AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 116458 times)

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 902
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 16, 2017, 01:26:55 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #500 on: May 16, 2017, 04:32:34 PM »

Quote from: Longhorn
It looks like 67 north of Popular Bluff is close to interstate level, well close. Why not finish it out to I-55 and have a relief valve for all the traffic taking I-44 to hwy 69 to get the Dallas? Or is this the mythical I-53 that's being talked about?

Regards Hwy 75/69 route, its interstate grade mostly up to Muskogee except for McAlester and Atoka. If not I-45 then I-39

US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus, MO just South of St. Louis would take a great deal of money to upgrade fully to Interstate standards. The existing road is nearly all divided 4-lane and has some freeway style exits, but it also has many drive ways and other sub-standard features. I think Missouri would do a lot better upgrading US-60 to Interstate standards, starting with the Sikeston to Poplar Bluff segment and then moving down from Poplar Bluff to the Arkansas border.

US-69 in Oklahoma is only Interstate quality for the 50 miles between McAlester and Muskogee. The portion of US-69 in McAlester might get upgraded to Interstate quality IF Oklahoma's state legislature and governor's office can overcome their partisan insanity and get the state's operations properly funded. As of now transportation projects in Oklahoma are all but dead, even projects that were in progress. Another short US-69 improvement project in Calera, just South of Durant, was supposed to let in 2019, but that could get put on hold indefinitely. Between Durant and McAlester there are lots of slow down points along US-69 (Tushka, Atoka, Stringtown, Kiowa, Savanna). North of Muskogee US-69 has several zones of stop and go traffic in various towns like Pryor.

With the way politicians have been selling I-14 to connect military installations one could do a sales pitch for I-45 on US-69 since the huge Army Ammunition Plant is just West of McAlester.

Quote from: sparker
Since we're flirting with fictional here -- a more likely scenario would be for a I-45 extension alignment, were it to actually occur, would head straight up through OK and KS along US 69 -- with a slight "jog" on I-44/Will Rogers Turnpike; there's more completed facility on that option, particularly in KS.  A 3di Tulsa branch over the INT and US 75 from I-45/US 69 near McAlester could be a possibility as well.

Routing a possible I-45 up US-75 from the US-69 split to Tulsa would be difficult. There's a lot of corridor encroachment along US-75 in Glenpool, Olkmulgee and Henryetta. A good amount of new terrain routing and bypasses would be required. US-169 North of Tulsa is freeway quality through Owasso and up to Collinsville. But I can't see upgrading that road to a freeway North of there. Very little of US-169 is freeway quality in Kansas; there are runs of Super 2 with exits. US-69 in far Eastern Kansas has a lot more of it upgraded to freeway/Interstate quality. That's all the more reason to push any I-45 extension along US-69 to Big Cabin, OK.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 04:34:47 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2098
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:10:17 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #501 on: May 17, 2017, 09:45:26 PM »

Unless there would be a lot of blowback from Tulsa & environs about not being included in any corridor plan, a route straight up US 69 would be the most beneficial from a regional standpoint.  Any project would likely have to be split in two with I-40 as the division point, since south of there is essentially "pre-approved" via the original ISTEA '91 legislation -- and the Texas portion is at least functionally done.  To the north, getting an Interstate-grade corridor around Muskogee will be tricky -- likely either a new-terrain bypass to the west or some sort of OK 165/Muskogee Tpk. alignment; either way will pose a problem that'll require a significant $$ outlay.  If I were planning the corridor, I'd get the southern half done first and consider the remainder as a long-term project.

That being said -- it's likely that the I-57/US 67 corridor to the east has a much greater chance of completion than does anything involving Oklahoma -- at least for the near term.  As an aside -- it's interesting to compare those two corridors in a historic sense -- both have long service as St. Louis-Dallas corridors well prior to Interstate establishment -- each featured rival passenger rail service; the corridor through OK was the route of the "Texas Special", a joint passenger venture of the M-K-T (Missouri-Kansas-Texas) and SLSF "Frisco" rail lines; the train ran from St. Louis (with through cars from Chicago via the Wabash RR) to San Antonio via Springfield, MO and DFW.  The rival Missouri Pacific corridor, through Poplar Bluff, Little Rock, and Texarkana was the "Texas Eagle", which also terminated in San Antonio after serving DFW.  Both ran on similar schedules, with the Texas Special having about a half-hour advantage between St. Louis and DFW, while the Eagle had a definite advantage between DFW and San Antonio.  It was a similar rivalry to the fabled NYC/Pennsylvania service between Chicago and NYC.  It's interesting to see the two potential Interstate corridors compared in terms of mileage and travel convenience, given their historical significance.  BTW, when Amtrak initiated their St. Louis-DFW service, they did so more or less via the "Eagle" route through Little Rock; the OK route has been freight-only since about 1967. 
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3338
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 10:14:26 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #502 on: May 19, 2017, 11:35:11 AM »

This article reports that the Highway 67 Corp., a booster group for US 67 in southeast Missouri, will present a request today to officials in Washington, D.C. to "close the gap" for I-57:

Quote
With the announcement improvements to U.S. 67 could be paid for in half the time expected, community leaders are looking at another four-lane highway project they said could be crucial for future development.
Members of the Highway 67 Corp. made the announcement at a recent meeting before signing a new resolution that will be presented today to elected officials in Washington, D.C.
It asks U.S. representatives and senators to close a gap of less than 240 miles in an interstate connection between Chicago and Dallas, with Poplar Bluff at its heart.
Representatives of Southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas want this gap to be designated as future Interstate 57
miles, said Tom Lawson, a Highway 67 Corp. member.
“It can be a reality, but it will take support from everyone: cities, counties, Arkansas, Missouri ...,” Lawson said, adding, “We’re a long way from realizing the success that will come, but it can" ....
It is important communities come together now on the new project, he said, before work begins on an infrastructure bill promised by President Donald Trump.
"This is just the first step, what we’re doing today, to get us to that point,” Lawson said before the resolution was signed. “I think this is a terribly important project, and I just hope all of us live to see the day when we get the job done.” ....
The interstate gap follows U.S. 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff, drops down U.S. 67 to the Arkansas state line and eventually joins interstate-quality highway north of Little Rock, Arkansas.
About 60 percent, or 140 miles, of what could be the final link in a major transportation corridor already is built to interstate standards, said Bill Robison of Smith and Co. Engineers.
The remaining approximately 100 miles is split almost evenly between two-lane road and existing four-lane highway that is near interstate standard, according to Robison.
No dollar amount has been placed on the cost of upgrades; however, MoDOT representatives said the agency does not have the funding.
At one time, it seemed as if there wasn’t money to fund U.S. 67 improvements, said Steve Halter, president of the Greater Poplar Bluff Area Chamber of Commerce.
“If we have a plan put together, we’ll get the funding; we’ll find a way,” he said.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1028
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: August 13, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #503 on: May 19, 2017, 11:36:46 AM »

This article reports that the Highway 67 Corp., a booster group for US 67 in southeast Missouri, will present a request today to officials in Washington, D.C. to "close the gap" for I-57:

Quote
With the announcement improvements to U.S. 67 could be paid for in half the time expected, community leaders are looking at another four-lane highway project they said could be crucial for future development.
Members of the Highway 67 Corp. made the announcement at a recent meeting before signing a new resolution that will be presented today to elected officials in Washington, D.C.
It asks U.S. representatives and senators to close a gap of less than 240 miles in an interstate connection between Chicago and Dallas, with Poplar Bluff at its heart.
Representatives of Southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas want this gap to be designated as future Interstate 57
miles, said Tom Lawson, a Highway 67 Corp. member.
“It can be a reality, but it will take support from everyone: cities, counties, Arkansas, Missouri ...,” Lawson said, adding, “We’re a long way from realizing the success that will come, but it can" ....
It is important communities come together now on the new project, he said, before work begins on an infrastructure bill promised by President Donald Trump.
"This is just the first step, what we’re doing today, to get us to that point,” Lawson said before the resolution was signed. “I think this is a terribly important project, and I just hope all of us live to see the day when we get the job done.” ....
The interstate gap follows U.S. 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff, drops down U.S. 67 to the Arkansas state line and eventually joins interstate-quality highway north of Little Rock, Arkansas.
About 60 percent, or 140 miles, of what could be the final link in a major transportation corridor already is built to interstate standards, said Bill Robison of Smith and Co. Engineers.
The remaining approximately 100 miles is split almost evenly between two-lane road and existing four-lane highway that is near interstate standard, according to Robison.
No dollar amount has been placed on the cost of upgrades; however, MoDOT representatives said the agency does not have the funding.
At one time, it seemed as if there wasn’t money to fund U.S. 67 improvements, said Steve Halter, president of the Greater Poplar Bluff Area Chamber of Commerce.
“If we have a plan put together, we’ll get the funding; we’ll find a way,” he said.

Beat me to it, I was just posting this article when you posted it.

At least this is going into the mainstream now, but I still doubt this happens anytime soon (at least until Missouri fixes their transportation funding crisis).
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 11:38:58 AM by I-39 »
Logged

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 209
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 08:31:21 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #504 on: May 19, 2017, 01:44:33 PM »

Unless there would be a lot of blowback from Tulsa & environs about not being included in any corridor plan, a route straight up US 69 would be the most beneficial from a regional standpoint.  Any project would likely have to be split in two with I-40 as the division point, since south of there is essentially "pre-approved" via the original ISTEA '91 legislation -- and the Texas portion is at least functionally done.  To the north, getting an Interstate-grade corridor around Muskogee will be tricky -- likely either a new-terrain bypass to the west or some sort of OK 165/Muskogee Tpk. alignment; either way will pose a problem that'll require a significant $$ outlay.  If I were planning the corridor, I'd get the southern half done first and consider the remainder as a long-term project.

That being said -- it's likely that the I-57/US 67 corridor to the east has a much greater chance of completion than does anything involving Oklahoma -- at least for the near term.  As an aside -- it's interesting to compare those two corridors in a historic sense -- both have long service as St. Louis-Dallas corridors well prior to Interstate establishment -- each featured rival passenger rail service; the corridor through OK was the route of the "Texas Special", a joint passenger venture of the M-K-T (Missouri-Kansas-Texas) and SLSF "Frisco" rail lines; the train ran from St. Louis (with through cars from Chicago via the Wabash RR) to San Antonio via Springfield, MO and DFW.  The rival Missouri Pacific corridor, through Poplar Bluff, Little Rock, and Texarkana was the "Texas Eagle", which also terminated in San Antonio after serving DFW.  Both ran on similar schedules, with the Texas Special having about a half-hour advantage between St. Louis and DFW, while the Eagle had a definite advantage between DFW and San Antonio.  It was a similar rivalry to the fabled NYC/Pennsylvania service between Chicago and NYC.  It's interesting to see the two potential Interstate corridors compared in terms of mileage and travel convenience, given their historical significance.  BTW, when Amtrak initiated their St. Louis-DFW service, they did so more or less via the "Eagle" route through Little Rock; the OK route has been freight-only since about 1967. 


That last part is funny in addition to Oklahoma being to cheap to improve its road infrastructure. Oklahoma along with Texas helps subsidizes an Amtrak train between FTW and OKC. Nice history note on passenger rail service via Springfield MO. Did  that continue to Tulsa heading south? I thought that was old Burlington Northern line not MKT between OKC and STL?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2098
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:10:17 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #505 on: May 19, 2017, 09:24:03 PM »

That last part is funny in addition to Oklahoma being to cheap to improve its road infrastructure. Oklahoma along with Texas helps subsidizes an Amtrak train between FTW and OKC. Nice history note on passenger rail service via Springfield MO. Did  that continue to Tulsa heading south? I thought that was old Burlington Northern line not MKT between OKC and STL?

The original St. Louis-Springfield-Tulsa-OKC line was the old St. Louis San Francisco (SLSF, or "Frisco" in the vernacular) main line; a branch south into Fort Worth took off from Sapulpa, just SW of Tulsa and took a rather convoluted route into Denison, TX before continuing on to Ft. Worth.  While the SLSF did have its own passenger service from St. Louis to DFW, the premium service, the "Texas Special", was a joint venture of both SLSF and MKT.  It used SLSF rails from St. Louis to Vinita, OK, and switched off there to the MKT, which ran straight down US 69 to Denison, then curved a bit east before swinging back to Dallas.  That was, of course, a more direct route than an all-SLSF routing, so the two railroads joined forces to institute a service that could compete, schedule-wise, with the Missouri Pacific's "Eagle" service via Little Rock.  They even had dedicated diesel locomotives painted a rather gaudy red-and-white with "Texas Special" on its flanks and the logos of the two rail lines on the front face.  The service was instituted about 1952 and lasted until around 1966; Lionel famously recreated the diesel's paint scheme in a mid-1950's model.  The Frisco was absorbed into Burlington Northern in 1980, while UP bought MKT in 1988.  The Frisco line west of Sapulpa was sold to a local operator about 15 years ago due to lack of through traffic.  The only passenger service in OK is the Fort Worth-OKC "Heartland" service; that uses BNSF/former Santa Fe tracks for its entire run paralleling I-35W and I-35.   
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3338
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 10:14:26 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #506 on: June 01, 2017, 04:44:34 PM »

Senator John Boozman finally issued a June 1 Press Release touting his efforts in creating the "Future I-57":

Quote
Provision Allowing Arkansas to Designate Portion of Highway 67 'Future I-57' Becomes Law
WASHINGTON –
A provision authored by U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) that enables Arkansas to designate a portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as “Future I-57” was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 funding that recently became law.
“The presence of an official interstate highway is one of the key factors that developers consider when determining where to make major investments, such as building new factories. This designation is an important step to make Arkansas a better-connected state that is open for business,” Boozman said.
Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This provision provides the state the ability to request that any segment of the road that is built to interstate standards be officially added to the federal interstate system as “I-57.”
Resolutions of support for the I-57 designation have been passed by the Newport Economic Development Commission as well as Chambers of Commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, Sherwood and Searcy.
State and local officials from along the corridor shared their support for this important step in the process toward bringing this portion of Highway 67 into the interstate-highway system.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6139
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 57
  • Location: The Knowne World
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 10:22:19 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #507 on: June 01, 2017, 05:02:25 PM »

Senator John Boozman finally issued a June 1 Press Release touting his efforts in creating the "Future I-57":

Quote
Provision Allowing Arkansas to Designate Portion of Highway 67 'Future I-57' Becomes Law
WASHINGTON –
A provision authored by U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) that enables Arkansas to designate a portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as “Future I-57” was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 funding that recently became law.
“The presence of an official interstate highway is one of the key factors that developers consider when determining where to make major investments, such as building new factories. This designation is an important step to make Arkansas a better-connected state that is open for business,” Boozman said.
Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This provision provides the state the ability to request that any segment of the road that is built to interstate standards be officially added to the federal interstate system as “I-57.”
Resolutions of support for the I-57 designation have been passed by the Newport Economic Development Commission as well as Chambers of Commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, Sherwood and Searcy.
State and local officials from along the corridor shared their support for this important step in the process toward bringing this portion of Highway 67 into the interstate-highway system.

I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:08 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #508 on: June 02, 2017, 12:19:29 AM »

I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Has he considered taxing and spending?
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2098
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:10:17 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #509 on: June 02, 2017, 12:49:44 AM »

I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Has he considered taxing and spending?

A Republican....in Arkansas?......please!!!  There's a greater chance a Razorback will be seen streaking across the sky!  They'll probably try to float some bonds or shift some $$ from elsewhere.  It'll probably cost $2M+ for the signage (including approach BGS's on I-40); in public-sector spending terms, that amount can probably be dealt with in a series of behind-the-scenes maneuvers.  Now when it comes time to actually spend some real bucks on an extension to the MO state line, we'll just have to see just how the good doctor intends to come up with the scratch!

P.S. -- it's a wonder he didn't include a I-440 extension along with the I-57 designation.

Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 907
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 12:22:24 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #510 on: June 02, 2017, 06:06:08 AM »

AHTD will probably request I-57 shields during AASHTO's next meeting this fall.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 907
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 12:22:24 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #511 on: June 02, 2017, 06:11:00 AM »

P.S. -- it's a wonder he didn't include a I-440 extension along with the I-57 designation.

Probably because it would be fairly easy to go through AASHTO/FHWA and get approval that way. Once I-57 shields start popping up on US-67, I doubt FHWA would have a problem with I-440 replacing AR-440.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6139
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 57
  • Location: The Knowne World
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 10:22:19 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #512 on: June 02, 2017, 08:11:22 AM »

I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Has he considered taxing and spending?

Only if SCROTUS approves
Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5230
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:27 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #513 on: June 02, 2017, 08:13:56 AM »

I wish they hadn't approved it for two reasons. One, it should be I-30. It directly connects to current I-30 via a short section of I-40. It doesn't and won't connect to the rest of I-57 for many years if ever. Whoever picked this number screwed up big time. Two, this means that the knuckle draggers at AHTD will be removing the US 64/67/167 shield assemblies between Beebe and Bald Knob. That saddens me.

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1028
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: August 13, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #514 on: June 02, 2017, 12:32:48 PM »

I wish they hadn't approved it for two reasons. One, it should be I-30. It directly connects to current I-30 via a short section of I-40. It doesn't and won't connect to the rest of I-57 for many years if ever. Whoever picked this number screwed up big time.

I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1028
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: August 13, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #515 on: June 02, 2017, 12:40:10 PM »

In response to the question of how Senator Boozman intends to pay for this, I would imagine the states will be paying for most of the remaining sections of I-57 and it will receive little to no federal funding.

That being said, I bet you this get's completed before I-49. It's really only a matter of building the remaining 50 or so miles of Interstate-grade highway along US 67 between US 412 in Walnut Ridge and MO 158 south of Poplar Bluff, and then Missouri converting the expressway-grade segments of US 60/67 to interstate standards.

The biggest question is, where is Arkansas going to put the Interstate between Walnut Ridge and the state line? It is going to cost a lot more $$$ if they run it up by Pocahontas, since that is in a major floodplain. Pocahontas may not like it, but the most logical route to continue to the state line would be parallel to AR 34/90, like they've been planning all along.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 902
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 16, 2017, 01:26:55 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #516 on: June 02, 2017, 02:15:13 PM »

The interchange with Future I-47 and US-412 East of Walnut Ridge is already designed for the freeway to be extended parallel to AR-90 rather than turning North to Pocahontas. I'm sure the residents in Pocahontas would hate to be bypassed by I-57, but it makes more sense in the big picture view to send I-57 on a more direct route to Corning. It would require some completely new terrain roadway to be built between Knobel and Corning, running parallel to the rail line.

Quote from: bugo
I wish they hadn't approved it for two reasons. One, it should be I-30. It directly connects to current I-30 via a short section of I-40. It doesn't and won't connect to the rest of I-57 for many years if ever. Whoever picked this number screwed up big time.

I-30 is a major Interstate number. To me it makes more sense for it to begin and end at two other major Interstates (I-20 and I-40). I think the I-57 labeling makes more sense. It's not a major route number ending in a 5 or zero. I think there would be less of a problem with unfinished gaps in the overall route. Since the resulting gap between the two I-57 routes is not very big and not very challenging it can be filled. The maps will constantly remind policy makers that the gap in I-57 is there. There will be pressure to build it.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1028
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: August 13, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #517 on: June 02, 2017, 03:34:41 PM »

The interchange with Future I-47 and US-412 East of Walnut Ridge is already designed for the freeway to be extended parallel to AR-90 rather than turning North to Pocahontas. I'm sure the residents in Pocahontas would hate to be bypassed by I-57, but it makes more sense in the big picture view to send I-57 on a more direct route to Corning. It would require some completely new terrain roadway to be built between Knobel and Corning, running parallel to the rail line.

The route could go either way from the US 412 interchange, but I believe it was the plan all along to run it parallel to AR 90. But then Pocahontas stepped in and whined about being bypassed so now they are considering routes closer to them, but it will be very difficult because of floodplain issues.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5230
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:27 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #518 on: June 02, 2017, 05:37:37 PM »

I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1028
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: August 13, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #519 on: June 02, 2017, 07:33:07 PM »

I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.

I guess, but again, the exit numbering on the existing US 67 freeway is set up for a north-south route, so they would have had to renumber all the exits. I would have been fine with either I-57 or I-30, just finish something between Sikeston and Little Rock!
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6139
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 57
  • Location: The Knowne World
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 10:22:19 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #520 on: June 02, 2017, 08:40:39 PM »

I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.

I guess, but again, the exit numbering on the existing US 67 freeway is set up for a north-south route, so they would have had to renumber all the exits. I would have been fine with either I-57 or I-30, just finish something between Sikeston and Little Rock!

How? Dr Boozman didn't earmark any money
Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1028
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: August 13, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #521 on: June 02, 2017, 10:00:43 PM »

I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.

I guess, but again, the exit numbering on the existing US 67 freeway is set up for a north-south route, so they would have had to renumber all the exits. I would have been fine with either I-57 or I-30, just finish something between Sikeston and Little Rock!

How? Dr Boozman didn't earmark any money

You really must not like Senator Boozman, lol.

Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6139
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 57
  • Location: The Knowne World
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 10:22:19 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #522 on: June 02, 2017, 10:05:34 PM »


You really must not like Senator Boozman, lol.

Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Don't get me started.
Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2855
  • Last Login: August 15, 2017, 06:26:07 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #523 on: June 02, 2017, 10:44:30 PM »




Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6139
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 57
  • Location: The Knowne World
  • Last Login: August 17, 2017, 10:22:19 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #524 on: June 02, 2017, 10:57:49 PM »




Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

Didn't the Prez recently say that states are mostly on their own for infrastructure spending.
Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

 


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.