https://www.actionnews5.com/video/2023/06/16/ardot-tdot-working-together-study-3rd-miss-river-bridge/ (https://www.actionnews5.com/video/2023/06/16/ardot-tdot-working-together-study-3rd-miss-river-bridge/)
Light on details, and no one from TN involved in the interview at all, but not surprising with the recent issues with both bridges over the last year. Kind of a head scratcher to be asking about Crump status updates from the Arkansas side since they aren't really involved much in that particular project, but no one ever accused the media of asking relevant questions when it comes to road projects.
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 17, 2023, 10:11:17 PM
https://www.actionnews5.com/video/2023/06/16/ardot-tdot-working-together-study-3rd-miss-river-bridge/ (https://www.actionnews5.com/video/2023/06/16/ardot-tdot-working-together-study-3rd-miss-river-bridge/)
Light on details, and no one from TN involved in the interview at all, but not surprising with the recent issues with both bridges over the last year. Kind of a head scratcher to be asking about Crump status updates from the Arkansas side since they aren't really involved much in that particular project, but no one ever accused the media of asking relevant questions when it comes to road projects.
Studies simply collect data and they analyze it.
If the results show a factor that is problematic, then they perform a use case analysis to see how it can be addressed.
Then they can produce a HL cost estimate.
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.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 21, 2023, 09:47:38 PM
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.
Which would not be a bad thing to have, once the I-69 extension gets going.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 21, 2023, 09:47:38 PM
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.
One issue I see with that is that there is a state park in the way, assuming you would tie it into the end of TN 385.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 21, 2023, 09:47:38 PM
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.
This makes a couple of BIG assumptions.
1) That there will eventually be a new / additional Mississippi to Arkansas bridge. (and seemingly not 100 miles south of Memphis.)
2) That I-240 will support the I-55 traffic.
Clearly, extending the current-endpoint of I-69 and crossing directly to I-55 is a good fit. (IN soite of the Airport smack Farther north to directly connect to I-555, not so much. Further north it loses its utility to metro Memphis AND it re-routes I-55 traffic THROUGH mid-town Memphis. This would also require that I-69 or a re-routed I-55 to build the track miles north (admittedly we often assume that this northward construction is someplace "in the works".)
Clearly a bridge from either De Soto County MS to Crittenden County AR or far south Shelby County TN to Crittenden County makes better sense for Memphis. If you assume that I-69 never is going to get built in Louisiana and Arkansas and it WILL be built in TN, then a northern bridge actually is a greater need. This functionally would be the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge.
If a third Memphis Mississippi River Bridge is ultimately built, it won't be off the end of TN 300 (future Interstate 69), since General DeWitt Spain Airport blocks a potential river crossing. It also won't be off the end of TN 385 (future Interstate 269), since Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park blocks a potential river crossing at that point. There aren't a lot of good places to build a third bridge without infringing on parkland or other infrastructure that can't be easily moved. The only way additional bridge capacity might be added to traffic crossing the Mississippi River is to build a second span paralleling the existing Memphis-Arkansas and Hernando do Soto Bridges, although I don't know how practical that would be.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2023, 12:58:30 PM
If a third Memphis Mississippi River Bridge is ultimately built, it won't be off the end of TN 300 (future Interstate 69), since General DeWitt Spain Airport blocks a potential river crossing. It also won't be off the end of TN 385 (future Interstate 269), since Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park blocks a potential river crossing at that point. There aren't a lot of good places to build a third bridge without infringing on parkland or other infrastructure that can't be easily moved. The only way additional bridge capacity might be added to traffic crossing the Mississippi River is to build a second span paralleling the existing Memphis-Arkansas and Hernando do Soto Bridges, although I don't know how practical that would be.
The Spain Airport has been on the block in lot's of discussions. I do not think it is sacrosanct. It is a 3,800 x 75 ft asphalt runway facility While it is relatively close to downtown, it could move just about anywhere. That said, the river width is a bigger pitfall here than the airport. Even leaving it in place, a couple of miles deflection would solve that. Then there is the wildlife units and the state park. I am not sure that there is anything from just north of the airport to north of the state park that is not some sort of wilderness area. There are ways to traverse these types of facilities as well. There really is no "good" or at least irrelevant places to cross for several miles north of the I-40 bridge.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2023, 12:58:30 PM
If a third Memphis Mississippi River Bridge is ultimately built, it won't be off the end of TN 300 (future Interstate 69), since General DeWitt Spain Airport blocks a potential river crossing. It also won't be off the end of TN 385 (future Interstate 269), since Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park blocks a potential river crossing at that point. There aren't a lot of good places to build a third bridge without infringing on parkland or other infrastructure that can't be easily moved. The only way additional bridge capacity might be added to traffic crossing the Mississippi River is to build a second span paralleling the existing Memphis-Arkansas and Hernando do Soto Bridges, although I don't know how practical that would be.
The state forest doesn't extend that far north of where 385/269 intersect US 51; you could easily run a route that curves a bit to the north skirting the forest, crossing the river north of the bounary, and then meet the I-55/555 interchange at Turrell.
Quote from: lordsutch on June 22, 2023, 06:02:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2023, 12:58:30 PM
If a third Memphis Mississippi River Bridge is ultimately built, it won't be off the end of TN 300 (future Interstate 69), since General DeWitt Spain Airport blocks a potential river crossing. It also won't be off the end of TN 385 (future Interstate 269), since Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park blocks a potential river crossing at that point. There aren't a lot of good places to build a third bridge without infringing on parkland or other infrastructure that can't be easily moved. The only way additional bridge capacity might be added to traffic crossing the Mississippi River is to build a second span paralleling the existing Memphis-Arkansas and Hernando do Soto Bridges, although I don't know how practical that would be.
The state forest doesn't extend that far north of where 385/269 intersect US 51; you could easily run a route that curves a bit to the north skirting the forest, crossing the river north of the boundary, and then meet the I-55/555 interchange at Turrell.
Well it is not THAT far (to go north of the Forest / State park)probably an extra 8-10 miles (5 miles north, 3 miles south + the east west component that would be directly there. The odd shape of the boundary there AND 2 or more rings of oxbows. It probably would cross the state line 3 times there.
There is too much development adjacent to the HDB and the M&A has had lengthy discussion on here about why it cannot be expanded.
I don't care where it's built but it needs to be done ASAP. Even if it starts out as a Super 2 that is wide enough for 3 lanes overall (for passing lanes), and build the 2nd span at later dates in the 2030's. All 3 states are cash strapped and it's better to be proactive than reactive. That 55 bridge needs to be Ol Yellered! That bridge Sucks!!! For truck drivers, I can't imagine the added stress that bridge causes! Another bridge should have been built 30 years ago, IMO
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?
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 22, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
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?
That's probably a fair assessment. A modern 8-10-lane bridge would cure a lot of ills. The I-40 bridge sees about 41K ADT and the I-55 bridge about 60K. Replacing the I-55 bridge and the Crump clovercluster would alleviate a lot of need for a third bridge.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 22, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
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?
On the north, you have the Harahan Bridge, which carries a popular pedestrian/bicycle path that is popular in part because of the unobstructed view of the Memphis skyline. There's also a church and the studios for one of the major TV stations in the market and Martyrs' Park, the southern end of the downtown riverside park system, and one that has some civil rights implications (the park commemorates those who served the community in the Yellow Fever epidemic in 1878, which decimated the local African American population). Community opposition would be huge.
On the south side, you have historic buildings, an archeological site, and the neighborhood whose concerns complicated the interchange redesign. Community opposition would be huge.
Tearing down the old bridge and replacing it with a new one might be an option....but one reason it took so long to get the current project approved is that they had to rework it, when West Memphis officials objected to the prior plans to close the bridge for several months (one accident on the I-40 bridge, and West Memphis becomes cut off from hospitals, etc.). This won't be an option until either another bridge is built, or until some disaster forces it to be an option.
Keep in mind that not only is a new highway bridge needed, but a new rail bridge is also needed for similar reasons. The last study, in 2006, looked at addressing both concerns.
I'd still love to see a bridge further south near Tunica, MS where I-69 currently ends, but I don't see Mississippi being able to fork over the cash for that, and then it doesn't provide as much utility for the main part of Memphis, either.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 22, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
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.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 22, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
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
The river itself, yes. The bridge + approaches is not much shorter. It winds up with the same two towers in the water virtually anywhere.
Quote2. Using an existing alignment minimizes environmental problems
If it would ALL fit in the existing footprint on the Memphis side, I would agree. There needs to be an expansion, not just a rebuild. I-55 after the curve south limits it as much or more than the Crump / M&A bridge corridor.
Quote3. The existing bridge is old and decrepit, in need of replacement
The existing bridge is clearly not a proper facility for any Interstate, especially one in an urban setting. That said, it is not decrepit. It probably has 50 more years of utility as a limited use arterial. IE feeder for Crump and Riverside. People want to discuss its' earthquake resilience, but I am far less worried about it failing than I am smaller bridges and approaches. If the big one reaches that far south, even if it remains, the infrastructure to get to the bridge itself will likely be absent. The river itself might re-route.
Quote4. 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.
Matching the Spans would likely result in less expensive individual (shorter) spans. It might actually cost MORE if there wound up being 4 pylons in the water instead of 2. (4 pylons shorter spans. 2 pylons longer spans.)
Quote5. It is preferable to avoid creating new navigation hazards (new bridge) across the river
With two pylons in the water a much wider navigation channel would be available than the current one. Yes, it would be additional, but properly placed, it would; could be almost negligible.
Quote6. The path on the Memphis side is clear of buildings, but the park could be a problem
I really don't know what about this particular bridge makes me so passionate. I have done more research on it than the graduate class I am taking this semester. The footprint here is virtually set in stone. Anything immediately to the south of the bridge is SACROSANCT. (Not just the park!) You have very little room to the north before you reach the rail lines and if you cross them, you run into problems to the north of the Harahan. That is seemingly a non-starter as well
QuoteIs my assessment missing something?
Additionally, I do not think the community on either side of the river would allow there to be only one (the Hernando DeSoto) bridge for 2-4 years while a new bridge is constructed. You could almost surely get the community to agree to remove and replace it if there were a new bridge within 20 - 25 miles to the south. Likewise if there were another bridge on the north side within the same general parameters in addition to the HDB. They are surveying for a THIRD bridge, not a replacement for the M&A... at least not in the short run.
Just saying
Memphis is too big a freight and travel hub for there ever to be just a single available bridge for longer than a few weeks on an emergency basis. Neither bridge can handle the 100K AADT that a single bridge would have to endure. A northern bridge doesn't benefit my travels in any way whatsoever, but those coming from the K.C., Springfield MO, or Jonesboro AR vicinity can essentially bypass Memphis around the north going to/from I-22, which is not an insignificant amount of travelers during the beach season on the Gulf Coast. Freight is likely bound for Memphis coming from the NW anyway, but would be able to avoid the existing bridges, which would help some in West Memphis and on the I-55 bridges and southern portion of the beltway.
Seems simple to me.
Either build a bridge on the north side as an extension of the north bypass over to Loosahatchie Bar (which is in Tennessee anyway) and then tie to the I-40/I-55 intersection @ West Memphis.on the Arkansas side.
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.
As far 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.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 24, 2023, 10:55:31 AM
Seems simple to me.
QuoteOr 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.
Quoteas 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.
Both existing Interstate bridges in Memphis have problems. The I-55 bridge has to be replaced. It just sucks. 4 lanes, no shoulders, very narrow design, very old. The Hernando de Soto Bridge (I-40) is better. It's 6 lanes wide, but there are no shoulders -which does not comply with current Interstate standards. That bridge was built from 1967-1973 (the project experienced multiple delays). It's an aging bridge.
Obviously the state governments of AR, TN and MS don't have the money to build new Mississippi River bridge crossings on their own. The federal government has to step up in a big way. Memphis is an important transportation hub. Efficient function of Mississippi River bridges there benefits the entire highway network, not just people who live in that local area.
Regarding a 3rd crossing of the river, I think there would be greater benefit to the highway network if I-22 was extended across the Mississippi River by Tunica and connected into I-40 outside of West Memphis, AR. Lamar Avenue between I-269 and I-240 is a mess and I-55 is a bottleneck going over the river. An I-22 extension into Arkansas would bypass all of that.
I don't think it's impossible to push a TN-385 ("future I-269") extension through Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park. If it and a new bridge crossing was designed in the right way it could improve access and features within the park. There are other examples of Interstates pushing through "restricted" areas. I-44 cuts thru the middle of Fort Sill. I think a good case could be made for the Memphis region having 4 Interstate bridges over the Mississippi. Efficient traffic movement thru that hub is one thing. Redundancy in the event of disasters (be it a barge collision, major traffic accident or even an earthquake) would be important. Our highway network is pretty vulnerable in that area due to the problems with the two existing bridges.
In any of these scenarios the Federal government will (and should) provide a great deal of the funding. The same thing goes for the proposed Great River Bridge farther South. It's nothing but sheer stupidity for any federal official to think states like Mississippi are going to fund the bulk of such projects on their own.
Both Memphis bridges are clearly substandard for through Interstate Highway bridges. The bridges themselves are in generally decent physical shape, but neither is configured for the traffic load it carries. Load meaning vehicle crossings not weight. Ironically, the larger capacity one of the two carries the smaller vehicle load.
The advantage of keeping these bridges and building additional facilities up and down stream are huge. If you get the interstate and its traffic partially off the existing bridges, you can continue to use these bridges for decades. It will separate the local traffic from the cross-country traffic. Eventually, it would allow for actually closing them and replacing them in-place with only moderate traffic interruption. This would likely be decades down the road.
Yes, we need to go back to earmarks for large projects. Projects with national significance. We need not to go back to the vote-getting earmarks of the 80's and 90's for small, local projects: Bringing home the bacon...
These bridges may not hold a high level of import to the folks in Jackson, Little Rock, or Nashville, but they hold significant national import.
Strangely, the more affluent but fiscally bearish Tennessee is not looking to use part of their federal funds for it. The state government somehow wishes that Memphis were either a few miles west or a few miles south.
As to paying for it:
Arkansas MIGHT if Tennessee did, but likely only for their part of the approaches and additional roadway actually in Arkansas. Tennessee would likely pay all of the engineering and permitting fees and perhaps all of the bridge construction costs. In the end, it is likely that Arkansas would put the 80% from the feds up if Tennessee would figure out how to pay Arkansas' share of the 20%.
Mississippi just flat doesn't have the money. Not out of their 80% discretionary funding and certainly not out of their 20% of the costs.
Why not just build the I-69 segment from the TN 330 connector up to Dyersburg and use I-155/US 412 as the link across the river, then build the southern Tunica Bypass up to I-40 or even I-55 as an I-22 extension?
Three advantages:
You get I-55 through truck traffic off the Crump/Riverside section and extend the life of existing I-55 bridge through Memphis (which I would rebrand as an I-240 extension while existing I-240 north of the existing I-55 junction would carry I-69 through the heart of Memphis).
You get a possible alternative at Tunica to the Charles Dean Bridge crossing tying into an alternative I-69 route using US 79 down to Pine Bluff, then extending down I/AR 530 and US 425/US 165 down to Monroe, then cosigned with I-20 to Haughton to connect with I-69 SIU's 14 & 15.
You get a better I-22 extension using the Tunica South Bypass and I-269, and you remove at least temporarily the need to freewayize US 78/Lamar Avenue. Plus, there's the possibility of a potential I-22 extension using the Tunica Bypass, existing I-55, and I-555 to the Future I-57 corridor and even beyond.
(Mods, if this is more deserving of Fictional, feel free to move it or tell me likewise.)
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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 25, 2023, 02:26:52 PM
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.)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 25, 2023, 02:05:39 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: bwana39 on June 25, 2023, 06:17:15 PM
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?
The I-69 Great River Bridge is more than 100 miles downstream of Memphis. Not really within the scope of this thread topic.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 25, 2023, 08:07:37 PM
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on June 24, 2023, 12:00:27 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on June 24, 2023, 10:55:31 AM
Seems simple to me.
QuoteOr 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.
Quoteas 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.)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53001958945_4f1bf5ca88_c.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Rothman on June 25, 2023, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on June 25, 2023, 06:17:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 21, 2023, 09:47:38 PM
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.
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 26, 2023, 03:15:20 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on June 21, 2023, 09:47:38 PM
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on June 26, 2023, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 25, 2023, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on June 25, 2023, 06:17:15 PM
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.
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2023, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on June 26, 2023, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 25, 2023, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on June 25, 2023, 06:17:15 PM
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.
QuoteI'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.
https://memphismagazine.com/ask-vance/from-the-vault-building-the-frisco-bridge/ (https://memphismagazine.com/ask-vance/from-the-vault-building-the-frisco-bridge/)
(https://memphismagazine.com/downloads/31975/download/FriscoBridgePostcard2.jpg?cb=67ce2514fd3102011a455fa1dc710c71&w=1050&h=)
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.
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 11:51:12 AM
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.
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)
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.
This is the exact 3rd bridge that should be built.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 11:51:12 AM
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.
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 11:51:12 AM
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.
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)
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.....
Quote from: rte66man on June 23, 2023, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 22, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
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.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 26, 2023, 10:34:13 PM
https://memphismagazine.com/ask-vance/from-the-vault-building-the-frisco-bridge/ (https://memphismagazine.com/ask-vance/from-the-vault-building-the-frisco-bridge/)
(https://memphismagazine.com/downloads/31975/download/FriscoBridgePostcard2.jpg?cb=67ce2514fd3102011a455fa1dc710c71&w=1050&h=)
Thanks for posting. Vance Lauderdale is a veritable fountain of knowledge on Memphis history, and as a native Memphian I love reading his work.
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.
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on June 28, 2023, 06:52:13 AM
*** and the old bridge to be a 3 number offshoot of I-55.
Or just US-78....
Quote
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.
QuoteIf 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....
Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2023, 06:30:04 AM
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.
Quote from: rte66man on June 27, 2023, 03:24:09 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2023, 11:51:12 AM
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.
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/55-bridge-final.jpg)
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.....
Quote from: rte66man on June 23, 2023, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 22, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
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?
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2023, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2023, 06:30:04 AM
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2023, 05:40:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2023, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2023, 06:30:04 AM
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.
Quote from: froggie on August 16, 2023, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2023, 05:40:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2023, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 14, 2023, 06:30:04 AM
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.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 14, 2023, 11:44:40 AM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2855492#msg2855492)