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.