AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 101672 times)

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 823
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 24, 2017, 03:02:17 PM
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: 1554
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2017, 09:34:28 PM
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: 3315
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2017, 07:34:14 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: 822
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: May 24, 2017, 10:31:02 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: 186
  • Last Login: May 24, 2017, 04:12:01 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: 1554
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2017, 09:34:28 PM
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

 


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.