I-69 in TN

[I-39]

This was from another thread, but it was so off-topic there that I figured I would also post it here, where it's more topical:

Now, by the same token, is there a case for I-69 replacing I-155 and coming to a permanent terminus at I-55 in Hayti, MO, and never breathing a word of I-69 between there and Houston ever again? There absolutely is

I would say this absolutely should happen. There is no way TDOT is building anything south of Dyersburg anytime in the next several decades given their funding woes. I-69 isn't needed anyway between in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.

[Rick Powell]

This was from another thread, but it was so off-topic there that I figured I would also post it here, where it's more topical:

Now, by the same token, is there a case for I-69 replacing I-155 and coming to a permanent terminus at I-55 in Hayti, MO, and never breathing a word of I-69 between there and Houston ever again? There absolutely is

I would say this absolutely should happen. There is no way TDOT is building anything south of Dyersburg anytime in the next several decades given their funding woes. I-69 isn't needed anyway between in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.

I think AR, MS, and LA will try to keep the dream alive even with their inaction on the corridor (to be fair, AR has bought most or all of of the ROW between Monticello and the MS River and continues to build Super-2 mileage in it, and LA is making baby steps in the corridor near Shreveport; and MDOT is the only agency that is showing zero momentum). I think they'd all band together to oppose a fracturing or shift in the route including any scheme to co-sign I-69 along the existing routes I-55, 40 and 30 between Hayti and Texarkana. And I also think TxDOT has an interest in connecting its I-69/I-369 corridor to the remainder to the north (however it is accomplished) rather than have an orphan I-69 system; they may not put up a fight about a co-signed connection but would probably object to a permanently fractured I-69.

[vdeane]

I think they'd all band together to oppose a fracturing or shift in the route including any scheme to co-sign I-69 along the existing routes I-55, 40 and 30 between Hayti and Texarkana. And I also think TxDOT has an interest in connecting its I-69/I-369 corridor to the remainder to the north (however it is accomplished) rather than have an orphan I-69 system; they may not put up a fight about a co-signed connection but would probably object to a permanently fractured I-69.

This is why back in the 50s we had federal-level planning for the interstate system, which is what allowed us to build corridors that benefit the nation as a whole but don't have individual utility within the states they pass through.  Interstates like I-95 in the Carolinas or pretty much anything between the Midwest and California would have never gotten built if they feds had said "here's some money, go spend it in the way that benefits your state the most while still hitting some pavement/bridge condition metrics" from the get-go.

[Life in Paradise]

I think they'd all band together to oppose a fracturing or shift in the route including any scheme to co-sign I-69 along the existing routes I-55, 40 and 30 between Hayti and Texarkana. And I also think TxDOT has an interest in connecting its I-69/I-369 corridor to the remainder to the north (however it is accomplished) rather than have an orphan I-69 system; they may not put up a fight about a co-signed connection but would probably object to a permanently fractured I-69.

This is why back in the 50s we had federal-level planning for the interstate system, which is what allowed us to build corridors that benefit the nation as a whole but don't have individual utility within the states they pass through.  Interstates like I-95 in the Carolinas or pretty much anything between the Midwest and California would have never gotten built if they feds had said "here's some money, go spend it in the way that benefits your state the most while still hitting some pavement/bridge condition metrics" from the get-go.

There are several potential alternatives that could lower the cost each for Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, but I still believe that the current funding process in each state would be prohibitive for the road to be fully built. If the federal government would have a specific allocation for the I-69 work to be completed (which would be a big help for river bridges) that might get the complete road done by 2050. 

[english si]

I would say this absolutely should happen. There is no way TDOT is building anything south of Dyersburg anytime in the next several decades given their funding woes. I-69 isn't needed anyway between in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Even if correct, that means nothing for TDOT and whether they build between I-155 and I-240.

Plugging it in to google maps, I-69 north of Dyersburg to Little Rock via Memphis is 12 miles shorter (only 8 miles shorter than US412 and I-57 so maybe AR and MO can make that the Texas-Ohio Valley desired route) and competitive time-wise with I-55 routings.

Quite a bit of Texas-Ohio Valley traffic would stay on the TN side of the Mississippi to Memphis. But, more importantly, the bigger volume for Memphis (and points south like the state of Mississippi, or New Orleans) definitely will stay in TN rather than cross the Mississippi twice. Finishing I-69 in TN is for Memphis and the TN communities on US61, not for the Delta, nor southern AR and it doesn't matter if I-69 gets beyond its current end in MS or not.

[splashflash]

I would say this absolutely should happen. There is no way TDOT is building anything south of Dyersburg anytime in the next several decades given their funding woes. I-69 isn't needed anyway between in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Even if correct, that means nothing for TDOT and whether they build between I-155 and I-240.

Plugging it in to google maps, I-69 north of Dyersburg to Little Rock via Memphis is 12 miles shorter (only 8 miles shorter than US412 and I-57 so maybe AR and MO can make that the Texas-Ohio Valley desired route) and competitive time-wise with I-55 routings.

Mo-164 cuts nicely across south of Haiti, so route shortening by a few more miles could be shortened, but would Missouri gain much by improving that route?

[ilpt4u]

I would say this absolutely should happen. There is no way TDOT is building anything south of Dyersburg anytime in the next several decades given their funding woes. I-69 isn't needed anyway between in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Even if correct, that means nothing for TDOT and whether they build between I-155 and I-240.

Plugging it in to google maps, I-69 north of Dyersburg to Little Rock via Memphis is 12 miles shorter (only 8 miles shorter than US412 and I-57 so maybe AR and MO can make that the Texas-Ohio Valley desired route) and competitive time-wise with I-55 routings.

Mo-164 cuts nicely across south of Haiti, so route shortening by a few more miles could be shortened, but would Missouri gain much by improving that route?

MoDOT already has plans to 4-lane the last 2-lane 412 section in Missouri. Been discussed a little in the I-57 thread. From said thread https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.1450

Short answer: No, US-412 doesn't merit further expansion in Missouri. Not yet, anyway.

MoDOT just finished their final draft environmental study for 4-laning the last MO US 412 segment. Going to the Feds now

This expansion is on MoDOT's radar

This was on KFVS-12 Cape Girardeau news this AM: https://www.kfvs12.com/2025/05/01/project-manager-gives-update-highway-expansion-project/

[abqtraveler]

So it now looks like work on the Troy Bypass won't start until at least 2035.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/build-with-us/050525TDOT10YP.pdf

[The Ghostbuster]

That's a shame. Do any of us have the time, or patience, to wait 10 years for a bypass of Troy to be constructed?

[edwaleni]

So it now looks like work on the Troy Bypass won't start until at least 2035.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/build-with-us/050525TDOT10YP.pdf

That probably means Dyersburg to Millington won't happen before 2040 at the soonest.

[Great Lakes Roads]

So it now looks like work on the Troy Bypass won't start until at least 2035.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/build-with-us/050525TDOT10YP.pdf

At least the section between Dyersburg and Obion will be upgraded to I-69 in 2033 at a cost of $142.6M before the Troy Bypass gets started.

[Rick Powell]

That's a shame. Do any of us have the time, or patience, to wait 10 years for a bypass of Troy to be constructed?

If the collective "us" can suffer driving on a 4-lane high speed divided expressway for most of the journey, then yes. It is noted that the previous 10-year plan seemed to concentrate on the Fulton/South Fulton interchange and the Troy bypass was not mentioned, so at least it's now in the document. Priorities can change too, between now and the mid-2030s, so we will need to keep watching as the state plan gets updated. The $10M federal appropriation for the Troy bypass would seem like the catalyst for inclusion in the 10-year.

I also thought the cost to convert US 51 from S Fulton to Union City and Dyersburg to Troy ($142.6M) was rather high; isn't most of it to near interstate standard now?

[Rick Powell]

At least the section between Dyersburg and Obion will be upgraded to I-69 in 2033 at a cost of $142.6M before the Troy Bypass gets started.

I think this also includes Union City to South Fulton as well as Dyersburg to south of Troy, excluding the Fulton/South Fulton interchange, the newly-constructed Union City bypass, and the new-alignment Troy bypass.

[abqtraveler]

At least the section between Dyersburg and Obion will be upgraded to I-69 in 2033 at a cost of $142.6M before the Troy Bypass gets started.

I think this also includes Union City to South Fulton as well as Dyersburg to south of Troy, excluding the Fulton/South Fulton interchange, the newly-constructed Union City bypass, and the new-alignment Troy bypass.

The stretch of US-51 freeway between Troy and Dyersburg is about 22 miles, which comes out to about $6 million per mile to upgrade to interstate standards. I'm curious as to what the actual upgrades would be, as it already appears at or very close to interstate standards already.

[edwaleni]

At least the section between Dyersburg and Obion will be upgraded to I-69 in 2033 at a cost of $142.6M before the Troy Bypass gets started.

I think this also includes Union City to South Fulton as well as Dyersburg to south of Troy, excluding the Fulton/South Fulton interchange, the newly-constructed Union City bypass, and the new-alignment Troy bypass.

The stretch of US-51 freeway between Troy and Dyersburg is about 22 miles, which comes out to about $6 million per mile to upgrade to interstate standards. I'm curious as to what the actual upgrades would be, as it already appears at or very close to interstate standards already.

Some of the sections are at or near the end of their life cycle. It appears it had a "scrape and replace" in some sections about 12-13 years ago and they are showing surface cracks.

There are also several overpasses that have not gotten seismic remediation.

I looked at the bridge over the Obion River, and it has the mandatory right side shoulders, but I can't tell what is happening underneath them, there appear to be joint cracks in some places.

So I am guessing here, but they probably want to reconstruct the ROW as part of the effort.

[wriddle082]

At least the section between Dyersburg and Obion will be upgraded to I-69 in 2033 at a cost of $142.6M before the Troy Bypass gets started.

I think this also includes Union City to South Fulton as well as Dyersburg to south of Troy, excluding the Fulton/South Fulton interchange, the newly-constructed Union City bypass, and the new-alignment Troy bypass.

The stretch of US-51 freeway between Troy and Dyersburg is about 22 miles, which comes out to about $6 million per mile to upgrade to interstate standards. I'm curious as to what the actual upgrades would be, as it already appears at or very close to interstate standards already.

Some of the sections are at or near the end of their life cycle. It appears it had a "scrape and replace" in some sections about 12-13 years ago and they are showing surface cracks.

There are also several overpasses that have not gotten seismic remediation.

I looked at the bridge over the Obion River, and it has the mandatory right side shoulders, but I can't tell what is happening underneath them, there appear to be joint cracks in some places.

So I am guessing here, but they probably want to reconstruct the ROW as part of the effort.

That's a reasonable assessment.  I think I've only been on US 51 from US 412 at Dyersburg northward to Troy and Union City maybe twice, but I'm pretty sure it dates back to 1979, as that's when I-155 was completed in Tennessee, and the US 51 freeway is a seamless extension of I-155.  There seemed to me to be absolutely no difference in the design standards of US 51 when compared to I-155 (TDOT pretty much built all non-interstate freeways as near interstate clones starting in the mid to late 70's).  I think it simply didn't get the same level of maintenance since it is not an actual interstate and therefore does not get interstate maintenance funding, and, like you said, several bridges still need the seismic remediations, or by the time they get around to it, could even need full replacement.

[bwana39]

This was from another thread, but it was so off-topic there that I figured I would also post it here, where it's more topical:

Now, by the same token, is there a case for I-69 replacing I-155 and coming to a permanent terminus at I-55 in Hayti, MO, and never breathing a word of I-69 between there and Houston ever again? There absolutely is

I would say this absolutely should happen. There is no way TDOT is building anything south of Dyersburg anytime in the next several decades given their funding woes. I-69 isn't needed anyway between in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.

I think AR, MS, and LA will try to keep the dream alive even with their inaction on the corridor (to be fair, AR has bought most or all of of the ROW between Monticello and the MS River and continues to build Super-2 mileage in it, and LA is making baby steps in the corridor near Shreveport; and MDOT is the only agency that is showing zero momentum). I think they'd all band together to oppose a fracturing or shift in the route including any scheme to co-sign I-69 along the existing routes I-55, 40 and 30 between Hayti and Texarkana. And I also think TxDOT has an interest in connecting its I-69/I-369 corridor to the remainder to the north (however it is accomplished) rather than have an orphan I-69 system; they may not put up a fight about a co-signed connection but would probably object to a permanently fractured I-69.

Texas: Texas will probably complete I-369 to Texarkana by mid-century. The parts of I-69 (and its children I-2 and the  I-69 alphabet) south and west of Houston are probably not that far behind the same time-line. I-69 from US-59 to Louisiana will probably come quickly when / if Louisiana makes a commitment to build from the state line to at least I-49.

Louisiana:  There is zero planning north of I-20 beyond picking a route. There is a ROD, but.... Realistically, there is not much beyond a rough corridor north / east of US-71 to I-20. The priority is from I-49 to LA-1 and PERHAPS a bridge across the Red River to US-71. This is almost purely related to the port of Shreveport / Bossier. The R.O.W. and a 2-lane starter road from near I-49 (an extended Stonewall - Frierson Road) to the port are the only thing in Louisiana with any engineering beyond routing and has some funding in place. The port seems to believe some construction on this segment could begin as early as late this year.(https://www.nlcog.org/megaprojects.html#i69) (https://www.nlcog.org/megaprojects.html) While there is no formal decisions on much from I-49 to Texas, it is probably a higher priority than the segment from Haughton to ElDorado. The folks in DeSoto Parish want one route, but the route Texas has proposed would eliminate nearly half of the (rural) miles between the state line and I-49 AND Texas would cross the Sabine River Texas to Texas.

Arkansas: While Arkansas would claim they are in the process of building starter segments of I-69, it appears more that they are doing a long needed upgrade of AR-4 (oops... I mean US-278). This upgrade while partially "super 2", it is still just a better 2-lane road where there is a current 2-lane road that is terrible. The current curvy road has an average speed limit of 46 mph from McGehee to Hope. The part on the proposed route for I-69 is currently even lower average speed. (Seemingly the reason AR-4 was converted to US-278 was to get be able to apply federal hwy funds to upgrade it. AR-4 became US-278 in 1998.It has taken nearly 3 decades to do anything significant to it. )

To look at this and its future, you have to look at Robert Moore. Mr Moore has retired and his influence no longer will be part of the routing decisions. Arkansas' zeal for the Dean bridge probably retired or at least was put on the back burner with his retirement.

There certainly has been zero done thus far EXCEPT the dean bridge R.O.W purchase that is economically adverse to a different routing for I-69 either across the current Greenville Bridge or following US-79 route then crossing the Mississippi North of the Arkansas River. 20 years ago, the Arkansas congressional delegation wanted either the US-79 route or a duplicity with the currently proposed route. Routing is still in play ESPECIALLY if you look at Mississippi's role in building a bridge.

Mississippi: Mississippi it at best apathetic to I-69. At worst it opposes it. They certainly have no plans (or even aspirations) to build the Dean bridge, or at least pay for it. MDOT recently ramped up construction on the long-idled Greenville bypass. It is what Mississippi sees in its future. An upgraded US-82 in Arkansas and US-278 north of Leland. Senator Trent Lott seemed to think that the route would merge with I-55 in Grenada. (Meaning there would never be a new freeway up the delta). Mississippi is poor. Poor generically and poor per highway mile.

My preference would be to follow US-79 to south of Memphis then cross over in either Tunica or DeSoto County MS. Yes, there would be additional crossings of the Arkansas, White, and St Francis rivers. These would be needed infrastructure moves any way. Kind of like the US-278 upgrades: needed regardless of freeway routing.

The least expensive route is to use the existing US-82 /278 crossing south of Greenville. People look at this and think it adds miles. It doesn't. The probable greenfield straightening on this route is probably going going to make it closer than the Desha based route. Mile for mile the costs of this versus the "proposed route" should be similar or perhaps less AND there is no $Billion bridge being built.It ties in neatly with the freeway bypass of Greenville. If I-69 is to get built, this is likely the best option.

People seem to think the Texas to Memphis part of this freeway is redundant. It is. Redundancy is not always a bad thing, especially when there are capacity issues. The capacity on I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock is stretched. The capacity from Little Rock to Memphis is worse. I-69 is an outlet to greater capacity and reduced congestion. The mileage is similar from Nacogdoches to Memphis either way. Adding a single lane to I-30 / I-40 would cost as much or more than building I-69 AND the capacity increase with one lane addition is only 50% and I-69 should double the capacity. The bridges in Memphis would still be an issue with the expanded I-30 /I-40.

[edwaleni]

Arkansas: While Arkansas would claim they are in the process of building starter segments of I-69, it appears more that they are doing a long needed upgrade of AR-4 (oops... I mean US-278). This upgrade while partially "super 2", it is still just a better 2-lane road where there is a current 2-lane road that is terrible. The current curvy road has an average speed limit of 46 mph from McGehee to Hope. The part on the proposed route for I-69 is currently even lower average speed. (Seemingly the reason AR-4 was converted to US-278 was to get be able to apply federal hwy funds to upgrade it. AR-4 became US-278 in 1998.It has taken nearly 3 decades to do anything significant to it. )

ARDOT actually wanted to spend the money extending the proposed I-69 "west" of Monticello, not east. It wasnt until they had several public hearings and local business leaders requested they improve the route going east.

According to the engineering plan, the new US-278 east of Monticello will be 4 lane, not a Super 2.

[bwana39]

ARDOT actually wanted to spend the money extending the proposed I-69 "west" of Monticello, not east. It wasnt until they had several public hearings and local business leaders requested they improve the route going east.

According to the engineering plan, the new US-278 east of Monticello will be 4 lane, not a Super 2.

ARDOT is not the Highway Commission. ARDOT can want, but the commission makes the decisions.

[edwaleni]

ARDOT actually wanted to spend the money extending the proposed I-69 "west" of Monticello, not east. It wasnt until they had several public hearings and local business leaders requested they improve the route going east.

According to the engineering plan, the new US-278 east of Monticello will be 4 lane, not a Super 2.

ARDOT is not the Highway Commission. ARDOT can want, but the commission makes the decisions.

Perhaps you can explain that variance in the I-69 Arkansas thread. It doesn't make sense to me.