Why not build I-69 up to I-40 in Texas, route it along I-40 over to Memphis and then continue it along the rest of the proposed alignment in Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana?
This would save a lot of money and complete the route faster, since the route through Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi will take forever to complete since they don't have a lot of money to work with (those states have barely done any construction on I-69). At the rate construction is going, I-69 will take decades to complete.
No right or wrong answer here, I am just curious to see what people's opinion on this would be.
Because pork.
Why not bypass Memphis via 67-412-155?
Quote from: NE2 on February 24, 2015, 06:17:42 AM
Why not bypass Memphis via 67-412-155?
Because pork. :)
How else is Mississippi going to get federal funds to improve the freeway links to the Tunica casinos?
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 24, 2015, 08:30:06 AM
How else is Mississippi going to get federal funds to improve the freeway links to the Tunica casinos?
By sending I-69 west from Tunica to I-40 near mezzanine City?
Quote from: NE2 on February 24, 2015, 06:17:42 AM
Because pork.
Why not bypass Memphis via 67-412-155?
That's actually a pretty good idea. Folks would still have access to Memphis via I-55.
Better idea: Split I-69 into three parts:
1) US 59 from Laredo to Texarkana (I-41), with US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville becoming an I-37 extension. TX 44 from Freer to Robstown/Corpus and US 77 from Corpus to Victoria could become an I-x41.
2) Upgrade US 165 from I-10 east of Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe to Bastrop, then extend northward to existing I-530/AR 530 to Little Rock. This could become I-51 or even a potential I-53, which could then be extended along US 67 to Popular Bluff/Festus to connect with a 412/155. Traffic to Memphis could then use either I-40 or probably a truncated I-69 or I-53 extension using the proposed I-69 corridor from Monticello to Tunica to the present I-69/I-55/I-269 junction.
3) Make the Memphis-Evansville-Bloomington-Indy connection I-61.
This would provide a better balance using existing corridors (either preexisting or upgraded).
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 23, 2015, 11:41:42 PM
Why not build I-69 up to I-40 in Texas, route it along I-40 over to Memphis and then continue it along the rest of the proposed alignment in Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana?
You mean to I-40 all the way in Amarillo? That's the only big city along that road in TX; perchance you mean along US 59 to Texarkana, then duplex with I-30 to Little Rock, and then I-40 to Memphis, making I-369 the spur from Tenaha to Shreveport and I-20. Fantasy Interstate land, to be sure, but more realistic than the original post...
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on February 24, 2015, 07:39:08 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 23, 2015, 11:41:42 PM
Why not build I-69 up to I-40 in Texas, route it along I-40 over to Memphis and then continue it along the rest of the proposed alignment in Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana?
You mean to I-40 all the way in Amarillo? That's the only big city along that road in TX; perchance you mean along US 59 to Texarkana, then duplex with I-30 to Little Rock, and then I-40 to Memphis, making I-369 the spur from Tenaha to Shreveport and I-20. Fantasy Interstate land, to be sure, but more realistic than the original post...
I'm sorry, that was a typo, I meant build I-69 to I-30 near Texarkana and route it along I-30 to Memphis, then continue it the rest of the way on the proposed corridor.
Sounds more like a Fictional Highways thread to me, but it could work for a short-term routing.
Quote from: Henry on February 25, 2015, 11:14:10 AM
Sounds more like a Fictional Highways thread to me
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7601.msg172066#msg172066
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9435.msg220952#msg220952
I like it. I have always thought the section between Texarkana and Memphis probably would be a longer drive than I-30 to I-40 in LR anyway
IMHO, it's almost certain I-69 will exist in two separate gaps for the foreseeable future. That's going to bug those who want a properly organized system of Interstate numbers, but it's already a mess with duplicate numbers for several other 2-digit routes (I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76, I-74, I-66) along with the possibility more duplicate numbers could be added (like I-12, I-14, I-99 etc.). I-69 would be unique in that it's the only North-South route with significantly disconnected segments. I'm not sure if I-95 counts since the New Jersey segment is a fairly short disconnect, but one that at least has plans of being corrected.
The extreme (and rising) costs of The Great River Bridge and the miserable long term road funding problems in Mississippi are dooming any chances of making a complete I-69. The costs of doing anything highway related have gotten absolutely ridiculous. Corpus Christi needs a new ship channel bridge. The projected cost is well over $1 billion -like what taxpayers have to spend on a NFL stadium now. I-49 in the Fort Smith area is a big question mark due to the high cost of spanning the Arkansas River (IIRC that segment of I-49 was projected to cost over $400 million).
The United States is literally pricing itself out of being able to design and build major civil engineering projects. Looking back 50+ years it's a miracle this country could complete much of the Interstate highway system in the first place. If the United States were to try to begin building the Interstate highway system today it would be virtually impossible. With cost inflation making the prices of even simple road projects flat out ridiculous pretty soon superhighway projects will join high speed rail as yet another thing this country is unable to do.
One would think with all the technological advancement that has been made in the past few decades somebody could figure out how to not only build roads better but actually SAVE money doing it.
Then let's talk about the very crooked, non-direct routing of I-69 between Shreveport and Indianapolis. Because of all the hooks, corners and other general penny-packing nonsense, I-69 is going to be a time wasting route for anyone traveling the entirety of the route should all of it ever be built. To be quite honest, I really don't care very much if the sections in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky ever get finished. Those sections of I-69 are probably never going to generate much long distance traffic in the first place.
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on February 24, 2015, 07:39:08 PM
perchance you mean along US 59 to Texarkana, then duplex with I-30 to Little Rock, and then I-40 to Memphis, making I-369 the spur from Tenaha to Shreveport and I-20. Fantasy Interstate land, to be sure, but more realistic than the original post...
I think this, along with routing the "I-69 Corridor" from West Memphis up I-55 to I-155 would make sense, provided that I-30, I-40, and I-55 be expanded to six lanes. At that point, I would argue that the Texas portion of I-69 receive a different number, but the process of numbering the segment in Texas as I-69 has begun already.
If one were to draw a straight line between Indy and Houston, then the I-30/I-40/I-55/I-155 option would make more sense than the proposed routing between Memphis and Shreveport. However, an interstate connection (via I-55 and I-57) between Evansville and Sikeston would also follow that line better instead of the proposed routing between Dyersburg and Evansville.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2015, 11:06:47 AMTo be quite honest, I really don't care very much if the sections in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky ever get finished. Those sections of I-69 are probably never going to generate much long distance traffic in the first place.
To be fair, the Kentucky section as a functional limited access corridor has been complete for decades (though the upgrade work to make 69 the through route where the Western Kentucky and Pennyrile Parkways connect is ongoing).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2015, 11:06:47 AM
IMHO, it's almost certain I-69 will exist in two separate gaps for the foreseeable future. That's going to bug those who want a properly organized system of Interstate numbers, but it's already a mess with duplicate numbers for several other 2-digit routes (I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76, I-74, I-66) along with the possibility more duplicate numbers could be added (like I-12, I-14, I-99 etc.).
Where the hell is there a second I-66? To my knowledge, and many others here, it has been proposed, but never signed.
QuoteTo be fair, the Kentucky section as a functional limited access corridor has been complete for decades (though the upgrade work to make 69 the through route where the Western Kentucky and Pennyrile Parkways connect is ongoing).
Here's the thing: none of those limited access roads in Kentucky were ever designed to serve as parts of a direct connection between Indianapolis and Memphis. Hence all the time & distance wasting corners in the route.
The new terrain route of I-69 between Evansville and Indianapolis is arguably more depressing. It's just one route, but it's crooked as hell. If I didn't know any better the route I-69 is taking between Evansville and Indianapolis probably wouldn't offer much, if any, time & distance savings over just taking US-41 from Evansville up to Terre Haute and then I-70 across to Indianapolis.
QuoteWhere the hell is there a second I-66? To my knowledge, and many others here, it has been proposed, but never signed.
I was under the impression at least some of it was signed in Kentucky. Nevertheless, the intention is there to do so. And once those sections are signed there is very little chance whatsoever of it attaching to the existing I-66 up in the Washington, D.C. area.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 28, 2015, 12:25:26 AMHere's the thing: none of those limited access roads in Kentucky were ever designed to serve as parts of a direct connection between Indianapolis and Memphis. Hence all the time & distance wasting corners in the route.
The new terrain route of I-69 between Evansville and Indianapolis is arguably more depressing. It's just one route, but it's crooked as hell. If I didn't know any better the route I-69 is taking between Evansville and Indianapolis probably wouldn't offer much, if any, time & distance savings over just taking US-41 from Evansville up to Terre Haute and then I-70 across to Indianapolis.
You live in the Great Plains, where there's nothing in the way of crow-flies routes. Indiana and Kentucky have stuff like hills!
There's an 8%, or 10 mile saving going via Bloomington, rather than Terre Haute. You could save a further 6 miles, by not using I-69 around Evansville to reach the city centre, but I-69 will be the shortest road route the rest of the way
Indianapolis - Evansville is
as the crow flies - 146mi (100%)
via Terre Haute - 182mi (125%)
via Bloomington (current roads) - 172mi (118%)
via shortest possible roads - 166mi (113%)
Plus the point of the additional cost of the Bloomington route was to put Bloomington on the route!
Evansville - Union City is
as the crow flies: 136mi (100%)
via I-69 route: 173mi (127%)
via shortest road route (following US60 then heading south): 160mi (118%)
Using the existing parkways to save money added 8% to the distance compared to the shortest road route - an amount that, north of Evansville, you see as inconsequential.
Where I-69 is taking a long way around is Memphis - Tenana!
Quote from: Brandon on February 27, 2015, 02:51:33 PM
Where the hell is there a second I-66? To my knowledge, and many others here, it has been proposed, but never signed.
It's still a concept. http://www.66corridor.org/
QuoteYou live in the Great Plains, where there's nothing in the way of crow-flies routes. Indiana and Kentucky have stuff like hills!
And Oklahoma doesn't have hills or even mountains? It's not entirely flat here. BTW, Indiana isn't exactly all that mountainous either.
But hills and mountains aren't why I-69 is so freaking crooked in Indiana. It's more about real estate prices and politics. Some of the highway's bends between Evansville and Bloomington remind me of these little state highways that have to take sudden right turns for a mile to go around some farmer's property who wouldn't let the highway run straight.
Take a look at the other Interstate highways in Indiana. They're all a LOT more straight and direct than the new I-69.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 28, 2015, 04:20:47 PM
But hills and mountains aren't why I-69 is so freaking crooked in Indiana. It's more about real estate prices and politics. Some of the highway's bends between Evansville and Bloomington remind me of these little state highways that have to take sudden right turns for a mile to go around some farmer's property who wouldn't let the highway run straight.
And the opposite: promoters who want the highway to serve their land so they can make money. Not that I-69 is all that crooked in southern Indiana - between Evansville and Elnora it's almost exactly the same length as SR 57. North of Elnora it enters the hills. You want crooked? Look at I-79 in West Virginia.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 28, 2015, 04:20:47 PM
Take a look at the other Interstate highways in Indiana. They're all a LOT more straight and direct than the new I-69.
I-65 has a couple abrupt changes in direction near Columbus and Seymour. Even the Toll Road does some zigzagging across essentially flat terrain.
RGV to Texarkana via Houston somewhat makes sense for a interstate highway. So a I-41/43 number could work. The major problem is I-69 has no business in Texas. Its like Congress blended two or three road projects into one road and shoved it down the throats of states that don't have a need or use for it. How many more Mississippi River Crossings will be needed? How many driveways in the middle of nowhere texas are needed to cut out for a interstate of a road already at highway speed?
QuoteNot that I-69 is all that crooked in southern Indiana - between Evansville and Elnora it's almost exactly the same length as SR 57. North of Elnora it enters the hills.
Interstate highways are supposed to provide a faster, more direct route than a 2 lane state highway running in the same corridor.
QuoteYou want crooked? Look at I-79 in West Virginia.
I-79 in West Virginia at least real mountains as a good excuse for running crooked between Charleston and Morgantown.
QuoteI-65 has a couple abrupt changes in direction near Columbus and Seymour. Even the Toll Road does some zigzagging across essentially flat terrain.
Those turns are pretty minor compared to the ridiculous up & right turn I-69 makes near Elnora. Add to that a hard left near Hobbieville and then another hard right near Stanford. This section of I-69 is easily the most crooked, non-mountainous Interstate in that region.
When you combine that with all the other corner turns I-69 is taking or proposed to take in Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas it all adds up to a meandering, time wasting, overly long route. I can guarantee long distance traffic originating from Mexico and heading to places like New York or Canada aren't going to stay on I-69.
With the way Texas has their corridor laid out, particularly with I-369 joining I-30 in Texarkana, I expect I-69 traffic headed for the northeast to take that route rather than staying on I-69 into Louisiana. This is hypothetically speaking as if the Great River Bridge actually ever gets built, which I still strongly doubt will happen anytime soon, at least not within the next 10-20 years.
Quote from: Rick Powell on February 28, 2015, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 27, 2015, 02:51:33 PM
Where the hell is there a second I-66? To my knowledge, and many others here, it has been proposed, but never signed.
It's still a concept. http://www.66corridor.org/
Certainly a lot of letters posted in the document section of the 66 corridor website. I don't think I've ever seen that much correspondence for a project placed online before.
I don't think I've ever seen that much correspondence placed online for a project before.
Having taken I-69 south to Evansville along with SR 37 and SR 45 from Indy, it is quicker than the former way using SR 57. As for the hard right turn in northern Daviess County, I assume that the Crane military base is the reason and the fact that they wanted the highway to go to Bloomington. A straight line from Evansville to B-Town would have traveled through the base. And less I forget, I-69 north of Indy could head straight to Fort Wayne, but it has some bending around to serve Anderson and (barely) Muncie, so this is hardly new. Of course I suspect that building interstates back in the day was just so much different than it is now, they could get away with more and build a straighter path where nowadays you have to avoid a lot more, resulting in a more crooked path.
That said, I'm all for routing I-69 down toward I-155 and onto I-55 to West Memphis and then taking I-40 across Arkansas to Texarkana and then either following I-49 south to Shreveport to continue on the currently planned I-69, or using I-369 into Texas and continuing to the currently planned I-69 in that state. Connecting the largest city and state capital in Indiana with the third largest city in the state along with one of the two major universities in Indiana seems more worthy to me than what's being planned in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, but that's just me.
Well I don't give a damn about university towns in Indiana
Connecting the largest and 3rd largest cities sounds like something that state should've done decades ago on their own
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 23, 2015, 11:41:42 PM
Why not build I-69 up to I-40 in Texas, route it along I-40 over to Memphis and then continue it along the rest of the proposed alignment in Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana?
Would I-69 replace I-27?
Quote from: bjrush on March 01, 2015, 11:11:24 AM
Well I don't give a damn about university towns in Indiana
So you don't want to take the shortest corridor between Evansville and Indianapolis, which passes through the 7th largest city in the state, rather than the 12th? OK then...
Really I don't give a damn about Hoosiers at all, especially since this is the Mid-South forum
Quote from: bjrush on March 01, 2015, 03:27:56 PM
Really I don't give a damn about Hoosiers at all, especially since this is the Mid-South forum
Racist.
Quote from: bugo on March 01, 2015, 04:22:59 PM
Quote from: bjrush on March 01, 2015, 03:27:56 PM
Really I don't give a damn about Hoosiers at all, especially since this is the Mid-South forum
Racist.
Technically Hoosier isn't a race since you can choose not to live in Indiana but hey sure
Back on subject, I think NE 2's idea of doubling it with I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and up US 67 and either entering Kentucky from the west or Tennessee (as I cannot remember his exact idea) avoiding Memphis all together is best, as LA, AR, and MS along with TN are totally a waste and somewhat redundant.
Also why in the hell does spell check not consider Texarkana to be spelled correctly? It has been a proper city for years before the program was ever invented, so there is no excuse considering that some politicians get their name in the data base right after getting elected. This is so annoying.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2015, 01:33:09 AM
Quote from: bugo on March 01, 2015, 04:22:59 PM
Quote from: bjrush on March 01, 2015, 03:27:56 PM
Really I don't give a damn about Hoosiers at all, especially since this is the Mid-South forum
Racist.
Technically Hoosier isn't a race since you can choose not to live in Indiana but hey sure
Technically I was being sarcastic.
Quote from: bjrush on March 01, 2015, 03:27:56 PM
Really I don't give a damn about Hoosiers at all, especially since this is the Mid-South forum
Sectionalist, maybe
Quote from: roadman65 on March 03, 2015, 04:17:22 AM
Also why in the hell does spell check not consider Texarkana to be spelled correctly? It has been a proper city for years before the program was ever invented, so there is no excuse considering that some politicians get their name in the data base right after getting elected. This is so annoying.
Thanks, Obama!
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 01, 2015, 01:37:55 AM
That said, I'm all for routing I-69 down toward I-155 and onto I-55 to West Memphis and then taking I-40 across Arkansas to Texarkana and then either following I-49 south to Shreveport to continue on the currently planned I-69, or using I-369 into Texas and continuing to the currently planned I-69 in that state. Connecting the largest city and state capital in Indiana with the third largest city in the state along with one of the two major universities in Indiana seems more worthy to me than what's being planned in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, but that's just me.
And what happens to the 269 loop at Memphis? Leave it as TN 385?
Quote from: bjrush on March 01, 2015, 11:11:24 AM
Well I don't give a damn about university towns in Indiana
Connecting the largest and 3rd largest cities sounds like something that state should've done decades ago on their own
69 has been on the books to be completed since the 60s or 70s i believe.
Quote from: Perfxion on February 28, 2015, 09:17:20 PM
RGV to Texarkana via Houston somewhat makes sense for a interstate highway. So a I-41/43 number could work. The major problem is I-69 has no business in Texas. Its like Congress blended two or three road projects into one road and shoved it down the throats of states that don't have a need or use for it. How many more Mississippi River Crossings will be needed? How many driveways in the middle of nowhere texas are needed to cut out for a interstate of a road already at highway speed?
Talk about getting totally screwed if the middle part does not get done! Surely there is a plan for putting that in eventually...
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2015, 11:39:43 AM
69 has been on the books to be completed since the 60s or 70s i believe.
1991 (not designated I-69 until 1998).
Quote from: Henry on March 03, 2015, 12:18:17 PM
Quote from: Perfxion on February 28, 2015, 09:17:20 PM
RGV to Texarkana via Houston somewhat makes sense for a interstate highway. So a I-41/43 number could work. The major problem is I-69 has no business in Texas. Its like Congress blended two or three road projects into one road and shoved it down the throats of states that don't have a need or use for it. How many more Mississippi River Crossings will be needed? How many driveways in the middle of nowhere texas are needed to cut out for a interstate of a road already at highway speed?
Talk about getting totally screwed if the middle part does not get done! Surely there is a plan for putting that in eventually...
Taking I-40 to I-30 is totally screwed, yep.
Quote from: US71 on March 03, 2015, 10:39:07 AM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 01, 2015, 01:37:55 AM
That said, I'm all for routing I-69 down toward I-155 and onto I-55 to West Memphis and then taking I-40 across Arkansas to Texarkana and then either following I-49 south to Shreveport to continue on the currently planned I-69, or using I-369 into Texas and continuing to the currently planned I-69 in that state. Connecting the largest city and state capital in Indiana with the third largest city in the state along with one of the two major universities in Indiana seems more worthy to me than what's being planned in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, but that's just me.
And what happens to the 269 loop at Memphis? Leave it as TN 385?
Resurrect I-255 between I-55 in Hernando and I-40 in Arlington and leave the remainders TN 285 and MS 304? Or call it I-222?
Quote from: Henry on March 03, 2015, 12:18:17 PM
Quote from: Perfxion on February 28, 2015, 09:17:20 PM
RGV to Texarkana via Houston somewhat makes sense for a interstate highway. So a I-41/43 number could work. The major problem is I-69 has no business in Texas. Its like Congress blended two or three road projects into one road and shoved it down the throats of states that don't have a need or use for it. How many more Mississippi River Crossings will be needed? How many driveways in the middle of nowhere texas are needed to cut out for a interstate of a road already at highway speed?
Talk about getting totally screwed if the middle part does not get done! Surely there is a plan for putting that in eventually...
The new section isn't really any shorter and it will cost billions. I think the state has larger issues than a route with no real benefit