AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TN  (Read 198715 times)

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 695
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 07:25:13 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #675 on: August 29, 2021, 08:51:32 AM »

Ran across this news report from last July when TN began paving the existing segments of I-69 at Union City.

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/2021/07/16/paving-interstate-69-bypass-obion-county-tennessee/7937940002/

The information that TDOT has on their site concerning the I-69 corridor is way out of date. On a separate, but related note, will the Union City Bypass be signed as I-69 when it opens, or will it be given a temporary designation until it's connected to another portion of I-69 that's not yet under construction, let alone finished?

They will probably just relocate US-51 until the intersection with US-45E is redone. It is most definitely not interstate standard.

In the 1960's they used to not care so much as we used to get jogged in and out of the Interstate highway and US highway all the time.

They may put up a joint sign with US-51 with a "Future" above the I-69 shield, so they can just remove it later.

Or maybe they could give the new freeway the temporary designation of US-51 BYPASS until either the Fulton interchange gets reconstructed or the Troy Bypass gets finished, whichever comes first.

I downloaded the plans for the section from west of TN21 to US 51 back when the project started and the signage shown for the bypass is I-69

So the FHWA is going to allow TDOT to have this orphaned section of I-69 signed as such, even though it doesn't connect to anything else yet?
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12734
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:12:06 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #676 on: August 29, 2021, 03:48:33 PM »

So the FHWA is going to allow TDOT to have this orphaned section of I-69 signed as such, even though it doesn't connect to anything else yet?
Under federal law (I think it was the FAST Act), there's an exemption allowing I-69 to be signed even without a connection to the rest of the system, so long as said connection is planned to be built within 25 years.  That said, it may not apply here - OSM shows the Troy bypass as under construction as well, which would provide a freeway connection to I-155.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16939
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 07:20:53 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #677 on: August 29, 2021, 06:33:06 PM »

So the FHWA is going to allow TDOT to have this orphaned section of I-69 signed as such, even though it doesn't connect to anything else yet?
Under federal law (I think it was the FAST Act), there's an exemption allowing I-69 to be signed even without a connection to the rest of the system, so long as said connection is planned to be built within 25 years.  That said, it may not apply here - OSM shows the Troy bypass as under construction as well, which would provide a freeway connection to I-155.

Kentucky has done this in stages. First section was along I-24 and the WK Parkway from the Purchase interchange to the Pennyrile interchange. Second section was on the Pennyrile north from the WK to the Henderson bypass. Third section was on the Purchase from I-24 south to Mayfield.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7086
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:02:11 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #678 on: August 29, 2021, 06:53:41 PM »

^ Though in Kentuckyís case, each added segment of I-69 connected to an existing interstate highway.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12734
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:12:06 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #679 on: August 29, 2021, 08:50:01 PM »

Yeah, this exemption isn't about being disconnected from the rest of the route (which is allowed for all interstates).  It's about not being connected to the rest of the system at all.  See I-69C/I-69E/I-2 in Texas.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 695
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 07:25:13 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #680 on: August 30, 2021, 09:30:32 PM »

Yeah, this exemption isn't about being disconnected from the rest of the route (which is allowed for all interstates).  It's about not being connected to the rest of the system at all.  See I-69C/I-69E/I-2 in Texas.
I'm surprised they would allow that.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12734
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:12:06 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #681 on: August 30, 2021, 09:35:55 PM »

Yeah, this exemption isn't about being disconnected from the rest of the route (which is allowed for all interstates).  It's about not being connected to the rest of the system at all.  See I-69C/I-69E/I-2 in Texas.
I'm surprised they would allow that.
Unfortunately, I highly doubt there are any politicians out there who see the interstate system as anything other than a brand these days.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 840
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:23 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #682 on: August 31, 2021, 12:34:11 PM »

So the FHWA is going to allow TDOT to have this orphaned section of I-69 signed as such, even though it doesn't connect to anything else yet?
Under federal law (I think it was the FAST Act), there's an exemption allowing I-69 to be signed even without a connection to the rest of the system, so long as said connection is planned to be built within 25 years.  That said, it may not apply here - OSM shows the Troy bypass as under construction as well, which would provide a freeway connection to I-155.

Well with logic like that, AR-549 between AR-22 and US-71 south of Ft. Smith could be I-49 already.  No need for Future I-** on any segment up to code.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12734
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:12:06 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #683 on: August 31, 2021, 12:53:02 PM »

So the FHWA is going to allow TDOT to have this orphaned section of I-69 signed as such, even though it doesn't connect to anything else yet?
Under federal law (I think it was the FAST Act), there's an exemption allowing I-69 to be signed even without a connection to the rest of the system, so long as said connection is planned to be built within 25 years.  That said, it may not apply here - OSM shows the Troy bypass as under construction as well, which would provide a freeway connection to I-155.

Well with logic like that, AR-549 between AR-22 and US-71 south of Ft. Smith could be I-49 already.  No need for Future I-** on any segment up to code.
I know the exemption was for I-69 and one other interstate, but I'm not sure if I-49 was it (I-11, maybe?).  If not, it would have to follow the existing rules, as this didn't apply to all new interstates, just the ones so designated.  And in any case, AR might not be comfortable trying to guarantee that it would be connected to the rest of the system within 25 years.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1369
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 24, 2021, 09:11:07 AM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #684 on: August 31, 2021, 01:09:51 PM »

So the FHWA is going to allow TDOT to have this orphaned section of I-69 signed as such, even though it doesn't connect to anything else yet?
Under federal law (I think it was the FAST Act), there's an exemption allowing I-69 to be signed even without a connection to the rest of the system, so long as said connection is planned to be built within 25 years.  That said, it may not apply here - OSM shows the Troy bypass as under construction as well, which would provide a freeway connection to I-155.

Well with logic like that, AR-549 between AR-22 and US-71 south of Ft. Smith could be I-49 already.  No need for Future I-** on any segment up to code.
I know the exemption was for I-69 and one other interstate, but I'm not sure if I-49 was it (I-11, maybe?).  If not, it would have to follow the existing rules, as this didn't apply to all new interstates, just the ones so designated.  And in any case, AR might not be comfortable trying to guarantee that it would be connected to the rest of the system within 25 years.

I thought that law was a blanket law for any new interstate.  Have to go back and re-read that. 
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 840
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:23 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #685 on: August 31, 2021, 01:27:23 PM »

So the FHWA is going to allow TDOT to have this orphaned section of I-69 signed as such, even though it doesn't connect to anything else yet?
Under federal law (I think it was the FAST Act), there's an exemption allowing I-69 to be signed even without a connection to the rest of the system, so long as said connection is planned to be built within 25 years.  That said, it may not apply here - OSM shows the Troy bypass as under construction as well, which would provide a freeway connection to I-155.

Well with logic like that, AR-549 between AR-22 and US-71 south of Ft. Smith could be I-49 already.  No need for Future I-** on any segment up to code.
I know the exemption was for I-69 and one other interstate, but I'm not sure if I-49 was it (I-11, maybe?).  If not, it would have to follow the existing rules, as this didn't apply to all new interstates, just the ones so designated.  And in any case, AR might not be comfortable trying to guarantee that it would be connected to the rest of the system within 25 years.

That certainly could be true, although, they are pushing to get at least 2 lanes done hopefully before my 7 year old graduates college.  I don't know that I'm comfortable saying that I'll see I-49 completed between AR-22 and I-40 before my hopefully timely demise.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1369
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 24, 2021, 09:11:07 AM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #686 on: September 01, 2021, 09:06:03 PM »

Related to I-69 since it will share an alignment in the future, but can someone explain to me the first 3 mile posts if I-40 upon entering from the Hernando De Soto Bridge heading east.  I totally donít understand the 1A, 1B, 1C thing. I drove it Sunday and had never noticed it before.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 211
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:45:04 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #687 on: September 01, 2021, 09:14:01 PM »

Related to I-69 since it will share an alignment in the future, but can someone explain to me the first 3 mile posts if I-40 upon entering from the Hernando De Soto Bridge heading east.  I totally donít understand the 1A, 1B, 1C thing. I drove it Sunday and had never noticed it before.
There are 3 exits on mile 1. To distinguish, they are assigned different letters. Exit A, Exit B, and Exit C.
Logged

wriddle082

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 586
  • Give 'em the BIDNESS!

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Anymetro, Carolinas
  • Last Login: Today at 09:08:03 AM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #688 on: September 02, 2021, 10:54:52 AM »

Related to I-69 since it will share an alignment in the future, but can someone explain to me the first 3 mile posts if I-40 upon entering from the Hernando De Soto Bridge heading east.  I totally donít understand the 1A, 1B, 1C thing. I drove it Sunday and had never noticed it before.

It is a tricky way to hide the fact that every bit of the I-40 mileage east of the western I-40/I-240 interchange is off.  All of I-40ís mileage east of the eastern 40/240 interchange is based on the assumption that the Overton Park section of I-40 was to be completed.  And if that were the case, then I-240ís mile 0 would have been at the 40/240 western interchange, increasing eastbound.  So since they didnít want to renumber every single exit and mile marker for almost 450 miles, they stretched out the first mile to take in both the state line mm 1 and the former beginning of I-240 mm 1 into mm 1, mm 1A, mm 1B, and mm 1C, though the actual exits increase to 1G (though Iím thinking this was always the case to alleviate confusion).  There is a missing mile marker in the vicinity of the eastern 40/240 interchange when the overall 40 mileage corrects itself back to the original (Overton Park section exists) mileage. 

The true overall mileage of I-40 in Tennessee is ~453 miles.  The last exit is numbered 451, but it is only ~1/4 mile away from the NC line.  Rerouting 40 onto the 240 northern loop added a couple of miles to the overall length.  If all of the mile markers were as they should be, that exit would have likely been 453, but they would have needed to change every single mile marker and exit number from mm 1A eastward, affecting a great majority of the stateís population, so they chose not to do this.  The introduction of the blue reference markers a little over 20 years ago brought this mileage deception out into the open.

Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1369
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 24, 2021, 09:11:07 AM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #689 on: September 02, 2021, 11:56:57 AM »

Related to I-69 since it will share an alignment in the future, but can someone explain to me the first 3 mile posts if I-40 upon entering from the Hernando De Soto Bridge heading east.  I totally donít understand the 1A, 1B, 1C thing. I drove it Sunday and had never noticed it before.

It is a tricky way to hide the fact that every bit of the I-40 mileage east of the western I-40/I-240 interchange is off.  All of I-40ís mileage east of the eastern 40/240 interchange is based on the assumption that the Overton Park section of I-40 was to be completed.  And if that were the case, then I-240ís mile 0 would have been at the 40/240 western interchange, increasing eastbound.  So since they didnít want to renumber every single exit and mile marker for almost 450 miles, they stretched out the first mile to take in both the state line mm 1 and the former beginning of I-240 mm 1 into mm 1, mm 1A, mm 1B, and mm 1C, though the actual exits increase to 1G (though Iím thinking this was always the case to alleviate confusion).  There is a missing mile marker in the vicinity of the eastern 40/240 interchange when the overall 40 mileage corrects itself back to the original (Overton Park section exists) mileage. 

The true overall mileage of I-40 in Tennessee is ~453 miles.  The last exit is numbered 451, but it is only ~1/4 mile away from the NC line.  Rerouting 40 onto the 240 northern loop added a couple of miles to the overall length.  If all of the mile markers were as they should be, that exit would have likely been 453, but they would have needed to change every single mile marker and exit number from mm 1A eastward, affecting a great majority of the stateís population, so they chose not to do this.  The introduction of the blue reference markers a little over 20 years ago brought this mileage deception out into the open.

I had a feeling it had something to do with he abandoned Overton Park section and the fact that Sam Cooper Blvd. still has exit numbers (that should have been I-40's exit numbers).  That combined with the fact that the west I-40/I-240 intersection used to be mile 0 for what was I-240 on the north side of Memphis, which is now I-40.  I love your point of putting enhanced mile markers on I-40 actually caught their lies.  Like when someone takes a screen shot of something they are working on for someone else to follow along with, and in the screen shot is all the website tabs of the naughty websites they have open!!  Doing something good showed their ass a bit more. 

I just never knew they never corrected the I-40 mileage throughout Tennessee.  I thought since the Sam Cooper debacle happed so early on, they still had time to fix it as the rest of the state wasn't so firmly planted in the exit/mile marker numbering at the time. 

Thanks for clearing that up. 
Logged

MikeTheActuary

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 978
  • Location: Poquonock CT / Montrťal QC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:53:37 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #690 on: September 02, 2021, 12:24:09 PM »

I just never knew they never corrected the I-40 mileage throughout Tennessee.  I thought since the Sam Cooper debacle happed so early on, they still had time to fix it as the rest of the state wasn't so firmly planted in the exit/mile marker numbering at the time. 

Thanks for clearing that up. 

You can also see some of the wonkiness east of the eastern I-40/I-240 interchange (e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.162466,-89.8684269,3a,20.5y,265.14h,93.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGXMt43Qv4TBU-VS7irruyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).   I believe something similar was done for I-65 when it was realigned around Nashville.

I wish Connecticut would consider doing something similar when it gets around to changing I-95 from sequential to mile-based numbering.
Logged

wriddle082

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 586
  • Give 'em the BIDNESS!

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Anymetro, Carolinas
  • Last Login: Today at 09:08:03 AM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #691 on: September 02, 2021, 06:33:40 PM »

I just never knew they never corrected the I-40 mileage throughout Tennessee.  I thought since the Sam Cooper debacle happed so early on, they still had time to fix it as the rest of the state wasn't so firmly planted in the exit/mile marker numbering at the time. 

Thanks for clearing that up. 

You can also see some of the wonkiness east of the eastern I-40/I-240 interchange (e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.162466,-89.8684269,3a,20.5y,265.14h,93.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGXMt43Qv4TBU-VS7irruyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).   I believe something similar was done for I-65 when it was realigned around Nashville.

I wish Connecticut would consider doing something similar when it gets around to changing I-95 from sequential to mile-based numbering.

All they did for I-65 when it was rerouted around to the west portion of the Nashville Downtown Loop was bury any potential corrections in the I-40 duplex.  The exit numbers along that stretch are, and have always been, I-40 exit numbers.  Every mile marker and exit number north of the current southern/eastern I-24 split remained the same, and former I-265 mileage was tacked onto I-65 decreasing from that interchange (thus turning former I-265 Exit 1 into I-65 Exit 85).  And the former I-65 mileage on the east loop that found itself along I-24 only was renumbered with I-24 mileage and exit numbering, with no issues since I-24 never moved.
Logged

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 471
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 01:38:25 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #692 on: September 03, 2021, 12:09:29 PM »

I just never knew they never corrected the I-40 mileage throughout Tennessee.  I thought since the Sam Cooper debacle happed so early on, they still had time to fix it as the rest of the state wasn't so firmly planted in the exit/mile marker numbering at the time. 

Thanks for clearing that up. 

You can also see some of the wonkiness east of the eastern I-40/I-240 interchange (e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.162466,-89.8684269,3a,20.5y,265.14h,93.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGXMt43Qv4TBU-VS7irruyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).   I believe something similar was done for I-65 when it was realigned around Nashville.

I wish Connecticut would consider doing something similar when it gets around to changing I-95 from sequential to mile-based numbering.

All they did for I-65 when it was rerouted around to the west portion of the Nashville Downtown Loop was bury any potential corrections in the I-40 duplex.  The exit numbers along that stretch are, and have always been, I-40 exit numbers.  Every mile marker and exit number north of the current southern/eastern I-24 split remained the same, and former I-265 mileage was tacked onto I-65 decreasing from that interchange (thus turning former I-265 Exit 1 into I-65 Exit 85).  And the former I-65 mileage on the east loop that found itself along I-24 only was renumbered with I-24 mileage and exit numbering, with no issues since I-24 never moved.
You do have to admit, looking at the map that I-65's change from one way around downtown Nashville to the other could be measured almost more by feet than miles.  I-265's old route with downtown I-40 is most likely very, very slightly longer.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1317
  • Last Login: November 27, 2021, 11:13:11 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #693 on: September 29, 2021, 10:36:01 AM »

Ford just announced Blue Oval City in Stanton, TN.

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/42541/fords-biggest-investment-ever-is-11-4-billion-for-ev-battery-plants-in-the-south

It will be about a hour NE of Memphis and 20 minutes from the planned route of I-69 at Covington.

It will make both EV's and batteries in a JV with SK and will cover 6 square miles.

It will cost Ford about $11.4 Billion to construct this "city".

SK will also build a battery plant near Glendale, KY, but that on will be off of I-65.

Look for a large amount of traffic on I-40/I-65 and US51/I-69/Wendell Ford if this new "city' comes to be.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2729
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 26, 2021, 08:46:46 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #694 on: September 29, 2021, 01:13:00 PM »

The town of Stanton, TN is just a couple or miles North of I-40. It's likely Blue Oval City will be built closer to I-40, if not right adjacent to it.

The exit for TN-222 was recently upgraded and the route going North of I-40 was turned into a 4-lane divided highway. In Google Earth there is a fairly big plot of land labeled "Memphis Regional Megasite."
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8709
  • Last Login: Today at 11:31:11 AM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #695 on: September 29, 2021, 06:33:15 PM »

Ford just announced Blue Oval City in Stanton, TN.

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/42541/fords-biggest-investment-ever-is-11-4-billion-for-ev-battery-plants-in-the-south

It will be about a hour NE of Memphis and 20 minutes from the planned route of I-69 at Covington.

It will make both EV's and batteries in a JV with SK and will cover 6 square miles.

It will cost Ford about $11.4 Billion to construct this "city".

SK will also build a battery plant near Glendale, KY, but that on will be off of I-65.

Look for a large amount of traffic on I-40/I-65 and US51/I-69/Wendell Ford if this new "city' comes to be.
Eesh.  The return of the company town.

We have reverted to the Gilded Age.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1777
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 PM
    • Bridges & Tunnels
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #696 on: September 29, 2021, 07:25:59 PM »

Except they are building a factory, not a town.

Both sites are along important (existing) interstate or interstate-compatible highways (I-65 and WK Parkway in Kentucky, I-40 in Tennessee), and along major rail lines. More importantly, both sites are near major Ford production facilities. For Kentucky, it's near a major assembly plant and the truck plant.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 09:04:20 PM by seicer »
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 279
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: November 25, 2021, 07:45:54 AM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #697 on: September 29, 2021, 08:03:47 PM »

It's an hr from Downtown Memphis, not so much from oh say US 64 and I-40.  Arlington and Lakeland are groing to benefit greatly, as well as Oakland and Somerville.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16939
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 07:20:53 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #698 on: September 30, 2021, 12:23:10 PM »

It must be fairly near Brownsville, because I saw a photo of the Tennessee governor holding up a copy of the Brownsville paper trumpeting the announcement.

I think "city" is being used in a generic sense to describe the size of the campus, and not to denote a project where the company will be building housing and retail stores where the employees are paid in company scrip.

I've heard a similar description of "city" being used to discuss something Amazon's planning, which prompted the same comparison to coal mining company towns.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 471
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 01:38:25 PM
Re: I-69 in TN
« Reply #699 on: September 30, 2021, 12:25:12 PM »

Except they are building a factory, not a town.

Both sites are along important (existing) interstate or interstate-compatible highways (I-65 and WK Parkway in Kentucky, I-40 in Tennessee), and along major rail lines. More importantly, both sites are near major Ford production facilities. For Kentucky, it's near a major assembly plant and the truck plant.
I could see Ford or any other manufacturer in this instance negotiating some road improvements that could include I-69 construction in Tennessee.  Even though the two plants can be traveled via I-40 and I-65, I-69 and the Western KY Parkway could be a much easier drive avoiding Nashville.  Completing I-69 with perhaps a four lane road connecting Stanton to Covington could help send shipments north and northwest (via I-155 and St. Louis) to avoid the Memphis metro.  Heck, if Illinois could build I-180 at one time for that Hennepin plant, what could be done for a much bigger operation?
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.