I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530)

[Rick Powell]

Great, thanks for the insights and clarification. Is there a preferred alignment for the Troy bypass?

I'm not sure if an EIS was prepared for the Troy bypass, technically it is I-69 SIU 7 Sections 1 and 2 (there are 5 sections that the SIU was divided into in TN running south to north). I did find this map from an unofficial I-69 site.
http://www.i69info.com/siu7-final.png

[Road Hog]

I can now say I have zero interest in I-69 as presently conceptualized between Shreveport and Memphis. It's a road to nowhere and a boondoggle. I-49 > I-30 > I-40 suffices ( and in the end might actually be shorter).

[bwana39]

I would have completed the Monticello bypass before building the extension to McGahee. By the way, when the extension to McGahee is constructed, will it also be signed as Bypass US 278, or might they bring back the AR 569 designation?

https://ardot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=a716eb676065457cae0cf67b99c257fe

It will be called US-278 until a bridge over the Mississippi River is built.

When ARDOT engaged local leadership and business leaders, they said updating the road east to McGahee had more economic impact than extending the bypass farther west and connecting it to a future AR-530.

Most of the hearing material has been taken down by ARDOT on the project site, but a video recap of the project can be found here:

https://vimeo.com/452222439

Bottom line is even the locals prefer an improved regional road. What was there a decade ago and mostly still is are 24' of two lane road with no shoulders, lots of curves, and no passing zones. While (re)numbered as US-278 in function it is still AR-4. The average speed per google from McGehee to Hope is 44 mph. There are rural stretches that are 45 mph and communities with no stores or signed intersections go to 35. In some of the towns and rural communities with intersections 30mph.

If I live out there, I want improved regional transportation even if I have to feign wanting this freeway. Realistically, there is more going on on the US-82 corridor than US-278.

[TBKS1]

not trying to sound like that guy but you're responding to a message from three years ago...

I made that point in my message, and the point still stands in yours but I don't know if those users are still active on this forum from when that message was written.

[bwana39]

not trying to sound like that guy but you're responding to a message from three years ago...

I made that point in my message, and the point still stands in yours but I don't know if those users are still active on this forum from when that message was written.

I purposely did it to get it back on track in Arkansas instead of on the part in northern Tennessee. You are the one who reopened this thing. I don't think the people who I responded to are really pertinent. The point is that what is going on out there has little to no direct correlation to this (or any) future Interstate being finished.

[abqtraveler]

Great, thanks for the insights and clarification. Is there a preferred alignment for the Troy bypass?

I'm not sure if an EIS was prepared for the Troy bypass, technically it is I-69 SIU 7 Sections 1 and 2 (there are 5 sections that the SIU was divided into in TN running south to north). I did find this map from an unofficial I-69 site.
http://www.i69info.com/siu7-final.png

There was an EIS and ROD prepared for Segment 7 that includes both the Troy and Union City bypasses, which was completed more than 20 years ago now. During that process, environmental studies for the interchange at the TN/KY state line were broken out as a separate project to keep the remainder of Segment 7 moving while the fight over the interchange at the state line continued.  Last article I saw was construction on the troy Bypass not starting until 2035, and improvements to bring US-51 up to interstate standards between I-155 and the Troy Bypass starting in 2031.

[Rick Powell]

Great, thanks for the insights and clarification. Is there a preferred alignment for the Troy bypass?

I'm not sure if an EIS was prepared for the Troy bypass, technically it is I-69 SIU 7 Sections 1 and 2 (there are 5 sections that the SIU was divided into in TN running south to north). I did find this map from an unofficial I-69 site.
http://www.i69info.com/siu7-final.png

There was an EIS and ROD prepared for Segment 7 that includes both the Troy and Union City bypasses, which was completed more than 20 years ago now. During that process, environmental studies for the interchange at the TN/KY state line were broken out as a separate project to keep the remainder of Segment 7 moving while the fight over the interchange at the state line continued.  Last article I saw was construction on the troy Bypass not starting until 2035, and improvements to bring US-51 up to interstate standards between I-155 and the Troy Bypass starting in 2031.

abqtraveler, thanks for the info on the Section 7 EIS and omission of the KY/TN interchange which seems to be wrapping up its environmental studies and moving into final design and land acquisition. FYI, TN's 10 year plan has the US 51>I-69 improvements as estimated 2033 start of construction (Troy bypass estimated start in 2035 as you said). I think the US 51>I-69 improvements may overlap between Union City and South Fulton as well as Dyersburg to south end of Troy bypass. Both segments are already limited access but apparently need updating to what FHWA wants to see.

See p. 6 of 9 https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/build-with-us/050525TDOT10YP.pdf

Sorry all for the topic swerve, I am sure the I-69 KY and TN threads will remain active as the projects progress there.

[bwana39]

Great, thanks for the insights and clarification. Is there a preferred alignment for the Troy bypass?

I'm not sure if an EIS was prepared for the Troy bypass, technically it is I-69 SIU 7 Sections 1 and 2 (there are 5 sections that the SIU was divided into in TN running south to north). I did find this map from an unofficial I-69 site.
http://www.i69info.com/siu7-final.png

There was an EIS and ROD prepared for Segment 7 that includes both the Troy and Union City bypasses, which was completed more than 20 years ago now. During that process, environmental studies for the interchange at the TN/KY state line were broken out as a separate project to keep the remainder of Segment 7 moving while the fight over the interchange at the state line continued.  Last article I saw was construction on the troy Bypass not starting until 2035, and improvements to bring US-51 up to interstate standards between I-155 and the Troy Bypass starting in 2031.

abqtraveler, thanks for the info on the Section 7 EIS and omission of the KY/TN interchange which seems to be wrapping up its environmental studies and moving into final design and land acquisition. FYI, TN's 10 year plan has the US 51>I-69 improvements as estimated 2033 start of construction (Troy bypass estimated start in 2035 as you said). I think the US 51>I-69 improvements may overlap between Union City and South Fulton as well as Dyersburg to south end of Troy bypass. Both segments are already limited access but apparently need updating to what FHWA wants to see.

See p. 6 of 9 https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/build-with-us/050525TDOT10YP.pdf

Sorry all for the topic swerve, I am sure the I-69 KY and TN threads will remain active as the projects progress there.

LOL!

[abqtraveler]

Great, thanks for the insights and clarification. Is there a preferred alignment for the Troy bypass?

I'm not sure if an EIS was prepared for the Troy bypass, technically it is I-69 SIU 7 Sections 1 and 2 (there are 5 sections that the SIU was divided into in TN running south to north). I did find this map from an unofficial I-69 site.
http://www.i69info.com/siu7-final.png

There was an EIS and ROD prepared for Segment 7 that includes both the Troy and Union City bypasses, which was completed more than 20 years ago now. During that process, environmental studies for the interchange at the TN/KY state line were broken out as a separate project to keep the remainder of Segment 7 moving while the fight over the interchange at the state line continued.  Last article I saw was construction on the troy Bypass not starting until 2035, and improvements to bring US-51 up to interstate standards between I-155 and the Troy Bypass starting in 2031.

abqtraveler, thanks for the info on the Section 7 EIS and omission of the KY/TN interchange which seems to be wrapping up its environmental studies and moving into final design and land acquisition. FYI, TN's 10 year plan has the US 51>I-69 improvements as estimated 2033 start of construction (Troy bypass estimated start in 2035 as you said). I think the US 51>I-69 improvements may overlap between Union City and South Fulton as well as Dyersburg to south end of Troy bypass. Both segments are already limited access but apparently need updating to what FHWA wants to see.

See p. 6 of 9 https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/build-with-us/050525TDOT10YP.pdf

Sorry all for the topic swerve, I am sure the I-69 KY and TN threads will remain active as the projects progress there.

Thank you for correcting me on the projected start of the US-51 upgrades. From recollection, I knew it would be in the first half of the next decade.

[RoadMaster09]

I can now say I have zero interest in I-69 as presently conceptualized between Shreveport and Memphis. It's a road to nowhere and a boondoggle. I-49 > I-30 > I-40 suffices ( and in the end might actually be shorter).

And is hopelessly congested with trucks. I-40 especially between Little Rock and Memphis has some of the highest truck traffic in the country.

[RoadMaster09]

As far as a preferred route, I'd roughly parallel US 82, although upgrading the existing is not feasible as it is a rural 2-lane arterial. Southern Arkansas, however, lacks any real east-west route (and none are particularly busy), so it's new terrain regardless and more of a relief route for 30/40 than anything. Plus, that avoids building a new bridge as Greenville can be used.

[Road Hog]

I can now say I have zero interest in I-69 as presently conceptualized between Shreveport and Memphis. It's a road to nowhere and a boondoggle. I-49 > I-30 > I-40 suffices ( and in the end might actually be shorter).

And is hopelessly congested with trucks. I-40 especially between Little Rock and Memphis has some of the highest truck traffic in the country.

I am acutely aware of this, which is why expanding I-40 should be the bigger priority.

[Bobby5280]

Regardless of what happens with I-69 in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi, I think I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is a more pressing problem. That segment has been very long overdue for widening from a 2x2 to 3x3 configuration. They're only in the baby steps of starting to do that. Some portions of I-40 may need a 4x4 configuration. It's crazy how many big rig trucks are on that road.

I-57 might start being able to work as a release valve for I-40 if enough of it is completed. Construction in Jacksonville is still a big mess (according to 9/28/2025 Google Earth imagery). The road between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff is still mostly ordinary 2-lane stuff.

The bigger problem with I-40 is Memphis itself. The existing Mississippi River bridges are inadequate. The I-55 bridge is going to be completely closed Nov 15-16 for repairs. The proposed replacement bridge is supposed to begin construction sometime in 2026, but won't be completed until 2030. The I-40 Hernando de Soto Bridge has 3 lanes in both directions, but no shoulders. The bridge was completed 52 years ago. A replacement for that bridge should probably be one with twin spans each carrying four lanes plus proper shoulders. The Memphis region arguably needs two more Mississippi River bridge crossings, one near Tunica, MS and the other up near Millington, TN. Those are at the North and South ends of the I-269 outer loop.

I-69 and the Great River Bridge are stuck taking a back seat to the infrastructure needs in/near Memphis.

[RoadMaster09]

Regardless of what happens with I-69 in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi, I think I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is a more pressing problem. That segment has been very long overdue for widening from a 2x2 to 3x3 configuration. They're only in the baby steps of starting to do that. Some portions of I-40 may need a 4x4 configuration. It's crazy how many big rig trucks are on that road.

I-57 might start being able to work as a release valve for I-40 if enough of it is completed. Construction in Jacksonville is still a big mess (according to 9/28/2025 Google Earth imagery). The road between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff is still mostly ordinary 2-lane stuff.

The bigger problem with I-40 is Memphis itself. The existing Mississippi River bridges are inadequate. The I-55 bridge is going to be completely closed Nov 15-16 for repairs. The proposed replacement bridge is supposed to begin construction sometime in 2026, but won't be completed until 2030. The I-40 Hernando de Soto Bridge has 3 lanes in both directions, but no shoulders. The bridge was completed 52 years ago. A replacement for that bridge should probably be one with twin spans each carrying four lanes plus proper shoulders. The Memphis region arguably needs two more Mississippi River bridge crossings, one near Tunica, MS and the other up near Millington, TN. Those are at the North and South ends of the I-269 outer loop.

I-69 and the Great River Bridge are stuck taking a back seat to the infrastructure needs in/near Memphis.

I'd say a northern bridge would be a higher priority. It would be an easy connection from I-555 to cross over to meet I-269. A bridge could be at the Tipton-Shelby line.

The connections are much poorer to the south (you have US 79, which isn't even NHS, plus a few secondary state routes and that is it), plus a lot of the traffic that would be moving to I-69 would already be on the east side of the Mississippi River. A continuous I-69 would reduce the bridge traffic too since vehicles would not cross in Memphis.

Agreed I-57, once complete, would also provide relief for vehicles coming from the Midwest to Texas and vicinity. I-69 would do the same from farther east.

[bwana39]

Regardless of what happens with I-69 in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi, I think I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is a more pressing problem. That segment has been very long overdue for widening from a 2x2 to 3x3 configuration. They're only in the baby steps of starting to do that. Some portions of I-40 may need a 4x4 configuration. It's crazy how many big rig trucks are on that road.

I-57 might start being able to work as a release valve for I-40 if enough of it is completed. Construction in Jacksonville is still a big mess (according to 9/28/2025 Google Earth imagery). The road between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff is still mostly ordinary 2-lane stuff.

The bigger problem with I-40 is Memphis itself. The existing Mississippi River bridges are inadequate. The I-55 bridge is going to be completely closed Nov 15-16 for repairs. The proposed replacement bridge is supposed to begin construction sometime in 2026, but won't be completed until 2030. The I-40 Hernando de Soto Bridge has 3 lanes in both directions, but no shoulders. The bridge was completed 52 years ago. A replacement for that bridge should probably be one with twin spans each carrying four lanes plus proper shoulders. The Memphis region arguably needs two more Mississippi River bridge crossings, one near Tunica, MS and the other up near Millington, TN. Those are at the North and South ends of the I-269 outer loop.

I-69 and the Great River Bridge are stuck taking a back seat to the infrastructure needs in/near Memphis.

I'd say a northern bridge would be a higher priority. It would be an easy connection from I-555 to cross over to meet I-269. A bridge could be at the Tipton-Shelby line.

The connections are much poorer to the south (you have US 79, which isn't even NHS, plus a few secondary state routes and that is it), plus a lot of the traffic that would be moving to I-69 would already be on the east side of the Mississippi River. A continuous I-69 would reduce the bridge traffic too since vehicles would not cross in Memphis.

Agreed I-57, once complete, would also provide relief for vehicles coming from the Midwest to Texas and vicinity. I-69 would do the same from farther east.

Honestle, Leaving the existing I-55 bridge in place for local traffic and building a new bridge farther south would be far preferable.

I agree that Memphis needs a lot of bridge work, but honestly, Baton Rouge needs it worse.

[Life in Paradise]

Regardless of what happens with I-69 in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi, I think I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is a more pressing problem. That segment has been very long overdue for widening from a 2x2 to 3x3 configuration. They're only in the baby steps of starting to do that. Some portions of I-40 may need a 4x4 configuration. It's crazy how many big rig trucks are on that road.

I-57 might start being able to work as a release valve for I-40 if enough of it is completed. Construction in Jacksonville is still a big mess (according to 9/28/2025 Google Earth imagery). The road between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff is still mostly ordinary 2-lane stuff.

The bigger problem with I-40 is Memphis itself. The existing Mississippi River bridges are inadequate. The I-55 bridge is going to be completely closed Nov 15-16 for repairs. The proposed replacement bridge is supposed to begin construction sometime in 2026, but won't be completed until 2030. The I-40 Hernando de Soto Bridge has 3 lanes in both directions, but no shoulders. The bridge was completed 52 years ago. A replacement for that bridge should probably be one with twin spans each carrying four lanes plus proper shoulders. The Memphis region arguably needs two more Mississippi River bridge crossings, one near Tunica, MS and the other up near Millington, TN. Those are at the North and South ends of the I-269 outer loop.

I-69 and the Great River Bridge are stuck taking a back seat to the infrastructure needs in/near Memphis.

I'd say a northern bridge would be a higher priority. It would be an easy connection from I-555 to cross over to meet I-269. A bridge could be at the Tipton-Shelby line.

The connections are much poorer to the south (you have US 79, which isn't even NHS, plus a few secondary state routes and that is it), plus a lot of the traffic that would be moving to I-69 would already be on the east side of the Mississippi River. A continuous I-69 would reduce the bridge traffic too since vehicles would not cross in Memphis.

Agreed I-57, once complete, would also provide relief for vehicles coming from the Midwest to Texas and vicinity. I-69 would do the same from farther east.

Honestle, Leaving the existing I-55 bridge in place for local traffic and building a new bridge farther south would be far preferable.

I agree that Memphis needs a lot of bridge work, but honestly, Baton Rouge needs it worse.

One of the biggest problems these days for any of the bridges is that the minimum time from design to construction to traffic on pavement is 5 to 10 years, and most of the time closer to 10 years unless it is seen as some sort of national emergency (think Baltimore).  Who know what the road situation will be like in 10 years.  One of those Memphis bridges could collapse or be closed to traffic in that period of time.

[bwana39]

Regardless of what happens with I-69 in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi, I think I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is a more pressing problem. That segment has been very long overdue for widening from a 2x2 to 3x3 configuration. They're only in the baby steps of starting to do that. Some portions of I-40 may need a 4x4 configuration. It's crazy how many big rig trucks are on that road.

I-57 might start being able to work as a release valve for I-40 if enough of it is completed. Construction in Jacksonville is still a big mess (according to 9/28/2025 Google Earth imagery). The road between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff is still mostly ordinary 2-lane stuff.

The bigger problem with I-40 is Memphis itself. The existing Mississippi River bridges are inadequate. The I-55 bridge is going to be completely closed Nov 15-16 for repairs. The proposed replacement bridge is supposed to begin construction sometime in 2026, but won't be completed until 2030. The I-40 Hernando de Soto Bridge has 3 lanes in both directions, but no shoulders. The bridge was completed 52 years ago. A replacement for that bridge should probably be one with twin spans each carrying four lanes plus proper shoulders. The Memphis region arguably needs two more Mississippi River bridge crossings, one near Tunica, MS and the other up near Millington, TN. Those are at the North and South ends of the I-269 outer loop.

I-69 and the Great River Bridge are stuck taking a back seat to the infrastructure needs in/near Memphis.

I'd say a northern bridge would be a higher priority. It would be an easy connection from I-555 to cross over to meet I-269. A bridge could be at the Tipton-Shelby line.

The connections are much poorer to the south (you have US 79, which isn't even NHS, plus a few secondary state routes and that is it), plus a lot of the traffic that would be moving to I-69 would already be on the east side of the Mississippi River. A continuous I-69 would reduce the bridge traffic too since vehicles would not cross in Memphis.

Agreed I-57, once complete, would also provide relief for vehicles coming from the Midwest to Texas and vicinity. I-69 would do the same from farther east.

Honestle, Leaving the existing I-55 bridge in place for local traffic and building a new bridge farther south would be far preferable.

I agree that Memphis needs a lot of bridge work, but honestly, Baton Rouge needs it worse.

One of the biggest problems these days for any of the bridges is that the minimum time from design to construction to traffic on pavement is 5 to 10 years, and most of the time closer to 10 years unless it is seen as some sort of national emergency (think Baltimore).  Who know what the road situation will be like in 10 years.  One of those Memphis bridges could collapse or be closed to traffic in that period of time.

And you think Baton Rouge is better off?

[Bobby5280]

I'd say a northern bridge would be a higher priority. It would be an easy connection from I-555 to cross over to meet I-269. A bridge could be at the Tipton-Shelby line.

There would be some considerable value in building a bridge across the Mississippi near Tunica. If I-269 was extended West across the Mississippi and then Northwest to I-40 somewhere East of Forrest City, AR it would greatly improve the connection to I-22. It would also divert some long distance traffic off of the bridges in Memphis. I don't know if such a crossing would give an economic shot in the arm for the casinos in Tunica though. I think those resorts have been falling behind certain casinos in Oklahoma, namely WinStar.

I agree that Memphis needs a lot of bridge work, but honestly, Baton Rouge needs it worse.

The Horace Wilkinson Bridge in Baton Rouge is a few years older than the Hernando de Soto Bridge in Memphis (it opened to traffic in 1968). The road configuration is similar, 6 lanes with no shoulders.

Still, I think the situation in Memphis is more urgent since Memphis is more of a highway hub city than Baton Rouge.

The situation with I-10 in Louisiana is still a bad deal. The aging bridges in Baton Rouge are one big problem. Then there's the long I-10 bridges over swamp land. There's the one over the Atchafalaya between Lafayette and Baton Rouge. That's a big replacement project. Then there's another I-10 bridge over the Maurepas Swamp to the West of New Orleans. The first 20 or so miles of I-55 are going over the same swamp/lake area. All those swamp bridges are 2 lanes in each direction. They need to be 3 lanes in each direction (plus proper shoulders). I don't know how many billions of dollars would have to be spent replacing those bridges. They're not high rise bridges going over ship channels. But they cover a lot of miles.

[bwana39]

I'd say a northern bridge would be a higher priority. It would be an easy connection from I-555 to cross over to meet I-269. A bridge could be at the Tipton-Shelby line.

There would be some considerable value in building a bridge across the Mississippi near Tunica. If I-269 was extended West across the Mississippi and then Northwest to I-40 somewhere East of Forrest City, AR it would greatly improve the connection to I-22. It would also divert some long distance traffic off of the bridges in Memphis. I don't know if such a crossing would give an economic shot in the arm for the casinos in Tunica though. I think those resorts have been falling behind certain casinos in Oklahoma, namely WinStar.

I agree that Memphis needs a lot of bridge work, but honestly, Baton Rouge needs it worse.

The Horace Wilkinson Bridge in Baton Rouge is a few years older than the Hernando de Soto Bridge in Memphis (it opened to traffic in 1968). The road configuration is similar, 6 lanes with no shoulders.

Still, I think the situation in Memphis is more urgent since Memphis is more of a highway hub city than Baton Rouge.

The situation with I-10 in Louisiana is still a bad deal. The aging bridges in Baton Rouge are one big problem. Then there's the long I-10 bridges over swamp land. There's the one over the Atchafalaya between Lafayette and Baton Rouge. That's a big replacement project. Then there's another I-10 bridge over the Maurepas Swamp to the West of New Orleans. The first 20 or so miles of I-55 are going over the same swamp/lake area. All those swamp bridges are 2 lanes in each direction. They need to be 3 lanes in each direction (plus proper shoulders). I don't know how many billions of dollars would have to be spent replacing those bridges. They're not high rise bridges going over ship channels. But they cover a lot of miles.

More traffic crosses the I-10 bridge daily that cross BOTH Memphis Bridges.  Admittedly, the Baton Rouge Traffic is mostly local / regional traffic and the Memphis traffic is heavy commercial traffic still... Regardless of what Memphians say, their second bridge is clearly head and shoulders better than the Long bridge in Baton Rouge

[CoreySamson]

Having lived in Baton Rouge and having close family in Memphis, the bridge situation in Baton Rouge is much worse. I genuinely have to plan around the traffic on the bridges in Baton Rouge whenever I pass through there. Not so much with the bridges in Memphis. However, there is a silver lining; the bridges themselves in Memphis and BR are comparable. It's just that the road layout and communter patterns of Baton Rouge make it much worse than Memphis, especially after the Katrina diaspora from New Orleans.

[Life in Paradise]

Regardless of what happens with I-69 in Southern Arkansas and Mississippi, I think I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is a more pressing problem. That segment has been very long overdue for widening from a 2x2 to 3x3 configuration. They're only in the baby steps of starting to do that. Some portions of I-40 may need a 4x4 configuration. It's crazy how many big rig trucks are on that road.

I-57 might start being able to work as a release valve for I-40 if enough of it is completed. Construction in Jacksonville is still a big mess (according to 9/28/2025 Google Earth imagery). The road between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff is still mostly ordinary 2-lane stuff.

The bigger problem with I-40 is Memphis itself. The existing Mississippi River bridges are inadequate. The I-55 bridge is going to be completely closed Nov 15-16 for repairs. The proposed replacement bridge is supposed to begin construction sometime in 2026, but won't be completed until 2030. The I-40 Hernando de Soto Bridge has 3 lanes in both directions, but no shoulders. The bridge was completed 52 years ago. A replacement for that bridge should probably be one with twin spans each carrying four lanes plus proper shoulders. The Memphis region arguably needs two more Mississippi River bridge crossings, one near Tunica, MS and the other up near Millington, TN. Those are at the North and South ends of the I-269 outer loop.

I-69 and the Great River Bridge are stuck taking a back seat to the infrastructure needs in/near Memphis.

I'd say a northern bridge would be a higher priority. It would be an easy connection from I-555 to cross over to meet I-269. A bridge could be at the Tipton-Shelby line.

The connections are much poorer to the south (you have US 79, which isn't even NHS, plus a few secondary state routes and that is it), plus a lot of the traffic that would be moving to I-69 would already be on the east side of the Mississippi River. A continuous I-69 would reduce the bridge traffic too since vehicles would not cross in Memphis.

Agreed I-57, once complete, would also provide relief for vehicles coming from the Midwest to Texas and vicinity. I-69 would do the same from farther east.

Honestle, Leaving the existing I-55 bridge in place for local traffic and building a new bridge farther south would be far preferable.

I agree that Memphis needs a lot of bridge work, but honestly, Baton Rouge needs it worse.

One of the biggest problems these days for any of the bridges is that the minimum time from design to construction to traffic on pavement is 5 to 10 years, and most of the time closer to 10 years unless it is seen as some sort of national emergency (think Baltimore).  Who know what the road situation will be like in 10 years.  One of those Memphis bridges could collapse or be closed to traffic in that period of time.

And you think Baton Rouge is better off?

Not saying that Baton Rouge is better off....I'm just more familiar with the Memphis bridges, since they are closer to me.  We have a lot of bridges that are well into their lifespan, and others that are older and are not constructed for potential significant earthquakes (ie-New Madrid).

[TBKS1]

Here's the eastern end of the US 278 bypass extension at AR 293 in Drew County. I took this yesterday on the drive home from Louisiana.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone have any updates on when the US 278 Bypass might be extended west of US 425?

[Rick Powell]

Does anyone have any updates on when the US 278 Bypass might be extended west of US 425?

Looking at the 2025-2028 STIP, there has only been $100k allocated to I-69 other than the sections between Monticello and McGehee, for preliminary engineering for the entire route between MS and LA. Note: this entry was also in the previous 2023-2026 plan. US 278 has some small projects but nothing suggesting a continuation of the Monticello bypass to the west.

Also, neither I-69 (nor "278 Bypass") get a mention in the Connecting Arkansas capital plan.