40 alignment that would've cut through Overton Park and downtown.
I-55 did end up getting an independent routing rather than sharing Midtown 240 (original I-255). Presumably the riverfront routing was still alive when the decision was made to incorporate the old bridge and its Arkansas approach into I-55 at least temporarily; at least some of the riverfront freeway plan was still alive in the 70s when the new bridge and its approaches were finally built, since there are ghost ramps and a lane drop for it.
I-240 was also built further "in" around the city, staying on the south side of the Wolf River and north of Nonconnah Creek.
Quote from: Tom958 on December 28, 2014, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 28, 2014, 08:44:20 AM
And also another point is that for the most part the Interstate highway 2dis were designed to go to the city center. So route both 55 and 40 on the same bridge straight into Downtown, but then, it was decided to add a second bridge.
Pre-interstate, what bridges existed to cross the Mississsippi in the Memphis area? Were these replaced during the interstate era?
This is like shooting fish in a barrel...
The bridge that now carries I-55 and friends was the only crossing at Memphis from 1949. Before then, the Harahan Bridge (http://www.johnweeks.com/river_mississippi/pages/lmiss18.html), about 150 feet upstream, opened for trains in 1916 and cars in 1917. I don't think that any Mississippi river crossings have been replaced.
You are correct. Before the Harahan was opened for cars, you had to use a ferry to get to West Memphis. The first bridge at Memphis was the Frisco (the one just south of the Harahan). Both bridges are still very active. As mentioned earlier, the Harahan road lanes were closed when the Memphis-Arkansas bridge was opened. The Harahan lanes were a fire hazard. The roadbed was creosote-soaked wooden planks. Steam trains would shoot off sparks that would occasionally catch the road on fire. The westbound lane was hung off the north side and the eastbound lane was on the south side of the bridge.
Hopefully you'll be able to walk or bike over the Harahan Bridge one day: http://harahanbridgeproject.com/
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 10:33:00 AM
Hopefully you'll be able to walk or bike over the Harahan Bridge one day: http://harahanbridgeproject.com/
Not much there.....
http://wreg.com/2014/10/08/i-55-bridge-could-close-during-construction-project/
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 31, 2014, 11:18:49 AM
http://wreg.com/2014/10/08/i-55-bridge-could-close-during-construction-project/
There has also been talk of replacing the bridge.
Quote from: rte66man on December 31, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 10:33:00 AM
Hopefully you'll be able to walk or bike over the Harahan Bridge one day: http://harahanbridgeproject.com/
Not much there.....
Apparently construction has begun: http://www.memphisflyer.com/NewsBlog/archives/2014/11/10/big-river-crossing-construction-begins-on-harahan-bridge http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/west-memphis-plans-for-big-river-crossing/Content?oid=3782262 http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/nov/12/work-begins-on-big-river-crossing/
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: rte66man on December 31, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 10:33:00 AM
Hopefully you'll be able to walk or bike over the Harahan Bridge one day: http://harahanbridgeproject.com/
Not much there.....
Apparently construction has begun: http://www.memphisflyer.com/NewsBlog/archives/2014/11/10/big-river-crossing-construction-begins-on-harahan-bridge http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/west-memphis-plans-for-big-river-crossing/Content?oid=3782262 http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/nov/12/work-begins-on-big-river-crossing/
I go by it enough, i haven't really seen anything going on.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 31, 2014, 04:45:14 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: rte66man on December 31, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 10:33:00 AM
Hopefully you'll be able to walk or bike over the Harahan Bridge one day: http://harahanbridgeproject.com/
Not much there.....
Apparently construction has begun: http://www.memphisflyer.com/NewsBlog/archives/2014/11/10/big-river-crossing-construction-begins-on-harahan-bridge http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/west-memphis-plans-for-big-river-crossing/Content?oid=3782262 http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/nov/12/work-begins-on-big-river-crossing/
I go by it enough, i haven't really seen anything going on.
The headline is misleading. All the article says is the contractor is free to start.
Memphians called the never completed I--40 intersection with I-240, Malfunction Junction. Supreme Court reversed Eminent Domain and said the Zoo and Overton Park was more important.
It looks like they wanted to use US 51/US 61 as the I-55 route in that map.
As it stands today, the Old Bridge is a dangerous narrow 4 lane bridge with a cluster of an intersection with the realignment 40 years past due. But there's a cluster of issues from the French Fort to the RV park that's been major issues.
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on January 05, 2015, 12:30:02 AM...with a cluster of an intersection with the realignment 40 years past due.
The huge irony is that had British engineers been tasked with designing that interchange back in the early '60's, they likely would've come up with something
very similar to what TDoT is trying to build now. :pan:
As discussed above, I think it was intended as an interim interchange, with the intent of having I-55 follow midtown 240 or the riverfront freeway and sharing the "new bridge" with I-40 when it was completed. Even in the 1960s, had it been intended as a permanent interchange with I-55 through traffic to/from the old bridge, I think it would have been designed to a higher standard.
I guess somewhere along the way AHTD and/or TDOT decided not to reroute I-55 when the "new bridge" was finished, probably in part because the new bridge has been almost continuously under construction since it was originally built due to seismic retrofits and in part because of the capacity deficiency of the original I-40/240 midtown interchange and the lane drop just east of the bridge.
Quote from: rte66man on December 31, 2014, 10:24:59 AM
Before the Harahan was opened for cars, you had to use a ferry to get to West Memphis. Te first bridge at Memphis was teh Frisco (the one just north of the Harahan). Both bridges are still very active. As mentioned earlier, the Harahan road lanes were closed when the Memphis-Arkansas bridge was opened. The Harahan lanes were a fire hazard. The roadbed was creosote-soaked wooden planks. Steam trains would shoot off sparks that would occasionally catch the road on fire. The westbound lane was hung off the north side and the eastbound lane was on the south side of the bridge.
I wonder if there are any stats for cars who may have fallen off the bridge? I would likely need a change of pants if I drove it.
Gravedig! :clap:
I'd contacted, via Facebook, one Vance Lauderdale, who seemed like the guy to talk to about Memphis history. Just now he responded, directing me to this article in The Memphis Flyer called "The Memphis That Never Was" (http://www.memphisflyer.com/backissues/issue537/cvr537.htm):
The Riverfront -- 1955 Version
So (planning firm) Harland Bartholomew tried again in 1955. "The riverfront opposite the central business district offers a challenging opportunity to create an outstanding civic development," they reminded us. What they had in mind included the complete reconstruction of Mud Island, with a riverfront expressway, harbor, playing fields -- even a riverside stadium with parking for 5,000 cars.
Of course, we eventually built a 5,000-seat amphitheatre on Mud Island (without a single parking space), and in recent years Mayor Willie Herenton has floated plans to turn the Wolf River Harbor into a lake. But even that multimillion-dollar project falls short of this scheme.
"It is proposed to divert the [Wolf River] channel at a point near Poplar, and to fill the old channel, thus creating a very large area to be used for the purposes shown on the plan," explained Bartholomew. "The major street plan proposes an interstate route which would be located on Mud Island. With the proper connections to the downtown street system, this expressway would offer a new and impressive approach to the business district from the north and south."
Sometimes they guessed wrong about just what people would need in the 1990s. "In addition to the enlargement of Jefferson Davis Park," the plan continued, "a helicopter landing field and terminal are provided directly to the west of the park. This would make a conveniently located facility for helicopter transportation which, while now in its infancy, is progressing very rapidly."
Harland Bartholomew and Associates probably hated us. We just wouldn't listen, and ignored their best attempts to convert downtown into a city that the Jetsons would have loved.
Quote from: US71 on January 07, 2015, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: rte66man on December 31, 2014, 10:24:59 AM
Before the Harahan was opened for cars, you had to use a ferry to get to West Memphis. Te first bridge at Memphis was teh Frisco (the one just north of the Harahan). Both bridges are still very active. As mentioned earlier, the Harahan road lanes were closed when the Memphis-Arkansas bridge was opened. The Harahan lanes were a fire hazard. The roadbed was creosote-soaked wooden planks. Steam trains would shoot off sparks that would occasionally catch the road on fire. The westbound lane was hung off the north side and the eastbound lane was on the south side of the bridge.
I wonder if there are any stats for cars who may have fallen off the bridge? I would likely need a change of pants if I drove it.
My Dad was reared in Memphis during that time. He doesn't remember ever hearing about such a thing. Having seen some photos of the bridge roadbeds, it seems highly unlikely vehicles could have built up enough speed to hop or crush the railings.
Sorry for dusting off an old thread, but I was in Memphis a few weeks ago, but I figured my puny update didn't merit an all new thread.
My father wanted to go look at progress on the Harahan bridge bikeway, and while I didn't get any particularly good pictures, I did notice that the railings for the old access roads have been repaired. (Note the lighter patches of concrete in the photo below.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.n1en.org%2FLists%2FPhotos%2F2016-04-15%252014.14.03.jpg&hash=e620b76cdff53a3c2897ee8c3fbfbc44138453fe)
Also, it's worth mentioning that you can access recent-day photos taken (presumably by the contractors) on the old access roads via Google Street View.
I don't have pictures, but the bikeway is using the northern roadway on the Harahan Bridge. Drivers crossing on I-55 can look over and see a brand new shiny fence that has been erected between the roadway and the rail deck, presumably to protect the trains from users of the path.
A new bikepath has been constructed at both ends of the bridge, connecting to Virginia Avenue on the east side, and ending rather abruptly at the intersection of Daucus Lake Road and Bridgeport Road on the west side. A new parking area has been built along Daucus Lake Road immediately south of the I-55 bridge.
I didn't have the opportunity to inspect the bikeway on the Harahan itself. My father didn't want to go traipsing through the construction area on the west end, and it was rather late when we checked out the east side.
And just for the sake of argument...here's what the bikeway looks like, immediately south of the I-55 bridge (looking north, towards the Harahan access ramp). The path with handrails is a ramp leading down to the new parking area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.n1en.org%2FLists%2FPhotos%2F2016-04-15%252014.14.29.jpg&hash=a09cc93eed7362cc2d4c3a0156b58340d7338aab)
I haven't heard an update as to when they expect to open the path to the public.
Has construction started on the Crump Blvd interchange revamp yet?
P.S.
It looks like the project's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/HarahanBridge) is being updated. No completion date jumped out at me, but they do have a link to a construction cam (http://allworldpm.com/main-2-main-harahan-bridge/), with a nifty ability to look back at past images
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 02, 2016, 04:39:29 PM
Has construction started on the Crump Blvd interchange revamp yet?
Nope. Still the same old mess.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 02, 2016, 04:45:26 PM
Nope. Still the same old mess.
Specifically it's been delayed at least a year (http://www.tn.gov/tdot/news/16480) so everyone can argue about whether it's better to rip the band-aid off or take it off slowly. Honestly if they're proposing dropping I-55 down to one lane in each direction, they might as well close it completely and get it over with.
If needing the old bridge in an emergency that closes the new bridge is really a serious prospect, design the construction staging so one lane in each direction can be reopened within 24 hours for urgent traffic only that can't be diverted outside the area, even if it has to be substandard to meet such a deadline.
Quote from: lordsutch on May 02, 2016, 08:51:26 PM
Specifically it's been delayed at least a year (http://www.tn.gov/tdot/news/16480) so everyone can argue about whether it's better to rip the band-aid off or take it off slowly. Honestly if they're proposing dropping I-55 down to one lane in each direction, they might as well close it completely and get it over with.
If needing the old bridge in an emergency that closes the new bridge is really a serious prospect, design the construction staging so one lane in each direction can be reopened within 24 hours for urgent traffic only that can't be diverted outside the area, even if it has to be substandard to meet such a deadline.
Actually, I was under the impression that Arkansans weren't happy about the prospect of ambulances having to be stuck in traffic on I-40 in case of medical emergency, and that was the headline excuse in the postponement.
If that were the real problem, I'd bet construction could be staged in such a way as to permit emergency vehicles and commuter buses (i.e. start/expand shuttle bus service to downtown and East Memphis, to alleviate commuter pressures) to pass through the construction area. It wouldn't be ideal, but doing construction with a single lane open to a very limited volume of traffic would have to be better than doing construction with mainline I-55 traffic passing through.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 02, 2016, 04:39:29 PM
Has construction started on the Crump Blvd interchange revamp yet?
No, Arkansas is steadfast on no bridge closure. Build one of the Southern Gateway choices(particularly the Southernmost one) and perils of one bridge would be greatly reduced. Haslem is going to Asia to promote the new supersite just east of Arlington, the V1-7 bridge(55/555 to 69/269) makes great sense for that as well, as it links the steel mills of NEA and potentially new BNSF rail lines more directly to it. But one major wreck on the Desoto approaches with I-55 shut down would be an epic cluster of biblical proportions.
Sort of related to this, but are there any plans to build a new I-55 bridge in the future (maybe in the next 20 years)? If I remember correctly, wasn't this the one that would be really vulnerable if the New Madrid fault happened again?
A few weeks back, someone climbed to the top of the New Bridge (Hernando Desoto/I-40) threatening to end it all via social media. The Bridge was shutdown for a time. Now, if this happens while the Old Bridge is shut down, there's a major cluster. Arkansas' intermodal facilities is cut off, emergency vehicles cut. (West Memphis is without a hospital but Baptist is planning on a new one) and just the plain fact that it is a major crossroads makes a complete closure of one bridge untenable.
The facts are that there are just 10 lanes of interstate that cross the Mississippi in Memphis proper. 4 of them are squeezed onto a bridge that was not designed to be an Interstate bridge. Even with the work on the Tennessee side done, it's a very narrow, dangerous bridge with the traffic volume that uses it.
I'm all for the reworking that Tennessee wants to do as it is needed regardless, but it's high time that a new bridge carrying 6 lanes is built. The obvious choice is the V1-1 option on The Southern Gateway map and a rerouting of I-55 using this corridor.
Linky to the thread referencing the Southern Gateway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3523.0).
The issue with any new crossing is funding, and that funding isn't going to show up until well after the I-55/Crump interchange is fixed, further reducing the need for a third crossing. Unlike Louisville the political will isn't there for tolls (and I'm not sure the local market can support them at a meaningful level either), particularly on existing bridges, which are the only realistic way a third crossing will be financed any more quickly.
V1-1 in principle is great. But it cuts out Tennessee, the state with the most resources to pay for a crossing, and Arkansas and Mississippi aren't building two new $1 billion Mississippi River bridges+approaches even if Washington cuts a check for 90% of the bill for each. A bridge with Tennessee's participation like V1-6 or V1-7 is more realistic, particularly since these options would open up the largely rural North Shelby County/Millington area for a lot more warehouse/trans-shipment development.
Quote from: lordsutch on May 04, 2016, 12:45:04 PM
Linky to the thread referencing the Southern Gateway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3523.0).
The issue with any new crossing is funding, and that funding isn't going to show up until well after the I-55/Crump interchange is fixed, further reducing the need for a third crossing. Unlike Louisville the political will isn't there for tolls (and I'm not sure the local market can support them at a meaningful level either), particularly on existing bridges, which are the only realistic way a third crossing will be financed any more quickly.
V1-1 in principle is great. But it cuts out Tennessee, the state with the most resources to pay for a crossing, and Arkansas and Mississippi aren't building two new $1 billion Mississippi River bridges+approaches even if Washington cuts a check for 90% of the bill for each. A bridge with Tennessee's participation like V1-6 or V1-7 is more realistic, particularly since these options would open up the largely rural North Shelby County/Millington area for a lot more warehouse/trans-shipment development.
I know how much you are invested in I-69, but any money for that bridge should have been better used elsewhere considering the perfectly fine new bridge at Lake Village.
The V1-7 route is a fantastic choice but has drawbacks. It would shift I-55 traffic across to the future I-69 and through the heart of Memphis along with it creating more congestion for 2hat is now the west part of the 240 loop. It would be an excellent link up of NEA's steel mills to the Mega Site that Tennessee is pushing just east of Arlington via 269 however. I doubt it would capture much I-40 traffic at all unless directed there when needed via electronic signage at West Memphis. Now, on the the transhipment bit, I assume you mean the larger intermodal facilities for containers and vehicles just north of I-40 on the western side of West Memphis. Now, that would be best served by the V1-1 option. In a perfect world it would be this:
(ghostbuster trigger warning)
(https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/uploads/monthly_2016_05/572969c08ac4e_innerloop.thumb.jpg.3bf196f537a83d5f2aa1de633753618c.jpg)
Quote from: lordsutch on May 04, 2016, 12:45:04 PM
V1-1 in principle is great. But it cuts out Tennessee, the state with the most resources to pay for a crossing, and Arkansas and Mississippi aren't building two new $1 billion Mississippi River bridges+approaches even if Washington cuts a check for 90% of the bill for each. A bridge with Tennessee's participation like V1-6 or V1-7 is more realistic, particularly since these options would open up the largely rural North Shelby County/Millington area for a lot more warehouse/trans-shipment development.
I like the VI-7 idea because that way you could extend 269 and get a sort of semi-beltway around Memphis. It would divert at least some of the traffic away from West Memphis and could be used if they ever decide to rebuild that I-55 bridge.
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 02:27:30 PM
I know how much you are invested in I-69, but any money for that bridge should have been better used elsewhere considering the perfectly fine new bridge at Lake Village.
Perhaps, but realistically I think MS and AR are more likely to get money from DC to help a distressed region than they are to connect two sparsely-populated suburbs of Memphis. And as you've pointed out before, an expressway from West Memphis to the Tunica casinos would rouse the bootlegger-Baptist coalition in Arkansas.
V1-1 also suffers (like V1-7) from the fact that most of the I-55 traffic isn't headed through the metro area without stopping somewhere between West Memphis and Hernando, so the traffic will still end up on the Hernando De Soto and Memphis-Arkansas crossings anyway.
As for intermodal, I'm mostly referring to the big warehouse operations that today are mostly on the Shelby Drive corridor. Millington and the US 51 corridor today lacks the connectivity to the interstates that area has; either V1-6 and V1-7 along with I-69 would provide it.
No matter what happens in any scenario, the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge will eventually need to be replaced with a modern crossing tying in at the same location (i.e. V1-5). V1-6 at least would probably divert enough local traffic to make a long-term shutdown to do it feasible.
Quote from: lordsutch on May 04, 2016, 02:48:12 PM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 02:27:30 PM
I know how much you are invested in I-69, but any money for that bridge should have been better used elsewhere considering the perfectly fine new bridge at Lake Village.
Perhaps, but realistically I think MS and AR are more likely to get money from DC to help a distressed region than they are to connect two sparsely-populated suburbs of Memphis. And as you've pointed out before, an expressway from West Memphis to the Tunica casinos would rouse the bootlegger-Baptist coalition in Arkansas.
V1-1 also suffers (like V1-7) from the fact that most of the I-55 traffic isn't headed through the metro area without stopping somewhere between West Memphis and Hernando, so the traffic will still end up on the Hernando De Soto and Memphis-Arkansas crossings anyway.
As for intermodal, I'm mostly referring to the big warehouse operations that today are mostly on the Shelby Drive corridor. Millington and the US 51 corridor today lacks the connectivity to the interstates that area has; either V1-6 and V1-7 along with I-69 would provide it.
No matter what happens in any scenario, the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge will eventually need to be replaced with a modern crossing tying in at the same location (i.e. V1-5). V1-6 at least would probably divert enough local traffic to make a long-term shutdown to do it feasible.
It's been distressed for so long, there's hardly anyone left except for the farmers and their hands.
If Lake Village wasn't good enough, Helena could've used a new bridge and there's some folks left there. I know, I know, Trent Lott.
Trigger Alert, other insane idea, outer Memphis loop
(https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/uploads/monthly_2016_05/572969d833b82_outermemphisloop.thumb.jpg.01f135fd17fab80ce1658cbf8b236255.jpg)
QuoteIf Lake Village wasn't good enough, Helena could've used a new bridge and there's some folks left there. I know, I know, Trent Lott.
The old US 82 Greenville bridge was in more dire need of replacement than the US 49 Helena bridge. Hence why it got the funding a decade-and-change ago.
Quote from: froggie on May 05, 2016, 07:39:48 AM
QuoteIf Lake Village wasn't good enough, Helena could've used a new bridge and there's some folks left there. I know, I know, Trent Lott.
The old US 82 Greenville bridge was in more dire need of replacement than the US 49 Helena bridge. Hence why it got the funding a decade-and-change ago.
Specifically the old US 82 bridge was in a bad location for barge strikes, being close to a bend in the navigation channel and having piers close to it. The US 49 bridge has had similar (but fewer) such problems.
Apologies again for re-bumping this old thread...but I noticed that the Harahan bikeway/walkway is scheduled to open on 22 October.
The Commercial Appeal has an article (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/less-than-five-weeks-from-opening-big-river-crossing-unveiled-in-tour-highlighted-by-views-passing-3-394046341.html) and a link to a short YouTube video (https://youtu.be/ZXE_j9ayzOU) shot fron the bridge.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 20, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
Apologies again for re-bumping this old thread...but I noticed that the Harahan bikeway/walkway is scheduled to open on 22 October.
The Commercial Appeal has an article (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/less-than-five-weeks-from-opening-big-river-crossing-unveiled-in-tour-highlighted-by-views-passing-3-394046341.html) and a link to a short YouTube video (https://youtu.be/ZXE_j9ayzOU) shot fron the bridge.
Wish Arkansas would build up islands for development much like Mud Island was done between the two interstates. It is just a grander version of how they built up land for the new weigh stations. Use dredging spoils and create lakes between the islands for build up soil.
I'm not a big fan of using land fill to re-claim land from rivers or swamps in that region due to the historic risk of earthquakes. New Madrid is not far from there. Such land can be prone to soil liquefaction during a significant earthquake unless some new and not so cheap methods are used to make the land fill more stable. They certainly have to do a lot more than make a berm and then fill in the area with dirt.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2016, 11:34:06 AM
I'm not a big fan of using land fill to re-claim land from rivers or swamps in that region due to the historic risk of earthquakes. New Madrid is not far from there. Such land can be prone to soil liquefaction during a significant earthquake unless some new and not so cheap methods are used to make the land fill more stable. They certainly have to do a lot more than make a berm and then fill in the area with dirt.
All of northeastern Arkansas is prone to liquidification, anywhere between Crowleys Ridge and the Mississippi River. What I've suggested is not much different than the current are know as Mud Island River Park. During the last period of big ones in the early 1800's, areas northwest of there(St. Francis Lake) and farther north(Reelfoot) was what sunk and that didn't much change. The fault is to the west of West Memphis. Really, more in line with the St. Francis River.
When I say development, I'm not talking skyscrapers, but things like a 3 to 6 story hotels, maybe an island devoted for an office campus. An island for housing just like the northern end of Mud Island, an island for tourism development like a possible theme park , water park, hotel with indoor waterpark, ect, ect, ect.
Basically, if you look at Google Earth the land between the levee as the western border and the river as the eastern border with the interstates acting as the northern and southern border as the boundary for this idea.
Land east and north of the train tracks would by used for a series of islands raised to at least 10 ft. Higher than the high water mark Memphis had a few years back. Each one would have a designed purpose, one for mixed use/ housing, one for corporate/office development, one as a new riverside park, one for retail like an outlet mall, lifestyle center, and one geared toward tourism(water park resort hotel,theme park, ect. Built a slack water harbor/Marina. The islands would sprayed by lakes and connected via boulevards and bridges.
As for the land between the train tracks or west and south of them, this is new nature park/wetlands preserve,reconstruct sloughs with cypress and tupelo with native hardwords. Build trails and observation platforms, ect. Use it to help businesses with mitigation needs or help as part of the recruitment of businesses. Remember that Mississippi was helped by dedicating a forest area in the name of Toyota.
At the very least, you'd have to replace floodplain acre-for-acre somewhere else. And from an economic perspective, there is sufficient cheap, usable land near enough to the river on the Tennessee side to make such a development rather pointless. Redeveloping the neighborhood south of the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge (I-55), for example, would be far cheaper. Further south, there's all the land you'd ever want with river views on President's Island, while north of Mud Island you could redevelop the DeWitt Spain Airport property (general aviation could move to Millington or Olive Branch).
The only reason to build something elevated in the floodplain would be if you could do something legally in Arkansas that can't be done in Tennessee, like build a casino. But if there was a legal way to do that, Southland would have figured out how to move there years ago.