AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: US71 on October 11, 2017, 09:09:35 PM

Title: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 11, 2017, 09:09:35 PM
AASHTO has approved I-57 in Arkansas from I-40 at North Little Rock to US 412 at Walnut Ridge.

https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2017/06/USRN-01-Minutes-and-Application-results_-AM-Phoenix-2017.pdf
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on October 14, 2017, 04:47:53 AM
It appears from that the only thing approved was a Future I-57 designation. Hold on to your shields.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 14, 2017, 12:15:41 PM
It appears from that the only thing approved was a Future I-57 designation. Hold on to your shields.

So we'll see "Future I-57" signs?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: froggie on October 15, 2017, 03:28:25 PM
Only if FHWA approves.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on October 16, 2017, 01:33:43 AM
Only if FHWA approves.

The section through Jacksonville still needs to be brought up to interstate standards before US-67 can be designated as I-57. The first phase to reconstruct the Jacksonville section is underway, but IIRC, ArDOT is still trying to cobble together about $70 million to pay for the second phase project.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on October 16, 2017, 01:05:09 PM
I don't know if they should be allowed to sign it yet. Missouri hasn't even shown any interest in building their portion, AFAIK.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 01:35:42 PM
I don't know if they should be allowed to sign it yet. Missouri hasn't even shown any interest in building their portion, AFAIK.
Signing it may be the nudge needed to get US 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff upgraded to Freeway/Interstate, which IMHO should be the "easy" part for MO. Its already a partially limited divided expressway, with plenty of ROW for frontage roads to go full limited access

After that upgrade, MO and AR can work together, getting the Poplar Bluff to Walnut Ridge road built, which, I would think, will end up new terrain more than an existing US 67 upgrade, and thus, the more expensive part of the project
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on October 16, 2017, 02:18:40 PM
Only if FHWA approves.

The section through Jacksonville still needs to be brought up to interstate standards before US-67 can be designated as I-57. The first phase to reconstruct the Jacksonville section is underway, but IIRC, ArDOT is still trying to cobble together about $70 million to pay for the second phase project.
It's controlled access but fraught with dinky on-off ramps. Phase III (from the air force base exit south to Main St.) will take the longest to complete due to tight ROW.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on October 16, 2017, 02:54:03 PM
Only if FHWA approves.

The section through Jacksonville still needs to be brought up to interstate standards before US-67 can be designated as I-57. The first phase to reconstruct the Jacksonville section is underway, but IIRC, ArDOT is still trying to cobble together about $70 million to pay for the second phase project.
It's controlled access but fraught with dinky on-off ramps. Phase III (from the air force base exit south to Main St.) will take the longest to complete due to tight ROW.

There is a lot of development right up to the highway between Main Street and Little Rock AFB. A lot of businesses would have to move to accommodate reconstructing US-67 Phase III.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Henry on October 17, 2017, 09:16:53 AM
Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 17, 2017, 02:42:28 PM
At this point, the question is which MO-AR connection will get done first; I-49 or I-57.
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 17, 2017, 05:10:25 PM
Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
What about the map that shows Missouri's I-57 (currently ending) at whatever road that is. (The map I am speaking of is in some thread in Mid-South) In that case, does that mean that I57 is (or has) making/made progress in Missouri and we are just waiting for Arkansas to get going?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2017, 05:28:18 PM
Interstate 57 in Arkansas: IT LIVES! I'm sure 57 will be completed before 87 in NC/VA. As for 49 vs. 57, a lot more of future 57 has been constructed than future 49, plus it is quite a bit shorter, so I'd say 57 will be done sooner than 49.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on October 17, 2017, 08:01:40 PM
Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
What about the map that shows Missouri's I-57 (currently ending) at whatever road that is. (The map I am speaking of is in some thread in Mid-South) In that case, does that mean that I57 is (or has) making/made progress in Missouri and we are just waiting for Arkansas to get going?

There has not been much if any progress for upgrading US 60 between I-55 and US 67, or US 67 from US 60 to the Arkansas border to a freeway.  AFAIK there's been more progress bringing US 61 up to a freeway north of I-70 to Troy.

Unless there is a big political push to finish the corridor or the locals decided to significantly chip in, the most I see is Missouri doing is four-laning the rest of US 67 down to the border and calling it good.  Even if Missouri does get more funding overall, a good amount of that is likely to go towards rebuilding I-70 and I-44 across the state IMHO.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: NE2 on October 17, 2017, 09:49:50 PM
Why did Missouri decide to upgrade US 71 to I-49? Was there dedicated funding?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 19, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
What about the map that shows Missouri's I-57 (currently ending) at whatever road that is. (The map I am speaking of is in some thread in Mid-South) In that case, does that mean that I57 is (or has) making/made progress in Missouri and we are just waiting for Arkansas to get going?

There has not been much if any progress for upgrading US 60 between I-55 and US 67, or US 67 from US 60 to the Arkansas border to a freeway.  AFAIK there's been more progress bringing US 61 up to a freeway north of I-70 to Troy.

Unless there is a big political push to finish the corridor or the locals decided to significantly chip in, the most I see is Missouri doing is four-laning the rest of US 67 down to the border and calling it good.  Even if Missouri does get more funding overall, a good amount of that is likely to go towards rebuilding I-70 and I-44 across the state IMHO.

Unless MO folks, including politicos from the SE portion of the state as well as MODOT, are completely oblivious to what's going on regarding this corridor and the developmental activities in AR, the requisite pressure to upgrade US 60 to Interstate standards and construct a freeway paralleling US 67 will likely be forthcoming in the near future.  AFAIK, tentative plans from several years back to 5-lane US 67 south of Poplar Bluff have been put on hold.  Whether this was done for simply fiscal reasons or as an acknowledgement of the potential I-57 corridor supplanting/bypassing the present facility and prompting a rethinking of that route's status isn't presently clear.  It's probable that any plans for these two connecting MO facilities are dependent upon whether or not AR follows through and sets forth concrete plans for their own freeway from Walnut Ridge to the state line.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Scott5114 on October 19, 2017, 07:38:20 AM
Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)

(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on October 19, 2017, 08:44:26 AM
Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)


I agree. There are so many projects around the state that need to be done first like the BVB, the three-laning and reconstruction of I-70, etc., that I'm not sure this will happen anytime soon unless they're influenced by political pressure like you said.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: kphoger on October 19, 2017, 01:08:53 PM
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P

You might be laughing at yourself, but I almost posted the same thing yesterday...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 19, 2017, 03:04:47 PM
Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)


I agree. There are so many projects around the state that need to be done first like the BVB, the three-laning and reconstruction of I-70, etc., that I'm not sure this will happen anytime soon unless they're influenced by political pressure like you said.

Basically agree with the above statements -- but once Bella Vista is underway, some level of local activity toward the I-57 project might be in the hopper.  The US 60 portion of the project could be done piecemeal -- one grade separation or shoulder widening project at a time -- but the bigger project along US 67, most likely on new terrain -- will probably be the last piece to be dealt with -- probably on a longer (10+ yrs) timetable.  And, again, it'll be up to AR to finalize the plans for their northernmost portion before MO even looks seriously at doing anything on their side of the line.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on October 19, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)


I agree. There are so many projects around the state that need to be done first like the BVB, the three-laning and reconstruction of I-70, etc., that I'm not sure this will happen anytime soon unless they're influenced by political pressure like you said.

Basically agree with the above statements -- but once Bella Vista is underway, some level of local activity toward the I-57 project might be in the hopper.  The US 60 portion of the project could be done piecemeal -- one grade separation or shoulder widening project at a time -- but the bigger project along US 67, most likely on new terrain -- will probably be the last piece to be dealt with -- probably on a longer (10+ yrs) timetable.  And, again, it'll be up to AR to finalize the plans for their northernmost portion before MO even looks seriously at doing anything on their side of the line.

You have more faith in Missouri legislators coming up with that kind of many than I do lol. But maybe they will do piecemeal upgrades like you say.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on October 19, 2017, 09:08:49 PM
Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 19, 2017, 09:23:21 PM
Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.

Really?  I-30 ending in Walnut Ridge (aka Podunk) for whatever time it takes for everyone concerned to get their shit together?  At least with the I-57 designation it knows where it's supposed to go!   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on October 19, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.
Really?  I-30 ending in Walnut Ridge (aka Podunk) for whatever time it takes for everyone concerned to get their shit together?  At least with the I-57 designation it knows where it's supposed to go!   

Yes, really.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 20, 2017, 12:29:40 AM
Quote from: bugo
Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.

The US-67 Freeway in North Little Rock doesn't really connect directly to I-30 at all. I-30 ends at Exit 153 of I-40. Exit 154 is North Hills Blvd. Then Exit 155 is US-67 (and Future I-57). The two freeways terminate into I-40 pretty close together, but it's not a single interchange.

I'm far more favor of the I-57 number than I-30. For one thing, the current route is US-67, a North-South route. I-30 is an East-West route. From the Little Rock area US-67 is carrying traffic primarily to destinations up NORTH. Not West. So an odd-numbered designation like I-57 would make more sense. And I do like the implied pressure numbering this route from North Little Rock to Jonesboro as I-57 would apply to bridging the gap to existing the end of existing I-57. It's a do-able thing and I think a project that is justifiable. It's going to be decades before I-69 is ever completed. So a lot of NAFTA oriented truck traffic coming up from Texas headed to the Northeast US is going to be taking routes like I-30 to Little Rock (and US-69 through Oklahoma to I-44) to get to those highly populated destinations.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Scott5114 on October 20, 2017, 06:49:18 AM
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P

You might be laughing at yourself, but I almost posted the same thing yesterday...

On a serious note, describing roads in south-to-north, west-to-east fashion has been drilled into me by Wikipedia, which you may notice always describes US roads in this way, for this very reason.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: kphoger on October 20, 2017, 11:40:28 AM
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P

You might be laughing at yourself, but I almost posted the same thing yesterday...

On a serious note, describing roads in south-to-north, west-to-east fashion has been drilled into me by Wikipedia, which you may notice always describes US roads in this way, for this very reason.

I have noticed that.  And the main reason I've noticed is that I'm often scanning the exit list or regional breakdowns in a north-to-south fashion—meaning I have to start at the bottom of the wiki page and work upwards.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 20, 2017, 12:07:58 PM
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P

You might be laughing at yourself, but I almost posted the same thing yesterday...

On a serious note, describing roads in south-to-north, west-to-east fashion has been drilled into me by Wikipedia, which you may notice always describes US roads in this way, for this very reason.

Almost always:  Except for I-5, Oregon starts their N-S highway mileposts (at least the US highways that extend clear across the state: 97, 101, 395) at thenorth end (i.e., at the Columbia River), with the highest mileage at the CA state line.  Apparently this has been done since the state highway system was initiated, since most OR population centers were (and still are) located in the northern half of the state.

Obviously, Wiki doesn't seem to recognize this anomaly!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 23, 2017, 05:07:08 PM
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P

I enjoy this logic.

Almost always:  Except for I-5, Oregon starts their N-S highway mileposts (at least the US highways that extend clear across the state: 97, 101, 395) at thenorth end (i.e., at the Columbia River), with the highest mileage at the CA state line.  Apparently this has been done since the state highway system was initiated, since most OR population centers were (and still are) located in the northern half of the state.

Obviously, Wiki doesn't seem to recognize this anomaly!

Illinois does mile markers north to south on state and US routes. But they reset at county lines.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 26, 2017, 11:43:08 AM

Future I-57 signs at the ARDOT sign shop (via Twitter)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 26, 2017, 01:10:08 PM

Future I-57 signs at the ARDOT sign shop (via Twitter)
Hey, it's the Alphbets we all know and love! :D
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 26, 2017, 04:37:33 PM

Future I-57 signs at the ARDOT sign shop (via Twitter)

So they're going to have a shield with "Future" in the red field -- if those are to be freestanding "quasi-reassurance" signs, they're clearly stealing a march from NC!  But since no other state has copied that method used previously on I-73/74, I'll wager that those shields will be attached to a BGS rather than following the NC practice.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: kphoger on October 26, 2017, 05:45:42 PM
I thought Kentucky used those for I-69 southwest of Kuttawa, did they not?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 26, 2017, 06:00:48 PM


So they're going to have a shield with "Future" in the red field -- if those are to be freestanding "quasi-reassurance" signs, they're clearly stealing a march from NC!  But since no other state has copied that method used previously on I-73/74, I'll wager that those shields will be attached to a BGS rather than following the NC practice.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5313/13995005002_789b73b055_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 26, 2017, 06:13:33 PM


So they're going to have a shield with "Future" in the red field -- if those are to be freestanding "quasi-reassurance" signs, they're clearly stealing a march from NC!  But since no other state has copied that method used previously on I-73/74, I'll wager that those shields will be attached to a BGS rather than following the NC practice.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5313/13995005002_789b73b055_z_d.jpg)

Gee -- never figured I'd be that prescient!  Is that BGS (or more like a MGS!) located on the initial BV bypass lanes?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 26, 2017, 06:28:48 PM


So they're going to have a shield with "Future" in the red field -- if those are to be freestanding "quasi-reassurance" signs, they're clearly stealing a march from NC!  But since no other state has copied that method used previously on I-73/74, I'll wager that those shields will be attached to a BGS rather than following the NC practice.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5313/13995005002_789b73b055_z_d.jpg)

Gee -- never figured I'd be that prescient!  Is that BGS (or more like a MGS!) located on the initial BV bypass lanes?

Yes.
 
There are also signs on future 49 near Barling.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on October 26, 2017, 10:20:25 PM
Regarding the corridor between I-30 and Future I-57: Doesn’t ARDOT have long-range plans to directly connect the two using dedicated lanes?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 26, 2017, 10:36:35 PM
Regarding the corridor between I-30 and Future I-57: Doesn’t ARDOT have long-range plans to directly connect the two using dedicated lanes?

I don't recall hearing.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on October 27, 2017, 05:14:54 AM
Quote from: bugo
Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.

The US-67 Freeway in North Little Rock doesn't really connect directly to I-30 at all. I-30 ends at Exit 153 of I-40. Exit 154 is North Hills Blvd. Then Exit 155 is US-67 (and Future I-57). The two freeways terminate into I-40 pretty close together, but it's not a single interchange.</quote>

How does it not connect? The two highways are connected by about 3 or 4 miles of I-40. A direct connection. I-30 could simply be signed along I-40 for this short distance then follow US 67 all the way to the end of the freeway. The new "I-57" may not connect with the real I-57 in Missouri in our lifetimes considering the money issues that Missouri is having. It seems like common sense would dictate signing it as I-30.

<quote>
I'm far more favor of the I-57 number than I-30. For one thing, the current route is US-67, a North-South route. I-30 is an East-West route. From the Little Rock area US-67 is carrying traffic primarily to destinations up NORTH. Not West. So an odd-numbered designation like I-57 would make more sense. And I do like the implied pressure numbering this route from North Little Rock to Jonesboro as I-57 would apply to bridging the gap to existing the end of existing I-57. It's a do-able thing and I think a project that is justifiable. It's going to be decades before I-69 is ever completed. So a lot of NAFTA oriented truck traffic coming up from Texas headed to the Northeast US is going to be taking routes like I-30 to Little Rock (and US-69 through Oklahoma to I-44) to get to those highly populated destinations.

I-30 also follows US 67 south of Little Rock. Why not sign that segment as I-57? Look. US 67 is a diagonal route. No highway that follows the corridor is going to be perfectly north and south or east and west. The easiest solution would be to sign it as I-30.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: LM117 on October 27, 2017, 08:38:53 AM
Arkansas originally wanted an extension of I-30 but they also knew that Missouri wanted I-57 instead and any extension of either number would ultimately require MO's cooperation. My guess is that AR felt they would have a better chance of getting MO to do their part if the extension was I-57 instead of I-30.

Another thing is by having an I-57 extension, the Little Rock area (and the state in general) can claim that they have a single interstate designation that links them to Chicago. I'm sure that seemed much more enticing to AR leaders from an economic standpoint than I-30 once they really thought about it, which is probably what helped AR decide to ditch the idea of extending I-30.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 27, 2017, 10:00:25 AM
Arkansas originally wanted an extension of I-30 but they also knew that Missouri wanted I-57 instead and any extension of either number would ultimately require MO's cooperation. My guess is that AR felt they would have a better chance of getting MO to do their part if the extension was I-57 instead of I-30.

Another thing is by having an I-57 extension, the Little Rock area (and the state in general) can claim that they have a single interstate designation that links them to Chicago. I'm sure that seemed much more enticing to AR leaders from an economic standpoint than I-30 once they really thought about it, which is probably what helped AR decide to ditch the idea of extending I-30.


Actually, Senator John Boozman knew better that ARDOT and passed a law to create I-57. At least it wasn't something like I-99
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 27, 2017, 02:59:10 PM
Any bets on when they'll start resigning US 67 at I-40 in North Little Rock?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 27, 2017, 04:53:11 PM
Any bets on when they'll start resigning US 67 at I-40 in North Little Rock?

As in posting I-57 vs "Future 57"?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 27, 2017, 06:05:41 PM
Any bets on when they'll start resigning US 67 at I-40 in North Little Rock?

As in posting I-57 vs "Future 57"?
Posting I-57 reassurance signs.

I would think where new pavement would be laid would be posted with "Future I-57". No?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on October 27, 2017, 06:23:51 PM
Any bets on when they'll start resigning US 67 at I-40 in North Little Rock?

As in posting I-57 vs "Future 57"?
Posting I-57 reassurance signs.

I would think where new pavement would be laid would be posted with "Future I-57". No?

Maybe when it's complete to Sikeston?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 27, 2017, 09:15:35 PM
Any bets on when they'll start resigning US 67 at I-40 in North Little Rock?

As in posting I-57 vs "Future 57"?
Posting I-57 reassurance signs.

I would think where new pavement would be laid would be posted with "Future I-57". No?

Maybe when it's complete to Sikeston?

Makes sense -- it's not like I-49 in NWA, where (a) there was an existing Interstate, and the action was simply a number change, and (b) it, like I-540 before it, connected an area with substantial population and equally substantial commercial interests to the rest of the Interstate system.  Functionally, the existing Interstate-grade freeway portion of the I-57 corridor that could conceivably receive signage goes to a junction (US 63/412)  and abruptly stops -- with the remainder of the corridor up to the state line and beyond in the very early planning stages; a specific alignment hasn't even been selected as of yet.  It's a freeway to, if not nowhere, at least nowhere significant.  If I were ARDOT, I'd hold off on any real 57 reassurance shields until at least that extension to the state line is finalized -- plus an agreement with MODOT regarding the remainder of the route to Poplar Bluff is solidified.  Full signage is pointless until then. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2017, 03:04:01 PM
Screw waiting; sign this mo-fo right now.
I hate this "future" garbage on perfectly serviceable freeways destined for interstatehood.  This is a 100+ mile freeway that's good-'nuff right now. It'll serve as encouragement to build the rest of it; goad a few legislators into cutting off a little of that sweet bacon to move up some timetables. Rationale for waiting to sign something until X is done are unimpressive, in my opinion.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 08, 2017, 03:23:01 PM
Screw waiting; sign this mo-fo right now.
I hate this "future" garbage on perfectly serviceable freeways destined for interstatehood.  This is a 100+ mile freeway that's good-'nuff right now. It'll serve as encouragement to build the rest of it; goad a few legislators into cutting off a little of that sweet bacon to move up some timetables. Rationale for waiting to sign something until X is done are unimpressive, in my opinion.
I have not seen [in person] (anytime recent) the current state of US 176 from the AR 440 interchange to where US 176 is dropped and continues as US 76, but from the looks of it (thanks to Street View) there could be a continuous 6 lane section.

Speaking of US 176 and its interchange with AR 440, AR 440 stubs at that interchange and continues [south] as I-440 at the AR 440 I-40 interchange. What are they going to do with AR 440? They actually mapped out AR 440 in this year's highway map, but as I stated, its a stub... Weird. It would be very misleading to someone reading the map and on AR 440 expecting to head straight to Gravel Ridge
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2017, 03:37:08 PM
--

Off topic, but I just noticed we have virtually the same signature.  It's weird seeing them back-to-back.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 04:12:42 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex
Screw waiting; sign this mo-fo right now.
I hate this "future" garbage on perfectly serviceable freeways destined for interstatehood. This is a 100+ mile freeway that's good-'nuff right now.

I don't understand the "future" nonsense either. They should sign the Interstate quality stretch of US-67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as I-57. Put the "Future I-57" stuff on parts of US-67 North of Walnut Ridge near the Missouri border.

In Texas there are small segments of freeway signed as I-69W, I-69E, I-69C, I-69 and I-369. None of those has a "future" tag applied even though the vast majority of freeway miles on those routes remains not built. Hell, the tidbit of I-369 in Texarkana may be removed with the eventual I-369 route built farther West. There are other disconnected segments of I-69 in Mississippi, Kentucky and Indiana. In North Carolina I-74 signed along 3 different disconnected portions of highway, and will likely never be joined with the original I-74 terminus in Ohio.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: kphoger on November 08, 2017, 04:27:42 PM
disconnected segments of I-69 in Mississippi, Kentucky and Indiana. In North Carolina I-74 signed along 3 different disconnected portions of highway

Isn't this a good argument against signing, though?  A route number only serves a purpose if it actually gets people to a destination.  When a number comes and goes along the way, it isn't helping anyone.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: dvferyance on November 08, 2017, 04:58:49 PM
Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.
I doubt it will take that long. Portions of US 60 and US 67 have some freeway like sections especially around Popular Bluff. Many of the at grade intersections could just be culd du saced for a minimal cost. My bet is it will happen sometime between 2025 and 2030.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 09, 2017, 10:22:31 AM
Screw waiting; sign this mo-fo right now.
I hate this "future" garbage on perfectly serviceable freeways destined for interstatehood.  This is a 100+ mile freeway that's good-'nuff right now. It'll serve as encouragement to build the rest of it; goad a few legislators into cutting off a little of that sweet bacon to move up some timetables. Rationale for waiting to sign something until X is done are unimpressive, in my opinion.

In theory then, 549 at Barling should be renumbered?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2017, 03:06:28 PM
No. The freeway in Barling doesn't attach to any existing Interstate. All of the other little segments of highway signed as Interstates are connected to other existing Interstates. A unique exception was made to the freeways in far South Texas.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Grzrd on December 09, 2017, 10:57:53 PM
If I am interpreting this Dec. 8 article (http://www.thedailycitizen.com/news/news.php?ID=7527) correctly, the "Future I-57" signage will not be installed until the 41 mile Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line corridor has been determined:

Quote
Although there has been no signage put up along U.S. Highway 67 since it was designated Future I-57 this summer by federal legislation, markings are expected to be placed eventually once the state determines the alignment of the roadway past Walnut Ridge, according to officials.
The interstate-grade section of U.S. 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge is now "Future I-57," but "neither a route nor schedule has been determined at this point" for the remainder of I-57 through the state, according to Danny Straessle, the public information officer for the Arkansas Department of Transportation ....
While "no time frame is established to date for the removal of the 'Future' designation," the process of getting the roadway recognized as a future interstate because in 2016, according to Straessle ....
"New construction to complete the interstate would entail 41 miles in Arkansas and 11 miles in Missouri, which would complete the trade corridor from Dallas to Chicago. Importantly, the new section in Arkansas would relieve traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis and improve access to a vastly underutilized crossing over the Mississippi River in Missouri."
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 09, 2017, 11:28:33 PM
If I am interpreting this Dec. 8 article (http://www.thedailycitizen.com/news/news.php?ID=7527) correctly, the "Future I-57" signage will not be installed until the 41 mile Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line corridor has been determined:

Quote
Although there has been no signage put up along U.S. Highway 67 since it was designated Future I-57 this summer by federal legislation, markings are expected to be placed eventually once the state determines the alignment of the roadway past Walnut Ridge, according to officials.
The interstate-grade section of U.S. 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge is now "Future I-57," but "neither a route nor schedule has been determined at this point" for the remainder of I-57 through the state, according to Danny Straessle, the public information officer for the Arkansas Department of Transportation ....
While "no time frame is established to date for the removal of the 'Future' designation," the process of getting the roadway recognized as a future interstate because in 2016, according to Straessle ....
"New construction to complete the interstate would entail 41 miles in Arkansas and 11 miles in Missouri, which would complete the trade corridor from Dallas to Chicago. Importantly, the new section in Arkansas would relieve traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis and improve access to a vastly underutilized crossing over the Mississippi River in Missouri."

Makes complete sense.  As the corridor is presently deployed, it's little more than a spur to, functionally, nowhere; its principal salient feature will be its connectivity to the existing part of I-57.  That will be what attracts the type of roadside businesses and services that provide a large cross-section of employment in smaller towns; the larger towns nearest the route (Searcy, Newport, Walnut Ridge, and potentially Pocahontas) can attempt to attract warehousing and distribution centers once the planning has been done and projects let; it would be pointless to attempt to do so before that happens.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2017, 11:45:25 PM
IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 10, 2017, 11:32:00 AM
If I am interpreting this Dec. 8 article (http://www.thedailycitizen.com/news/news.php?ID=7527) correctly, the "Future I-57" signage will not be installed until the 41 mile Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line corridor has been determined:

Quote
Although there has been no signage put up along U.S. Highway 67 since it was designated Future I-57 this summer by federal legislation, markings are expected to be placed eventually once the state determines the alignment of the roadway past Walnut Ridge, according to officials.
The interstate-grade section of U.S. 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge is now "Future I-57," but "neither a route nor schedule has been determined at this point" for the remainder of I-57 through the state, according to Danny Straessle, the public information officer for the Arkansas Department of Transportation ....
While "no time frame is established to date for the removal of the 'Future' designation," the process of getting the roadway recognized as a future interstate because in 2016, according to Straessle ....
"New construction to complete the interstate would entail 41 miles in Arkansas and 11 miles in Missouri, which would complete the trade corridor from Dallas to Chicago. Importantly, the new section in Arkansas would relieve traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis and improve access to a vastly underutilized crossing over the Mississippi River in Missouri."

Makes complete sense.  As the corridor is presently deployed, it's little more than a spur to, functionally, nowhere; its principal salient feature will be its connectivity to the existing part of I-57.  That will be what attracts the type of roadside businesses and services that provide a large cross-section of employment in smaller towns; the larger towns nearest the route (Searcy, Newport, Walnut Ridge, and potentially Pocahontas) can attempt to attract warehousing and distribution centers once the planning has been done and projects let; it would be pointless to attempt to do so before that happens.

NLR to Walnut Ridge will be receiving "Future I-57" signs
http://www.swtimes.com/news/20170602/arkansas-highway-to-receive-future-i-57-designation

The sign shop is already working on signs
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on December 10, 2017, 12:17:22 PM
^ Since when is an ADT of 10,714 (based on this map) (http://modot.org/safety/documents/2015_Traffic_SE_06212016a.pdf) low enough to be "vastly underutilitzed"?  I-57 appears to be the highest volume crossing between St. Louis and Memphis - although the Cape Girardeau one is not far behind.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on December 10, 2017, 02:01:52 PM
So, are they redesignating US 67 from its interchange (US 167) with I-40 in NLR to Walnut Ridge or a predetermined point?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 10, 2017, 03:17:44 PM
So, are they redesignating US 67 from its interchange (US 167) with I-40 in NLR to Walnut Ridge or a predetermined point?

They are designating US 67 between I-40 and US 412 in Walnut Ridge as "Future I-57". It will not become I-57 until the rest of the road is finished between Walnut Ridge and I-55 in Sikeston.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 10, 2017, 03:35:30 PM
So, are they redesignating US 67 from its interchange (US 167) with I-40 in NLR to Walnut Ridge or a predetermined point?

For now, US 67 from I-40 to US 412 at Walnut Ridge.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 10, 2017, 04:54:36 PM
IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.

My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.       
 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 10, 2017, 05:02:42 PM
IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.

My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.       
 

With a little cooperation, I'm sure Dr Boozeman could arrange some earmarks.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 10, 2017, 05:23:23 PM
IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.

My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.       
 

With a little cooperation, I'm sure Dr Boozeman could arrange some earmarks.

Appropriately disguised as amendments, reconciliations, or other backhanded methodology.  Since the first section was designated via the tried-and-true "additional HPC" route, it's likely the remainder could find itself added to that legislative section down the line (MO took care of their mileage, at least in that regard, back in 2005 with the HPC 61 corridor cluster). 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 10, 2017, 06:11:15 PM

Appropriately disguised as amendments, reconciliations, or other backhanded methodology.  Since the first section was designated via the tried-and-true "additional HPC" route, it's likely the remainder could find itself added to that legislative section down the line (MO took care of their mileage, at least in that regard, back in 2005 with the HPC 61 corridor cluster). 

Pork!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on December 10, 2017, 09:09:59 PM
The thing is, "I-57" isn't nearly as important strategically as I-49 is. There is an alternate all-freeway route between I-40 in North Little Rock to I-57 in Sikeston but there are no all-freeway routes between Texarkana and Alma unless you want to go all the way west to I-35 or all the way east to I-55, both which would be hundreds of miles out of the way.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 10, 2017, 11:26:30 PM

Appropriately disguised as amendments, reconciliations, or other backhanded methodology.  Since the first section was designated via the tried-and-true "additional HPC" route, it's likely the remainder could find itself added to that legislative section down the line (MO took care of their mileage, at least in that regard, back in 2005 with the HPC 61 corridor cluster). 

Pork!

yum............pork!  Pour some Stubb's over it and it's palatable.  But seriously, that's, for better or worse, how things get done today.  It's not as if a bipartisan Congress will consider a periodic repetition of the 1968 addition legislation, to be vetted on a nationwide basis (although some "private" projects made it past the gate even then!); there's just too much enmity and distrust for that to happen (and less willingness to fund projects of that size).  One of these days when I've got a little time to kill, I might schlep over to Fictional and do an every-ten-year ('78, '88, '98, '08, '18) retro-analysis of what might have happened if the 1500-mile batch of chargeable '68 additions were to be repeated every ten years -- and how the system would look each time that happened.  Maybe early next year............

The thing is, "I-57" isn't nearly as important strategically as I-49 is. There is an alternate all-freeway route between I-40 in North Little Rock to I-57 in Sikeston but there are no all-freeway routes between Texarkana and Alma unless you want to go all the way west to I-35 or all the way east to I-55, both which would be hundreds of miles out of the way.

Essentially the I-57 project is there to take advantage of a relatively lengthy in-state freeway and to see if "Interstateization" might somehow jumpstart economic activity along that corridor (at least near the more sizeable towns along the route).  Also, it cuts off a few miles on the Dallas-to-Chicago commercial route while providing relief for the perennially packed I-40 between Little Rock and I-55.  To the Poplar Bluff/Sikeston area of MO, it's an opportunity for a bit of tax revenues from roadside businesses (plus any other commercial activities that might come their way).  But the fact that AR completed the southernmost 110 or so miles is the driving force here; without it this would just be another U.S. highway corridor serving as an occasional alternate to the existing I-40 and I-55.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 11, 2017, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: sparker
My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.

IMHO, future-Interstate signage should only be installed when a corridor is going to become an Interstate, but does not yet meet Interstate standards. Otherwise sign it or don't sign it. I don't think it's going to hurt anything to sign the existing US-67 freeway as I-57 without some "future" thing, especially considering there are other full fledged Interstates with multiple significant gaps. In the first couple decades of the Interstate highway system there were big gaps all over the system.

I-57 may be the "new kid" in Arkansas Interstates, but it has some big advantages over both I-49 and I-69. It would cost a lot less time and money to finish I-57. There's a lot less new terrain highway to build and fewer upgrades along parts of US-67 and US-60 needed to fill the gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston. I-49 between Fort Smith & Texarkana covers a lot of difficult territory. And there's an expensive river crossing next to Fort Smith to fund before any of the mountainous segments of it get tackled. Southern Arkansas has less hilly terrain standing in the way of I-69, but The Great River Bridge is a hell of an expensive funding obstacle, especially with Mississippi offering no real time table on when it would be able to pay for its part. A completed I-57 might actually make the I-49 and I-69 projects less urgent (especially I-69 with its very crooked, indirect route).

Quote from: bugo
The thing is, "I-57" isn't nearly as important strategically as I-49 is. There is an alternate all-freeway route between I-40 in North Little Rock to I-57 in Sikeston but there are no all-freeway routes between Texarkana and Alma unless you want to go all the way west to I-35 or all the way east to I-55, both which would be hundreds of miles out of the way.

The "alternative" all-freeway route between North Little Rock to Sikeston is a backward L-shape. I think a completed I-57 would be just as important a link as I-49, if not moreso. It would provide the most direct link between the Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago metro areas, both of which have far more people than all the cities along the I-49 and I-29 corridors. Plus it would pick up a lot of NAFTA traffic. Right now traffic moving between Dallas-Fort Worth and points like Chicago are best served taking US-69 thru Oklahoma to Big Cabin then getting on I-44 to St Louis.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: O Tamandua on December 11, 2017, 11:23:29 PM
The "alternative" all-freeway route between North Little Rock to Sikeston is a backward L-shape. I think a completed I-57 would be just as important a link as I-49, if not moreso. It would provide the most direct link between the Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago metro areas, both of which have far more people than all the cities along the I-49 and I-29 corridors. Plus it would pick up a lot of NAFTA traffic. Right now traffic moving between Dallas-Fort Worth and points like Chicago are best served taking US-69 thru Oklahoma to Big Cabin then getting on I-44 to St Louis.

Actually, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Iowa combined in the I-49 "watershed" have more people than Illinois (minus the IN, WI, MI Chicagoland suburbs and exurbs).  Missouri is split, with Kansas City getting the bigger boost from I-49 as St Louis does from I-57.  When you add Winnipeg and Manitoba, I think it puts the I-49 corridor on an equal footing of importance with I-57.  Hope they both get built, especially with Texas I-69 looming ever closer, section by section.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on December 12, 2017, 10:18:34 AM
What about US 176 and I-40s possible interchange improvemnts to handle AADT projections? Man, there are some projects within this state that no make me dislike the Arkansas River, due to it being an obsticle... :banghead:
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 12, 2017, 11:50:58 AM
What about US 176 and I-40s possible interchange improvemnts to handle AADT projections? Man, there are some projects within this state that no make me dislike the Arkansas River, due to it being an obsticle... :banghead:

WTF?  US 176 is nowhere near Arkansas, and it doesn't intersect I-40!  Please let us know exactly to what you're referring about the above project (!?) -- such as if there's some sort of AR 176 project near I-40 that's affected by the proximity of the Arkansas river.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on December 12, 2017, 12:33:35 PM
What about US 176 and I-40s possible interchange improvemnts to handle AADT projections? Man, there are some projects within this state that no make me dislike the Arkansas River, due to it being an obsticle... :banghead:

WTF?  US 176 is nowhere near Arkansas, and it doesn't intersect I-40!  Please let us know exactly to what you're referring about the above project (!?) -- such as if there's some sort of AR 176 project near I-40 that's affected by the proximity of the Arkansas river.   
No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Avalanchez71 on December 12, 2017, 12:37:31 PM
They should have numbered it I-24 by swinging I-24 back around in Illinois.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: NE2 on December 12, 2017, 01:01:27 PM
No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).
You are making no sense.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Avalanchez71 on December 12, 2017, 01:16:51 PM
No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).
You are making no sense.

They should have numbered it I-24.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 12, 2017, 09:02:50 PM
No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).
You are making no sense.

They should have numbered it I-24.

John Boozman would disagree. After all, he was the one who attached it to the transportation bill.  Gives him bragging rights at reelection time.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on December 13, 2017, 08:51:15 PM
That whole corridor (from I-30 north to I-40 east to Future I-57 north) needs a complete redesign, with a right exit off of I-40 onto I-57 to prevent the “spaghetti effect” that causes so much congestion in that short stretch.

Northbound traffic out of Little Rock shouldn’t need to change lanes to get to Sherwood and points north.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 13, 2017, 09:33:12 PM
That whole corridor (from I-30 north to I-40 east to Future I-57 north) needs a complete redesign, with a right exit off of I-40 onto I-57 to prevent the “spaghetti effect” that causes so much congestion in that short stretch.

Northbound traffic out of Little Rock shouldn’t need to change lanes to get to Sherwood and points north.

It's on ARDOT's "to do" list, nowhere close to a priority.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Henry on December 14, 2017, 09:47:09 AM
Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 14, 2017, 06:21:26 PM
Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 1 on December 14, 2017, 06:26:20 PM
Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 14, 2017, 07:21:02 PM
Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

If you were to do that, one of three things could happen that would either truncate I-57 a little bit or eliminate it altogether.  The I-40 junctions with I-30 and Future I-57 are about 2 miles apart, so there would be a short concurrency.  Here are said options:

1. I-30 takes I-40's route to Wilmington, and I-40 takes over I-57 either to Sikeston, or all the way to Chicago.

2. I-40 takes over I-57 to Goreville, IL, then takes over I-24 to Nashville.  When the two cross again in Nashville, I-40 either ends, or resumes its path to Wilmington, NC.  Meanwhile, I-30 either ends, remains on I-40's path to Wilmington, or takes over the rest of I-24 to Nashville.  If neither replaces the Nashville/Chattanooga route, that portion of I-24 could either become a long 3di or an extended I-59, with the stub end from I-59 to to I-75 becoming I-175. 

3. I-40 assumes I-57's route to Mt. Vernon, IL, then takes over the rest of I-64 east to Norfolk, retaining it's (almost) coast to coast interstate status.  Yes, I-40 would end north of future I-42, and I-57 would be an intrastate interstate.  However, I-42 is so short, the violation would barely be noticeable, while I-57 would still be about 260 miles long, which is longer than I-43 and much longer than I-97.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 15, 2017, 02:14:19 AM
Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

If you were to do that, one of three things could happen that would either truncate I-57 a little bit or eliminate it altogether.  The I-40 junctions with I-30 and Future I-57 are about 2 miles apart, so there would be a short concurrency.  Here are said options:

1. I-30 takes I-40's route to Wilmington, and I-40 takes over I-57 either to Sikeston, or all the way to Chicago.

2. I-40 takes over I-57 to Goreville, IL, then takes over I-24 to Nashville.  When the two cross again in Nashville, I-40 either ends, or resumes its path to Wilmington, NC.  Meanwhile, I-30 either ends, remains on I-40's path to Wilmington, or takes over the rest of I-24 to Nashville.  If neither replaces the Nashville/Chattanooga route, that portion of I-24 could either become a long 3di or an extended I-59, with the stub end from I-59 to to I-75 becoming I-175. 

3. I-40 assumes I-57's route to Mt. Vernon, IL, then takes over the rest of I-64 east to Norfolk, retaining it's (almost) coast to coast interstate status.  Yes, I-40 would end north of future I-42, and I-57 would be an intrastate interstate.  However, I-42 is so short, the violation would barely be noticeable, while I-57 would still be about 260 miles long, which is longer than I-43 and much longer than I-97.

All of which are incredibly convoluted -- and to what end?.............making I-30 longer so it fits the "primacy of the zeroes" theory (which as a PR touchpoint resulted in all those suffixed routes in the late 50's just to make sure cities such as Portland and Philadelphia were on routes divisible by 10!).  As it turned out, it didn't matter; Philly gets along just fine with 76, as does Portland with 84. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 15, 2017, 06:12:37 PM
The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on December 15, 2017, 08:30:57 PM
Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.
Is that 2di list long that could be combined? STL with I-64/I-44 (I-50 anyone?) immediately comes to mind, and KC with I-29/I-49 (wouldn’t this be a good I-45 candidate, and the Texas one can kiss my butt?). And now I-30/Future I-57

For Little Rock, I would dump I-30 and make the Dallas to Chicago corridor I-57 entirely, but I’m biased. Heck, I mght even go so far as to give long distance Controls of Dallas and Chicago for the 30/57 corridor, the whole route, even if the designation changes in Little Rock

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.
Lets see, I-74/I-80 “bump” in IL. At least OH is kind enough to give the 76/80 bump a Double Trumpet Interchange. The 74/80 IL bump is a sad Cloverleaf
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2017, 06:07:56 PM
I-44 is a diagonal Interstate. I-64 is not. It won't serve any benefit to combine both into one numbered route since there would be a serious angular bend at the mid point of the combined route. And it will be really ridiculous to change it to something like "I-50." Highway number changes carry all kinds of added costs, and not just to the states that have to change all the signs. Businesses have to change of bunch of their marketing and administrative material to update that change.

Some road geeks may not like I-45 being contained entirely within Texas. But that road directly links two of the nation's biggest metropolitan areas. Nothing along the I-29 or I-49 corridors is anywhere near as big as the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metros. I'd personally like to see I-45 extended North from Dallas into Oklahoma to upgrade the US-69 route to Big Cabin. The amount of truck traffic on that route is ridiculous. I prefer I-49 and I-29 keeping their own respective numbers. Both routes have been established a long time. Unfortunately many years will pass before I-49 is finished.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 16, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?

Always thought a diagonal from El Paso to Wichita, passing through Roswell, Clovis, and Amarillo, would take care of a lot of needs -- although like most corridors through the Plains, there will be some segments that have low AADT figures.  Probably be a hard sell, however -- most interregional planning efforts still adhere to the short/medium-distance "point-to-point" concept, which long-distance diagonals regularly do not satisfy. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on December 16, 2017, 09:13:03 PM
The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?
Getting a bit Fictional, but I would run I-24 thru more of Southern IL and into Southeast MO, around the far Southern and Western edges of Metro STL, and link it to the Avenue of the Saints. Upgrade the AOTS to Interstate Standard, and then Route number swap I-24 to an Odd (I like I-51) for a Twin Cities to Chattanooga corridor, which would be more N/S than E/W. Keeping I-24 would be ok as well

This would make another Southeast to Northwest Interstate. I-65 is a good SE/NW routing, at least north of Louisville

I-74 wants to be SE/NW from the Quad Cities to the Carolina coast, but I don’t see OH (or KY) nor WV cooperating any time soon
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2017, 08:19:32 PM
Quote from: sparker
Always thought a diagonal from El Paso to Wichita, passing through Roswell, Clovis, and Amarillo, would take care of a lot of needs -- although like most corridors through the Plains, there will be some segments that have low AADT figures.  Probably be a hard sell, however -- most interregional planning efforts still adhere to the short/medium-distance "point-to-point" concept, which long-distance diagonals regularly do not satisfy.

There's a good number of 4-lane divided highways through West Texas and New Mexico. Most of those are good enough as is. I-27 is what I would most like to see improved and extended in that region, ultimately as a Denver to San Antonio route. I think an Oklahoma City to Denver diagonal Interstate highway would be beneficial to the overall Interstate system.

I could perhaps see a diagonal Interstate running from Las Cruces to Amarillo. I'd prefer Las Cruces as the origin point since that's where I-10 takes a hard turn toward El Paso. An Interstate running from Las Cruces up to Alamogordo and beyond would do more to continue that East-West line from I-10. As it is, US-70 is four laned from Las Cruces to Clovis and US-60 is four laned from Clovis to Amarillo. US-70 is a freeway for 10 or so miles from the I-25 interchange in Las Cruces. I think it would be politically difficult to upgrade US-70 to Interstate quality through mountain towns like Mescalero and Ruidoso.

A diagonal Interstate from Amarillo to Wichita would be an even harder sell.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on December 17, 2017, 08:47:11 PM
A diagonal Interstate from Amarillo to Wichita would be an even harder sell.

Sell it as an alternative freight corridor to I-40/I-44.  https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsmajortrkrts2040.htm (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsmajortrkrts2040.htm)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Life in Paradise on December 18, 2017, 08:54:32 AM
Just looking at that truck freight map gives a reason why Texas was pushing for three different branches of I-69 in southern Texas.  Sure looks like the biggest truck traffic is on the interstates with a "0", and some with a "5".  I would agree, a few diagonals wouldn't hurt, and might help traffic move in some large cities by reducing thru truck traffic that might be diverted.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on December 18, 2017, 02:41:55 PM
Uh... why is Wikipedia not edited to show I-57’s extension?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: seicer on December 18, 2017, 03:07:27 PM
Because people have other things to do or edit. You should add it.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: NE2 on December 18, 2017, 03:19:48 PM
It is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_57#Future
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 25, 2017, 08:48:18 PM
Is ArDOT truly waiting for MoDOT before constructing any more of the US 67 freeway/Future I-57?

Regardless of Missouri's timeline, they should go ahead and proceed with the planning and construction of the US 67 freeway between Walnut Ridge and Corning to at least bring it within spitting distance of the state line. IMO, the Walnut Ridge to Corning section will be the most difficult remaining section to construct, so the sooner they get going, the better. And as I've said before, I would imagine the future bypass of Corning will have to go on the west side of town, so the freeway could end at a half-completed interchange at the existing US 67 west of corning until Missouri figures out what the heck to do.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on December 25, 2017, 09:01:08 PM
It’s taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it’ll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 28, 2017, 05:16:07 AM
Is ArDOT truly waiting for MoDOT before constructing any more of the US 67 freeway/Future I-57?

Regardless of Missouri's timeline, they should go ahead and proceed with the planning and construction of the US 67 freeway between Walnut Ridge and Corning to at least bring it within spitting distance of the state line. IMO, the Walnut Ridge to Corning section will be the most difficult remaining section to construct, so the sooner they get going, the better. And as I've said before, I would imagine the future bypass of Corning will have to go on the west side of town, so the freeway could end at a half-completed interchange at the existing US 67 west of corning until Missouri figures out what the heck to do.
It’s taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it’ll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.

I think the actual timeframe for that particular development will depend upon whether a US 67/Pocahontas alignment or, alternately, a AR 34/AR 90 alignment following the UP main line via Knobel is selected; the latter would likely involve easier construction and a more favorable crossing of the Black River floodplain.  However, the fact that most of the area population is centered along the US 67 corridor may mitigate for the more westerly routing.  This is something that's most likely to go back and forth for quite some time before some sort of resolution is reached.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 28, 2017, 08:54:37 AM
It’s taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it’ll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.

And they are STILL "upgrading" the existing roadway
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on December 28, 2017, 01:51:41 PM
It’s taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it’ll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.

And they are STILL "upgrading" the existing roadway
Indeed!
It's finally complete as a 6 lane controlled access highway from I-40 to just south of Redmond Rd. in Jacksonville. ARDOT has the big challenge coming up (Main St to Vandenberg Blvd). From Vandenberg Blvd to exit 16 is coming along nicely.
Now, from exit 16 up to the White County / Lonoke County line, the road needs to be milled down at the very least. The roadway through there is almost 50 years old...and it's starting to feel like it too!
On the other end, I guess the $64,000 question is the alignment they [ARDOT] will choose north[east] of Walnut Ridge to the state line. My proposal would be to put I-57 on its own alignment and keep US 67 going north to Pocahontas. Look how I-30 avoided such towns northeast of Texarkana (Gurdon especially).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on December 29, 2017, 12:26:24 AM
The Exit 11-16 work is moving at warp speed by ARDOT standards. Most of the new concrete on the southbound side is already down and I expect traffic to be shunted over to it by March at the latest.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on December 29, 2017, 12:19:18 PM
The Exit 11-16 work is moving at warp speed by ARDOT standards. Most of the new concrete on the southbound side is already down and I expect traffic to be shunted over to it by March at the latest.
It definitely IS! The southbound lacks just a bit of concrete where they are going to put the center concrete divider and that's it. When the southbound side opens (like you said, by March is definitely likely unless we get hit with lots of precip), ARDOT will more than likely route all traffic to the new side just like they did in the southern part of Jacksonville and then rip out the northbound lanes (and the temp. north asphalt lanes). The projected completion is Fall, 2018 as per idrivearkansas.com and the signs posted at the beginning of the project areas.
Hopefully, Trump can get the infrastructure thing going and get more highways upgraded / repaired.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on December 29, 2017, 04:21:54 PM
I think the 2-step process being used takes a lot less time. When I-30 to Benton was rebuilt, they used 3 steps — they built the center part first and then did each outside lane 1 at a time. It seemed to take forever.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 22, 2018, 03:12:33 PM
ARDOT has announced the Future I-57 Designation Event to be held Friday, February 23rd  11:30 a.m. at Harding University  American Heritage Building, Founders Room in Searcy, Arkansas.

If I'd known sooner, I would have tried to go, but those gatherings are usually intended for the "suits" and not the general public. I wonder if this means the "Future I-57" signs are ready to be posted?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on February 22, 2018, 04:07:45 PM
ARDOT has announced the Future I-57 Designation Event to be held Friday, February 23rd  11:30 a.m. at Harding University  American Heritage Building, Founders Room in Searcy, Arkansas.

If I'd known sooner, I would have tried to go, but those gatherings are usually intended for the "suits" and not the general public. I wonder if this means the "Future I-57" signs are ready to be posted?
'Bout damn time! :-D :bigass:
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on February 22, 2018, 04:29:10 PM
I bet after the event, the signs will most likely be posted. As of now (2/22/2018) I have not seen any "future I-57" signs posted, and I travel between Searcy and NLR about weekly on the highway.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 22, 2018, 04:39:10 PM
I bet after the event, the signs will most likely be posted. As of now (2/22/2018) I have not seen any "future I-57" signs posted, and I travel between Searcy and NLR about weekly on the highway.

I may have to go look this weekend, or next
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 22, 2018, 04:46:15 PM
Have they decided what they are going to do with future 57 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO? Or are those decisions still years away from happening?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 22, 2018, 04:54:02 PM
Have they decided what they are going to do with future 57 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO? Or are those decisions still years away from happening?
No one seems to know.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on February 22, 2018, 10:53:14 PM
Have they decided what they are going to do with future 57 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO? Or are those decisions still years away from happening?
No one seems to know.
IMO, I'm sure Arkansas would be able to find funding for it (if it gets that far) but good luck getting anything out of Missouri in its current financial situation.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on February 23, 2018, 07:34:08 PM
IMO, I hope they get started hardcore on this by the end of the year. Outside the ridge North of Jonesboro the land from Newport to 57s current terminus is relatively flat, and hopefully the corridor could be built in 5 years. That is going to make 57 an important route for commerce from Chicago to Dallas and points south to Mexico. This corridor will help the economy in NE. Arkansas and may bring in companies who could relocate from up north...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 23, 2018, 08:57:44 PM
IMO, I hope they get started hardcore on this by the end of the year. Outside the ridge North of Jonesboro the land from Newport to 57s current terminus is relatively flat, and hopefully the corridor could be built in 5 years. That is going to make 57 an important route for commerce from Chicago to Dallas and points south to Mexico. This corridor will help the economy in NE. Arkansas and may bring in companies who could relocate from up north...

I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on February 23, 2018, 10:10:19 PM
I was being optimistic in a sense, having seen the 15 year sprawl, and development in Northwest Arkansas, along IH 49. But in realization, A majority of Northeast Arkansas and even the Memphis area still looks the same as it did 30 years ago even with the developments of Both future interstates 57 and 269.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 23, 2018, 11:36:30 PM
I was being optimistic in a sense, having seen the 15 year sprawl, and development in Northwest Arkansas, along IH 49. But in realization, A majority of Northeast Arkansas and even the Memphis area still looks the same as it did 30 years ago even with the developments of Both future interstates 57 and 269.

I think the I-57 designation was more for political points. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on February 24, 2018, 11:45:04 AM
At this point, the question is which MO-AR connection will get done first; I-49 or I-57.
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

Or, to paraphrase: Much MO-AR humor... (and my guess is 57 gets done before 49)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on February 24, 2018, 04:14:56 PM
I would believe so. I don't think lH 49 gets completed before 2025 and IH 69 before 2030 respectively...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on February 24, 2018, 09:09:10 PM
At this point, the question is which MO-AR connection will get done first; I-49 or I-57.
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

Or, to paraphrase: Much MO-AR humor... (and my guess is 57 gets done before 49)

If only the part of the interstate crossing the border is being considered and not having the full corridor in Arkansas completed, I'd say I-49, as it is at least on MoDOT's radar as a project awaiting funding.  For I-57 I don't believe it has even been finalized where it would cross the border.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on February 25, 2018, 12:04:23 PM
I was being optimistic in a sense, having seen the 15 year sprawl, and development in Northwest Arkansas, along IH 49. But in realization, A majority of Northeast Arkansas and even the Memphis area still looks the same as it did 30 years ago even with the developments of Both future interstates 57 and 269.
I’m surprised how Jonesboro has taken off in the last decade or two. Even without an interstate connection until a few years ago when I-555 was finally designated, and also without a four-lane connection to Little Rock until AR 226 was completed. Now that both are in place the Jonesboro area should grow even faster. It’s really the only place in the whole eastern half of the state (that is, wholly east of 30/67) that’s doing well. All the other growth has taken place in Central and NWA.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on February 25, 2018, 02:05:13 PM
Having lived in Jonesboro for 10 years. That town is really Backwards! Its the county seat of a dry county. The only thing to do there is get bit by mosquitoes. I have to take back my statements about future economical and commerce in that area...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 1 on February 25, 2018, 02:08:55 PM
Having lived in Jonesboro for 10 years. That town is really Backwards! Its the county seat of a dry county. The only thing to do there is get bit by mosquitoes. I have to take back my statements about future economical and commerce in that area...

As if a county being wet or dry is the only thing that matters? There's much more to the economy and commerce than just alcohol (I assume you don't mean "dry" literally).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2018, 06:45:20 PM
There is a price to be paid for a county having a "dry" no-alcohol-allowed policy. Many young people, particularly college educated professionals will not take jobs in such locations. Other young people will try like hell to escape such areas. In the end such communities are left with narrow demographics: religious fundamentalists, poor people and people only getting older. Most businesses depend on a work force of human beings.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on February 25, 2018, 07:09:23 PM
Perfectly put. Its why College Students from Texas and Missouri go to Fayetteville as opposed to Jonesboro. That area being dry really halts any kind of economic progress an has for 2 decades plus. Sorry for this thread going off topic. It will get back to form once we see the routing of IH 57, hopefully in a few months
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
How ridiculous it is that alcohol has such control over local economies.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2018, 08:58:31 PM
That's life in America. What people do for leisure during their free time is every bit as important to a local economy as going to work or going to church. Some people like having a beer at a sports bar while watching the big game with a bunch of friends. Young people like to go to night clubs or venues to see live bands perform. Beer and mixed drinks are a staple of those places. I have a lot of friends who go boating, camping and grilling out. Coolers filled with drinks including cold beer are common to that activity.

If someone chooses not to drink, either for health purposes or for religious views that's great. That's that person's choice. It's another thing for town fathers to force that choice on everyone living in the zip code. Unless the town is a bastion of unique forms of recreation the place is going to sound like crickets chirping on the weekend. Dead.

In the coming years and decades cities and towns will have to fight harder to attract and retain educated/skilled young workers and families. Oklahoma has had its own tradition of bible belt laws. Not long ago the state's voters chose to abolish certain liquor laws (liquor stores couldn't sell cold beer, grocery stores and convenience stores couldn't sell strong beer, etc). The new law is going into effect this November, which will put the state more on par with neighboring states.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 26, 2018, 01:20:34 AM
That's life in America. What people do for leisure during their free time is every bit as important to a local economy as going to work or going to church. Some people like having a beer at a sports bar while watching the big game with a bunch of friends. Young people like to go to night clubs or venues to see live bands perform. Beer and mixed drinks are a staple of those places. I have a lot of friends who go boating, camping and grilling out. Coolers filled with drinks including cold beer are common to that activity.

If someone chooses not to drink, either for health purposes or for religious views that's great. That's that person's choice. It's another thing for town fathers to force that choice on everyone living in the zip code. Unless the town is a bastion of unique forms of recreation the place is going to sound like crickets chirping on the weekend. Dead.

In the coming years and decades cities and towns will have to fight harder to attract and retain educated/skilled young workers and families. Oklahoma has had its own tradition of bible belt laws. Not long ago the state's voters chose to abolish certain liquor laws (liquor stores couldn't sell cold beer, grocery stores and convenience stores couldn't sell strong beer, etc). The new law is going into effect this November, which will put the state more on par with neighboring states.

Unfortunately, some people professing certain religious standards feel that they're not living up to their convictions unless they can control their environment as well -- hence the plethora of "blue laws" common until just the past few decades.  Remember, a large number of the original settlers/immigrants to this continent were folks who found 17th-century Britain too liberal for their tastes -- besides, the Crown looked unfavorably on the burning of those deemed to be witches (transferred to North America, where for a while it was "out of sight, out of mind!").
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: wtd67 on February 26, 2018, 01:42:55 AM
Having lived in Jonesboro for 10 years. That town is really Backwards! Its the county seat of a dry county. The only thing to do there is get bit by mosquitoes. I have to take back my statements about future economical and commerce in that area...

I lived there 20 years and moved away about 30 years ago, but still visit every year.  I can tell you it is no more backward than any other area I have lived since.  I lived in the DFW area for over 10 years and I can tell you that Arkansas does not know growth like the DFW area and it is still growing even though I haven't lived there in nearly 20 years.

You forgot to add that Jonesboro is a very "wet" dry county.  Nearly all the restaurants serve alchohol by the drink.  You just can't go to a convenience/grocery store to get alcohol and the county line is only a 15-20 minute drive.  I believe Jonesboro has been dry since either WWI or WWII, voted dry when the men were away to war.   

It does have a very strong food processing industry.  You have Riceland, Post Foods, Frito Lay, Nestle, & Butterball.  Jonesboro's City Water & Light invested in a major water processing facility many years ago to lure these industries to Jonesboro.  I haven't seen much growth in that area in the past few years though.

ASU is another asset, it may not be UofA in Fayeteville, but it holds it own and grows every year.  The old saying when I lived in Jonesboro was you go to Fayeteville to party, but you go to Jonesboro to get an education.

Two major hospital facilities is another asset in this size of city as well, better than some areas I have lived.

Jonesboro has had to struggle nearly 50 years to get its interstates.  Look how long it has taken to get US63 upgraded to I-555.  That is a project that started in the early 70's and US67 getting upgraded has gone longer.  If it hadn't been for US Representative, Bill Alexander in the 70's and 80's and demonstration projects, "63 bypass" would probably still be 2 lanes.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 11:51:44 AM
I think wet/dry options are by Township in Arkansas. Their is no Township government in Arkansas.  They counties are just divided into Townships.  The only use for townships in Arkansas is for electing constables and wet/dry options.  The Justices of the Peace were once elected at the township level but they removed the judicial powers of JPs and now they are elected by district.  The JPs are now just county commissioners.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Scott5114 on February 26, 2018, 02:36:19 PM
I don't drink, but I would never live in a dry town because if the local officials are content to write their personal morality into law on that topic, who's to say they won't do so on other things I might actually want to do?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2018, 03:14:48 PM
Oklahoma has its own share of "dry counties." In my part of the state both Cotton and Jefferson counties (south of Lawton & Duncan) are dry. Right now these counties will allow liquor stores to operate but restaurants cannot sell any beer above 3.2% ABV. Once the alcohol modernization law goes into effect this coming November the places selling that low point beer won't be able to serve beer at all unless the county votes to go "wet."
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 03:36:46 PM
Jack Daniels is distilled in Metropolitan Lynchburg-Moore County which happens to be a dry county.  The metropolitan in the name is an oxymoron I know but they did form a consolidated government and that is the name that was adopted.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on February 27, 2018, 12:38:32 AM
Last Friday in Searcy @ Harding Uni, they [ARDOT] and a few dignitaries had the official unveiling of the "Future I-57" signs. It's NOW official! :)
I'll be looking for any new signs along the 67-167 corridor...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Chris on February 27, 2018, 08:03:31 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4755/38687496300_16f5496b45_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh)
Future I-57 sign unveiled (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh) by Arkansas Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahtd/), on Flickr
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on February 27, 2018, 09:19:08 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4755/38687496300_16f5496b45_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh)
Future I-57 sign unveiled (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh) by Arkansas Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahtd/), on Flickr

 :-o :D
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 27, 2018, 11:05:56 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4755/38687496300_16f5496b45_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh)
Future I-57 sign unveiled (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh) by Arkansas Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahtd/), on Flickr

 :-o :D

Man!  Is that one awkward-looking posed photo or what?  Looks like the prevailing sentiment is ".....can we go home now?"
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bjrush on February 27, 2018, 01:39:44 PM
I'm just surprised to see John Bozeman in the state of Arkansas
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 27, 2018, 03:09:30 PM
Where can I get an I-57 sticker like that? :-D
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 27, 2018, 04:34:35 PM
Where can I get an I-57 sticker like that? :-D

Probably in the Harding University trash receptacles between the auditorium and the parking lot! :-P
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: qguy on February 27, 2018, 06:19:09 PM
I don't drink, but I would never live in a dry town because if the local officials are content to write their personal morality into law on that topic, who's to say they won't do so on other things I might actually want to do?

You mean like murder?

My point is that isn't every law ideally the collective consensus of the personal moralities of those represented?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 27, 2018, 08:55:22 PM
Last Friday in Searcy @ Harding Uni, they [ARDOT] and a few dignitaries had the official unveiling of the "Future I-57" signs. It's NOW official! :)
I'll be looking for any new signs along the 67-167 corridor...

I have found ONE. SB US 67 just south of the 367/67B Exit (Exit 42). I drove from Walnut Ridge to Beebe and it's the only one I saw. I'll post a photo as soon as I can get it off my camera.


UPDATE:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4706/40485462762_a36138435e_z_d.jpg)

(at least it isn't Clearview ;) )
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 27, 2018, 10:08:56 PM
Where can I get an I-57 sticker like that? :-D

I'd write ARDOT and see if they have any leftovers. If they DO, I'd like one, too ;)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on February 28, 2018, 12:31:04 AM
Last Friday in Searcy @ Harding Uni, they [ARDOT] and a few dignitaries had the official unveiling of the "Future I-57" signs. It's NOW official! :)
I'll be looking for any new signs along the 67-167 corridor...

I have found ONE. SB US 67 just south of the 367/67B Exit (Exit 42). I drove from Walnut Ridge to Beebe and it's the only one I saw. I'll post a photo as soon as I can get it off my camera.


UPDATE:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4706/40485462762_a36138435e_z_d.jpg)

(at least it isn't Clearview ;) )
Another one is posted northbound 67 just north of McCain Blvd (around mm 2)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 28, 2018, 09:43:35 AM

Another one is posted northbound 67 just north of McCain Blvd (around mm 2)

I thought of looking, but it was starting to rain. Since I found one sign, it was "good enough" for now.  ;)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TBKS1 on February 28, 2018, 02:20:11 PM
Last Friday in Searcy @ Harding Uni, they [ARDOT] and a few dignitaries had the official unveiling of the "Future I-57" signs. It's NOW official! :)
I'll be looking for any new signs along the 67-167 corridor...

I have found ONE. SB US 67 just south of the 367/67B Exit (Exit 42). I drove from Walnut Ridge to Beebe and it's the only one I saw. I'll post a photo as soon as I can get it off my camera.


UPDATE:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4706/40485462762_a36138435e_z_d.jpg)

(at least it isn't Clearview ;) )

I'll probably be able to get a picture of that pretty soon. I'm pretty excited about the new interstate though!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 05:32:02 PM
I doubt we'll see similar signs along US 67 and US 60 in Missouri. Is my prediction accurate?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 28, 2018, 06:47:09 PM
I doubt we'll see similar signs along US 67 and US 60 in Missouri. Is my prediction accurate?

I'd say it is. This was IMO, more for political points.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on March 01, 2018, 12:00:40 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4755/38687496300_16f5496b45_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh)
Future I-57 sign unveiled (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh) by Arkansas Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahtd/), on Flickr
The border width on this staged sign is cringe worthy. :banghead:
Count the 'Future' in the red field in that category as well! :banghead:

and what the hell is with the rounding of the green field?

"Oh shit we fucked up on another sign!" "What's new?" "Eh, leave it! It won't be in the field anyways!" -- Exact dialog that occured at the exact moment when ArDOT knew they fuc'd up! :rofl: :banghead:
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 01, 2018, 01:30:23 PM
Let's not forget about the kerning of the "Future I-57" letters. Way too tight for actual green highway sign standards.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on March 01, 2018, 02:04:58 PM
Let's not forget about the kerning of the "Future I-57" letters. Way too tight for actual green highway sign standards.
Scott (far right) is like, "Oh shit!"
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on March 01, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4755/38687496300_16f5496b45_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh)
Future I-57 sign unveiled (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh) by Arkansas Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahtd/), on Flickr
The border width on this staged sign is cringe worthy. :banghead:
Count the 'Future' in the red field in that category as well! :banghead:

and what the hell is with the rounding of the green field?

"Oh shit we fucked up on another sign!" "What's new?" "Eh, leave it! It won't be in the field anyways!" -- Exact dialog that occured at the exact moment when ArDOT knew they fuc'd up! :rofl: :banghead:

I'm not sure the average person at ARDOT would have a clue. Too many strike me as government appointees with little knowledge of roads beyond "Point A to Point B".
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on March 01, 2018, 02:36:50 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4755/38687496300_16f5496b45_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh)
Future I-57 sign unveiled (https://flic.kr/p/21WFwNh) by Arkansas Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahtd/), on Flickr
The border width on this staged sign is cringe worthy. :banghead:
Count the 'Future' in the red field in that category as well! :banghead:

and what the hell is with the rounding of the green field?

"Oh shit we fucked up on another sign!" "What's new?" "Eh, leave it! It won't be in the field anyways!" -- Exact dialog that occured at the exact moment when ArDOT knew they fuc'd up! :rofl: :banghead:

I'm not sure the average person at ARDOT would have a clue. Too many strike me as government appointees with little knowledge of roads beyond "Point A to Point B".
Scott has the expirence. He knew they fucked up big time on the sign design.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mgk920 on May 19, 2018, 11:51:13 AM
Having lived in Jonesboro for 10 years. That town is really Backwards! Its the county seat of a dry county. The only thing to do there is get bit by mosquitoes. I have to take back my statements about future economical and commerce in that area...

I lived there 20 years and moved away about 30 years ago, but still visit every year.  I can tell you it is no more backward than any other area I have lived since.  I lived in the DFW area for over 10 years and I can tell you that Arkansas does not know growth like the DFW area and it is still growing even though I haven't lived there in nearly 20 years.

You forgot to add that Jonesboro is a very "wet" dry county.  Nearly all the restaurants serve alchohol by the drink.  You just can't go to a convenience/grocery store to get alcohol and the county line is only a 15-20 minute drive.  I believe Jonesboro has been dry since either WWI or WWII, voted dry when the men were away to war.   

It does have a very strong food processing industry.  You have Riceland, Post Foods, Frito Lay, Nestle, & Butterball.  Jonesboro's City Water & Light invested in a major water processing facility many years ago to lure these industries to Jonesboro.  I haven't seen much growth in that area in the past few years though.

ASU is another asset, it may not be UofA in Fayeteville, but it holds it own and grows every year.  The old saying when I lived in Jonesboro was you go to Fayeteville to party, but you go to Jonesboro to get an education.

Two major hospital facilities is another asset in this size of city as well, better than some areas I have lived.

Jonesboro has had to struggle nearly 50 years to get its interstates.  Look how long it has taken to get US63 upgraded to I-555.  That is a project that started in the early 70's and US67 getting upgraded has gone longer.  If it hadn't been for US Representative, Bill Alexander in the 70's and 80's and demonstration projects, "63 bypass" would probably still be 2 lanes.

Interesting in that Big Rig Steve did a 'drop and hook' visit at an unnamed food processing company there earlier this week, coming in via AR 18 from I-55 (Very interesting upgrades are under way in that corridor, it will be a full Arkansas surface five lanes the whole way when done, possibly by the end of the year. :cool: ) and then going out the next day via US 63 towards Springfield, MO.

Should this planned 'I-57' come to be, could we also be seeing a push to extend I-555 northwestward to 'I-57' in the Hoxie area?  That part of US 63 looked to be sufficiently busy to make that a tempting potential upgrade idea, IMHO.

Steve also headed north on 'I-57' from US 63 - he had obsolete information on a weight restriction on the US 63/412 bridge at Black Rock, AR (this crossing has been replaced within the past few years).  He mentioned something about engineers at ARDOT being worried about it for being of the same basic design as the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis, MN that failed in 2007 and thus seriously lowering its weight limit.  That interchange at the current north end of the 'I-57' freeway is even more *WOW!* when driving through it at ground level than it is from the aerial images - especially for being in a place as wide open and relatively thinly populated as where it is.

Mike
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 20, 2018, 11:10:53 AM
Having lived in Jonesboro for 10 years. That town is really Backwards! Its the county seat of a dry county. The only thing to do there is get bit by mosquitoes. I have to take back my statements about future economical and commerce in that area...

I lived there 20 years and moved away about 30 years ago, but still visit every year.  I can tell you it is no more backward than any other area I have lived since.  I lived in the DFW area for over 10 years and I can tell you that Arkansas does not know growth like the DFW area and it is still growing even though I haven't lived there in nearly 20 years.

You forgot to add that Jonesboro is a very "wet" dry county.  Nearly all the restaurants serve alchohol by the drink.  You just can't go to a convenience/grocery store to get alcohol and the county line is only a 15-20 minute drive.  I believe Jonesboro has been dry since either WWI or WWII, voted dry when the men were away to war.   

It does have a very strong food processing industry.  You have Riceland, Post Foods, Frito Lay, Nestle, & Butterball.  Jonesboro's City Water & Light invested in a major water processing facility many years ago to lure these industries to Jonesboro.  I haven't seen much growth in that area in the past few years though.

ASU is another asset, it may not be UofA in Fayeteville, but it holds it own and grows every year.  The old saying when I lived in Jonesboro was you go to Fayeteville to party, but you go to Jonesboro to get an education.

Two major hospital facilities is another asset in this size of city as well, better than some areas I have lived.

Jonesboro has had to struggle nearly 50 years to get its interstates.  Look how long it has taken to get US63 upgraded to I-555.  That is a project that started in the early 70's and US67 getting upgraded has gone longer.  If it hadn't been for US Representative, Bill Alexander in the 70's and 80's and demonstration projects, "63 bypass" would probably still be 2 lanes.

Interesting in that Big Rig Steve did a 'drop and hook' visit at an unnamed food processing company there earlier this week, coming in via AR 18 from I-55 (Very interesting upgrades are under way in that corridor, it will be a full Arkansas surface five lanes the whole way when done, possibly by the end of the year. :cool: ) and then going out the next day via US 63 towards Springfield, MO.

Should this planned 'I-57' come to be, could we also be seeing a push to extend I-555 northwestward to 'I-57' in the Hoxie area?  That part of US 63 looked to be sufficiently busy to make that a tempting potential upgrade idea, IMHO.

Steve also headed north on 'I-57' from US 63 - he had obsolete information on a weight restriction on the US 63/412 bridge at Black Rock, AR (this crossing has been replaced within the past few years).  He mentioned something about engineers at ARDOT being worried about it for being of the same basic design as the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis, MN that failed in 2007 and thus seriously lowering its weight limit.  That interchange at the current north end of the 'I-57' freeway is even more *WOW!* when driving through it at ground level than it is from the aerial images - especially for being in a place as wide open and relatively thinly populated as where it is.

Mike

The only I could see an I-555 extension is to build a four lane limited access. Just south of Jonesboro from just north of Bay over to where the new 4 lane AR 226 meets US 49. Then bringing AR -226 up to interstate standard. Basically repeating the senario seen with I -49 and I-549 in Ft. Smith.

Let me get into trouble with the moderator gods,  i'd like to see I -555 and and upgrade of US -412 across northern Arkansas as an extension of I-22 eventually to Tulsa maybe all the way to I-35

I'd like to see a new eastern four lane/divided bypass of Jonesboro's east side up to Paragould.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on May 20, 2018, 12:15:18 PM

The only I could see an I-555 extension is to build a four lane limited access. Just south of Jonesboro from just north of Bay over to where the new 4 lane AR 226 meets US 49. Then bringing AR -226 up to interstate standard. Basically repeating the senario seen with I -49 and I-549 in Ft. Smith.

Let me get into trouble with the moderator gods,  i'd like to see I -555 and and upgrade of US -412 across northern Arkansas as an extension of I-22 eventually to Tulsa maybe all the way to I-35

I'd like to see a new eastern four lane/divided bypass of Jonesboro's east side up to Paragould.

ARDOT is already talking about 4-Laning 412 across the state. But that costs money... money the state doesn't have.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Life in Paradise on May 20, 2018, 10:18:35 PM

The only I could see an I-555 extension is to build a four lane limited access. Just south of Jonesboro from just north of Bay over to where the new 4 lane AR 226 meets US 49. Then bringing AR -226 up to interstate standard. Basically repeating the senario seen with I -49 and I-549 in Ft. Smith.

Let me get into trouble with the moderator gods,  i'd like to see I -555 and and upgrade of US -412 across northern Arkansas as an extension of I-22 eventually to Tulsa maybe all the way to I-35

I'd like to see a new eastern four lane/divided bypass of Jonesboro's east side up to Paragould.
[/quote

ARDOT is already talking about 4-Laning 412 across the state. But that costs money... money the state doesn't have.

If I were in charge of ARDOT, I'd take care of the projects that are on the board first (in no particular order)-I-57 to the Missouri state line, I-49 from Texarkana to I-40, and I-69 across southeastern Arkansas.  Once you get the financing for those projects, then by all means work on I-555/US-412/I-22 or whatever you want to call it.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on May 25, 2018, 02:00:36 PM
So MO is finally putting a gas tax increase on the ballot this fall. If this passes, could we see any work done on upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line to a freeway (or at least finish the US 67 four lane to the state line)?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 26, 2018, 07:38:28 AM
So MO is finally putting a gas tax increase on the ballot this fall. If this passes, could we see any work done on upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line to a freeway (or at least finish the US 67 four lane to the state line)?

As I stated in another thread, this is bad timing. The market speculators have decided to run up oil and , therefore, gas.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on May 26, 2018, 02:12:48 PM
Does anyone know when Missouri will plan on starting the 57 expansion west of its terminus @ 55. My big boy gut tells me it may not be til 2020 at the earliest. Also I wouldn't be surprised if 57 runs concurrent with 55 south to connect to an southwest extension south of Sikeston due to the undeveloped area which would be easier to build through???
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on May 26, 2018, 03:26:44 PM
Does anyone know when Missouri will plan on starting the 57 expansion west of its terminus @ 55. My big boy gut tells me it may not be til 2020 at the earliest. Also I wouldn't be surprised if 57 runs concurrent with 55 south to connect to an southwest extension south of Sikeston due to the undeveloped area which would be easier to build through???

From what I've seen just by driving through there -- plus more recent GSV -- when construction starts on the planned I-57 extension west of I-55 it'll be right on the current US 60 alignment, which is already divided expressway with little or no private access points -- it'll require, of course, grade separations, shoulder work (inner & outer), and probably a number of added frontage roads.  But a 2020 start on this would be wishful thinking; work on the MO part of the project likely won't even start until AR has at least mapped out the routing within that state, including just where it'll cross the line near US 67.  Unless sufficient funding is located, I don't see anything happening in either state until at least 2025; both states have too much previously-planned items (such as I-49) on their plates to prioritize a corridor that was established only last year.  It'll probably happen, but later rather than sooner.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 26, 2018, 03:28:15 PM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian
As I stated in another thread, this is bad timing. The market speculators have decided to run up oil and , therefore, gas.

The markets were tough on oil May 25, due to news that Russia and OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia are going to increase oil production output. They've had various production curbs in place which helped prices rise. If those restrictions are lifted prices are going to drop. Falling oil prices would suck for states such as Oklahoma where the government has been struggling financially and its ideologically-driven choices threaten to turns its economy into a poor backwater. States like Oklahoma need oil back over $100 per barrel. I don't think the OPEC nations will let oil get back to that level by choice. Countries like Saudi Arabia have no love for companies involved in North American fracking operations. Hiking oil production quotas will eat into the profit margins of American oil companies. Of course, North American oil companies have made great improvements to oil drilling technology, which has helped them still squeak out profits with trading at lower prices. Still, Oklahoma's tax base winds up dealing with less anyway -and less money for teachers, cops, etc.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on May 26, 2018, 05:49:42 PM
US 60 makes sense. A lot of it just needs to be made interstate grade until it runs in to US 67. I think all of that can be done in the next 10 years...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 28, 2018, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian
As I stated in another thread, this is bad timing. The market speculators have decided to run up oil and , therefore, gas.

The markets were tough on oil May 25, due to news that Russia and OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia are going to increase oil production output. They've had various production curbs in place which helped prices rise. If those restrictions are lifted prices are going to drop. Falling oil prices would suck for states such as Oklahoma where the government has been struggling financially and its ideologically-driven choices threaten to turns its economy into a poor backwater. States like Oklahoma need oil back over $100 per barrel. I don't think the OPEC nations will let oil get back to that level by choice. Countries like Saudi Arabia have no love for companies involved in North American fracking operations. Hiking oil production quotas will eat into the profit margins of American oil companies. Of course, North American oil companies have made great improvements to oil drilling technology, which has helped them still squeak out profits with trading at lower prices. Still, Oklahoma's tax base winds up dealing with less anyway -and less money for teachers, cops, etc.

Have you seen the drilling rig countsfor the US. It is never going back to 100 dollars a barrel  raring some event that makes it unimportant in the grand scheme. Part of that decision is the Venezuelan plummet. They don't want oil this high because of the US incentive to fracking even more(see current fig count) The spread between WTI and Brent is massive right now. Our exports are booming just a couple of years being forbidden. The pipeline capacity and the ability to load and ship is being taxed until the new terminal and pipeline capacity expansion projects are done.

But... none of that matters. The average voter sees the price.on the pump and nothing else. The supply and demand nuances don't matter. Price at the pump.matters. If it's $2.80 come NOV, they ain't voting in gas taxes.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on May 28, 2018, 09:49:25 PM
Having lived in Jonesboro for 10 years. That town is really Backwards! Its the county seat of a dry county. The only thing to do there is get bit by mosquitoes. I have to take back my statements about future economical and commerce in that area...

I lived there 20 years and moved away about 30 years ago, but still visit every year.  I can tell you it is no more backward than any other area I have lived since.  I lived in the DFW area for over 10 years and I can tell you that Arkansas does not know growth like the DFW area and it is still growing even though I haven't lived there in nearly 20 years.

You forgot to add that Jonesboro is a very "wet" dry county.  Nearly all the restaurants serve alchohol by the drink.  You just can't go to a convenience/grocery store to get alcohol and the county line is only a 15-20 minute drive.  I believe Jonesboro has been dry since either WWI or WWII, voted dry when the men were away to war.   

It does have a very strong food processing industry.  You have Riceland, Post Foods, Frito Lay, Nestle, & Butterball.  Jonesboro's City Water & Light invested in a major water processing facility many years ago to lure these industries to Jonesboro.  I haven't seen much growth in that area in the past few years though.

ASU is another asset, it may not be UofA in Fayeteville, but it holds it own and grows every year.  The old saying when I lived in Jonesboro was you go to Fayeteville to party, but you go to Jonesboro to get an education.

Two major hospital facilities is another asset in this size of city as well, better than some areas I have lived.

Jonesboro has had to struggle nearly 50 years to get its interstates.  Look how long it has taken to get US63 upgraded to I-555.  That is a project that started in the early 70's and US67 getting upgraded has gone longer.  If it hadn't been for US Representative, Bill Alexander in the 70's and 80's and demonstration projects, "63 bypass" would probably still be 2 lanes.

Interesting in that Big Rig Steve did a 'drop and hook' visit at an unnamed food processing company there earlier this week, coming in via AR 18 from I-55 (Very interesting upgrades are under way in that corridor, it will be a full Arkansas surface five lanes the whole way when done, possibly by the end of the year. :cool: ) and then going out the next day via US 63 towards Springfield, MO.

Should this planned 'I-57' come to be, could we also be seeing a push to extend I-555 northwestward to 'I-57' in the Hoxie area?  That part of US 63 looked to be sufficiently busy to make that a tempting potential upgrade idea, IMHO.

Steve also headed north on 'I-57' from US 63 - he had obsolete information on a weight restriction on the US 63/412 bridge at Black Rock, AR (this crossing has been replaced within the past few years).  He mentioned something about engineers at ARDOT being worried about it for being of the same basic design as the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis, MN that failed in 2007 and thus seriously lowering its weight limit.  That interchange at the current north end of the 'I-57' freeway is even more *WOW!* when driving through it at ground level than it is from the aerial images - especially for being in a place as wide open and relatively thinly populated as where it is.

Mike

The only I could see an I-555 extension is to build a four lane limited access. Just south of Jonesboro from just north of Bay over to where the new 4 lane AR 226 meets US 49. Then bringing AR -226 up to interstate standard. Basically repeating the senario seen with I -49 and I-549 in Ft. Smith.

Let me get into trouble with the moderator gods,  i'd like to see I -555 and and upgrade of US -412 across northern Arkansas as an extension of I-22 eventually to Tulsa maybe all the way to I-35

I'd like to see a new eastern four lane/divided bypass of Jonesboro's east side up to Paragould.

As much as I have driven through Hoxie and Imboden I cant see 412 getting any enhancements anytime soon. MO and AR will want to connect the US67 between the MO state line down to Pocahontas before any further work on 412. Just not enough volumes there.

The City of Pocahontas got ARDOT to commit to not bypass the city, so I am not sure how that will work between Walnut Ridge and Corning.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on May 28, 2018, 11:25:28 PM
Does giving Pocahontas the first x57 Spur fill the committment to not bypass Pocahontas? Surely I-57 will follow the UP train track route between Walnut Ridge and Corning? No?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on May 28, 2018, 11:39:56 PM
Does giving Pocahontas the first x57 Spur fill the committment to not bypass Pocahontas? Surely I-57 will follow the UP train track route between Walnut Ridge and Corning? No?

Not sure, ARDOT just finished upgrading the US67 bridge over the Black River at Pocahontas.When I read that I thought at first this was part of the planned connection between Walnut Ridge and Corning.

But all I saw was they 4 laned and streamlined the signals of US67 through Pocahontas including the said bridge.  It didn't look like anything that would contribute to a future US67/I-57 alignment.

In 2013, this is what the plan was:

WALNUT RIDGE, AR (KAIT) - After almost three years of going back and forth with having to agree on a new hwy 67 route to the Missouri state line, a compromise has been made. The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

"We expect announcements over the next year of multiple industrial developments along this route," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House.

With new developments in the work comes anticipated heavy traffic.  House said taking care of it now is important before it becomes a problem in the future.

"With all those plans in mind, we're trying to get ready for that," said House. "Some companies have already made some big investments in properties along this line."

Although, it took nearly three years to come up with a compromise from all the cities along highway 67, the new proposed route is much affordable and timely than what was originally discussed.

"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line," said House.  "We're following the existing route except for minor adjustments and the bypasses around Corning and around Pocahontas."

House said there's a lot more to this new proposal than just accommodating the amount of drivers who will be traveling on the highway.

"It's for safety, environmental impact, economic development and industrial growth," said House.

There's not a lot of money for the project now, but House said a new highway bill could fund the project much sooner than anticipated If it's approved.

"There are ways at which we may be able to begin the building of this project through some influence on the bill."

House said they are waiting for approval signatures from Searcy city officials, and plan to send the proposal to Governor Beebe and the Highway Commission to approve.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on May 28, 2018, 11:50:27 PM
This report says the Walnut Ridge-Corning route for I-57 is in environmental review.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2018-02-26/plans-unveiled-to-extend-i-57-into-arkansas  (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2018-02-26/plans-unveiled-to-extend-i-57-into-arkansas)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mgk920 on May 29, 2018, 07:50:46 PM
Does extending I-57 off of its current ghost end at Walnut Ridge and along the UP to Corning require that present-day US 67 be moved or otherwise decommissioned?

Mike
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on May 29, 2018, 11:11:02 PM
Does extending I-57 off of its current ghost end at Walnut Ridge and along the UP to Corning require that present-day US 67 be moved or otherwise decommissioned?

Mike

According to these recent reports, the road will turn to the NW and bypass Pocahontas to the east then cross the Black River and align with the current US67 going NE. And just west of Corning it will turn north to bypass Corning and rejoin the current ROW north of town.

This will save money as less dedicated ROW will be required. It will still provide access to the towns of Pocahontas and Corning and meet interstate standards up to the MO/AR state line.

This will probably mean US67 north of Pocahontas will get a parallel 2 lane road built, shift traffic over, finish the bridges for rural/local traffic and rip out and replace the original US67 pavement.

At the moment, unless they find a rare spotted purple daisy or a rare form of Gregson's nipple nosed frog, the biggest hold up with be funding for actual construction.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on May 30, 2018, 12:43:43 AM
I highly doubt they're going to build the freeway right on top of US 67, using the current highway as one carriageway of the interstate. I can't think of an instance when Arkansas did that.

They should build the freeway between Walnut Ridge and Corning roughly paralleling AR 34 from Walnut Ridge to O'Kean then paralleling AR 90 from O'Kean to Knobel, turning north and bypassing Corning to the east then heading due north to the east of current US 67 into Missouri. Pocahontas is already connected to Walnut Ridge with a 5 lane "Arkansas Freeway" and eventually US 62 will probably be 4 laned from the US 412 western split to the Missouri line, meaning Pocahontas would be connected to I-57 both to the south and to the northeast. This makes the most sense to me.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on May 30, 2018, 01:50:05 AM
I highly doubt they're going to build the freeway right on top of US 67, using the current highway as one carriageway of the interstate. I can't think of an instance when Arkansas did that.

They should build the freeway between Walnut Ridge and Corning roughly paralleling AR 34 from Walnut Ridge to O'Kean then paralleling AR 90 from O'Kean to Knobel, turning north and bypassing Corning to the east then heading due north to the east of current US 67 into Missouri. Pocahontas is already connected to Walnut Ridge with a 5 lane "Arkansas Freeway" and eventually US 62 will probably be 4 laned from the US 412 western split to the Missouri line, meaning Pocahontas would be connected to I-57 both to the south and to the northeast. This makes the most sense to me.

Although the AR 34/90/UP route is the most logical choice, this is AR, where local politics often prevail.  It's pretty obvious from the press release that the "fix was in" regarding routing I-57 up existing US 67 as much as possible.  With frontage roads and a relatively narrow ROW (likely just enough for 4 lanes, shoulders, and a K-rail) and a number of strategically placed interchanges, the Pocahontas-Corning segment will, in all likelihood, be optimized to serve local businesses by providing a clear view of such enterprises from I-57 itself -- and plenty of ways to access them.  And a reasonably close-in set of bypasses of the two towns will do likewise for current in-town businesses geared toward pass-through commerce -- give 'em a place to relocate if they so choose (and I'll bet that the moving would somehow be at least partially subsidized!).  It'll end up looking like many other Interstates heading out from similarly-sized towns: not terribly scenic, but quite functional as far as business access is concerned. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on May 30, 2018, 04:28:32 AM
If they build it close to Pocahontas, the 5 lane "Arkansas Freeway" US 67 will end up being a waste of money. Pocahontas is served by a multilane highway, so I-57 can bypass it to the east.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Henry on May 30, 2018, 09:39:41 AM
Does anyone know when Missouri will plan on starting the 57 expansion west of its terminus @ 55. My big boy gut tells me it may not be til 2020 at the earliest. Also I wouldn't be surprised if 57 runs concurrent with 55 south to connect to an southwest extension south of Sikeston due to the undeveloped area which would be easier to build through???

From what I've seen just by driving through there -- plus more recent GSV -- when construction starts on the planned I-57 extension west of I-55 it'll be right on the current US 60 alignment, which is already divided expressway with little or no private access points -- it'll require, of course, grade separations, shoulder work (inner & outer), and probably a number of added frontage roads.  But a 2020 start on this would be wishful thinking; work on the MO part of the project likely won't even start until AR has at least mapped out the routing within that state, including just where it'll cross the line near US 67.  Unless sufficient funding is located, I don't see anything happening in either state until at least 2025; both states have too much previously-planned items (such as I-49) on their plates to prioritize a corridor that was established only last year.  It'll probably happen, but later rather than sooner.
Compared to this, I-49 should be a cakewalk. Closing the gap around Bella Vista ought to be the priority, then they can start work on I-57. I agree that it would be nice to have a continuous nonstop route between Chicago and Little Rock (or Dallas/Fort Worth if you throw in I-30), but these things take time.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on May 30, 2018, 11:34:55 AM
If they build it close to Pocahontas, the 5 lane "Arkansas Freeway" US 67 will end up being a waste of money. Pocahontas is served by a multilane highway, so I-57 can bypass it to the east.
Plus, that "5 lane AR freeway" between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas is flood prone. There is NO way that that section will be used for future I-57 unless they tear all of that out and raise the roadway. It would make more sense to keep that section signed as US 67 and build I-57 just east of there on a new alignment.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on May 30, 2018, 04:20:12 PM
If they build it close to Pocahontas, the 5 lane "Arkansas Freeway" US 67 will end up being a waste of money. Pocahontas is served by a multilane highway, so I-57 can bypass it to the east.
Plus, that "5 lane AR freeway" between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas is flood prone. There is NO way that that section will be used for future I-57 unless they tear all of that out and raise the roadway. It would make more sense to keep that section signed as US 67 and build I-57 just east of there on a new alignment.

That is probably what's going to happen.  There is a "stub-end" continuation of the freeway from the point where US 67 veers NW at the north end of the freeway section; whether this corresponds to a prior ARDOT plan to use a AR 34/90 alignment (the stub-end aims in that direction) is at present a moot point given the most recent set of plans.  But that stub-end could be readily curved around to travel parallel to and east of the present 5-lane alignment of US 67, which is lined by residences, farms, and roadside businesses.  Such an alignment would also likely veer east of the industrial area around the airfield south of Pocahontas,  cross the Black River, and rejoin US 67 at or near the big east-to-north curve NE of town.  I'd say it would be a question as to whether ARDOT, once this facility is in place, retains US 67 on its previous surface alignment or renumbers it as an extension of AR 367; my money would be on the former, since with the designation of I-57 there's a number that can be used for the bypass, leaving US 67 to trek through the towns -- whereas prior to the Interstate designation US 67 was the primary designation and thus used on the recently-completed freeway south of Walnut Ridge. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on May 30, 2018, 11:48:34 PM
I highly doubt they're going to build the freeway right on top of US 67, using the current highway as one carriageway of the interstate. I can't think of an instance when Arkansas did that.

They should build the freeway between Walnut Ridge and Corning roughly paralleling AR 34 from Walnut Ridge to O'Kean then paralleling AR 90 from O'Kean to Knobel, turning north and bypassing Corning to the east then heading due north to the east of current US 67 into Missouri. Pocahontas is already connected to Walnut Ridge with a 5 lane "Arkansas Freeway" and eventually US 62 will probably be 4 laned from the US 412 western split to the Missouri line, meaning Pocahontas would be connected to I-57 both to the south and to the northeast. This makes the most sense to me.

 The article I referenced said clearly, " use existing row". Using existing usually requires utility relocations, determine which rural roads get a cross over and removal of the older road with a gravel frontage.

Pocahontas made a lot of noise against using the ROW along the UP railroad and ARDOT listened.

Yes Arkansas is different. Only state to get a congressional dispensation for the naming rights to I-555 even though 3 miles of it violate FHA Interstate standards. How? It is the only Interstate to allow farm equipment. ARDOT was too cheap to build a frontage road between Marked Tree and Sedgeway.

In case you are wondering...that waiver is where the the road crosses the St Francis Sunken Lands. Sunken due to the New Madrid quake.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: NE2 on May 31, 2018, 12:07:37 AM
Yes Arkansas is different. Only state to get a congressional dispensation for the naming rights to I-555 even though 3 miles of it violate FHA Interstate standards. How? It is the only Interstate to allow farm equipment.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/kifi-top-story/farm-equipment-legal-on-interstates-under-idaho-law_20160825063155661/58521068
I'm also finding possible allowances in Wisconsin and Texas.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on May 31, 2018, 11:42:34 AM
Yes Arkansas is different. Only state to get a congressional dispensation for the naming rights to I-555 even though 3 miles of it violate FHA Interstate standards. How? It is the only Interstate to allow farm equipment.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/kifi-top-story/farm-equipment-legal-on-interstates-under-idaho-law_20160825063155661/58521068
I'm also finding possible allowances in Wisconsin and Texas.

Thanks. First I was aware of it.

I remember many states not able to get their shields because they wanted to keep farm access.

When I read that Arkansas got a waiver via Congress, I was surprised.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on May 31, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Does giving Pocahontas the first x57 Spur fill the committment to not bypass Pocahontas? Surely I-57 will follow the UP train track route between Walnut Ridge and Corning? No?

Not sure, ARDOT just finished upgrading the US67 bridge over the Black River at Pocahontas.When I read that I thought at first this was part of the planned connection between Walnut Ridge and Corning.

But all I saw was they 4 laned and streamlined the signals of US67 through Pocahontas including the said bridge.  It didn't look like anything that would contribute to a future US67/I-57 alignment.

In 2013, this is what the plan was:

WALNUT RIDGE, AR (KAIT) - After almost three years of going back and forth with having to agree on a new hwy 67 route to the Missouri state line, a compromise has been made. The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

"We expect announcements over the next year of multiple industrial developments along this route," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House.

With new developments in the work comes anticipated heavy traffic.  House said taking care of it now is important before it becomes a problem in the future.

"With all those plans in mind, we're trying to get ready for that," said House. "Some companies have already made some big investments in properties along this line."

Although, it took nearly three years to come up with a compromise from all the cities along highway 67, the new proposed route is much affordable and timely than what was originally discussed.

"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line," said House.  "We're following the existing route except for minor adjustments and the bypasses around Corning and around Pocahontas."

House said there's a lot more to this new proposal than just accommodating the amount of drivers who will be traveling on the highway.

"It's for safety, environmental impact, economic development and industrial growth," said House.

There's not a lot of money for the project now, but House said a new highway bill could fund the project much sooner than anticipated If it's approved.

"There are ways at which we may be able to begin the building of this project through some influence on the bill."

House said they are waiting for approval signatures from Searcy city officials, and plan to send the proposal to Governor Beebe and the Highway Commission to approve.
This whole thing smacks of the I-40 - San Jon, New Mexico skirmish back in the 60's and 70's.
For the longest time, San Jon wasn't bypassed by I-40. I-40 was completed west and east of town but the town wasn't bypassed totally until 1980 - 1982 (using the USGS maps as a source; correct me if I'm wrong).
With the Pocahontas situation, I say let US 67 go through town on the existing alignment. The 2013 paper talked about US 67 going through town. Nothing was mentioned at that time about I-57. I do not see in any way, shape. form or fashion I-57 using the existing US 67 alignment going through town.
It's sort of a loophole. The article from 2013 stipulated that US 67 not to bypass Pocahontas to the east. So... let 67 go through town and let I-57 bypass it to the east.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on May 31, 2018, 09:11:23 PM
With the Pocahontas situation, I say let US 67 go through town on the existing alignment. The 2013 paper talked about US 67 going through town. Nothing was mentioned at that time about I-57. I do not see in any way, shape. form or fashion I-57 using the existing US 67 alignment going through town.
It's sort of a loophole. The article from 2013 stipulated that US 67 not to bypass Pocahontas to the east. So... let 67 go through town and let I-57 bypass it to the east.

I-57 wasn't in the cards back in 2013. At that time, they were planning on simply upgrading the existing US 67 alignment between Walnut Ridge and the state line to a four/five lane cross section (with bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning) as people were complaining interstate-grade construction was taking too long. Then the I-57 designation came along in 2016 and presumably, ArDOT had to go back to their original plans and finish the interstate-grade construction to the state line.

I say, should the gas tax hike in Missouri pass this fall, ArDOT should focus first on building the Corning bypass north to the state line (with Missouri finishing their section north to MO 158), and then tackle the Walnut Ridge-Corning section (and whether it bypasses Pocahontas or not).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 01, 2018, 12:38:19 PM
The existing main lanes stub of US-67/Future I-57 is clearly pointing toward the AR-37 corridor, not US-67 and the town of Pocahontas. Google Earth imagery shows it very well. Bridges are already built to allow future I-57 main lanes to pass under and dove-tail into the AR-37 corridor. I-57 would have a fairly open path to go NE up to Corning. The easiest path would be running parallel to the Union Pacific/Amtrak line between Walnut Ridge and Corning. It would run just East of a forest/swamp that would otherwise be a pretty big obstacle if a more direct route was planned. Pocahontas is out of the way.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TBKS1 on June 02, 2018, 10:04:10 PM
Some stuff I got on the trip to Saint Louis. I took what will become I-57 most of the way

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1755/41802972364_90e41d2fca_b.jpg)

 (https://flic.kr/p/26FZahQ)Future I-57 Exit 111 (https://flic.kr/p/26FZahQ) by TheInstrumentalist (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154936453@N06/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1722/41802971864_eeea829610_b.jpg)

 (https://flic.kr/p/26FZa9d)Future I-57 Exit 121 (https://flic.kr/p/26FZa9d) by TheInstrumentalist (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154936453@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on June 02, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
The existing main lanes stub of US-67/Future I-57 is clearly pointing toward the AR-37 corridor, not US-67 and the town of Pocahontas. Google Earth imagery shows it very well. Bridges are already built to allow future I-57 main lanes to pass under and dove-tail into the AR-37 corridor. I-57 would have a fairly open path to go NE up to Corning. The easiest path would be running parallel to the Union Pacific/Amtrak line between Walnut Ridge and Corning. It would run just East of a forest/swamp that would otherwise be a pretty big obstacle if a more direct route was planned. Pocahontas is out of the way.

That's likely the routing ARDOT originally calculated would be the best/most efficient for any US 67 continuation -- thus the stub-end ramps aimed in that direction.  However, as is more often than not the case with freeway deployment these days, local politics has come into play.  In this case, whoever argued the case for a freeway situated adjacent to Pocahontas did their job well; it looks as if the I-57 freeway will indeed parallel the current US 67 5-lane facility south of Pocahontas to the east, curve around the east side of town, and rejoin US 67 just northeast of town before utilizing that basic route up to Corning, where a west bypass is planned.  Since such a facility will have to traverse more of Black River wetlands than a route following the UP line, ARDOT engineers probably rolled their eyes when informed of the route selection (if it were me in that position, that's the least I'd do!).  As I opined earlier, it's likely that the I-57 stretch between Pocahontas and Corning will be the centerpiece of a commercial strip with businesses lining the frontage roads -- likely what the locals envisioned ("if we've got to have a freeway, we may as well take advantage of the situation").  A routing well across the river along AR 34/90 wouldn't provide direct access to town or its businesses (although much more efficient as a purely long-distance corridor).  Now I-57 has to multitask as both an interregional corridor and a local server.  My cynical side is saying c'est la vie -- this is increasingly S.O.P. for Interstate additions -- but unfortunately necessary to get 'em done!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on June 02, 2018, 10:21:21 PM
The existing main lanes stub of US-67/Future I-57 is clearly pointing toward the AR-37 corridor, not US-67 and the town of Pocahontas. Google Earth imagery shows it very well. Bridges are already built to allow future I-57 main lanes to pass under and dove-tail into the AR-37 corridor.

Doesn't mean those bridge will be used as intended.  I don't think it would be the first time something was partially built only to be rerouted.  The US 31 discontinuity in SW Michigan and the discontinuity for the NW portion of the Richmond, VA outer loop between I-295 and VA 288 come to mind.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 02, 2018, 10:52:35 PM
I can understand the town fathers of Pocahontas not wanting I-57 to bypass their town. And routing I-57 through that area poses more expense building up to Corning than running parallel to the Union Pacific/Amtrak rail route. The political argument could provide even more incentive to prioritize the I-49 projects over those of I-57. At least I-49 already has a planned out path and would provide more immediate benefit to local regions.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on June 03, 2018, 01:51:43 AM
I don't think any construction will commence on the missing portion of I-57 at least until I-49 is fully completed in NWA and MO.  As far as Texarkana-Ft. Smith is concerned, the realization that this is a long-haul project likely completed in bits and pieces has likely long been internalized; I-57 will likely be built before much of that I-49 stretch is done simply because the construction (with the possible exception of the Black River crossing) will be considerably easier. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: cjk374 on June 03, 2018, 11:04:56 AM
The existing main lanes stub of US-67/Future I-57 is clearly pointing toward the AR-37 corridor, not US-67 and the town of Pocahontas. Google Earth imagery shows it very well. Bridges are already built to allow future I-57 main lanes to pass under and dove-tail into the AR-37 corridor.

Doesn't mean those bridge will be used as intended.  I don't think it would be the first time something was partially built only to be rerouted.  The US 31 discontinuity in SW Michigan and the discontinuity for the NW portion of the Richmond, VA outer loop between I-295 and VA 288 come to mind.

https://goo.gl/maps/GbLrXiUEAmz

Here is another fine example of this in Arkansas. Back in the 90s, AHTD's grand plan was to widen US 425 down to Louisiana. Then came the big idea of building AR 530 to connect to a future I-69. US 425 was forgotten after that.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: captkirk_4 on June 03, 2018, 11:29:12 AM
The existing main lanes stub of US-67/Future I-57 is clearly pointing toward the AR-37 corridor, not US-67 and the town of Pocahontas. Google Earth imagery shows it very well. Bridges are already built to allow future I-57 main lanes to pass under and dove-tail into the AR-37 corridor. I-57 would have a fairly open path to go NE up to Corning. The easiest path would be running parallel to the Union Pacific/Amtrak line between Walnut Ridge and Corning. It would run just East of a forest/swamp that would otherwise be a pretty big obstacle if a more direct route was planned. Pocahontas is out of the way.
That's likely the routing ARDOT originally calculated would be the best/most efficient for any US 67 continuation -- thus the stub-end ramps aimed in that direction.  However, as is more often than not the case with freeway deployment these days, local politics has come into play.  In this case, whoever argued the case for a freeway situated adjacent to Pocahontas did their job well; it looks as if the I-57 freeway will indeed parallel the current US 67 5-lane facility south of Pocahontas to the east, curve around the east side of town, and rejoin US 67 just northeast of town before utilizing that basic route up to Corning, where a west bypass is planned.  Since such a facility will have to traverse more of Black River wetlands than a route following the UP line, ARDOT engineers probably rolled their eyes when informed of the route selection (if it were me in that position, that's the least I'd do!).  As I opined earlier, it's likely that the I-57 stretch between Pocahontas and Corning will be the centerpiece of a commercial strip with businesses lining the frontage roads -- likely what the locals envisioned ("if we've got to have a freeway, we may as well take advantage of the situation").  A routing well across the river along AR 34/90 wouldn't provide direct access to town or its businesses (although much more efficient as a purely long-distance corridor).  Now I-57 has to multitask as both an interregional corridor and a local server.  My cynical side is saying c'est la vie -- this is increasingly S.O.P. for Interstate additions -- but unfortunately necessary to get 'em done!


I drove the 67 "shortcut" a couple years back instead of going down 55 to 40, when I looked on the distance calculator it looks like it really only saves about 15 miles so to justify such a new highway it has to go as direct as possible from Walnut ridge to the state line where it could cut off a good bit more mileage on the Chicago Dallas route. The already built expressway sections in Missouri also aren't very direct going straight west to Poplar Ridge instead of SW to Corning. But there is no way in hell money would be spent on a brand new Interstate when 95% the job is already done on that expressway corridor. When I drove it, I seemed to be making good time until I hit the two lane section. Then it seemed to take absolutely forever to get to where the highway went back to four lanes in Arkansas. If cutting off some millage between Chicago and Little Rock was the actual goal, a twenty mile spur off 55 from around the 555 junction heading SW to 40 at Shell Lake would drastically cut the distance of going way back S/SE into the Memphis area and on to 40.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on June 03, 2018, 12:20:38 PM
I drove the 67 "shortcut" a couple years back instead of going down 55 to 40, when I looked on the distance calculator it looks like it really only saves about 15 miles so to justify such a new highway it has to go as direct as possible from Walnut ridge to the state line where it could cut off a good bit more mileage on the Chicago Dallas route.

Which is unlikely given how indirect and curvy new alignment roues are in this era of oversized EIS's.

The already built expressway sections in Missouri also aren't very direct going straight west to Poplar Ridge instead of SW to Corning.

US 60 had been planned for many years as a four lane route between I-55 and Springfield, most likely for many more years than consideration of extending I-57 southward.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on June 03, 2018, 10:30:16 PM
I don't think any construction will commence on the missing portion of I-57 at least until I-49 is fully completed in NWA and MO.  As far as Texarkana-Ft. Smith is concerned, the realization that this is a long-haul project likely completed in bits and pieces has likely long been internalized; I-57 will likely be built before much of that I-49 stretch is done simply because the construction (with the possible exception of the Black River crossing) will be considerably easier.

Which if either the Tiger Grant is awarded and/or the gas tax increase passes, the Bella Vista bypass should finally be completed within the next few years. Then I-57 could be finished.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Rothman on June 03, 2018, 10:36:38 PM
There is no TIGER, only BUILD!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on June 10, 2018, 10:43:41 PM
With the Pocahontas situation, I say let US 67 go through town on the existing alignment. The 2013 paper talked about US 67 going through town. Nothing was mentioned at that time about I-57. I do not see in any way, shape. form or fashion I-57 using the existing US 67 alignment going through town.
It's sort of a loophole. The article from 2013 stipulated that US 67 not to bypass Pocahontas to the east. So... let 67 go through town and let I-57 bypass it to the east.

I-57 wasn't in the cards back in 2013. At that time, they were planning on simply upgrading the existing US 67 alignment between Walnut Ridge and the state line to a four/five lane cross section (with bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning) as people were complaining interstate-grade construction was taking too long. Then the I-57 designation came along in 2016 and presumably, ArDOT had to go back to their original plans and finish the interstate-grade construction to the state line.

AHTD has been planning for US 67 to be an Interstate for decades. They referred to it as a future extension of I-30 for a long time. AR 226 was going to be I-730 or something.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on June 10, 2018, 10:49:04 PM
Here is another fine example of this in Arkansas. Back in the 90s, AHTD's grand plan was to widen US 425 down to Louisiana. Then came the big idea of building AR 530 to connect to a future I-69. US 425 was forgotten after that.

I was in that area sometime around 1999 or 2000. At that time, there was a brand new bridge next to the highway that didn't have any roads connected to it. I guess they converted that short stretch into a 4 lane divided highway. Why they even bothered, I don't know.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on June 10, 2018, 10:50:59 PM
I drove the 67 "shortcut" a couple years back instead of going down 55 to 40, when I looked on the distance calculator it looks like it really only saves about 15 miles so to justify such a new highway it has to go as direct as possible from Walnut ridge to the state line where it could cut off a good bit more mileage on the Chicago Dallas route. The already built expressway sections in Missouri also aren't very direct going straight west to Poplar Ridge instead of SW to Corning. But there is no way in hell money would be spent on a brand new Interstate when 95% the job is already done on that expressway corridor. When I drove it, I seemed to be making good time until I hit the two lane section. Then it seemed to take absolutely forever to get to where the highway went back to four lanes in Arkansas. If cutting off some millage between Chicago and Little Rock was the actual goal, a twenty mile spur off 55 from around the 555 junction heading SW to 40 at Shell Lake would drastically cut the distance of going way back S/SE into the Memphis area and on to 40.

The point of this highway is to get traffic off I-40 between West Memphis and North Little Rock. That stretch of highway is terrible and choked with truck traffic. It really needs to be 8 lanes. Removing NLR-St Louis traffic from that stretch would help a lot.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: cjk374 on June 11, 2018, 09:28:19 PM
Here is another fine example of this in Arkansas. Back in the 90s, AHTD's grand plan was to widen US 425 down to Louisiana. Then came the big idea of building AR 530 to connect to a future I-69. US 425 was forgotten after that.

I was in that area sometime around 1999 or 2000. At that time, there was a brand new bridge next to the highway that didn't have any roads connected to it. I guess they converted that short stretch into a 4 lane divided highway. Why they even bothered, I don't know.

I helped do the concrete testing on that new bridge. At that time, the grand plan was to widen all of US 425 down to Bastrop, LA. Then came I-69 & I-530. AHTD changed their minds about US 425.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on June 15, 2018, 04:31:54 PM
Here is another fine example of this in Arkansas. Back in the 90s, AHTD's grand plan was to widen US 425 down to Louisiana. Then came the big idea of building AR 530 to connect to a future I-69. US 425 was forgotten after that.

I was in that area sometime around 1999 or 2000. At that time, there was a brand new bridge next to the highway that didn't have any roads connected to it. I guess they converted that short stretch into a 4 lane divided highway. Why they even bothered, I don't know.

I helped do the concrete testing on that new bridge. At that time, the grand plan was to widen all of US 425 down to Bastrop, LA. Then came I-69 & I-530. AHTD changed their minds about US 425.

The US 425 plan, which would have included US 165 south of Bastrop, was part of a regional corridor upgrade project extending (depending upon where the backers came from) down to Monroe (I-20), Alexandria (I-49), or even I-10 east of Lake Charles.  The concept was to enhance the commercial and developmental potential of the 2-state area, perceived to have been previously overlooked or bypassed.  When the I-69 corridor was established (concept in '91, Interstate status in '95) the focus shifted; to compensate a separate SIU (#28) essentially paralleling US 425 from the E-W I-69 alignment across the southern tier of AR north to I-530 at Pine Bluff; that was intended to replace the US 425 upgrades north of Monticello.  Of course, south of there any further extension into LA wasn't under the aegis of the I-69/HPC 18 compendium (and any directed financial arrangements); backers were "on their own", so to speak. 

Now that I-57 is -- at least legally -- designated as far south as I-40 in NLR, some have speculated that the designation might simply subsume I-530 and, when upgraded appropriately, AR 530 down to I-69 -- essentially placing I-57 as a "branch" of I-69 funneling traffic north to Chicago and other regional destinations -- but since that segment of I-69 will in all likelihood be the last to see full development, that extended I-57 is simply a potential corridor concept, essentially dependent upon the uncertain scheduled deployment of I-69.   Right now ARDOT is eking out AR 530 as a 2-lane expressway as funds are available, any grander plans in terms of facility type or extension beyond what's on the current "to-do" list are, at present, simply lines on a planning map. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on June 15, 2018, 10:58:58 PM
The existing main lanes stub of US-67/Future I-57 is clearly pointing toward the AR-37 corridor, not US-67 and the town of Pocahontas. Google Earth imagery shows it very well. Bridges are already built to allow future I-57 main lanes to pass under and dove-tail into the AR-37 corridor. I-57 would have a fairly open path to go NE up to Corning. The easiest path would be running parallel to the Union Pacific/Amtrak line between Walnut Ridge and Corning. It would run just East of a forest/swamp that would otherwise be a pretty big obstacle if a more direct route was planned. Pocahontas is out of the way.

Under the new alignment, the same bridges will be used but the highway will turn north just east of the former airbase until it crosses the Black River just east of town. Follow US67, bypass a couple of small towns like Datto and then turn east towards Corning.

AR-304 would be the 1st exit and draw support to an industrial park next to the airport, then another exit north of the Black River where it would rejoin the original US67 the rest of the way to Corning.

Honestly the highway has to cross the Black River at least once to reach Corning, so not much difference it happening at Pocahontas or south of Corning.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Grzrd on July 30, 2018, 03:22:10 PM
Baby steps .... This July 18 article (https://www.semissourian.com/story/2538336.html) reports that the Sikeston City Council passed a resolution in support of construction of a new interchange at the intersection of South Ingram Road and Highway 60/future I-57 in Sikeston:

Quote
The City of Sikeston is showing its support to further efforts of getting Interstate 57 built, which would run from Chicago all the way through Arkansas.
At Monday's special city council meeting, a resolution was approved supporting construction of a new interchange at the intersection of South Ingram Road and Highway 60/future I-57 in Sikeston. The resolution will be presented to the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Bootheel Regional Planning Commission in hopes of making this a high-priority project for the Missouri Department of Transportation.
Currently, I-57 stretches from Chicago to Sikeston and supporters believe completion of the project will spur economic development in the area.



Meanwhile, in Arkansas, the 2019-2022 Draft STIP (http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/2019-2022/2019_2022_STIP_Draft_General_Electronic.pdf) does not show any planned progress on the Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line segment, not even project development.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on July 30, 2018, 10:37:58 PM
Up until now, Missouri hasn't shown a bit of interest in making any steps toward extending I-57, so it's somewhat understandable that Arkansas wouldn't put much effort into crossing the Black River and pushing to the border when there hasn't been a clear commitment from Missouri to meet up with them, even though it wouldn't seem to take as much to do so.  I don't see either putting much effort in I-57 until I-49 actually crosses the border, and Missouri can't even come up with the money for that yet until possibly the next election concludes.  And the crazy part is that it actually probably benefits them more since the NWA metropolitan area will grow more into McDonald County and increase their tax base once I-49 is connected up past Bella Vista.  Unless they're worried it would hurt the Jane or Joplin area somehow.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 04, 2018, 11:01:59 AM
A minor note.   AAA has Future I-57 marked on their Central States and Provinces map I picked up this week.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on August 04, 2018, 11:34:14 AM
Up until now, Missouri hasn't shown a bit of interest in making any steps toward extending I-57, so it's somewhat understandable that Arkansas wouldn't put much effort into crossing the Black River and pushing to the border when there hasn't been a clear commitment from Missouri to meet up with them, even though it wouldn't seem to take as much to do so.  I don't see either putting much effort in I-57 until I-49 actually crosses the border, and Missouri can't even come up with the money for that yet until possibly the next election concludes.  And the crazy part is that it actually probably benefits them more since the NWA metropolitan area will grow more into McDonald County and increase their tax base once I-49 is connected up past Bella Vista.  Unless they're worried it would hurt the Jane or Joplin area somehow.

There's lots of room for commercial expansion along 49 in Missouri (also Arkansas, but that's another story). There is now a Love's in Neosho (plus a dinky, smelly Kum & Go), but most of the hotels are in town and not along the highway. Ditto most of the fast feeders.

57 in Missouri would be virgin territory for commercial interests. South of Walnut Ridge, there's not a lot of room for new business along the US 67/I-57 corridor and what's there seems to be struggling for survival.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 04, 2018, 12:22:18 PM
Up until now, Missouri hasn't shown a bit of interest in making any steps toward extending I-57, so it's somewhat understandable that Arkansas wouldn't put much effort into crossing the Black River and pushing to the border when there hasn't been a clear commitment from Missouri to meet up with them, even though it wouldn't seem to take as much to do so.  I don't see either putting much effort in I-57 until I-49 actually crosses the border, and Missouri can't even come up with the money for that yet until possibly the next election concludes.  And the crazy part is that it actually probably benefits them more since the NWA metropolitan area will grow more into McDonald County and increase their tax base once I-49 is connected up past Bella Vista.  Unless they're worried it would hurt the Jane or Joplin area somehow.

There's lots of room for commercial expansion along 49 in Missouri (also Arkansas, but that's another story). There is now a Love's in Neosho (plus a dinky, smelly Kum & Go), but most of the hotels are in town and not along the highway. Ditto most of the fast feeders.

57 in Missouri would be virgin territory for commercial interests. South of Walnut Ridge, there's not a lot of room for new business along the US 67/I-57 corridor and what's there seems to be struggling for survival.


South of Walnut Ridge, at least down as far as the Newport area, the actual US 67/future I-57 facility may as well be new-terrain (some might actually classify it as such); commercial development of such, at least in terms of extracting money from the traveling public, commercial or not, is generally limited to "convenience" entities, such as fuel stations combined with convenience stores, restaurants -- most of which would be of the fast-food variety, and maybe a scattered hotel or two.  The freeway is just to far away from the original road/rail-based US 67 corridor -- where the existing towns are located -- to draw actual expansion of the towns out to meet it.  The housing/commercial growth seen elsewhere when the "bypass" freeway is considerably nearer to the historic town center isn't there because of the sheer distance (and possibly the value of the intervening land in terms of agricultural use).  Also, it's too far away from a major metro area -- or at least one exceeding 30K population or so -- to be considered a site for establishment of warehousing/distribution or even manufacturing facilities -- scant availability of an appropriate labor pool. 

This is in contrast with the "strip" of the first 30 miles or so north of I-40 and the planned section from Walnut Ridge to the state line; both feature a much greater population and proximity of freeway facility to the city centers.  The southern section is reasonably well built out at this point as an adjunct of the Little Rock/NLR combined metro area, while the northern segment has the potential to maximize various forms of development -- the freeway will be relatively close to both the original US 67 alignment as well as the centers of the towns it passes, rendering access to and from the freeway to the town "doable" in terms of distance and convenience for both locals and travelers.  It's more than likely -- and has been discussed previously in this thread -- that the segment of US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning, if I-57 is deployed as planned, would become a regional commercial center, prompting an influx of corporate interests intent on locating there to take advantage of the favorable growth environment.  It may not equal the NLR area for sheer numbers and variety of commercial establishments, but it will likely resemble that area but on a smaller scale.  And the relative isolation of the Newport-Walnut Ridge segment would likely work in favor of the overall success of the northern Pocahontas-centered commercial section -- NB travelers, especially, might be looking for a variety of food and other commercial outlets after about 40 miles of relative isolation or "nothingness". 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on August 04, 2018, 01:27:43 PM
To get anywhere near Pocahontas, there's going to have to be a pretty large northwest jag from where the stub outs currently are at Walnut Ridge.  Either a sharp turn to go south and west of the airport there, or a more gradual curve back northwest around the airport.  Makes infinitely more sense to run along AR 34/90 and the railroad, which as most everyone already knows, picked the best spots to build to begin with before the roads came along.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 04, 2018, 02:21:59 PM
To get anywhere near Pocahontas, there's going to have to be a pretty large northwest jag from where the stub outs currently are at Walnut Ridge.  Either a sharp turn to go south and west of the airport there, or a more gradual curve back northwest around the airport.  Makes infinitely more sense to run along AR 34/90 and the railroad, which as most everyone already knows, picked the best spots to build to begin with before the roads came along.

That's been pretty much everyone's conclusion -- except ARDOT and the local MPO; apparently the route skirting Pocahontas to the east and Corning to the west and paralleling US 67 in between is a done deal.  Rather than simply an interregional corridor, I-57 is, in the eyes of politicos within the state, also to be pressed into duty as a local bypass.  Reading between the lines, the two cities wanted to be able to maximize development along the bypass; running it across the river on AR 34/90 wouldn't have accomplished that.  For better or worse, this dynamic is increasingly S.O.P. for corridor development these days.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mgk920 on August 05, 2018, 02:55:59 PM
To get anywhere near Pocahontas, there's going to have to be a pretty large northwest jag from where the stub outs currently are at Walnut Ridge.  Either a sharp turn to go south and west of the airport there, or a more gradual curve back northwest around the airport.  Makes infinitely more sense to run along AR 34/90 and the railroad, which as most everyone already knows, picked the best spots to build to begin with before the roads came along.

That's been pretty much everyone's conclusion -- except ARDOT and the local MPO; apparently the route skirting Pocahontas to the east and Corning to the west and paralleling US 67 in between is a done deal.  Rather than simply an interregional corridor, I-57 is, in the eyes of politicos within the state, also to be pressed into duty as a local bypass.  Reading between the lines, the two cities wanted to be able to maximize development along the bypass; running it across the river on AR 34/90 wouldn't have accomplished that.  For better or worse, this dynamic is increasingly S.O.P. for corridor development these days.

From what I gathered upthread, it will continue off of the ghost end of the highway and then curve northward.

Mike
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on August 05, 2018, 07:30:38 PM
It'll be super simple to jackhammer away any flirtation to the east.

Can't wait to see that pattern when the concrete is finally poured, though it may be 2030.  :banghead:
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on August 28, 2018, 11:23:48 AM
Any updates on the widening between Jacksonville and Cabot? Last time I was there they were finishing the southbound side and about ready to switch traffic over to the new concrete.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on August 29, 2018, 01:30:24 PM
Any updates on the widening between Jacksonville and Cabot? Last time I was there they were finishing the southbound side and about ready to switch traffic over to the new concrete.
The new southbound lanes from exit 16 to Vandenberg Blvd are open and all traffic has been routed to the new southbound side with a temp Jersey barrier in between the lane sets. The northbound lanes have been demolished and they are working on packing down the new lanes. It's dirt right now but they will be putting the black base soon.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on October 26, 2018, 11:25:26 PM
Some of the local leaders in Poplar Bluff have pitched I-57 to MODOT: https://standard-democrat.com/story/2562164.html. We'll see if anything comes out of this, but, in my opinion, any interstate designation is probably a ways away.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 27, 2018, 04:48:58 PM
They will probably complete the freeway between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston before they erect Interstate 57 signs along the corridor.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on October 28, 2018, 12:39:00 AM
They will probably complete the freeway between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston before they erect Interstate 57 signs along the corridor.

Probably right -- unless one or more of the towns along the US 67 freeway between NLR and Walnut Ridge starts clamoring for that freeway segment to get Interstate signage.  If that doesn't happen, then "future" signage, sporadic as it may be, will have to suffice for the present.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 12, 2018, 05:28:50 AM
Some of the local leaders in Poplar Bluff have pitched I-57 to MODOT: https://standard-democrat.com/story/2562164.html. We'll see if anything comes out of this, but, in my opinion, any interstate designation is probably a ways away.

Since the gas tax failed due to clouding road funding with other measures, any in-state funding of this stretch is indeed a stretch for quite a while.

Just drove the Little Rock to Cash section of Future I-57 3 days ago.  Travel was pretty smooth through the construction zones around Jacksonville, but looks to be a little while before they will be done.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 12, 2018, 05:52:10 AM
To get anywhere near Pocahontas, there's going to have to be a pretty large northwest jag from where the stub outs currently are at Walnut Ridge.  Either a sharp turn to go south and west of the airport there, or a more gradual curve back northwest around the airport.  Makes infinitely more sense to run along AR 34/90 and the railroad, which as most everyone already knows, picked the best spots to build to begin with before the roads came along.

That's been pretty much everyone's conclusion -- except ARDOT and the local MPO; apparently the route skirting Pocahontas to the east and Corning to the west and paralleling US 67 in between is a done deal.  Rather than simply an interregional corridor, I-57 is, in the eyes of politicos within the state, also to be pressed into duty as a local bypass.  Reading between the lines, the two cities wanted to be able to maximize development along the bypass; running it across the river on AR 34/90 wouldn't have accomplished that.  For better or worse, this dynamic is increasingly S.O.P. for corridor development these days.

Well, it better skirt Pocahontas a pretty good ways to the east, otherwise, it better be well elevated as that area gets inundated fairly regularly.  It wasn't too long ago that Pocahontas made national news because of flooding.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 12, 2018, 12:28:50 PM
To get anywhere near Pocahontas, there's going to have to be a pretty large northwest jag from where the stub outs currently are at Walnut Ridge.  Either a sharp turn to go south and west of the airport there, or a more gradual curve back northwest around the airport.  Makes infinitely more sense to run along AR 34/90 and the railroad, which as most everyone already knows, picked the best spots to build to begin with before the roads came along.

That's been pretty much everyone's conclusion -- except ARDOT and the local MPO; apparently the route skirting Pocahontas to the east and Corning to the west and paralleling US 67 in between is a done deal.  Rather than simply an interregional corridor, I-57 is, in the eyes of politicos within the state, also to be pressed into duty as a local bypass.  Reading between the lines, the two cities wanted to be able to maximize development along the bypass; running it across the river on AR 34/90 wouldn't have accomplished that.  For better or worse, this dynamic is increasingly S.O.P. for corridor development these days.

Well, it better skirt Pocahontas a pretty good ways to the east, otherwise, it better be well elevated as that area gets inundated fairly regularly.  It wasn't too long ago that Pocahontas made national news because of flooding.

Looks like future I-57 will be sited just east of the downtown area and perched on a ledge above the river floodplain; it'll cross the Black River just east of the present US 67 bridge and and stay west of the Current River northeast of town.  Aside from performing its dual role as an interregional corridor and a local developmental route, it'll serve as an area evacuation route by staying above those floodplains -- pretty much doing on the west side what the railroad does on the east.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 12, 2018, 01:12:58 PM
Any word on when construction will start on the elevated section near the river/floodplain?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 12, 2018, 01:22:34 PM
Any word on when construction will start on the elevated section near the river/floodplain?

Haven't heard anything on the funding of the project; since the alignment itself was decided only recently, it's likely that construction won't begin until at least the mid-2020's.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 13, 2018, 01:10:39 PM
Any word on when construction will start on the elevated section near the river/floodplain?

Haven't heard anything on the funding of the project; since the alignment itself was decided only recently, it's likely that construction won't begin until at least the mid-2020's.

Given Missouri's recent rejection at the polls, funding is going to have to get creative, to say the least.  I guess Arkansas could still do up to and bypassing Pocahontas, but there isn't much impetus past that since Missouri isn't looking promising at this point to meet them at the state line.  Maybe Arkansas takes it up to as far as Corning if there's funding for it, then waits for Missouri to get serious about roads again.  I don't think there's anything in the kitty on the Connecting Arkansas Program funded by the half cent tax that's allocated to I-57 projects, other than in the Jacksonville/Cabot area, so it'll take some big pushes by both states before there's likely to be any progress north of Walnut Ridge in any event.  I keep picturing a Bella Vista Bypass scenario in NEA as well for some reason.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 13, 2018, 06:19:37 PM
Any word on when construction will start on the elevated section near the river/floodplain?

Haven't heard anything on the funding of the project; since the alignment itself was decided only recently, it's likely that construction won't begin until at least the mid-2020's.

Given Missouri's recent rejection at the polls, funding is going to have to get creative, to say the least.  I guess Arkansas could still do up to and bypassing Pocahontas, but there isn't much impetus past that since Missouri isn't looking promising at this point to meet them at the state line.  Maybe Arkansas takes it up to as far as Corning if there's funding for it, then waits for Missouri to get serious about roads again.  I don't think there's anything in the kitty on the Connecting Arkansas Program funded by the half cent tax that's allocated to I-57 projects, other than in the Jacksonville/Cabot area, so it'll take some big pushes by both states before there's likely to be any progress north of Walnut Ridge in any event.  I keep picturing a Bella Vista Bypass scenario in NEA as well for some reason.

Democrats who just flipped the H of R say they're interested in an infrastructure package and McConnell says that's one thing parties might be able to agree on. I don't know how much credibility this has, but states should be putting their plans and priorities in order, just in case somebody asks for them.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 14, 2018, 04:48:13 PM
As far as I know, MoDOT and ARDOT do not have a MOU or anything formal in place yet on where any future US-67 upgrade will meet around the state line.

So if anyone gets ahead of the other, I can't see anything substantial above Corning in Arkansas and below US160 in Missouri.

If anyone knows different please share.

I think everyone assumes it will happen at Taylor's Travel Center on State Line Road.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 14, 2018, 05:13:12 PM
As far as I know, MoDOT and ARDOT do not have a MOU or anything formal in place yet on where any future US-67 upgrade will meet around the state line.

So if anyone gets ahead of the other, I can't see anything substantial above Corning in Arkansas and below US160 in Missouri.

If anyone knows different please share.

I think everyone assumes it will happen at Taylor's Travel Center on State Line Road.

As hard a time as Arkansas is having with the Missouri meeting them at the line for the Bella Vista Bypass, I can't see any MOU's for the foreseeable future as Missouri isn't actually proving to be a willing partner on interstate projects at this time.  Arkansas has been trying to pitch in for Missouri to get the last couple of rounds of federal grants to get funds for Missouri's portion, but to no avail.  Maybe with the House flipping, there could possibly be more federal funds available starting next year so that more grants get approved, but we'll have to wait and see how everyone gets along with the next Congress.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on November 26, 2018, 12:14:37 PM
Any updates on the widening between Jacksonville and Cabot? Last time I was there they were finishing the southbound side and about ready to switch traffic over to the new concrete.
The new southbound lanes from exit 16 to Vandenberg Blvd are open and all traffic has been routed to the new southbound side with a temp Jersey barrier in between the lane sets. The northbound lanes have been demolished and they are working on packing down the new lanes. It's dirt right now but they will be putting the black base soon.
Northbound section is at least 85% complete. All that is needed is the completion of the exterior northbound barrier and the bridge a mile or so northeast of Vandenberg blvd. They are working at a fever pitch to get ahead of the bad weather this winter I guess. As far as the concrete goes for the lanes, it is very near completion. The orange sign now says the completion date is March, 2019. Once that barrier goes up and gets cured out, I expect to see the northbound traffic getting rerouted to the new side. Maybe within the next 1.5 to 2 months... The 6 lanes (3+3) won't happen until ALL of the barrier sections get completed, IMO.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 26, 2018, 12:24:54 PM

Northbound section is at least 85% complete. All that is needed is the completion of the exterior northbound barrier and the bridge a mile or so northeast of Vandenberg blvd. They are working at a fever pitch to get ahead of the bad weather this winter I guess. As far as the concrete goes for the lanes, it is very near completion. The orange sign now says the completion date is March, 2019. Once that barrier goes up and gets cured out, I expect to see the northbound traffic getting rerouted to the new side. Maybe within the next 1.5 to 2 months... The 6 lanes (3+3) won't happen until ALL of the barrier sections get completed, IMO.

If they wait long enough ,they'll need 4+4
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Gordon on December 23, 2018, 11:23:10 AM
100512 Various 67 Walnut Ridge - Missouri State Line (Future I-57) Project Development 39.20 miles  $24,000 - TOTAL State 2022. Project development for this project on the STIP is another slow engineering project because of no money in year 2022.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 28, 2018, 05:03:53 PM
100512 Various 67 Walnut Ridge - Missouri State Line (Future I-57) Project Development 39.20 miles  $24,000 - TOTAL State 2022. Project development for this project on the STIP is another slow engineering project because of no money in year 2022.

So nothing more on this until 2022?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 28, 2018, 08:51:03 PM
100512 Various 67 Walnut Ridge - Missouri State Line (Future I-57) Project Development 39.20 miles  $24,000 - TOTAL State 2022. Project development for this project on the STIP is another slow engineering project because of no money in year 2022.

So nothing more on this until 2022?

Probably making improvements south of Walnut Ridge, which seems to be what they're always doing.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on February 16, 2019, 12:08:56 PM
An update to 67/167 (Future I-57) north of Vandenburg Blvd to exit 16...
New northbound lanes are open (well, for the most part. Read on.) but work continues on the concrete median barrier so the left most lanes in both directions are being closed in the evenings / overnight as they finish that up. For people passing through the area, keep that in mind. Looks like my prediction I made back in December has come to pass... I said in that post "in 2.5 months the northbound lanes would open, with the exception of a 3rd lane since work was still going to be done to the median (and outer barriers).
Exit 21 is about to be open as well. For those that aren't following the progress of AR 38 (North Cabot Bypass), they are just doing some final housekeeping before opening up the interchange. The paving is done. Signs are posted but most are covered.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 19, 2019, 11:51:41 AM
This may have been mentioned up thread but what is the reason that Arkansas DOT has not signed US 167/US 67 as I-57?  IIRC it is approved and the road itself is connected to the interstate system and meets interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on February 19, 2019, 12:22:09 PM
This may have been mentioned up thread but what is the reason that Arkansas DOT has not signed US 167/US 67 as I-57?  IIRC it is approved and the road itself is connected to the interstate system and meets interstate standards.
I have yet to figure that one out. Like you said, it is controlled access from I-40 to Walnut Ridge, so there is NO reason whatsoever for it not to be signed as I-57 in that segment. Then they can plant the "Future I-57" north of Walnut Ridge (nevermind the fact the new interstate will be not built on the old alignment).
Despite the scrawny on / off ramps in Jacksonville, and the shoulders not wide (enough) through Jacksonville, it is still controlled access! ARDOT, put the I-57 shields up already!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: cjk374 on February 19, 2019, 07:05:30 PM
ARDOT, put the I-57 shields up already!

When they do put up the I-57 shields, you can kiss all of the US 64/67/167 shields good bye because ARDOT sucks!  :banghead: :-(
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: swhuck on February 21, 2019, 06:10:30 PM
This may have been mentioned up thread but what is the reason that Arkansas DOT has not signed US 167/US 67 as I-57?  IIRC it is approved and the road itself is connected to the interstate system and meets interstate standards.
I have yet to figure that one out. Like you said, it is controlled access from I-40 to Walnut Ridge, so there is NO reason whatsoever for it not to be signed as I-57 in that segment. Then they can plant the "Future I-57" north of Walnut Ridge (nevermind the fact the new interstate will be not built on the old alignment).
Despite the scrawny on / off ramps in Jacksonville, and the shoulders not wide (enough) through Jacksonville, it is still controlled access! ARDOT, put the I-57 shields up already!

It's undoubtedly the scrawny on/off ramps and narrow shoulders in the Jacksonville area that are keeping it from full Interstate designation, since that factors into whether the road meets Interstate standards. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the road designated as a full Interstate once the construction in that area is complete.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 22, 2019, 05:38:25 AM
This may have been mentioned up thread but what is the reason that Arkansas DOT has not signed US 167/US 67 as I-57?  IIRC it is approved and the road itself is connected to the interstate system and meets interstate standards.
I have yet to figure that one out. Like you said, it is controlled access from I-40 to Walnut Ridge, so there is NO reason whatsoever for it not to be signed as I-57 in that segment. Then they can plant the "Future I-57" north of Walnut Ridge (nevermind the fact the new interstate will be not built on the old alignment).
Despite the scrawny on / off ramps in Jacksonville, and the shoulders not wide (enough) through Jacksonville, it is still controlled access! ARDOT, put the I-57 shields up already!

It's undoubtedly the scrawny on/off ramps and narrow shoulders in the Jacksonville area that are keeping it from full Interstate designation, since that factors into whether the road meets Interstate standards. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the road designated as a full Interstate once the construction in that area is complete.

Bingo. We're pretty much past the era of "Grandfathering" limited access roads as interstates. Look at the I-555 fight, and how they had to get the farm vehicle problem fixed. Keep it as Future 57, get the number in people's minds, and then when it is ready...apply it.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 22, 2019, 08:38:32 AM
This may have been mentioned up thread but what is the reason that Arkansas DOT has not signed US 167/US 67 as I-57?  IIRC it is approved and the road itself is connected to the interstate system and meets interstate standards.
I have yet to figure that one out. Like you said, it is controlled access from I-40 to Walnut Ridge, so there is NO reason whatsoever for it not to be signed as I-57 in that segment. Then they can plant the "Future I-57" north of Walnut Ridge (nevermind the fact the new interstate will be not built on the old alignment).
Despite the scrawny on / off ramps in Jacksonville, and the shoulders not wide (enough) through Jacksonville, it is still controlled access! ARDOT, put the I-57 shields up already!

It's undoubtedly the scrawny on/off ramps and narrow shoulders in the Jacksonville area that are keeping it from full Interstate designation, since that factors into whether the road meets Interstate standards. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the road designated as a full Interstate once the construction in that area is complete.

Bingo. We're pretty much past the era of "Grandfathering" limited access roads as interstates. Look at the I-555 fight, and how they had to get the farm vehicle problem fixed. Keep it as Future 57, get the number in people's minds, and then when it is ready...apply it.

Can't see why this would be considered substandard...

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.882374,-92.111499,3a,75y,219.3h,66.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sridWbyQfbO2Z1SD59le5lA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

/sarc

I wasn't aware the ramps were this bad until I looked up the Jacksonville area on Google maps, no wonder it hasn't been designated yet.

I'm not sure if that ramp meets bike path standards, let alone Interstate standards...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on February 22, 2019, 06:14:28 PM
The Jacksonville problem with I-57 is the exact same situation as the Sherman problem with I-45 in Texas. Both, fortunately, are in the pipeline for fixing. Probably simultaneously by coincidence.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: DJStephens on February 22, 2019, 10:25:52 PM
Very old diagonal joint concrete pavement.  Sixties timeframe.  Kind of neat it hasn't been overlaid with asphalt.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on February 24, 2019, 06:10:57 PM
Very old diagonal joint concrete pavement.  Sixties timeframe.  Kind of neat it hasn't been overlaid with asphalt.
If this had been a full interstate, it almost certainly would have been overlaid.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on February 24, 2019, 09:20:25 PM
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/amp/news/interstate-57-set-to-expand/1804670572
http://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/

The reports didn't seem that accurate. But I guess they designated a future I-57 in Missouri.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on February 24, 2019, 09:32:18 PM
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/amp/news/interstate-57-set-to-expand/1804670572
http://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/

The reports didn't seem that accurate. But I guess they designated a future I-57 in Missouri.
Reading between the lines, is the $50 million number is the cost to upgrade US 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff...that deduction was assisted by one of the Stills from the KFVS-TV story page

They can’t have a price for Poplar Bluff to the AR/MO line, because according to the MoDOT illustration seen on the KFVS-TV story page, the alignment from Poplar Bluff south into Arkansas (and ultimately to Walnut Ridge) has yet to be determined

Is US 60 from the current I-57 Southern Terminus in Sikeston, all the way to Poplar Bluff, MO that close to Interstate standards already? I don’t live too far from there, but don’t head down that way very much, so no personal view

*edit* Brain fart - its Poplar Bluff, MO not Poplar Ridge
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 24, 2019, 09:33:20 PM
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/amp/news/interstate-57-set-to-expand/1804670572
http://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/

The reports didn't seem that accurate. But I guess they designated a future I-57 in Missouri.

Well, they'll have to change the control city southbound in a bunch of states that currently say Memphis to instead say Little Rock.  I-57 doesn't even get anywhere near Memphis, as you'd have to take 140 miles of I-55 to get there.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on February 24, 2019, 09:39:10 PM
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/amp/news/interstate-57-set-to-expand/1804670572
http://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/

The reports didn't seem that accurate. But I guess they designated a future I-57 in Missouri.

Well, they'll have to change the control city southbound in a bunch of states that currently say Memphis to instead say Little Rock.  I-57 doesn't even get anywhere near Memphis, as you'd have to take 140 miles of I-55 to get there.
“A bunch” is 2 - Missouri and Illinois. I doubt IDOT has it as a major priority, to update I-57 South Primary Control Signage and Destination Mileage Signage to Little Rock from Memphis

To be fair, I don’t believe US 67 North leaving Little Rock has updated its North Primary Control Signage to Chicago, and I-57 has been designated in Arkansas already
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 24, 2019, 09:42:39 PM
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/amp/news/interstate-57-set-to-expand/1804670572
http://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/

The reports didn't seem that accurate. But I guess they designated a future I-57 in Missouri.
Reading between the lines, is the $50 million number is the cost to upgrade US 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Ridge...that deduction was assisted by one of the Stills from the KFVS-TV story page

They can’t have a price for Poplar Ridge to the AR/MO line, because according to the MoDOT illustration seen on the KFVS-TV story page, the alignment from Poplar Ridge south into Arkansas (and ultimately to Walnut Ridge) has yet to be determined

Is US 60 from the current I-57 Southern Terminus in Sikeston, all the way to Poplar Ridge, MO that close to Interstate standards already? I don’t live too far from there, but don’t head down that way very much, so no personal view

I just hope they build it up high enough.  There's a lot of flooded out roads in that region of Missouri and Arkansas right now.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 24, 2019, 09:52:21 PM
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/amp/news/interstate-57-set-to-expand/1804670572
http://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/

The reports didn't seem that accurate. But I guess they designated a future I-57 in Missouri.

Well, they'll have to change the control city southbound in a bunch of states that currently say Memphis to instead say Little Rock.  I-57 doesn't even get anywhere near Memphis, as you'd have to take 140 miles of I-55 to get there.
“A bunch” is 2 - Missouri and Illinois. I doubt IDOT has it as a major priority, to update I-57 South Primary Control Signage and Destination Mileage Signage to Little Rock from Memphis

To be fair, I don’t believe US 67 North leaving Little Rock has updated its North Primary Control Signage to Chicago, and I-57 has been designated in Arkansas already

OK, 2 states, fair enough.  No state, including Arkansas, can really logically update mileage to the new endpoints as they haven't nailed down the alignment north of Walnut Ridge yet.  There's a great deal of that area underwater right now, so wherever they choose, they've got a fairly high roadbed to build as that whole region is prone to flooding.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on February 24, 2019, 09:57:08 PM
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/amp/news/interstate-57-set-to-expand/1804670572
http://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/

The reports didn't seem that accurate. But I guess they designated a future I-57 in Missouri.

Well, they'll have to change the control city southbound in a bunch of states that currently say Memphis to instead say Little Rock.  I-57 doesn't even get anywhere near Memphis, as you'd have to take 140 miles of I-55 to get there.
“A bunch” is 2 - Missouri and Illinois. I doubt IDOT has it as a major priority, to update I-57 South Primary Control Signage and Destination Mileage Signage to Little Rock from Memphis

To be fair, I don’t believe US 67 North leaving Little Rock has updated its North Primary Control Signage to Chicago, and I-57 has been designated in Arkansas already

OK, 2 states, fair enough.  No state, including Arkansas, can really logically update mileage to the new endpoints as they haven't nailed down the alignment north of Walnut Ridge yet.  There's a great deal of that area underwater right now, so wherever they choose, they've got a fairly high roadbed to build as that whole region is prone to flooding.
Yup, it has rained a bunch in this area...we feel it in Southern IL too

Any idea if the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are staying above water? Maybe ARDOT should check that out during this rainy winter-into-spring...Since that is the route I-57 should take, or at least should be carefully considered

Really, all the potential cooridors should be looked at and analyzed during this nice, rainy, wet time
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 24, 2019, 09:57:34 PM
More waste of money on red, white, and blue shields when the US highway ones more than suffice.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on February 24, 2019, 10:07:35 PM
More waste of money on red, white, and blue shields when the US highway ones more than suffice.
The Upgraded path from Sikeston to Walnut Ridge is more important than the Interstate designation from Sikeston to Little Rock, agreed

Giving the I-57 Designation signals its a Freeway on the corridor...and a route that will serve Chicago, St Louis, and other traffic heading to Little Rock and Texas/Dallas/Ft Worth, while short cutting/bypassing the Memphis area...I think the I-Shield is legit here. But that is pure personal opinion, granted
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 24, 2019, 10:37:11 PM
More waste of money on red, white, and blue shields when the US highway ones more than suffice.
The Upgraded path from Sikeston to Walnut Ridge is more important than the Interstate designation from Sikeston to Little Rock, agreed

Giving the I-57 Designation signals its a Freeway on the corridor...and a route that will serve Chicago, St Louis, and other traffic heading to Little Rock and Texas/Dallas/Ft Worth, while short cutting/bypassing the Memphis area...I think the I-Shield is legit here. But that is pure personal opinion, granted

I'd concur with all of this, but without the Interstate designation, it'd be tough to get enough other non-local interests willing to pitch in on getting funding for any stretch of it.  It'd be quicker to go from Dallas to Chicago than either of the current routes since it bypasses both St. Louis and Memphis and their congestion and perpetual construction.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 25, 2019, 09:58:44 AM
MoDOT just announced their plans to  upgrade  (https://standard-democrat.com/story/2590073.html) US 60 and US 67 to I-57
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2019, 03:14:47 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u
Is US 60 from the current I-57 Southern Terminus in Sikeston, all the way to Poplar Bluff, MO that close to Interstate standards already? I don’t live too far from there, but don’t head down that way very much, so no personal view

It's easy to see the situation from overhead in Google Earth/Maps as well as Street View. The main lanes of US-60 appear to be Interstate-grade already. I think the main deficiencies along the main lanes is some of the inner shoulders are not wide enough and a few old, sub-standard bridges that span small creeks need to be replaced. After that there's the larger issue of eliminating all the at-grade intersections by either building new limited access exits or cutting off access to lesser side roads. It's basically a similar upgrade situation as I-49 in Western Missouri. Just not as long. But the project is going to cost a lot more than $50 million. That kind of money would only buy maybe 3 or 4 standard diamond shaped exits.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on February 25, 2019, 04:06:30 PM
MoDOT just announced their plans to  upgrade  (https://standard-democrat.com/story/2590073.html) US 60 and US 67 to I-57

I'd be interested to see if they have any construction planned in the near future. I can't imagine they have enough money to do this since they have a lot bigger priorities throughout the state like the I-70 Missouri River Bridge near Columbia, I-270 North in St Louis, etc.,
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on February 25, 2019, 05:30:11 PM
MoDOT just announced their plans to  upgrade  (https://standard-democrat.com/story/2590073.html) US 60 and US 67 to I-57

I'd be interested to see if they have any construction planned in the near future. I can't imagine they have enough money to do this since they have a lot bigger priorities throughout the state like the I-70 Missouri River Bridge near Columbia, I-270 North in St Louis, etc.,

Per the article:

Infrastructure would continue to be worked on in the state, said Kehoe, and that Missouri had the sixth most bridges in the country with 10,900. Of those, 250 bridges are currently on the statewide transportation improvement plan (STIP). If those bridges can be moved off the plan with the bonding proposal by Governor Mike Parson, which is working its way through the Missouri Legislature, it could free up $351 million dollars in Missouri’s STIP. Many of those dollars could qualify for a federal match.

“We hope that the money that gets replaced in the STIP is used by transportation planning partners and local leaders for projects that they feel are important such as the I-57 Corridor,” Kehoe said.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on February 25, 2019, 05:46:39 PM
MoDOT just announced their plans to  upgrade  (https://standard-democrat.com/story/2590073.html) US 60 and US 67 to I-57

I'd be interested to see if they have any construction planned in the near future. I can't imagine they have enough money to do this since they have a lot bigger priorities throughout the state like the I-70 Missouri River Bridge near Columbia, I-270 North in St Louis, etc.,

Per the article:

Infrastructure would continue to be worked on in the state, said Kehoe, and that Missouri had the sixth most bridges in the country with 10,900. Of those, 250 bridges are currently on the statewide transportation improvement plan (STIP). If those bridges can be moved off the plan with the bonding proposal by Governor Mike Parson, which is working its way through the Missouri Legislature, it could free up $351 million dollars in Missouri’s STIP. Many of those dollars could qualify for a federal match.

“We hope that the money that gets replaced in the STIP is used by transportation planning partners and local leaders for projects that they feel are important such as the I-57 Corridor,” Kehoe said.

Yes. That’s assuming those bonds pass the legislature, which I’m pretty pessimistic about after following this stuff for the last 7 years. I’ll believe it when I see it.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on February 26, 2019, 04:18:26 AM
At least Missouri is finally talking about it, which is progress.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Henry on February 26, 2019, 10:42:50 AM
While I do not agree with the I-57 number being used (if anything, it should've been an extension of I-30), I think it would be a great benefit to have Chicago and Dallas connected by a more direct nonstop route.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: jbnv on February 26, 2019, 11:38:16 AM
While I do not agree with the I-57 number being used (if anything, it should've been an extension of I-30), I think it would be a great benefit to have Chicago and Dallas connected by a more direct nonstop route.

It will make more sense when Louisiana gets on board to have it consume I-530 and follow US 165 all the way to I-10.

(Yes, this is currently fictional territory. But it totally makes sense. Furthermore, this is election year in Louisiana. Let's see if someone figures out how to work the ideas into their campaign.)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 26, 2019, 05:04:20 PM
If the US 67 freeway had been designated Interstate 30, they would have had to renumber the exits, increasing them by 145 (not a big deal, but designating it Interstate 57 allows the exit numbers on 67 to remain the same). Of course, if, in the distant future, they decide to make Interstate 530 an extension of Interstate 57 (not a 100% unlikely prediction), the exit sequence on existing Interstate 530 would probably have to reverse direction (from north-south to south-north).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 27, 2019, 11:25:25 AM
While I do not agree with the I-57 number being used (if anything, it should've been an extension of I-30), I think it would be a great benefit to have Chicago and Dallas connected by a more direct nonstop route.

You'll have to take that up with Dr Boozman
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 27, 2019, 01:19:10 PM
If the US 67 freeway had been designated Interstate 30, they would have had to renumber the exits, increasing them by 145 (not a big deal, but designating it Interstate 57 allows the exit numbers on 67 to remain the same). Of course, if, in the distant future, they decide to make Interstate 530 an extension of Interstate 57 (not a 100% unlikely prediction), the exit sequence on existing Interstate 530 would probably have to reverse direction (from north-south to south-north).

The most logical extension concept -- and one that could be done unilaterally within AR -- would be to simply subsume the entire "530" corridor -- the Interstate part as well as the state-signed nascent facility south of Pine Bluff -- and, when the portion north of Little Rock receives I-57 signage, re-sign I-530/AR 530 as I-57/AR 57, with a change of mileage reflecting a terminus at I-69 near Monticello.   If down the line LA takes action regarding a corridor extending down US 425 and US 165, any further milepost/exit numbering alteration can be done at that time.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:05:48 PM
If the US 67 freeway had been designated Interstate 30, they would have had to renumber the exits, increasing them by 145 (not a big deal, but designating it Interstate 57 allows the exit numbers on 67 to remain the same). Of course, if, in the distant future, they decide to make Interstate 530 an extension of Interstate 57 (not a 100% unlikely prediction), the exit sequence on existing Interstate 530 would probably have to reverse direction (from north-south to south-north).
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 27, 2019, 03:10:16 PM
If the US 67 freeway had been designated Interstate 30, they would have had to renumber the exits, increasing them by 145 (not a big deal, but designating it Interstate 57 allows the exit numbers on 67 to remain the same). Of course, if, in the distant future, they decide to make Interstate 530 an extension of Interstate 57 (not a 100% unlikely prediction), the exit sequence on existing Interstate 530 would probably have to reverse direction (from north-south to south-north).

The most logical extension concept -- and one that could be done unilaterally within AR -- would be to simply subsume the entire "530" corridor -- the Interstate part as well as the state-signed nascent facility south of Pine Bluff -- and, when the portion north of Little Rock receives I-57 signage, re-sign I-530/AR 530 as I-57/AR 57, with a change of mileage reflecting a terminus at I-69 near Monticello.   If down the line LA takes action regarding a corridor extending down US 425 and US 165, any further milepost/exit numbering alteration can be done at that time.   

It may be a while before the portion of I-69 west of US-425 is done since the state moved money from that portion of the Monticello Bypass to fund a 2-lane stretch connecting the east end of the bypass to US-65 north of McGehee.  They don't seem to be in a hurry to complete the bypass since it'll pull traffic away from businesses in town, although it won't be a huge amount of traffic on the bypass anyway until some freeways connect up with it.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: jbnv on February 27, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?

What's the need for that?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 27, 2019, 03:24:50 PM
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?

What's the need for that?

I-440 is envisioned to be a full loop around Little Rock eventually, so, no it'll never be renumbered.  Interstates that end in 0 or 5 are considered major interstates, so changing it to I-*57 would be a "demotion".
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:38:58 PM
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?

What's the need for that?
Theory would be 440 having endpoints North and South of Downtown on I-57.

If I-440 is to ultimatly be a full loop, or at least touch I-40 twice, I-440 is fine then
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 27, 2019, 03:42:52 PM
If I-57 were indeed extended over I-530 and AR 530, the only change I could see regarding Little Rock would be that I-57 would take over the downtown portion of I-30 between the 440/530 interchange and I-40 in NLR, while I-30 would be extended over I-440 (and probably AR 440 as well).  That would "clean up" the layout while avoiding extended (and useless) multiplexes.  If the bypass loop is extended around the north side of LR metro, that could still be I-440 -- unless it's configured as a direct extension of I-430, in which case it could simply utilize that designation.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on February 27, 2019, 06:58:39 PM
If I-57 were indeed extended over I-530 and AR 530, the only change I could see regarding Little Rock would be that I-57 would take over the downtown portion of I-30 between the 440/530 interchange and I-40 in NLR, while I-30 would be extended over I-440 (and probably AR 440 as well).  That would "clean up" the layout while avoiding extended (and useless) multiplexes.  If the bypass loop is extended around the north side of LR metro, that could still be I-440 -- unless it's configured as a direct extension of I-430, in which case it could simply utilize that designation.

IMHO, I doubt I-530 will ever get renamed if at all. I-57 isn't the most appropriate. I-530 when finished will end at I-69 @ Monticello and will be that way for quite some time.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 27, 2019, 07:18:42 PM
IMHO, I doubt I-530 will ever get renamed if at all. I-57 isn't the most appropriate. I-530 when finished will end at I-69 @ Monticello and will be that way for quite some time.

I'm sure you're right.  It'll be quite some time before I-69 is even the endpoint of I-530 even when Arkansas eventually extends it to Monticello as there seems to not be much will to do the midsection of I-69 anyway at this juncture.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 27, 2019, 07:48:18 PM
If the US 67 freeway had been designated Interstate 30, they would have had to renumber the exits, increasing them by 145 (not a big deal, but designating it Interstate 57 allows the exit numbers on 67 to remain the same). Of course, if, in the distant future, they decide to make Interstate 530 an extension of Interstate 57 (not a 100% unlikely prediction), the exit sequence on existing Interstate 530 would probably have to reverse direction (from north-south to south-north).
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?

Ask I-238 ;)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: TBKS1 on February 28, 2019, 02:11:12 AM
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?

What's the need for that?

I-440 is envisioned to be a full loop around Little Rock eventually, so, no it'll never be renumbered.  Interstates that end in 0 or 5 are considered major interstates, so changing it to I-*57 would be a "demotion".

Not gonna lie, I can't even imagine I-440 being a full loop around Little Rock by itself, unless you meant including the other interstates in the Little Rock area (like I-430 and part of I-30). If it's supposed to be a full loop by itself, then I pretty much learned something new lol.

Though I wonder what would happen with the part of 440 which is signed as a state highway and not an interstate, especially once I-57 is signed. I'm not sure if it would officially get signed as an interstate and AR-440 would just get "dropped".
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 28, 2019, 04:06:50 AM
^^^^^^^^
ARDOT would have to petition AASHTO/SCOURN for the AR 440 to I-440 designation change, which would have to be signed off by FHWA as to Interstate standards (which it from all appearances seems to be).  Once I-57 signage goes up, something along this line is likely to occur; a designation change at the 40/440 interchange as per present practice would be at least counterintuitive and plainly gratuitous, since most of the overall 440 corridor is also signed as an Interstate.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on February 28, 2019, 11:01:01 AM
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?

What's the need for that?

I-440 is envisioned to be a full loop around Little Rock eventually, so, no it'll never be renumbered.  Interstates that end in 0 or 5 are considered major interstates, so changing it to I-*57 would be a "demotion".

Not gonna lie, I can't even imagine I-440 being a full loop around Little Rock by itself, unless you meant including the other interstates in the Little Rock area (like I-430 and part of I-30). If it's supposed to be a full loop by itself, then I pretty much learned something new lol.

Though I wonder what would happen with the part of 440 which is signed as a state highway and not an interstate, especially once I-57 is signed. I'm not sure if it would officially get signed as an interstate and AR-440 would just get "dropped".

The plan is to continue the loop up to I-40 eventually, but unless it bisects Camp Robinson, it's going to have to run almost up to Mayflower with a turn south back to the current intersection with AR-440.  If I-69/369 in Texas gets done before any real progress is made in LA/AR/MS, then they'll have to consider a southern bypass of LR as I-30 would have some real issues being widened with the development right up to the access roads as it is.  I figure it would have to start around the end of I-430, but how it ties into the current SW end of I-440 (or perhaps realigned to the south) is a real question.  In that scenario, I figure they would renumber I-430 to I-440.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 28, 2019, 01:25:58 PM
If I-57 were indeed extended over I-530 and AR 530, the only change I could see regarding Little Rock would be that I-57 would take over the downtown portion of I-30 between the 440/530 interchange and I-40 in NLR, while I-30 would be extended over I-440 (and probably AR 440 as well).  That would "clean up" the layout while avoiding extended (and useless) multiplexes.  If the bypass loop is extended around the north side of LR metro, that could still be I-440 -- unless it's configured as a direct extension of I-430, in which case it could simply utilize that designation.

Sorry, but any freeway extension of I-530/AR 530 south along the US 425/US 165 corridor to east of Lake Charles needs to be designated I-51. I still say that US 67 should have been designated as I-53 to better fit a potential connection to St. Louis and a freewayized Avenue of the Saints...but that's only me.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 28, 2019, 04:03:12 PM
^^^^^^^^
Personally, I would have preferred I-53 for what is ostensibly now the I-57 corridor -- at least the portion from NLR to Poplar Bluff; with an extension up US 67 to Festus, MO.  Then it could have been extended south to subsume I-/AR 530 and potentially farther south to Alexandria and/or Lake Charles.  Fits perfectly in the grid and makes use of existing well-utilized corridors.   But the folks who actually get to decide such things chose I-57, likely because it (a) could be considered a connector to the far larger Chicago area (vis-à-vis St. Louis) and thus more attractive as a long-distance commercial corridor, and (b) would require less in the way of involvement by MO, which, frankly, has a pretty dismal record regarding such things.  But the recent MODOT announcement that they're actually planning their part of this route is at least somewhat encouraging. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2019, 04:53:13 PM
It's too late to renumber the Interstate 57 extension as Interstate 53. Also, I mentioned extending Interstate 57 down 530 as a theoretical, distant-future extension, not necessarily something I expect to happen.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 28, 2019, 06:32:19 PM
It's too late to renumber the Interstate 57 extension as Interstate 53. Also, I mentioned extending Interstate 57 down 530 as a theoretical, distant-future extension, not necessarily something I expect to happen.

Swapping out I-57 for I-/AR 530 in all likelihood won't happen until (a) I-57 is signed north of Little Rock and (b) I-69 is substantially completed within AR.  No need to have another 2di with a hanging terminus!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 28, 2019, 08:22:34 PM
Quote from: sparker
Personally, I would have preferred I-53 for what is ostensibly now the I-57 corridor -- at least the portion from NLR to Poplar Bluff; with an extension up US 67 to Festus, MO.  Then it could have been extended south to subsume I-/AR 530 and potentially farther south to Alexandria and/or Lake Charles.  Fits perfectly in the grid and makes use of existing well-utilized corridors.   But the folks who actually get to decide such things chose I-57, likely because it (a) could be considered a connector to the far larger Chicago area (vis-à-vis St. Louis) and thus more attractive as a long-distance commercial corridor, and (b) would require less in the way of involvement by MO, which, frankly, has a pretty dismal record regarding such things.  But the recent MODOT announcement that they're actually planning their part of this route is at least somewhat encouraging.

While it's technically possible to upgrade US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus (JCT I-55) 20 miles South of St Louis, Missouri already has its hands full with other corridors. The Belle Vista Bypass has been long delayed. MO DOT has been very slowly upgrading US-60 across Southern Missouri up to Interstate/freeway standards. They still have a long way to go with that effort. I don't know the traffic counts for US-60 from Springfield to Poplar Bluff versus those of US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus. Both are pretty much 4-laned the whole way with freeway style exits scattered here and there. It seems like US-60 has more of them. I think Missouri should concentrate on finishing one corridor and then upgrade the next if it is justified.

As for I-530, and the 2-lane AR-530 segment of it South of Pine Bluff, I don't expect that route to ever get re-numbered. There's hardly any justification to expand the 2-lane portion into 4-lanes. If I-69 can be completed thru Arkansas then the route might be worth finishing down to that point. Giving the route a 2-digit designation and extending it down thru Monroe, Alexandria and to Lake Charles would be a tough sell. Is there really enough traffic on that corridor to justify a new Interstate? Louisiana already has I-49 on its hands to finish. That's a much bigger priority, even bigger than I-69 and even bigger still than I-14.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on February 28, 2019, 09:26:09 PM
I agree. Allocate money to finishing 49 first. Its way I advocated a toll over 10 years ago. A toll would get 57 built faster. Even at only a 50 cent charge and a dollar for out of snowbirds...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 28, 2019, 10:27:03 PM
I agree. Allocate money to finishing 49 first. Its way I advocated a toll over 10 years ago. A toll would get 57 built faster. Even at only a 50 cent charge and a dollar for out of snowbirds...

If memory serves correct, Arkansas law forbids tolls on public roadways.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on February 28, 2019, 11:43:09 PM
I agree. Allocate money to finishing 49 first. Its way I advocated a toll over 10 years ago. A toll would get 57 built faster. Even at only a 50 cent charge and a dollar for out of snowbirds...

If memory serves correct, Arkansas law forbids tolls on public roadways.

If that is indeed the case, then talks of a tolled I-49 Arkansas River bridge is merely speculation about something that won't happen without legislative action -- but that aspect of the conversation seems to dominate discussion about the crossing.  Maybe the bridge and approaches would be some sort of PPP, with the private parties technically holding title to the facility (i.e., not a public roadway), which would smell a little funny but might squeak through the process.  If any of you AR-based posters know of any negotiations about the bridge and/or potential tolling, please chime in!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on March 01, 2019, 08:23:56 AM
I agree. Allocate money to finishing 49 first. Its way I advocated a toll over 10 years ago. A toll would get 57 built faster. Even at only a 50 cent charge and a dollar for out of snowbirds...

If memory serves correct, Arkansas law forbids tolls on public roadways.

If that is indeed the case, then talks of a tolled I-49 Arkansas River bridge is merely speculation about something that won't happen without legislative action -- but that aspect of the conversation seems to dominate discussion about the crossing.  Maybe the bridge and approaches would be some sort of PPP, with the private parties technically holding title to the facility (i.e., not a public roadway), which would smell a little funny but might squeak through the process.  If any of you AR-based posters know of any negotiations about the bridge and/or potential tolling, please chime in!

The toll bridge idea has been discarded, I believe. Too much to build, not enough potential return on the investment.

It's my understanding that the Highway Commission would have to petition the legislature to change the law.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 01, 2019, 09:25:30 AM
I agree. Allocate money to finishing 49 first. Its way I advocated a toll over 10 years ago. A toll would get 57 built faster. Even at only a 50 cent charge and a dollar for out of snowbirds...

If memory serves correct, Arkansas law forbids tolls on public roadways.

If that is indeed the case, then talks of a tolled I-49 Arkansas River bridge is merely speculation about something that won't happen without legislative action -- but that aspect of the conversation seems to dominate discussion about the crossing.  Maybe the bridge and approaches would be some sort of PPP, with the private parties technically holding title to the facility (i.e., not a public roadway), which would smell a little funny but might squeak through the process.  If any of you AR-based posters know of any negotiations about the bridge and/or potential tolling, please chime in!

The toll bridge idea has been discarded, I believe. Too much to build, not enough potential return on the investment.

It's my understanding that the Highway Commission would have to petition the legislature to change the law.

As of a few years ago, ARDOT has tolling authority.  However, the studies have indicated that tolls wouldn't cover costs in all the cases they've looked at, including this one, so they're looking at other means.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 01, 2019, 09:35:16 AM
I found a document from AHTD(ARDOT) about some of the tolling considerations, and it also had a map of the portion of the North Belt Freeway (completion of northern loop connecting AR-440 to I-430).  It looks like the initial route they chose for that does indeed bisect Camp Robinson.  Anyway, it's all moot until funding is figured out.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiwg5zOm-HgAhURVK0KHSWmC18QFjABegQIBBAC&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ahtd.state.ar.us%2FOutgoing%2FI-49%2FTolling%2520Information%2520Compendium-2014-09-10.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3fBx5YGZYucYSml0zUGArj (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiwg5zOm-HgAhURVK0KHSWmC18QFjABegQIBBAC&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ahtd.state.ar.us%2FOutgoing%2FI-49%2FTolling%2520Information%2520Compendium-2014-09-10.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3fBx5YGZYucYSml0zUGArj)

Edit: corrected URL to PDF file from AHTD(ARDOT)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 01, 2019, 10:22:38 AM
There's a lot of other interesting information in that document, like the consideration of a toll bridge realignment of US-79 into north Mississippi that would function as a southern bypass of Memphis quite a few decades ago.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 01, 2019, 06:59:09 PM
Quote from: sparker
Personally, I would have preferred I-53 for what is ostensibly now the I-57 corridor -- at least the portion from NLR to Poplar Bluff; with an extension up US 67 to Festus, MO.  Then it could have been extended south to subsume I-/AR 530 and potentially farther south to Alexandria and/or Lake Charles.  Fits perfectly in the grid and makes use of existing well-utilized corridors.   But the folks who actually get to decide such things chose I-57, likely because it (a) could be considered a connector to the far larger Chicago area (vis-à-vis St. Louis) and thus more attractive as a long-distance commercial corridor, and (b) would require less in the way of involvement by MO, which, frankly, has a pretty dismal record regarding such things.  But the recent MODOT announcement that they're actually planning their part of this route is at least somewhat encouraging.

While it's technically possible to upgrade US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus (JCT I-55) 20 miles South of St Louis, Missouri already has its hands full with other corridors. The Belle Vista Bypass has been long delayed. MO DOT has been very slowly upgrading US-60 across Southern Missouri up to Interstate/freeway standards. They still have a long way to go with that effort. I don't know the traffic counts for US-60 from Springfield to Poplar Bluff versus those of US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus. Both are pretty much 4-laned the whole way with freeway style exits scattered here and there. It seems like US-60 has more of them. I think Missouri should concentrate on finishing one corridor and then upgrade the next if it is justified.

As for I-530, and the 2-lane AR-530 segment of it South of Pine Bluff, I don't expect that route to ever get re-numbered. There's hardly any justification to expand the 2-lane portion into 4-lanes. If I-69 can be completed thru Arkansas then the route might be worth finishing down to that point. Giving the route a 2-digit designation and extending it down thru Monroe, Alexandria and to Lake Charles would be a tough sell. Is there really enough traffic on that corridor to justify a new Interstate? Louisiana already has I-49 on its hands to finish. That's a much bigger priority, even bigger than I-69 and even bigger still than I-14.

To me as a Louisianian, I don’t think we need another north-south Interstate. The Monroe-Alexandria-Lake Charles corridor is well-served by US 165 since it’s been 4-laned. I don’t see that much more of an improvement or time savings by adding an interstate alongside it. If westbound traffic from Mississippi on I-20 is going to Houston, the I-20 to the future I-69 south route to Houston should serve traffic fine.

I don’t foresee I-530 expanding further south from Monticello once the PineBluff-Monticello portion upgrades to interstate standards and I don’t think there is a need.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: jbnv on March 04, 2019, 12:13:44 PM
Sorry, but any freeway extension of I-530/AR 530 south along the US 425/US 165 corridor to east of Lake Charles needs to be designated I-51.

US 51 says come to Hammond more often.

As for I-530, and the 2-lane AR-530 segment of it South of Pine Bluff, I don't expect that route to ever get re-numbered. There's hardly any justification to expand the 2-lane portion into 4-lanes. If I-69 can be completed thru Arkansas then the route might be worth finishing down to that point. Giving the route a 2-digit designation and extending it down thru Monroe, Alexandria and to Lake Charles would be a tough sell. Is there really enough traffic on that corridor to justify a new Interstate? Louisiana already has I-49 on its hands to finish. That's a much bigger priority, even bigger than I-69 and even bigger still than I-14.

You clearly don't live in Louisiana. Unless you happen to know something about Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe that this almost-lifelong resident of Louisiana doesn't know. The only reason we're not already upgrading US 165 to an I-Whatever is because very few Louisiana politicians hang out on AARoads. Once someone starts talking about it, it will gain traction just like I-14, no matter how unlikely building it is.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 04, 2019, 11:53:04 PM
Sorry, but any freeway extension of I-530/AR 530 south along the US 425/US 165 corridor to east of Lake Charles needs to be designated I-51.

US 51 says come to Hammond more often.


LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.


Quote
As for I-530, and the 2-lane AR-530 segment of it South of Pine Bluff, I don't expect that route to ever get re-numbered. There's hardly any justification to expand the 2-lane portion into 4-lanes. If I-69 can be completed thru Arkansas then the route might be worth finishing down to that point. Giving the route a 2-digit designation and extending it down thru Monroe, Alexandria and to Lake Charles would be a tough sell. Is there really enough traffic on that corridor to justify a new Interstate? Louisiana already has I-49 on its hands to finish. That's a much bigger priority, even bigger than I-69 and even bigger still than I-14.

You clearly don't live in Louisiana. Unless you happen to know something about Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe that this almost-lifelong resident of Louisiana doesn't know. The only reason we're not already upgrading US 165 to an I-Whatever is because very few Louisiana politicians hang out on AARoads. Once someone starts talking about it, it will gain traction just like I-14, no matter how unlikely building it is.

Freewayizing the US 165/US 425 corridor has been a long term goal of LADOTD for quite some time; even with the completion of the 4-laning as part of the TIMED program. The 4-laning only pushes the timetable for ultimate upgrade back a bit.

If by some chance I-69 through NW LA does get pulled in favor of an US 59/I-30/I-40 corridor via Texarkana/Little Rock, then the need for a diagonal SW-NE corridor in Louisiana that can connect with any I-530 extension increases exponentially. It is possible even to run such a corridor through Alexandria either through upgrading MacArthur Drive (US 165) or through a bypass that can also run any possible I-14 corridor through as well.

Again, though, that is very long term, and right now only speculation. I-49 South/Lafayette Connector/Shreveport ICC, I-10 through Baton Rouge, and possibly I-10 through Lake Charles is the bigger priority right now, and will be for the next 10-20 years.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: jbnv on March 05, 2019, 09:51:56 AM
LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.

Your examples are state highways and interstates. There's no precedent for duplicating US and Interstate numbers in Louisiana either.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on March 05, 2019, 03:22:07 PM
LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.

Your examples are state highways and interstates. There's no precedent for duplicating US and Interstate numbers in Louisiana either.
Most states don’t have US and Interstate duplications...

For a long while, IL stood alone on that one

Since then, TX, NC, and WI have joined the club

Depending on what is defined as I-41’s official southern terminus, IL might be the only state with two, tho
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 05, 2019, 03:30:31 PM
LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.

Your examples are state highways and interstates. There's no precedent for duplicating US and Interstate numbers in Louisiana either.


US 69 in Texas coexisting and intersecting with Future I-69 in Lufkin isn't an example? Also, precedent isn't the same as legality.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 05, 2019, 07:06:17 PM
US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on March 05, 2019, 09:24:17 PM
US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on March 05, 2019, 11:25:14 PM
US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.
The original, I-24 and US 24 in Illinois, says Hello
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on March 05, 2019, 11:34:34 PM
US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.
The original, I-24 and US 24 in Illinois, says Hello
I-74 / US 74 in North Carolina also says Hello.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: hbelkins on March 06, 2019, 11:31:45 AM
I-74 / US 74 in North Carolina also says Hello.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.

The whole thing could have been solved if I-41 and I-74 had been given more sensical sensible numbers -- a 3di in the case of 41, and a 40-series number for 74. (I don't know where I got "sensical." I guess I was thinking "non-nonsensical" and "sensical" popped out of my fingers. I'm not sure that's even a word.)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2019, 01:22:17 PM
I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: hbelkins on March 06, 2019, 03:42:02 PM
I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on March 06, 2019, 04:37:35 PM
I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

If common sense prevails and a different designation is eventually applied to NC's I-74, such action would likely be part of NC's seemingly endless quest for more 2di's -- specifically, one that would functionally follow all of US 74 from I-26 to Wilmington (that could be anything from 28 to 38 -- likely "36", as it's currently unused in the state); this would leave the N-S section from Rockingham to Greensboro solely as I-73.  The diagonal portion of I-74 from I-73 through High Point and around Winston-Salem could conceivably receive another even 2di from 38 through 48 (something tells me they're not going to ask for I-50 for such a corridor).  NC, at that point, would be further along in its seeming goal of applying I-designations to as much of its statewide freeway "master plan" as possible (look out, US 17 -- their eyes are on you as well!).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 06, 2019, 04:46:00 PM
US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.

It's pretty much a nonfactor around the coasts and northern and southern borders.  Only in the middle of the country do the opposing standard numbering systems really even have to be considered.  And let's not pretend that the coasts really even care about the middle of the country on most subjects.  We're just struggling to patch together contiguous freeways as it is to care much about the numbers attached to them.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2019, 05:01:11 PM
I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

If common sense prevails and a different designation is eventually applied to NC's I-74, such action would likely be part of NC's seemingly endless quest for more 2di's -- specifically, one that would functionally follow all of US 74 from I-26 to Wilmington (that could be anything from 28 to 38 -- likely "36", as it's currently unused in the state); this would leave the N-S section from Rockingham to Greensboro solely as I-73.  The diagonal portion of I-74 from I-73 through High Point and around Winston-Salem could conceivably receive another even 2di from 38 through 48 (something tells me they're not going to ask for I-50 for such a corridor).  NC, at that point, would be further along in its seeming goal of applying I-designations to as much of its statewide freeway "master plan" as possible (look out, US 17 -- their eyes are on you as well!).
Here's my sort of concept -

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 06, 2019, 07:28:23 PM
I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.
The best choice for this designation is I-36. It fits the grid and there is no NC 36.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on March 07, 2019, 08:00:35 PM
I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.
The best choice for this designation is I-36. It fits the grid and there is no NC 36.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

I highly doubt we'll ever see I-73 or I-74 completed outside of North Carolina. Technically speaking, the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-74 to be designated along I-77 in Virginia from the NC state line to I-81, but Virginia has elected not to sign this section. Makes some sort of sense, since no other portion of I-74 will ever be built. While it's still very much a longshot, there is still hope that I-73 may one day be completed to Roanoke, but I don't anticipate anything being built north of there.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 07, 2019, 09:52:35 PM
I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.
The best choice for this designation is I-36. It fits the grid and there is no NC 36.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

I highly doubt we'll ever see I-73 or I-74 completed outside of North Carolina. Technically speaking, the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-74 to be designated along I-77 in Virginia from the NC state line to I-81, but Virginia has elected not to sign this section. Makes some sort of sense, since no other portion of I-74 will ever be built. While it's still very much a longshot, there is still hope that I-73 may one day be completed to Roanoke, but I don't anticipate anything being built north of there.

To get back to the midsouth region, and I-57 in particular.  Now that I-49 is essentially funded for Missouri's remaining portion and should be completed by Summer 2022, how long until we restart that process from Poplar Bluff, MO to Walnut Ridge, AR?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on March 07, 2019, 11:48:01 PM
Missouri does have other road projects to do

I-70 across the state
Avenue of the Saints Hannibal Bypass

To name a couple
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2019, 01:04:46 AM
There's also the US-60 project in Southern Missouri. At one point a couple decades ago that route was proposed to be part of an extension of I-66.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on March 08, 2019, 01:35:35 AM
There's also the US-60 project in Southern Missouri. At one point a couple decades ago that route was proposed to be part of an extension of I-66.

If built, that route would have multiplexed with the proposed I-57 corridor from Poplar Bluff to somewhere near Charleston, east of Sikeston, where a Mississippi River bridge would have directly connected with KY.  However, any I-66 proposal was "detoured" by interests in the Cape Girardeau area, who wanted the E-W corridor to pass through their area and cross southern IL before joining I-24 back into KY.  AFAIK, no further action has been taken to further either corridor concept -- and although there are still "Future I-66" signs along the Cumberland Parkway, any routing west of I-65 is still up in the air -- particularly since the Natcher Parkway, considered one of the more likely route alternatives, is now being signed as I-165.  With all the inaction (and seemingly increasing disinterest) regarding I-66, it's increasingly likely that the only US 60 segment to be the beneficiary of an Interstate upgrade is the I-57 extension east of Poplar Bluff -- if, of course, MO identifies the necessary funding. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: rte66man on March 08, 2019, 11:16:55 AM
Missouri does have other road projects to do

I-70 across the state
Avenue of the Saints Hannibal Bypass

To name a couple

I didn't know the Hannibal bypass was on their radar.  What stage are they at (planning, etc)?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: hbelkins on March 08, 2019, 11:28:07 AM
There's also the US-60 project in Southern Missouri. At one point a couple decades ago that route was proposed to be part of an extension of I-66.

If built, that route would have multiplexed with the proposed I-57 corridor from Poplar Bluff to somewhere near Charleston, east of Sikeston, where a Mississippi River bridge would have directly connected with KY.  However, any I-66 proposal was "detoured" by interests in the Cape Girardeau area, who wanted the E-W corridor to pass through their area and cross southern IL before joining I-24 back into KY.  AFAIK, no further action has been taken to further either corridor concept -- and although there are still "Future I-66" signs along the Cumberland Parkway, any routing west of I-65 is still up in the air -- particularly since the Natcher Parkway, considered one of the more likely route alternatives, is now being signed as I-165.  With all the inaction (and seemingly increasing disinterest) regarding I-66, it's increasingly likely that the only US 60 segment to be the beneficiary of an Interstate upgrade is the I-57 extension east of Poplar Bluff -- if, of course, MO identifies the necessary funding.

If this project ever goes anywhere, I think Kentucky will fight hard for a direct Mississippi River crossing from Kentucky into Missouri. Those bridges at Cairo aren't going to last forever, and US 51 frequently has long-term closures for flooding between Wickliffe and the Ohio River.

Cape Girardeau is too far north to really be on a through, east-west corridor between Missouri and Kentucky. Plus, they have a fairly new bridge there, although it's not on an interstate.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2019, 12:05:33 PM
US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on March 09, 2019, 10:33:34 PM
US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.

I have used this route and I agree that sometime in the future they will get it to full I standards from Springfield to Poplar Bluff.

If I go SE, I will skip down to I-155 to Dyersburg at Poplar Bluff and take that over to Jackson, TN and avoid Memphis.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on March 10, 2019, 08:44:27 PM
US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.

Didn't I read a few months back that 60/125 near Rogersville is getting an upgrade?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on March 10, 2019, 09:30:15 PM
US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.

Didn't I read a few months back that 60/125 near Rogersville is getting an upgrade?
Yes. https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/rogersville-intersection-to-expect-new-interchange/1560998331
Project site: https://www.modot.org/route-60-route-125-interchange
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Rick Powell on March 12, 2019, 06:30:33 PM
Those bridges at Cairo aren't going to last forever, and US 51 frequently has long-term closures for flooding between Wickliffe and the Ohio River.
  The Mississippi river crossing is made somewhat redundant by the newer I-57 bridge, although the locals would like to keep it, I'm sure. And the US 51 Ohio River bridge replacement is being funded by KY and IL. IDOT has $8 million programmed this year for Phase I engineering, and has over $100 million programmed for its share of Phase II engineering, approach roadway, land acquisition, and the actual bridge.

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/transportation-management/transportation-improvement-programs-/multi-modal-transportation-improvement-program/index

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on July 15, 2019, 09:23:23 PM
Now that Arkansas enacted a gas tax increase, any word on progress on US 67/future I-57 north of Walnut Ridge? When could we hear something?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 15, 2019, 10:00:07 PM
I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on July 15, 2019, 10:03:42 PM
I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

They are rebuilding AR 5 at Cabot and I believe building another interchange
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on July 16, 2019, 12:25:10 PM
Now that Arkansas enacted a gas tax increase, any word on progress on US 67/future I-57 north of Walnut Ridge? When could we hear something?

Right now, as it stands, the gas tax which starts collection in October is really only enough of an increase for maintenance items and bridge rehabilitation.  They are wanting to put an extension of the 2023 sunsetting 1/2¢ sales tax without another sunset and are holding that project along with I-49 Super-2 between I-40 and AR-22 in addition to some of the uncompleted parts south of US-71 south of Ft. Smith (to DeQueen at least as I recall), various US-412 passing lane segments, 6-laning I-40 east of L.R., and US-82 upgrades across south Arkansas (I guess I-69 just isn't much of a priority without another bridge) as projects for funding with that money.  Of course, I would personally vote for an extension for another decade or so, but can't get on board with a perpetual tax increase.  Removes accountability when they don't have to rejustify every 10 years or so.  Gives them incentive to make sure they have some project completions to tout before bringing it back before the voters again.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on July 16, 2019, 02:31:21 PM
I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

Best as I can tell, the Jacksonville segment is the only part of the freeway that isn’t up to standard already. The frontage roads between exits 11 and 16 may eventually need to be converted to one way also, and that will mean building at least 4 crossovers where there are none.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on July 16, 2019, 02:42:34 PM
I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 16, 2019, 04:36:38 PM
We may have to wait quite a while for the US 67 (future Interstate 57) freeway to be extended beyond Walnut Ridge.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on July 16, 2019, 06:02:50 PM
We may have to wait quite a while for the US 67 (future Interstate 57) freeway to be extended beyond Walnut Ridge.

Probably will be finished before either I-49 or I-69 though, since it is a much shorter distance that needs to be constructed.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on July 16, 2019, 06:04:35 PM
I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on July 16, 2019, 06:05:50 PM
Now that Arkansas enacted a gas tax increase, any word on progress on US 67/future I-57 north of Walnut Ridge? When could we hear something?

Right now, as it stands, the gas tax which starts collection in October is really only enough of an increase for maintenance items and bridge rehabilitation.  They are wanting to put an extension of the 2023 sunsetting 1/2¢ sales tax without another sunset and are holding that project along with I-49 Super-2 between I-40 and AR-22 in addition to some of the uncompleted parts south of US-71 south of Ft. Smith (to DeQueen at least as I recall), various US-412 passing lane segments, 6-laning I-40 east of L.R., and US-82 upgrades across south Arkansas (I guess I-69 just isn't much of a priority without another bridge) as projects for funding with that money.  Of course, I would personally vote for an extension for another decade or so, but can't get on board with a perpetual tax increase.  Removes accountability when they don't have to rejustify every 10 years or so.  Gives them incentive to make sure they have some project completions to tout before bringing it back before the voters again.

So if the tax passes next year, we will see work on the US 67/Future I-57 corridor next decade?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on July 16, 2019, 08:20:46 PM

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

(https://www.weather.gov/images/lzk/cmsimgs/floodpic050417.jpg)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on July 16, 2019, 08:39:30 PM
So if the tax passes next year, we will see work on the US 67/Future I-57 corridor next decade?

http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2019/20190612%20AHC%20Meeting%20Slides.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2019/20190612%20AHC%20Meeting%20Slides.pdf)

There are 3 different options if the tax passes.  Option 2 provides the most money for capital improvements, which is what new terrain construction would fall under.  See page 45 of the linked PDF above for the project wish list.  Doesn't necessarily mean they will pick Option 2, or that it would be completed or started in 10 years in any case.  Since there wouldn't be a sunset on that tax, there's no urgency on any particular project as the tax wouldn't have to be rejustified as it's permanent at that point anyway.  That's why I'm against it in it's current form.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on July 16, 2019, 08:53:39 PM
I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.

They may have to build a Black River bridge regardless, but the area east of Pocahontas has to contend with floodplains of both the Black and Current Rivers.  It's lower than the area along AR-90, which is why the railroad (which most major US highways originally paralleled, except this particular jag of US-67) runs that way, not up to Pocahontas.  If they are really that important an area to serve with an Interstate, then a spur X57 3DI makes far more sense than a lower terrain and longer mileage jag over to the outskirts.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on July 16, 2019, 08:56:38 PM

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

(https://www.weather.gov/images/lzk/cmsimgs/floodpic050417.jpg)

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on July 16, 2019, 09:40:16 PM

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

(https://www.weather.gov/images/lzk/cmsimgs/floodpic050417.jpg)

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.

Unless they build a really long viaduct over the flood plain.  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have mastered this approach in building sections of I-10, I-55 and I-65 through the bayous along the Gulf Coast.  I'm sure it can be done here also.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on July 16, 2019, 10:01:36 PM

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

(https://www.weather.gov/images/lzk/cmsimgs/floodpic050417.jpg)

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.

Unless they build a really long viaduct over the flood plain.  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have mastered this approach in building sections of I-10, I-55 and I-65 through the bayous along the Gulf Coast.  I'm sure it can be done here also.

Nah -- they'll just put it up on a berm with periodic bridges for drainage.  As far a getting through Pocahontas itself, IIRC the plans discussed previously snake I-57 along the top of the bluff east of US 67 until northeast of town, where it's supposed to trace the present facility closely out toward Corning.  While a path following the UP main line (and 34/90) would have been the most efficient and cost-effective regarding bridging, it seems Pocahontas (and their state representative) wanted to maintain a route as close as possible to US 67 to enhance the potential for on-road business revenue.   We'll just have to see when finalized plans are published.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on July 16, 2019, 11:06:14 PM

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

(https://www.weather.gov/images/lzk/cmsimgs/floodpic050417.jpg)

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.

Unless they build a really long viaduct over the flood plain.  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have mastered this approach in building sections of I-10, I-55 and I-65 through the bayous along the Gulf Coast.  I'm sure it can be done here also.

Nah -- they'll just put it up on a berm with periodic bridges for drainage.  As far a getting through Pocahontas itself, IIRC the plans discussed previously snake I-57 along the top of the bluff east of US 67 until northeast of town, where it's supposed to trace the present facility closely out toward Corning.  While a path following the UP main line (and 34/90) would have been the most efficient and cost-effective regarding bridging, it seems Pocahontas (and their state representative) wanted to maintain a route as close as possible to US 67 to enhance the potential for on-road business revenue.   We'll just have to see when finalized plans are published.   

I don’t think the Pocahontas routing is a done deal yet, especially considering the presentation above appears to show the corridor going the original way.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on July 17, 2019, 11:52:21 AM
I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.
Looks like history is repeating itself. What I'm getting at is when I-40 was going to bypass San Jon in New Mexico back in the 1960's. San Jon was probably the last town in New Mexico to be bypassed fully by I-40. The original alignment was to feature I-40 more or less going from a straight line from Glenrio to Tucumcari. Of course, the townspeople of San Jon threw a fit so I-40 had to be realigned to follow US 66 down to San Jon.  And the San Jon alignment didn't really add that much mileage.
However in I-57's case, the "Pocahontas" alignment doesn't make any sense at all. In addition, just looking at the pic above, that area is prone to flooding. I don't know if the people that live in Pocahontas understand that but they really need to get over themselves if they insist that I-57 pass close by or through their town.
As others have pointed out, the existing US 67 four lane going into Pocahontas could be made into a spur route (I-157?) so that could be possibly used as a loophole so the townspeople can get a freeway. Of course the "I-157" loses its interstate standards once it enters into Pocahontas and becomes an "Arkansas 5 lane freeway".
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 17, 2019, 02:49:21 PM
I wonder what the cost difference would be between the UP railway alignment up to Corning versus the Pocahontas option. Even following the UP alignment I-57 will require a new bridge over the Black River just South of Corning. OTOH, the bridge and other berm work will not be nearly as extensive as it would be skirting the East side of Pocahontas (and serving the industrial district there). The problem is the Black River and Current River meet in that zone. The Fourche River also feeds into the Black River on the NE side of Pocahontas. Mill Creek feeds into the Black River on the South side of town. Combine that with the flat elevation and it's no wonder why that location is prone to flooding.

Quote
Best as I can tell, the Jacksonville segment is the only part of the freeway that isn’t up to standard already. The frontage roads between exits 11 and 16 may eventually need to be converted to one way also, and that will mean building at least 4 crossovers where there are none.

There's still some bad spots, but it looks like some are being fixed. According to Google Earth imagery (dated 10/10/2018) a brand new interchange with AR-38 is getting built on the North side Cabot. From the AR-5 interchange on the South side of Cabot US-67 is being widened down to the Vandenberg Blvd exit. Below there to South of the James Street exit is substandard due to narrow shoulders and some really short slip ramps. The on/off ramps to James Street exit have bad geometry. The Northbound US-67 exit 10A ramp is the worst of the bunch. The exit ramp is nothing more than an added right turn lane and 45 degree right turn. The Southbound Exit 9 ramp sucks almost as bad. South of that point US-67 is on a lot of new, wider concrete road bed and appears far more compliant with modern standards.

Substandard inner and outer shoulders are the main issue North of Cabot to up to around Newport. With all the work left to it will probably be at least a few more years before we see regular I-57 shields going up there. But I think US-67 could be legally signed as I-57 from I-40 up to the AR-440 interchange.
 :)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on July 17, 2019, 05:48:47 PM


Substandard inner and outer shoulders are the main issue North of Cabot to up to around Newport. With all the work left to it will probably be at least a few more years before we see regular I-57 shields going up there. But I think US-67 could be legally signed as I-57 from I-40 up to the AR-440 interchange.
 :)

If they were to do that, then they could also extend the I-440 designation over AR-440 to where it currently ends at US-67.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on July 17, 2019, 05:54:35 PM
I wonder what the cost difference would be between the UP railway alignment up to Corning versus the Pocahontas option. Even following the UP alignment I-57 will require a new bridge over the Black River just South of Corning. OTOH, the bridge and other berm work will not be nearly as extensive as it would be skirting the East side of Pocahontas (and serving the industrial district there). The problem is the Black River and Current River meet in that zone. The Fourche River also feeds into the Black River on the NE side of Pocahontas. Mill Creek feeds into the Black River on the South side of town. Combine that with the flat elevation and it's no wonder why that location is prone to flooding.

Quote
Best as I can tell, the Jacksonville segment is the only part of the freeway that isn’t up to standard already. The frontage roads between exits 11 and 16 may eventually need to be converted to one way also, and that will mean building at least 4 crossovers where there are none.

There's still some bad spots, but it looks like some are being fixed. According to Google Earth imagery (dated 10/10/2018) a brand new interchange with AR-38 is getting built on the North side Cabot. From the AR-5 interchange on the South side of Cabot US-67 is being widened down to the Vandenberg Blvd exit. Below there to South of the James Street exit is substandard due to narrow shoulders and some really short slip ramps. The on/off ramps to James Street exit have bad geometry. The Northbound US-67 exit 10A ramp is the worst of the bunch. The exit ramp is nothing more than an added right turn lane and 45 degree right turn. The Southbound Exit 9 ramp sucks almost as bad. South of that point US-67 is on a lot of new, wider concrete road bed and appears far more compliant with modern standards.

Substandard inner and outer shoulders are the main issue North of Cabot to up to around Newport. With all the work left to it will probably be at least a few more years before we see regular I-57 shields going up there. But I think US-67 could be legally signed as I-57 from I-40 up to the AR-440 interchange.
 :)

Have they started the rebuilding/widening work between Main Street and Vandenberg Blvd?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on July 17, 2019, 07:51:17 PM


Substandard inner and outer shoulders are the main issue North of Cabot to up to around Newport. With all the work left to it will probably be at least a few more years before we see regular I-57 shields going up there. But I think US-67 could be legally signed as I-57 from I-40 up to the AR-440 interchange.
 :)

If they were to do that, then they could also extend the I-440 designation over AR-440 to where it currently ends at US-67.

With I-57 signage, the designation upgrade of AR 440 to I-440 is all but a given.  Nevertheless, it's likely that no actual I-57 signage will be posted until the entire facility -- at least as far as Walnut Grove -- is up to current Interstate standards (ostensibly the raison d'etre of the Jacksonville-area upgrades).  It's a long enough stretch to warrant posting -- might provide some additional incentive (of the PR variety) to finish off the corridor remainder.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on July 18, 2019, 12:36:23 AM
I wonder what the cost difference would be between the UP railway alignment up to Corning versus the Pocahontas option. Even following the UP alignment I-57 will require a new bridge over the Black River just South of Corning. OTOH, the bridge and other berm work will not be nearly as extensive as it would be skirting the East side of Pocahontas (and serving the industrial district there). The problem is the Black River and Current River meet in that zone. The Fourche River also feeds into the Black River on the NE side of Pocahontas. Mill Creek feeds into the Black River on the South side of town. Combine that with the flat elevation and it's no wonder why that location is prone to flooding.

Quote
Best as I can tell, the Jacksonville segment is the only part of the freeway that isn’t up to standard already. The frontage roads between exits 11 and 16 may eventually need to be converted to one way also, and that will mean building at least 4 crossovers where there are none.

There's still some bad spots, but it looks like some are being fixed. According to Google Earth imagery (dated 10/10/2018) a brand new interchange with AR-38 is getting built on the North side Cabot. From the AR-5 interchange on the South side of Cabot US-67 is being widened down to the Vandenberg Blvd exit. Below there to South of the James Street exit is substandard due to narrow shoulders and some really short slip ramps. The on/off ramps to James Street exit have bad geometry. The Northbound US-67 exit 10A ramp is the worst of the bunch. The exit ramp is nothing more than an added right turn lane and 45 degree right turn. The Southbound Exit 9 ramp sucks almost as bad. South of that point US-67 is on a lot of new, wider concrete road bed and appears far more compliant with modern standards.

Substandard inner and outer shoulders are the main issue North of Cabot to up to around Newport. With all the work left to it will probably be at least a few more years before we see regular I-57 shields going up there. But I think US-67 could be legally signed as I-57 from I-40 up to the AR-440 interchange.
 :)

Have they started the rebuilding/widening work between Main Street and Vandenberg Blvd?
The section between Vandenberg and Main St is still being finalized (on the drawing board, that is). I'm guessing that work will begin either late this year or early next year. According to ARDOT, the Vandenberg-Main St section is slated to be complete by 2023. At that time, the freeway will be up to modern interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on August 31, 2019, 01:26:44 PM
I went to the Arkansashighways.com (ARDot) site and stumbled across a proposal for widening on US 67 (Future I-57) from exit 16 to 19. Looks like my wish may be granted in the future. Anyway, it is a proposal at the moment. As per the pdf file, the meeting occurred on 8/29/2019 in Cabot (Veterans Park Event Center).
This may tie in with the proposal of the new exit 16 and 19 interchanges.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 06, 2019, 03:51:44 PM
Am I the only one that thinks Arkansas is getting a case of North Carolina-itis in terms of I-57? Missouri had already said no to bringing U.S. 60 up to interstate standards once (I-66), so what makes Arkansas think they'd say yes to it now?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 06, 2019, 04:05:52 PM
I have a feeling as well that this project will stall until circa 2022ish???
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 06, 2019, 04:08:08 PM
Am I the only one that thinks Arkansas is getting a case of North Carolina-itis in terms of I-57? Missouri had already said no to bringing U.S. 60 up to interstate standards once (I-66), so what makes Arkansas think they'd say yes to it now?
Missouri has already signed US-60 as Future I-57. Both states ultimately plan to build the full thing between I-55 and Little Rock.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ibthebigd on November 06, 2019, 06:52:26 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?

SM-G950U

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 06, 2019, 07:00:33 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?
It depends on what part you look at.

When you look at either upgrading a 4-lane highway to interstate standards vs. building a 4-lane interstate parallel to a 2-lane road, then yes, I-69 and I-49 would be the latter and more important.

However, there is a 60 mile 2-lane stretch between Walnut Ridge, AK and Poplar Bluff, MO, and that quite frankly is just as much of a priority as I-69 and I-49, as all three projects would provide a 4-lane interstate highway to parallel a 2-lane roadway.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 06, 2019, 07:08:21 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?
It depends on what part you look at.

When you look at either upgrading a 4-lane highway to interstate standards vs. building a 4-lane interstate parallel to a 2-lane road, then yes, I-69 and I-49 would be the latter and more important.

However, there is a 60 mile 2-lane stretch between Walnut Ridge, AK and Poplar Bluff, MO, and that quite frankly is just as much of a priority as I-69 and I-49, as all three projects would provide a 4-lane interstate highway to parallel a 2-lane roadway.

I doubt 49 ever gets farther south than Barling for the forseeable future. And 69 through Arkansas is going nowhere fast. I guarantee Tennessee and even Texas gets its sections of 69 finished before LA or AR turns the first spade of dirt for its sections.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 06, 2019, 08:49:15 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?

SM-G950U



Depends who would benefit.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2019, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy
Am I the only one that thinks Arkansas is getting a case of North Carolina-itis in terms of I-57?

Perhaps not. But I think a far more convincing argument can be made for naming US-67 as I-57 in Arkansas than the oddly short 2-digit Interstate stub routes in NC.

If I-57 is completed and named between Little Rock and Sikeston the route might connect the Chicago and Dallas Fort Worth in a more direct manner than other Interstate route combinations currently in use (such as I-35 to I-44 to I-55). The new route would bypass St Louis. Little Rock would be the only city of significant size along the way. That would be a big plus for a lot of long distance traffic.

By comparison, back in North Carolina, the Interstate route situation there is kind of a mess. North Carolina is able to generate more freeway projects since its fuel taxes are higher. Plus certain regions in NC are doing very well. Still, the priorities are spread all over the place and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of cooperation between neighboring states at extending routes like I-73 and I-74.

Honestly, I think I-74 should have been given a different route number that fits more into the grid, such as I-36. I-74 has virtually no chance in the foreseeable future to ever connect to the original I-74 route that ends in Cincinnati. At least there's some logic in the I-73 designation, but that's another route whose progress in Virginia and South Carolina is glacier slow. The strange, angled routing of both Interstates isn't going to appeal to long distance motorists. The appeal is only going to be for shorter haul drives.

And then there's I-42 and I-87. I'm not against those corridors being upgraded to Interstate quality. It will help with beach traffic and hurricane evacuations. But I think it would have been better to apply 3 digit Interstate designations to both. The duplication of I-87 is a little odd. Maybe it can serve as a friend to NC's I-74.

Quote from: ibthebigd
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?

IMHO, I-69 should be the last priority in Arkansas since it has by far the most difficult hurdles to overcome. The Great River Bridge and its enormous price tag is the biggest hurdle obviously.

In contrast to I-69, the I-57 upgrade project in Arkansas is far more do-able. There are no billion dollar bridges to build (unlike I-69). There are no mountains to go around or possibly tunnel through (unlike I-49). The completed route would bring more traffic and commerce from places like Dallas and Chicago through the Little Rock area. That might spur business growth.

I-49 should also be a greater priority than I-69. The Northwest part of Arkansas is growing fast. If they can just get the Arkansas River bridge project between Alma and Barling built the completion of that segment might help get the other pieces between Fort Smith and Texarkana moving. The advantage Arkansas has at building out I-49 in favor of I-69 is they're not reliant on other states get other parts of the project finished. Well, then again, Texas does have that odd little blip of I-49 transecting a corner of its state. But that's small potatoes compared to a giant size Mississippi River bridge project.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 07, 2019, 03:56:12 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
It's likely that the primary impetus for the designation and ultimate deployment of the I-57 southern extension was the fact that there was already a freeway -- completed or well into the construction phase -- along much of its length when the designation was approved.   If completed and in service, it will take some pressure off ADOT to spend a lot of money to increase capacity on not only the decidedly overworked section of I-40 east of Little Rock but also the state's section of I-55.   And in doing so, ADOT and their political handlers can cross another portion of the state off their list of areas receiving Interstate service (one of the drivers behind I-69 and its I-530/extension cohort).   And last but certainly not least is the revenue potential from roadside/travel-related businesses along the I-57 corridor; towns like Searcy and Newport stand to benefit from the diversion of interregional traffic to I-57 -- and it's pretty clear that Pocahontas wants a piece of that action as well.   But still the fact that there was a lot of it already deployed probably had much to do with its selection as an Interstate addition, much in the same way as with I-22 to the east.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on November 07, 2019, 07:06:02 AM
I have a feeling as well that this project will stall until circa 2022ish???

Since there has been no new news in some time and there seems to be bigger priorities, I would say even later. Probably at least a decade.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 07, 2019, 10:33:11 AM
I have a feeling as well that this project will stall until circa 2022ish???

Since there has been no new news in some time and there seems to be bigger priorities, I would say even later. Probably at least a decade.

I'm guessing that there may be some progress around that time, as Arkansas/Missouri will have finished up the Bella Vista Bypass (I-49 Connector) by then, and likely will have addressed some funding concerns by then.  Both states have highway funding issues to put before the voters next year, and Arkansas, at least, has shown some willingness to tax ourselves for infrastructure needs to enable future growth and long overdue repairs.  Missouri voters will likely be the difference makers in this particular joint state venture.  This sure would go a lot smoother if the federal govt. didn't put the burden of Interstate highway growth on the states themselves, especially perennially broke ones like the ones in the mid-south where all of the growth seems to be occurring nowadays.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Brandon on November 07, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?

I-69 should never have gone past Memphis, or even Evansville for that matter.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 07, 2019, 02:28:47 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?

I-69 should never have gone past Memphis, or even Evansville for that matter.

I think it should have stopped at Memphis
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 07, 2019, 03:42:18 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?

I-69 should never have gone past Memphis, or even Evansville for that matter.
The only part I could see as redundant, would be I-69 unbuilt between Memphis and Shreveport. The portion north of Memphis, and the I-69 / I-369 combo from Texarkana southwards definitely have warrant to be built.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ibthebigd on November 07, 2019, 04:10:43 PM
Houston is so isolated from so much of the US for such a big city

SM-G950U

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 07, 2019, 04:43:27 PM
Houston is so isolated from so much of the US for such a big city

SM-G950U
Not necessarily, they do have I-10 and I-45. The northeast connection (I-69 North) and the southern connection (I-69 South) are the biggest missing pieces, along with a westerly connection (US-290 or TX-71 freeway upgrade) to Austin.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 07, 2019, 06:32:21 PM
Am I the only one that thinks Arkansas is getting a case of North Carolina-itis in terms of I-57? Missouri had already said no to bringing U.S. 60 up to interstate standards once (I-66), so what makes Arkansas think they'd say yes to it now?
"North Carolina-itis" is not a disease. It's a recognition that in the 75 years since the Interstate system was first mapped out there has been explosive growth through the southeastern quadrant of the country and there's a big need for new routes. I-22 is a good example and so are I-49, I-57 and the Texas section of I-69.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: X99 on November 07, 2019, 09:24:35 PM
Shouldn't I-69 be a higher priority along with completing I-49?

I-69 should never have gone past Memphis, or even Evansville for that matter.

I think it should have stopped at Memphis

I think it should have stopped at (and taken over) I-155. I-55, I-40 and I-30 already follow the rest of the route between I-155 and Texarkana.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2019, 01:07:36 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT
This sure would go a lot smoother if the federal govt. didn't put the burden of Interstate highway growth on the states themselves, especially perennially broke ones like the ones in the mid-south where all of the growth seems to be occurring nowadays.

Actually most of the population growth (or migration) is happening among large urban/suburban metro areas. Most are in warm weather climates, but some growth is happening in colder climates too. The Front Range cities in Colorado is one example. Boise is another. Arizona and Nevada are gaining population. Texas' huge cities are still growing fast.

One of the "perennially broke" states in the South, Mississippi, is actually losing population. West Virginia is experiencing the steepest population declines out of all 50 states in terms of percentage of state population. It's currently the only state where deaths are outnumbering births and out-migration of residents adds to an already bad situation. Other states like Kansas and Missouri aren't exactly hot beds of growth either. Here in Oklahoma the OKC and Tulsa areas are the only places making significant gains; most other places here are slowly losing population (particularly the rural areas). I think Texas is pulling a lot of Oklahomans South of the Red River. They're certainly poaching teachers like crazy, relocating them to better paying school districts in the Lone Star State.

Just so I'm not dumping on only "poor" states, California is going to end up being a victim of its own success. Over 40% of the state's residents spend more than 1/3 of their income on housing. California has 10% of the nation's population, but fully 25% of the nation's homeless. The crisis level shortage of affordable housing is forcing many lower and middle income earners out of the state. The outflow of people, particularly young adults, will create a massive shortage of employees in many job categories. Once that happens the hyper-inflated real estate bubble will explode.

Getting back to Missouri and its road building burden, I don't know what they're going to do to solve their problems. At least the Belle Vista bypass is going to get completed. Even without the prospect of extending I-57, I've expected Missouri to at least upgrade US-60 to Interstate quality from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff. That's part of the bigger project to upgrade US-60 all the way to Springfield. The project would still take care of a good chunk of I-57. Missouri has several other highways in need of upgrading. So it all comes down to the state's priorities and ability to fund them. The situation would be a lot easier if the feds weren't AWOL.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 08, 2019, 08:55:34 PM
The I-57 connection is important, but not mandatory.  I agree it will allow Chicago-Little Rock traffic to bypass St Louis, but also westbound traffic on I-70. The capacity issue on I-40 between Memphis and Little Rock will drive I-57.

I-69 will continue to increment in small sections from Monticello to McGahee over the next few years. Tunica to the Great River Bridge will not happen before 2060. 

As for I-49 and it's "blip" into Texas, TxDOT already owns the ROW and won't do anything until Arkansas is ready (and they aren't). As for funding, that "blip" is minor in Texas terms and will not be the hold up.

Generally speaking, as the US population continues to shift from the northeast to the south and southwest, you will see more projects supporting that requirement.

I-49 between Shreveport to Fort Smith is a hard sell. Looks good on a map, but there just isn't enough commerce between KCMO and the Bayou that requires a truck. Most of it goes by rail. NW Arkansas is growing, I agree, but not due to any connectivity to the gulf.

I don't think there is enough capacity going west south of the Ohio. This is supposed to be dealt with federal route #6 and Kentucky tried to make it I-66 but it died. (Illinois messed it up actually) The route between Springfield, Missouri and points east are definitely skipping St Louis and using US-60/I-57. Can't tell you how many trucks cut through Cairo to Wickliffe to get to I-24 in Paducah to catch the Parkway to go east.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2019, 11:25:26 PM
Quote from: edwaleni
As for I-49 and it's "blip" into Texas, TxDOT already owns the ROW and won't do anything until Arkansas is ready (and they aren't). As for funding, that "blip" is minor in Texas terms and will not be the hold up.

If TX DOT already owns the ROW that's at least one good thing. It's a heck of a lot more forward-thinking than the nonsense going on here in Oklahoma.

Quote from: edwaleni
I-49 between Shreveport to Fort Smith is a hard sell. Looks good on a map, but there just isn't enough commerce between KCMO and the Bayou that requires a truck. Most of it goes by rail. NW Arkansas is growing, I agree, but not due to any connectivity to the gulf.

I don't even think the routing of I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana looks good on a map. If that route was going to get built 40-50 years ago the feds would have been boring a few tunnels through those mountains to make a much more direct, efficient route. And a route with far more reasonable grades for heavy trucks to handle. At the very least, I'm hoping the Alma to Barling segment in the Fort Smith area can get built.

I still think I-49 should be built. But if the process is going to take decades to complete then the federal government and AR DOT both need to do the job right. Closing following the US-71 corridor and its winding path through the Ozarks is a loser. They just need to start on the bypass segments in towns along the corridor and leave the mountain crap for the last. Maybe something good will develop by then, such as new technological break-throughs in tunnel construction.

Meanwhile, a little farther West, Oklahoma needs to get on the ball with improving the US-69 corridor. I'm not the only one who thinks it ought to be an extension of I-45. If it doesn't carry an Interstate designation the route from the Red River to I-44 at Big Cabin needs to be Interstate quality nonetheless. The US-69 corridor would serve a lot of the traffic and commerce needs of that I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana.

Quote from: edwaleni
I don't think there is enough capacity going west south of the Ohio. This is supposed to be dealt with federal route #6 and Kentucky tried to make it I-66 but it died. (Illinois messed it up actually) The route between Springfield, Missouri and points east are definitely skipping St Louis and using US-60/I-57. Can't tell you how many trucks cut through Cairo to Wickliffe to get to I-24 in Paducah to catch the Parkway to go east.

I think I-66 is yet another prospective Interstate corridor that West Virginia had a hand in ultimately killing. WV is a road block to I-74 and I-73. The same goes for I-66. Kentucky could do only so much on their own. At least Missouri got on board with the idea 20+ years ago.

Cairo, IL and the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers is a highway bottleneck. The I-57 crossing is an old, narrow 4-lane bridge with no shoulders. US-62 is an alternative: a more narrow 2-lane bridge. New bridge crossings are needed there. If I-66 had been built through that area I'm sure it would have featured a wider, more efficient Mississippi River bridge. Some people might be gun-shy at building new billion dollar bridges in that location. New Madrid, MO is a short drive South of Sikeston. That's home to one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history. That spot is still a geologic power keg.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 08, 2019, 11:34:27 PM
I-49 between Shreveport to Fort Smith is a hard sell.
Hard sell, but they somehow managed to build the section between Shreveport and Texarkana, with cooperation and a new border crossing between the two states.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2019, 11:44:06 PM
Shreveport and Texarkana are not too far apart. And there are no mountain ranges between the two cities either. IIRC, it took over 20 years to finish that segment of I-49.

This situation is kind of odd. Mankind is still making big advances in technology and engineering. Yet the only thing that seems to be happening with highway building is the process is only getting sloooooowwwerrrr and far more expensive.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 09, 2019, 08:50:29 AM
Shreveport and Texarkana are not too far apart. And there are no mountain ranges between the two cities either. IIRC, it took over 20 years to finish that segment of I-49.

This situation is kind of odd. Mankind is still making big advances in technology and engineering. Yet the only thing that seems to be happening with highway building is the process is only getting sloooooowwwerrrr and far more expensive.

For one, labor is more expensive, as is fuel to run the machines. I'm sure greasing palms costs a lot more, too.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on November 09, 2019, 11:46:56 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
It's likely that the primary impetus for the designation and ultimate deployment of the I-57 southern extension was the fact that there was already a freeway -- completed or well into the construction phase -- along much of its length when the designation was approved.   If completed and in service, it will take some pressure off ADOT to spend a lot of money to increase capacity on not only the decidedly overworked section of I-40 east of Little Rock but also the state's section of I-55.   And in doing so, ADOT and their political handlers can cross another portion of the state off their list of areas receiving Interstate service (one of the drivers behind I-69 and its I-530/extension cohort).   And last but certainly not least is the revenue potential from roadside/travel-related businesses along the I-57 corridor; towns like Searcy and Newport stand to benefit from the diversion of interregional traffic to I-57 -- and it's pretty clear that Pocahontas wants a piece of that action as well.   But still the fact that there was a lot of it already deployed probably had much to do with its selection as an Interstate addition, much in the same way as with I-22 to the east.
About Searcy:
They definitely are on the I-57 bandwagon. They want some big name restaurants but some [franchise owners] are balking due to the lack of an interstate number on the 67 corridor. I stumbled upon an article on the ARDOT site regarding some upcoming rehab work for 67 stretching from exit 42 down to exit 19. There are several sections of concrete in that stretch that need to be completely torn out and replaced. The inner and outer shoulders are wide enough (inner shoulder is 3-4 ft; outer shoulder is 10 ft); they just need redoing as well. Work is ongoing from exit 55 up to the Jackson / White Co line. What is being done is the highway is getting large amounts of concrete sections replaced and others milled down because it's like a washboard, especially in the right lanes.
The section between exits 55 and 82 is slated to be complete by late 2021.
Also, the Cabot area interchanges [16, 19] are on the drawing board. The initial proposal is for both to be replaced with SPUI's. Also, the section of 67 between exits 16 and 19 is likely to be upgraded to 6 lanes (on the drawing boards along with the 2 interchanges mentioned.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 09, 2019, 12:23:08 PM

About Searcy:
They definitely are on the I-57 bandwagon. They want some big name restaurants but some [franchise owners] are balking due to the lack of an interstate number on the 67 corridor. I stumbled upon an article on the ARDOT site regarding some upcoming rehab work for 67 stretching from exit 42 down to exit 19. There are several sections of concrete in that stretch that need to be completely torn out and replaced. The inner and outer shoulders are wide enough (inner shoulder is 3-4 ft; outer shoulder is 10 ft); they just need redoing as well. Work is ongoing from exit 55 up to the Jackson / White Co line. What is being done is the highway is getting large amounts of concrete sections replaced and others milled down because it's like a washboard, especially in the right lanes.
The section between exits 55 and 82 is slated to be complete by late 2021.
Also, the Cabot area interchanges [16, 19] are on the drawing board. The initial proposal is for both to be replaced with SPUI's. Also, the section of 67 between exits 16 and 19 is likely to be upgraded to 6 lanes (on the drawing boards along with the 2 interchanges mentioned.

IMO, Searcy could also stand to lose a few roach motels.  Also, going Wet would help, but Harding University would fight it.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 12:25:57 PM
Exit 46 at Searcy doesn't look that bad.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 10, 2019, 12:10:47 AM
I don't think there is enough capacity going west south of the Ohio. This is supposed to be dealt with federal route #6 and Kentucky tried to make it I-66 but it died. (Illinois messed it up actually) The route between Springfield, Missouri and points east are definitely skipping St Louis and using US-60/I-57. Can't tell you how many trucks cut through Cairo to Wickliffe to get to I-24 in Paducah to catch the Parkway to go east.

The E-W corridor that was legislated within the '91 ISTEA act was HPC #3, the "Transamerica" corridor, which followed on the heels of a similar conceptual corridor from the mid-80's envisioned as an "I-66" from D.C to Fresno, CA (and touted by several chambers of commerce, including Bowling Green, KY, Wichita, KS, and, of course, Fresno itself).  The only portion officially designated as "future I-66" was in KY (with some brief "spillover" into neighboring MO and WV).  It was slated to merge with the I-73/74 corridor near Matewan, WV -- but since that corridor is going nowhere fast, the prospects for I-66 simply end at the KY/WV state line.  Speculation had it utilizing US 60 west of Sikeston, MO along the same stretch now part of the future I-57 extension -- but the I-66 speculative route simply headed west, likely along US 60, to at least Springfield and I-44.  Again, another speculative extension followed US 400 (the "consolation prize", so to speak!) north and west from I-44 into Wichita.  Since neither MO nor KS has officially sought the corridor's development, it's likely to remain a dormant concept for the foreseeable future. 

I don't even think the routing of I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana looks good on a map. If that route was going to get built 40-50 years ago the feds would have been boring a few tunnels through those mountains to make a much more direct, efficient route. And a route with far more reasonable grades for heavy trucks to handle. At the very least, I'm hoping the Alma to Barling segment in the Fort Smith area can get built.

Having driven extensively through the area due to relatives in SE OK,  the most logical way to achieve a N-S corridor in that region would be to simply follow the rail lines SW from Fort Smith into OK, then keep following the KCS main south through Heavener and then cutting laterally along US 59/270 back into AR, avoiding the worst ridges where construction of a US 71-based I-49 corridor has no choice but to sit atop the existing route.   Railroads select the path of least resistance for a reason -- lower grades (for more efficient operation) and easier construction (a concept transferable to highways as well).   But the reason for that route not being considered is simple -- the state of Oklahoma and their reticence to develop much beyond OKC and Tulsa.   It's highly unlikely a corridor coming into the state and subsequently leaving again after about 80 miles -- and benefiting only those communities directly along the facility -- would see any prioritization from ODOT or their political handlers.   Hell, if OK isn't ready or willing to develop a corridor which undoubtedly would provide gobs of benefit to the state -- US 69 -- something with an even more limited benefit package would be a non-starter.   So ADOT will simply have to go it along along or near US 71, which will be a looooong drawn-out slog in terms of development.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 19, 2019, 12:16:30 AM
I don't think there is enough capacity going west south of the Ohio. This is supposed to be dealt with federal route #6 and Kentucky tried to make it I-66 but it died. (Illinois messed it up actually) The route between Springfield, Missouri and points east are definitely skipping St Louis and using US-60/I-57. Can't tell you how many trucks cut through Cairo to Wickliffe to get to I-24 in Paducah to catch the Parkway to go east.

The E-W corridor that was legislated within the '91 ISTEA act was HPC #3, the "Transamerica" corridor, which followed on the heels of a similar conceptual corridor from the mid-80's envisioned as an "I-66" from D.C to Fresno, CA (and touted by several chambers of commerce, including Bowling Green, KY, Wichita, KS, and, of course, Fresno itself).  The only portion officially designated as "future I-66" was in KY (with some brief "spillover" into neighboring MO and WV).  It was slated to merge with the I-73/74 corridor near Matewan, WV -- but since that corridor is going nowhere fast, the prospects for I-66 simply end at the KY/WV state line.  Speculation had it utilizing US 60 west of Sikeston, MO along the same stretch now part of the future I-57 extension -- but the I-66 speculative route simply headed west, likely along US 60, to at least Springfield and I-44.  Again, another speculative extension followed US 400 (the "consolation prize", so to speak!) north and west from I-44 into Wichita.  Since neither MO nor KS has officially sought the corridor's development, it's likely to remain a dormant concept for the foreseeable future. 

I don't even think the routing of I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana looks good on a map. If that route was going to get built 40-50 years ago the feds would have been boring a few tunnels through those mountains to make a much more direct, efficient route. And a route with far more reasonable grades for heavy trucks to handle. At the very least, I'm hoping the Alma to Barling segment in the Fort Smith area can get built.

Having driven extensively through the area due to relatives in SE OK,  the most logical way to achieve a N-S corridor in that region would be to simply follow the rail lines SW from Fort Smith into OK, then keep following the KCS main south through Heavener and then cutting laterally along US 59/270 back into AR, avoiding the worst ridges where construction of a US 71-based I-49 corridor has no choice but to sit atop the existing route.   Railroads select the path of least resistance for a reason -- lower grades (for more efficient operation) and easier construction (a concept transferable to highways as well).   But the reason for that route not being considered is simple -- the state of Oklahoma and their reticence to develop much beyond OKC and Tulsa.   It's highly unlikely a corridor coming into the state and subsequently leaving again after about 80 miles -- and benefiting only those communities directly along the facility -- would see any prioritization from ODOT or their political handlers.   Hell, if OK isn't ready or willing to develop a corridor which undoubtedly would provide gobs of benefit to the state -- US 69 -- something with an even more limited benefit package would be a non-starter.   So ADOT will simply have to go it along along or near US 71, which will be a looooong drawn-out slog in terms of development.

Thank you for the correction, as it was HPC#3, not #6.

Illinois messed it up because when KY was trying to get a corridor established, the Illinois delegation tried to get I-66 routed up I-24 and through the Marion/Carbondale/Murphysboro CSA and have the route terminate with a new bridge at Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Which of course is a total foobar. The CSA does need a FAP, but I-66 is not it.

If HPC#3 was to live going west it should have split off I-24 at or near Paducah and cross the Mississippi south of Cairo and connect cosign with I-57 at Sikeston all the way to Poplar Bluff and then assume US-60 all the way to Springfield.  That would have solved 2 old rickety bridges in 1 swoop.

As for future I-57 planning, the NE Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities board met and are starting work to develop prospectus' for the Walnut Ridge Industrial Zone, the City of Portia, and other parties in the new I-57 path.  They are working to have ready to go materials for businesses looking for improved logistics and manufacturing capabilities due to the new route.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2019, 05:00:18 PM
Why would I-57 take a hard left turn at Walnut Ridge and go into or near Portia? That would make even less sense than the option to push I-57 through Pocahontas. IMHO, going NE out of Walnut Ridge, I think I-57 should follow along the AR-34 corridor, parallel to the rail line, up to Corning.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on November 19, 2019, 08:10:20 PM
Why would I-57 take a hard left turn at Walnut Ridge and go into or near Portia? That would make even less sense than the option to push I-57 through Pocahontas. IMHO, going NE out of Walnut Ridge, I think I-57 should follow along the AR-34 corridor, parallel to the rail line, up to Corning.
Supposedly there are “Local” interests in keeping I-57 close to existing US 67 and Pocahontas

Clearly, the Union Pacific Railway Route between Walnut Ridge and Corning is more direct, and probably would be easier to build on vs the existing US 67 route

I’m sure both Routes, and probably others, will be studied for Route selection
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 19, 2019, 08:53:35 PM
Why would I-57 take a hard left turn at Walnut Ridge and go into or near Portia? That would make even less sense than the option to push I-57 through Pocahontas. IMHO, going NE out of Walnut Ridge, I think I-57 should follow along the AR-34 corridor, parallel to the rail line, up to Corning.
Supposedly there are “Local” interests in keeping I-57 close to existing US 67 and Pocahontas

Clearly, the Union Pacific Railway Route between Walnut Ridge and Corning is more direct, and probably would be easier to build on vs the existing US 67 route

I’m sure both Routes, and probably others, will be studied for Route selection

I want to say I saw a map a while back showing I-57 generally follow AR 34 to Corning. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I saw the map
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 20, 2019, 09:18:32 PM
Why would I-57 take a hard left turn at Walnut Ridge and go into or near Portia? That would make even less sense than the option to push I-57 through Pocahontas. IMHO, going NE out of Walnut Ridge, I think I-57 should follow along the AR-34 corridor, parallel to the rail line, up to Corning.

The City of Portia is part of the NE Arkansas coalition. Being so close to the new I-57, they also want to advertise their accessibility. The coalition isn't looking to influence the ROW, they just want to provide a consistent message on what land, industry or services are available once the road is built.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 20, 2019, 09:46:40 PM
Why would I-57 take a hard left turn at Walnut Ridge and go into or near Portia? That would make even less sense than the option to push I-57 through Pocahontas. IMHO, going NE out of Walnut Ridge, I think I-57 should follow along the AR-34 corridor, parallel to the rail line, up to Corning.
Supposedly there are “Local” interests in keeping I-57 close to existing US 67 and Pocahontas

Clearly, the Union Pacific Railway Route between Walnut Ridge and Corning is more direct, and probably would be easier to build on vs the existing US 67 route

I’m sure both Routes, and probably others, will be studied for Route selection

I want to say I saw a map a while back showing I-57 generally follow AR 34 to Corning. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I saw the map

I haven't seen any maps of the proposed Pocahontas route. Only read how it was described in the public hearing.  The mileage is actually almost the same on either route they said. The only benefit of the Pocahontas route is land acquisition will be somewhat reduced as they already own much of it between Poky and Corning. The clean sheet route next to the UP railroad would be all new acquisition.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 21, 2019, 01:03:08 PM
Does Missouri have any near-term or long-term plans to upgrade US 67 and US 60 to freeway standards from US 160 to Interstates 55/57? I personally think that should be done before they tackle the proposed US 67 (future Interstate 57) freeway connecting Walnut Ridge, AR with Poplar Bluff, MO.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 21, 2019, 01:16:50 PM
Does Missouri have any near-term or long-term plans to upgrade US 67 and US 60 to freeway standards from US 160 to Interstates 55/57? I personally think that should be done before they tackle the proposed US 67 (future Interstate 57) freeway connecting Walnut Ridge, AR with Poplar Bluff, MO.

Yes.  MoDOT made an announcement back in February 2019.

https://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/ (https://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on November 21, 2019, 02:42:20 PM
Does Missouri have any near-term or long-term plans to upgrade US 67 and US 60 to freeway standards from US 160 to Interstates 55/57? I personally think that should be done before they tackle the proposed US 67 (future Interstate 57) freeway connecting Walnut Ridge, AR with Poplar Bluff, MO.

Yes.  MoDOT made an announcement back in February 2019.

https://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/ (https://www.kfvs12.com/2019/02/22/plans-extend-i-mo-underway/)

It's probably more long term lol. I don't see MODOT doing any of the upgrade work in the near future.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 21, 2019, 09:10:10 PM
Building I-57 from Sikeston over to Poplar Bluff and down the AR state line is going to cost a whole lot more than $50 million. There's around 3 dozen at-grade road crossings along US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff. Add to that some residential drive ways and a scattering of dirt roads entering from farm land. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 3467 on November 21, 2019, 09:54:54 PM
Missouri also dreams of adding I 72.
They story mentions an Illinois news conference. That might also have to do with 6 laning  South of 64. It is inn the new Capital plan
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on November 21, 2019, 11:10:02 PM
Building I-57 from Sikeston over to Poplar Bluff and down the AR state line is going to cost a whole lot more than $50 million. There's around 3 dozen at-grade road crossings along US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff. Add to that some residential drive ways and a scattering of dirt roads entering from farm land. 

And having to redo the US 160 interchange. (https://goo.gl/maps/htAKhE8r4RWmfUeo8)  Besides issues with through lanes and acceleration lanes, are those loops even up to interstate standards?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on November 24, 2019, 12:03:58 AM
Why would I-57 take a hard left turn at Walnut Ridge and go into or near Portia? That would make even less sense than the option to push I-57 through Pocahontas. IMHO, going NE out of Walnut Ridge, I think I-57 should follow along the AR-34 corridor, parallel to the rail line, up to Corning.
Supposedly there are “Local” interests in keeping I-57 close to existing US 67 and Pocahontas

Clearly, the Union Pacific Railway Route between Walnut Ridge and Corning is more direct, and probably would be easier to build on vs the existing US 67 route

I’m sure both Routes, and probably others, will be studied for Route selection

I want to say I saw a map a while back showing I-57 generally follow AR 34 to Corning. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I saw the map

I haven't seen any maps of the proposed Pocahontas route. Only read how it was described in the public hearing.  The mileage is actually almost the same on either route they said. The only benefit of the Pocahontas route is land acquisition will be somewhat reduced as they already own much of it between Poky and Corning. The clean sheet route next to the UP railroad would be all new acquisition.
I’m not an expert on terrain and topography...but wouldn’t the Poky/US 67 route to Corning be on lower terrain, basically building on River Bottoms/Flood Plains? And the terrain along the UP Line is perhaps a bit higher?

It will be good reading when the Route Selection and Environmental Studies are done and published
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 24, 2019, 03:11:37 PM
When you look at the overhead view of the current end of the US-67 freeway at US-412 in Walnut Ridge the design of the interchange makes it very obvious the original intention was continuing the freeway parallel to the UP rail route and AR-34.

Even if the Future I-57 route was sent North to Pocahontas the freeway would have to follow a new terrain route around the East side of the Walnut Ridge Regional Airport and then double back NW (out of the way) toward Pocahontas. It's either that or the US-67/US-412 interchange would have to be altered significantly to bend closer to the US-67 alignment North of Walnut Ridge and maintain modern Interstate geometry standards.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Gordon on November 24, 2019, 06:31:40 PM
ArDOT has scheduled this HWY. 67 Walnut Ridge - Missouri State Line (Future I-57) Project Development in 2022 that includes 39.20 miles of roadway. So I would guess that is the time it will be decided.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 24, 2019, 11:30:23 PM
ArDOT has scheduled this HWY. 67 Walnut Ridge - Missouri State Line (Future I-57) Project Development in 2022 that includes 39.20 miles of roadway. So I would guess that is the time it will be decided.

Is that 2022 timeframe when the basic study will commence or when the project is scheduled to go to bid?  If the latter, the study and its conclusions would have to be intact by early 2021 at the latest -- and that's less than a year and a half from now.   I suppose that would all depend upon who's driving the process -- local needs of the greater Pocahontas area or coordination of projects with MODOT.  I think Bobby is completely correct about the original projected freeway trajectory being along AR 34/90 -- but that the more populated region along the current US 67 alignment has put political pressure on ARDOT to ensure that it benefits from the freeway -- those benefits being decidedly limited if most of the freeway mileage were to be situated across the Black River floodplain from their immediate area.  If the concern was simply completion of the corridor and optimization of its long-distance function, then the 34/90 route, along with a bridge alongside the UPRR line up to Corning, would have been the obvious selection from the beginning.  But as is commonplace in the days of "after-market" Interstate additions, more often than not local considerations are part of the overall developmental process; this is no different.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 24, 2019, 11:50:57 PM
IMO, the interstate would be best off following US-67 and serving Pocahontas.

The distances for new construction on either route are roughly 38 - 40 miles no matter which way.

An interstate along AR-34 would likely be slightly cheaper and slightly less distance (by 1 or 2 miles) but it wouldn't serve anything besides a couple of villages. The US-67 routing would be more worthwhile IMO because along with providing a 4-lane interstate highway in the area for long-distance traffic, it would actually serve a decent-sized town allowing easy access to/from I-57 for local traffic instead of continuing to have to traverse at least 15 miles of arterial roadway. It would also have more potential to spur development at the interchange(s) for the town such as fast food, gas station, travel center, etc. than a beeline serving nothing would.

The purpose of the interstate highway system is to link major metro areas and at the same time serve smaller / medium sized towns and cities along the way, even if it means slightly diverting from a beeline path. A routing that slightly diverts from a beeline to serve Pocahontas would fit this characteristic.

Maybe even add a few more miles and swing around the west and north side of Pocahontas to provide even better access to the town and even let it serve as a local freeway for one or two exits.

IMO, when they built I-69 for instance in Indiana, they probably could've provided better local connectivity at Washington by building the interstate around the western and northern side, and had at least 2 or 3 local exits instead of going well east of of the town and providing a single exit at US-150. It would've only been one mile of additional construction.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 25, 2019, 12:23:39 AM
I-69 in Southern Indiana already sucks enough as it is for having an already very crooked route. No need to make it any worse.

I also disagree with any concept to take I-57 way out of the way to go around the West and North sides of Pocahontas. If it goes anywhere near that town the freeway needs to skirt along the Southeast side to help shave off at least some distance.

There are many examples of Interstates that do not ping pong to every small town within the county. Even good sized cities are skirted or largely bypassed by Interstates in favor of maintaining a direct route between major urban destinations. The smaller cities and towns connect via smaller routes more appropriate to their traffic counts.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 25, 2019, 10:17:14 AM
ArDOT has scheduled this HWY. 67 Walnut Ridge - Missouri State Line (Future I-57) Project Development in 2022 that includes 39.20 miles of roadway. So I would guess that is the time it will be decided.

Is that 2022 timeframe when the basic study will commence or when the project is scheduled to go to bid?  If the latter, the study and its conclusions would have to be intact by early 2021 at the latest -- and that's less than a year and a half from now.   I suppose that would all depend upon who's driving the process -- local needs of the greater Pocahontas area or coordination of projects with MODOT.  I think Bobby is completely correct about the original projected freeway trajectory being along AR 34/90 -- but that the more populated region along the current US 67 alignment has put political pressure on ARDOT to ensure that it benefits from the freeway -- those benefits being decidedly limited if most of the freeway mileage were to be situated across the Black River floodplain from their immediate area.  If the concern was simply completion of the corridor and optimization of its long-distance function, then the 34/90 route, along with a bridge alongside the UPRR line up to Corning, would have been the obvious selection from the beginning.  But as is commonplace in the days of "after-market" Interstate additions, more often than not local considerations are part of the overall developmental process; this is no different.

Since the federal govt. doesn't kick in as much percentage-wise as the original Interstates got, then that means that the states which fund a larger percentage now would obviously be more representative of the local interests of those in the general corridor.  It makes financial sense to try to encourage as much development as possible from the investment, especially in a depressed area like NE Arkansas.  As much as it offends our anal-retentive tendencies as roadgeeks to see an obviously shorter route not taken, Pocahontas likely isn't a large enough city to warrant a 3-DI to serve it, so adding a couple of miles isn't going to be a deal-breaker for those who would add much more mileage to bypass the St. Louis and Memphis metropolitan areas to save time.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2019, 01:53:29 PM
Serving Pocahontas doesn't strike me as a significantly larger diversion than many ones in the original interstate system - as long as it's on the southeast side.  I do agree that swinging over to the northwest side is too much.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 26, 2019, 04:41:44 AM
Serving Pocahontas doesn't strike me as a significantly larger diversion than many ones in the original interstate system - as long as it's on the southeast side.  I do agree that swinging over to the northwest side is too much.

The only issue that can be seen with an alignment along the southeast side of Pocahontas (essentially slightly east of current US 67) is that unless there's a lot of taking of improved properties it has little chance of staying out of the floodplain (ironically, the current Google Earth pix of the area were taken during flood season about 6 years ago and much of the area is inundated -- so it gives one a good idea regarding areas to avoid).   From what I understand the plans for the freeway between Pocahontas and Corning essentially duplicate the present US 62/67 routing except right in the towns;  it might be that to "stay dry" both communities could conceivably see bypass plans veering a bit to the west out of necessity.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 01:06:09 PM
Yeah, that's a bit closer than I'd go.  I was thinking more along the lines of following the existing freeway stub at Walnut Ridge, turning north to parallel the north-south bit of AR 90, then turn to follow US 62/67 southwest of Biggers.  Bypassing it to the west would seem to emulate the sawtooth pattern of I-14.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 26, 2019, 02:07:12 PM
OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 26, 2019, 02:38:34 PM
OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

US-67 floods in that area fairly regularly.  The higher that I-57 is built, the less frequently it will be similarly closed down.  It doesn't necessarily need to be built as a viaduct, but it will have to have a fairly tall berm built up for the carriageways like I-40 is through the ricelands of east Arkansas to function as a throughway during high water.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 26, 2019, 09:29:13 PM
OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

US-67 floods in that area fairly regularly.  The higher that I-57 is built, the less frequently it will be similarly closed down.  It doesn't necessarily need to be built as a viaduct, but it will have to have a fairly tall berm built up for the carriageways like I-40 is through the ricelands of east Arkansas to function as a throughway during high water.

40 still floods, though.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 27, 2019, 02:37:27 AM
OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

US-67 floods in that area fairly regularly.  The higher that I-57 is built, the less frequently it will be similarly closed down.  It doesn't necessarily need to be built as a viaduct, but it will have to have a fairly tall berm built up for the carriageways like I-40 is through the ricelands of east Arkansas to function as a throughway during high water.

40 still floods, though.

I-40 not only has to cross the White River floodplain -- downstream from confluences of several other rivers, including the Black River that is creating problems around Pocahontas -- but also several other parallel rivers and streams to the east.  Chances are that during extreme weather some portion of that route will be inundated at one point or another.  Fortunately US 67/future I-57 generally crosses those waterways on the east Ozark alluvial rather than down on the flats where I-40 is located; except for some proximity in the Newport area, the channels don't pose a perennial threat to that freeway.  The only place where problems may occur is right around Pocahontas, where the Black River closely parallels the more obvious alignment choices.   Minimizing the potential for flooding would seem to be a priority for the I-57 extension, as upon completion it would effectively be the principal corridor between Texas and Chicago -- and keeping it trouble-free year-round would maximize the potential for transportation-related revenue generation along its length.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 27, 2019, 10:37:44 AM
OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

US-67 floods in that area fairly regularly.  The higher that I-57 is built, the less frequently it will be similarly closed down.  It doesn't necessarily need to be built as a viaduct, but it will have to have a fairly tall berm built up for the carriageways like I-40 is through the ricelands of east Arkansas to function as a throughway during high water.

40 still floods, though.

I-40 not only has to cross the White River floodplain -- downstream from confluences of several other rivers, including the Black River that is creating problems around Pocahontas -- but also several other parallel rivers and streams to the east.  Chances are that during extreme weather some portion of that route will be inundated at one point or another.  Fortunately US 67/future I-57 generally crosses those waterways on the east Ozark alluvial rather than down on the flats where I-40 is located; except for some proximity in the Newport area, the channels don't pose a perennial threat to that freeway.  The only place where problems may occur is right around Pocahontas, where the Black River closely parallels the more obvious alignment choices.   Minimizing the potential for flooding would seem to be a priority for the I-57 extension, as upon completion it would effectively be the principal corridor between Texas and Chicago -- and keeping it trouble-free year-round would maximize the potential for transportation-related revenue generation along its length.

It's no more a priority than it would be to keep I-40 flood-free.  Any closures of I-40 have a much greater impact to the general public than a completed I-57 ever would.  I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 03:49:35 PM
I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.
I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

A completed I-57 would shave 10 miles off the current I-55 -> I-40 routing between I-57 and I-30. It would be attractive to a large amount of long-distance motorists and truck traffic, and take a decent amount of long-distance traffic off I-40 making that I-55 to I-40 connection.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2019, 01:08:58 AM
I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.
I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

A completed I-57 would shave 10 miles off the current I-55 -> I-40 routing between I-57 and I-30. It would be attractive to a large amount of long-distance motorists and truck traffic, and take a decent amount of long-distance traffic off I-40 making that I-55 to I-40 connection.

While Memphis does have FedEx, and is a major regional hub otherwise, Chicagoland is in an altogether other league -- only approached by NY/NJ and L.A. --  when it comes to its status as a nationwide commercial distribution center (in large part due to the sheer number of RR approaches, almost equaled by Interstate "spokes").   And TX, particularly the "Chemical Coast" from Port Arthur SW to Corpus Christi, supplies much of the chemical compounds, especially raw plastics as well as finished pieces, that function as components of various products.   And the larger share of that passes through or is warehoused in greater Chicago.   Curiously, about ten years ago Trains magazine, never one to shy away from touting the rail industry's successes, took it upon itself to track several loads of 36-foot lengths of large-diameter (12-18 inches) PVC pipe from the production plant near Bay City, TX, to various destinations.  Including "dwell time" in various yards en route, it took a chain of some dozen flatcars loaded with pipe about 9 1/2 days to get to a destination in Gary, IN; a similar batch of cars took 14 days to get to the Toronto area (including a Canadian border security inspection at Sarnia) -- and a whopping 21 1/2 days to New Haven, CT.  In other words, if one needs bulk product from TX and vicinity and time is of the essence, rail shipment may not be optimal.  Not coincidentally, the last time I was on I-30 segueing onto I-40, I saw at least 15 flatbed tractor-trailers laden with long lengths of pipe between TX and I-55 -- with one of them actually heading onto the EB 40>NB 55 flyover.  Anecdotal, yes -- but it does illustrate a routing pattern that the future I-57 extension would likely enhance to a significant degree.     
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 3467 on November 28, 2019, 03:07:24 PM
Also lots of food manufacturing in Midwest and plastic is the key packaging material..
I think the auto industry stamps out it's own plastic but it needs the raw material.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 28, 2019, 07:58:21 PM
I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.
I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.


There are 4 or 5 truck stops on MLK Drive, in West Memphis, because it's a major junction.  40 East goes towards Nashville, 40 West is OKC, 55 North is St Louis and Chicago, 55 South is the Gulf Coast.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2019, 04:29:52 AM
I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.
I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.


There are 4 or 5 truck stops on MLK Drive, in West Memphis, because it's a major junction.  40 East goes towards Nashville, 40 West is OKC, 55 North is St Louis and Chicago, 55 South is the Gulf Coast.

While technically I-40 west heads for OKC, much of the commercial traffic turns SW in or around Little Rock onto I-30 toward Texas.  But the point regarding West Memphis and its complement of truck facilities is simple -- both I-40 and I-55 multiplex at that point, and it's not a major problem for trucks going from EB 40 to NB 55 and vice-versa to head down the multiplex for an exit or two and turn around to continue their trip.  And they get the traffic to Memphis and points beyond as well right along the main conduit.   They'll likely get an additional "bonus" whenever I-69 north of Memphis is completed; until that time -- likely well distant into the future if at all -- when the Memphis-Shreveport segment of I-69 is built, most of the Texas-bound traffic will segue onto west I-40, potentially providing a few extra patrons for those already busy truck stops.   But it is also likely that when I-57 is completed, a similar number of customers will be diverted away from West Memphis.   It'll be interesting to see just how much the completion of those two (57 & 69 north) corridors affects the economic status quo of the region.     
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on December 03, 2019, 05:08:38 PM
In the hearing they clearly verbalized that if any future I-57 came that way it would cross the river SE of Pocahontas and follow the current US-67 route to a Corning bypass west of town. No other routes were described in that discussion.

2 possible exits were mentioned.

South of town to service the business park and east of town after crossing the river.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on December 03, 2019, 05:49:54 PM
In the hearing they clearly verbalized that if any future I-57 came that way it would cross the river SE of Pocahontas and follow the current US-67 route to a Corning bypass west of town. No other routes were described in that discussion.

2 possible exits were mentioned.

South of town to service the business park and east of town after crossing the river.
A proper routing IMO. That business district and business park exit could really see a boost in further developments if an exit is properly constructed there.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on March 05, 2020, 09:10:50 AM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Life in Paradise on March 05, 2020, 11:44:01 AM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 05, 2020, 12:37:46 PM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

About time to start nailing down the route from Walnut Ridge to the state line so that Missouri knows where to meet them up at.  Has MDOT determined which side of Neelyville they are bypassing on?  I would be guessing the new alignment would be to the west, but there's a conservation area next to Neelyville that they'd have to swing wide of.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bwana39 on March 05, 2020, 02:38:21 PM
I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.
I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

A completed I-57 would shave 10 miles off the current I-55 -> I-40 routing between I-57 and I-30. It would be attractive to a large amount of long-distance motorists and truck traffic, and take a decent amount of long-distance traffic off I-40 making that I-55 to I-40 connection.

While Memphis does have FedEx, and is a major regional hub otherwise, Chicagoland is in an altogether other league -- only approached by NY/NJ and L.A. --  when it comes to its status as a nationwide commercial distribution center (in large part due to the sheer number of RR approaches, almost equaled by Interstate "spokes").   And TX, particularly the "Chemical Coast" from Port Arthur SW to Corpus Christi, supplies much of the chemical compounds, especially raw plastics as well as finished pieces, that function as components of various products.   And the larger share of that passes through or is warehoused in greater Chicago.   Curiously, about ten years ago Trains magazine, never one to shy away from touting the rail industry's successes, took it upon itself to track several loads of 36-foot lengths of large-diameter (12-18 inches) PVC pipe from the production plant near Bay City, TX, to various destinations.  Including "dwell time" in various yards en route, it took a chain of some dozen flatcars loaded with pipe about 9 1/2 days to get to a destination in Gary, IN; a similar batch of cars took 14 days to get to the Toronto area (including a Canadian border security inspection at Sarnia) -- and a whopping 21 1/2 days to New Haven, CT.  In other words, if one needs bulk product from TX and vicinity and time is of the essence, rail shipment may not be optimal.  Not coincidentally, the last time I was on I-30 segueing onto I-40, I saw at least 15 flatbed tractor-trailers laden with long lengths of pipe between TX and I-55 -- with one of them actually heading onto the EB 40>NB 55 flyover.  Anecdotal, yes -- but it does illustrate a routing pattern that the future I-57 extension would likely enhance to a significant degree.     

Guys,

I think you are discounting Dallas Fort Worth for this discussion. Things don't always go from South to North. Sometimes they go N to South. Dallas Fort Worth and perhaps even Houston have eclipsed Chicago in size and scope of trade and industry.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on March 05, 2020, 06:09:26 PM
Good point. IMO both of those cities and respective suburbs in Texas occupy a similar land area as big as Chicago
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on March 05, 2020, 07:30:20 PM
While Memphis does have FedEx, and is a major regional hub otherwise, Chicagoland is in an altogether other league -- only approached by NY/NJ and L.A. --  when it comes to its status as a nationwide commercial distribution center (in large part due to the sheer number of RR approaches, almost equaled by Interstate "spokes").   And TX, particularly the "Chemical Coast" from Port Arthur SW to Corpus Christi, supplies much of the chemical compounds, especially raw plastics as well as finished pieces, that function as components of various products.   And the larger share of that passes through or is warehoused in greater Chicago.   Curiously, about ten years ago Trains magazine, never one to shy away from touting the rail industry's successes, took it upon itself to track several loads of 36-foot lengths of large-diameter (12-18 inches) PVC pipe from the production plant near Bay City, TX, to various destinations.  Including "dwell time" in various yards en route, it took a chain of some dozen flatcars loaded with pipe about 9 1/2 days to get to a destination in Gary, IN; a similar batch of cars took 14 days to get to the Toronto area (including a Canadian border security inspection at Sarnia) -- and a whopping 21 1/2 days to New Haven, CT.  In other words, if one needs bulk product from TX and vicinity and time is of the essence, rail shipment may not be optimal.  Not coincidentally, the last time I was on I-30 segueing onto I-40, I saw at least 15 flatbed tractor-trailers laden with long lengths of pipe between TX and I-55 -- with one of them actually heading onto the EB 40>NB 55 flyover.  Anecdotal, yes -- but it does illustrate a routing pattern that the future I-57 extension would likely enhance to a significant degree.     
That is also because of the Waterway importance of Chicago. It is a major inland waterway port, because it serves and connects both the Great Lakes Waterway AND the Mississippi River Waterway

Chicago<->Dallas is a major corridor that warrants an x5 once the corridor is finished, let alone a unified designation. That said, I don’t see the corridor unifying to a single number...it will be I-57 NE of Little Rock and I-30 SW of Little Rock

I think I came up with a proposal to make Chicago-Dallas the new I-55 on the Fictional board awhile back, but it is going to stay there

I also think the I-30/I-57 corridor is a much easier and better option for the North American Trade Highway than trying to get I-69 built between Texas and Memphis...the Freeway gap is much shorter and much less costly to close, and Missouri and Arkansas are already working to eliminate it, even if it will be years before the gap is closed
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on March 06, 2020, 08:53:47 AM
While Memphis does have FedEx, and is a major regional hub otherwise, Chicagoland is in an altogether other league -- only approached by NY/NJ and L.A. --  when it comes to its status as a nationwide commercial distribution center (in large part due to the sheer number of RR approaches, almost equaled by Interstate "spokes").   And TX, particularly the "Chemical Coast" from Port Arthur SW to Corpus Christi, supplies much of the chemical compounds, especially raw plastics as well as finished pieces, that function as components of various products.   And the larger share of that passes through or is warehoused in greater Chicago.   Curiously, about ten years ago Trains magazine, never one to shy away from touting the rail industry's successes, took it upon itself to track several loads of 36-foot lengths of large-diameter (12-18 inches) PVC pipe from the production plant near Bay City, TX, to various destinations.  Including "dwell time" in various yards en route, it took a chain of some dozen flatcars loaded with pipe about 9 1/2 days to get to a destination in Gary, IN; a similar batch of cars took 14 days to get to the Toronto area (including a Canadian border security inspection at Sarnia) -- and a whopping 21 1/2 days to New Haven, CT.  In other words, if one needs bulk product from TX and vicinity and time is of the essence, rail shipment may not be optimal.  Not coincidentally, the last time I was on I-30 segueing onto I-40, I saw at least 15 flatbed tractor-trailers laden with long lengths of pipe between TX and I-55 -- with one of them actually heading onto the EB 40>NB 55 flyover.  Anecdotal, yes -- but it does illustrate a routing pattern that the future I-57 extension would likely enhance to a significant degree.     
That is also because of the Waterway importance of Chicago. It is a major inland waterway port, because it serves and connects both the Great Lakes Waterway AND the Mississippi River Waterway

Chicago<->Dallas is a major corridor that warrants an x5 once the corridor is finished, let alone a unified designation. That said, I don’t see the corridor unifying to a single number...it will be I-57 NE of Little Rock and I-30 SW of Little Rock

I think I came up with a proposal to make Chicago-Dallas the new I-55 on the Fictional board awhile back, but it is going to stay there

I also think the I-30/I-57 corridor is a much easier and better option for the North American Trade Highway than trying to get I-69 built between Texas and Memphis...the Freeway gap is much shorter and much less costly to close, and Missouri and Arkansas are already working to eliminate it, even if it will be years before the gap is closed

I-69 will prove useful as an I-30/Little Rock/I-40 bypass as well as sorely needed southern Mississippi River crossing.  I-57 runs right through the heart of the New Madrid seismic zone, and that area along with everything in and north of Memphis run a nontrivial risk (7-10% chance of 7.5+ magnitude within next 50 years) of devastation when the next big shake happens in that area.  A southern bypass of the current ancient bridges crossing the Mississippi River would likely be the only crossing for hundreds of miles in that event until the rebuilding is completed.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on March 06, 2020, 10:12:58 AM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It’s more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on March 06, 2020, 10:35:16 AM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It’s more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?
I couldn't find a site for the project. Maybe they don't have one yet as it won't start construction till next year. They got the funding through the Governor's Cost Share Program (https://www.modot.org/node/17478). Here's a list (https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MOGOV/2019/12/16/file_attachments/1344395/Transportation%20Cost-Share%20Program%20Selected%20Projects.pdf) of all the projects selected under that program.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on March 06, 2020, 04:43:55 PM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It’s more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on March 06, 2020, 06:03:39 PM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It’s more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.

Regarding the Poplar Bluff-to-I-55 segment, that's likely to see upgrades via a series of spot improvements (an interchange here, a frontage road closing off access there, etc.) on the extant ROW, since these can be shoehorned in one at a time while the more extensive programs such as the US 67 segment are in process.  It's similar to the AOS along US 61, with a combination of expressway interspersed with short freeway sections and a few short stretches of conventional 4-lane with some private access -- but the geometry (once shoulders are dealt with) is adequate for I-standards.  At least there are no RR grade crossings remaining. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on March 07, 2020, 09:49:54 AM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It’s more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.

So is it going to be four lanes all the way down to state line road? And are they going to do some improvements on the existing four lane section between Route 160 and the end of the frontage road system that they completed in 2014? It seems that section is not fully up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on March 14, 2020, 07:04:41 PM
Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/ (https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/)

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.
From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It’s more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.

So is it going to be four lanes all the way down to state line road? And are they going to do some improvements on the existing four lane section between Route 160 and the end of the frontage road system that they completed in 2014? It seems that section is not fully up to interstate standards.

Existing US-67 will require some rework, specifically at:

- Outer Road
- County C (old US-67)
- A new bridge/alignment is required at MO-159. MoDOT only built 3 lanes for this exit. A new bridge for northbound traffic will be required to meet I-standards. You can see they prepared for this by already building in the landscaping for a future overpass.

Everything else south of that will be all new road to the state line.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on April 21, 2020, 09:22:30 AM
https://www.modot.org/node/18505
Quote
MoDOT, City of Poplar Bluff Begin Planning for Future I-57
Reevaluation of U.S. 67 Environmental Impact Statement Underway


SIKESTON-As part of the planning stages for the conversion of U.S. Route 67 to Interstate 57, the Missouri Department of Transportation and City of Poplar Bluff are currently reevaluating the Route 67 Environmental Impact Statement completed in 2005.

The Future I-57 project would include upgrading 10 miles of Route 67 to four lanes on a new alignment from the Route 160 interchange to two miles north of the Arkansas state line near County Road 274 in Butler County.

Interested persons may review the EIS and share their thoughts at https://www.modot.org/us-67-future-i-57-butler-county. Comments will be accepted through Monday, May 18 as part of the reevaluation of the EIS.

The EIS examines environmental impacts, such as socioeconomic, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, natural resources, and cultural resources.

MoDOT expects the reevaluation of the EIS to be completed in July 2020. The reevaluation will assist MoDOT in avoiding, minimizing or mitigating project impacts to the natural and human environment.

For more information, please visit https://www.modot.org/us-67-future-i-57-butler-county or contact MoDOT Project Manager Tim Pickett at (573) 472-9003 or Area Engineer David Wyman at (573) 472-9021.

###


Online Comment Form: https://www.modot.org/form/share-your-thoughts-us-67-future


As mentioned in the news release, the project's site: https://www.modot.org/us-67-future-i-57-butler-county
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on April 22, 2020, 03:45:39 PM
Just a refresher on the planned corridors in Arkansas.

(http://i.imgur.com/Y74a9.jpg)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: AcE_Wolf_287 on April 23, 2020, 07:25:26 PM
Just a refresher on the planned corridors in Arkansas.

(http://i.imgur.com/Y74a9.jpg)

I Honetly would pick B to save Funding as it wouldnt take as many turns and it would be pretty straight,
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on April 23, 2020, 07:44:37 PM
B is essentially the Union Pacific Railroad route...Railroads built their routes where they did for reasons

Local interests tend to favor C, apparently

Earlier in the thread there is quite a discussion on the UPRR route (B) vs the Pocahontas route (C)

I didn’t realize A was even in the running
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: AcE_Wolf_287 on April 23, 2020, 08:23:03 PM

I didn’t realize A was even in the running

I DIdnt think that either due to it running so far East of US 67
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2020, 09:03:24 PM
Since the "A" route alternative is so crooked that not only puts in the running but also makes it a leading candidate since the US currently loves really crooked freeway routes.
 :)

Obviously I prefer the "B" alternative.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on April 23, 2020, 09:34:53 PM
Alternate C appears to run very close to current 67. FWIW that routing appears to cover old 67, so I wonder about the subdivisions along there.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2020, 09:57:25 PM
I think the Pocahontas plan would have I-57 bypass the town to the SE, going around the airport and industrial park on that side of the town.

A few things are already on the side of the "B" alternative. It's the most direct, straight route. But not only that, the existing US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge (where the current freeway ends) was already built with that "B" alternative route in mind. The existing bridges and grading for ghost ramps is pointing the future highway toward the rail line and AR-34. It's going to be considerably cheaper just completing that existing interchange rather than having to rebuild much of it to send the highway up to Pocahontas.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2020, 11:41:03 PM
A few things are already on the side of the "B" alternative. It's the most direct, straight route. But not only that, the existing US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge (where the current freeway ends) was already built with that "B" alternative route in mind. The existing bridges and grading for ghost ramps is pointing the future highway toward the rail line and AR-34. It's going to be considerably cheaper just completing that existing interchange rather than having to rebuild much of it to send the highway up to Pocahontas.
Look at the map again. The interchange accommodates all alternatives. All alternatives go straight following the ghost ramps toward SH-34, then split off in their perspective directions north of there.

Alternative C is only a few miles longer than Alternative B, and actually serves a population center (Pocahontas - Population 6,600) as opposed to a few small villages with only a couple hundred people each.

It would be worthwhile for Arkansas to choose Alternative B, and likely will.

It would bypass the town on the southeastern side, likely with one or two interchanges on the outskirts to serve access. There's greater potential for some sort of economic activity and connectivity there as opposed to an interchange at a village of 200 people, just to save a couple miles and serve nobody besides solely long distance traffic.

You might not like that interstates don't follow the most direct paths (37 miles vs. 40 miles), but keep in mind its the states that are funding them largely, not the federal government. They are going to chose routes that accomplish the needs of long distance while also adding a few miles here and there to also serve their own localities.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2020, 12:11:36 AM
Quote from: sprjus4
It would be worthwhile for Arkansas to choose Alternative B, and likely will.

You probably meant that "worthwhile" judgment on the "C" Alternative, the one going up by Pocahontas.

The exact alignments of I-57 Northeast of Walnut Ridge have not been decided. The blobs representing the "A," "B" and "C" alternatives don't mean all that much. Nevertheless it is very obvious the original intention in that US-67/US-412 interchange design was having the freeway main lanes merge parallel with AR-34 and the rail line. The bends in those concept routes are all after the fact.

Along the "B" Alternative route there is very little in the way of homes or other buildings to acquire and clear to make room for the highway. I-57 would still have to bypass College City to the East and the industrial park in Pocahontas well to the East to avoid running into existing properties. Upgrading along the existing US-67 route is a no-go. Crossing the Black River to the East of Pocahontas is more complicated and expensive than where the rail line crosses the river farther Northeast. The town of Pocahontas is a place, but is a town of 6000 people really enough to justify bending an Interstate out of a straight path? There is a lot of larger towns than that which have been bypassed by near and relatively far by Interstate corridors.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on April 24, 2020, 12:50:48 AM
Since the "A" route alternative is so crooked that not only puts in the running but also makes it a leading candidate since the US currently loves really crooked freeway routes.
 :)

Obviously I prefer the "B" alternative.

Those who prefer the B route, I completely get it and wish that it would win out.  However, the other two alternatives are not to be dismissed.  Obviously it's the most direct route, but everyone has heard of Pocahontas' big push for Alternative C.  Pocahontas has a couple of large, well-connected families, which in a state as small as Arkansas, unfortunately means more than it rightly should.  It also more closely matches the current US-67 routing, so it does have that going for it, but puts an Interstate highway right at the confluence of 3 rivers, all of which are flood-prone, so it's got that as well as a few extra miles of highly raised road going against it.  And before anyone dismisses Alternative A, they'd better consider what it has going for it.  Running I-57 along US-412 (which is already in the process of improvements) obviously saves some money for a small stretch.  One of the rivers (Fourche River) around the Pocahontas area is bypassed completely with that alternative, and crosses the Cache and Black Rivers in less flood prone areas (and both are seemingly always in flood this time of year), negating a tiny bit of the need for elevation compared to the other 2 alternatives.  And thirdly, it puts I-57 closer to Paragould, which is actually a much larger city than Pocahontas, so it would actually serve more Arkansans, which when dealing with funding coming greatly from Arkansas to begin with, has some appeal to those who control the routing.  US-412 is already being upgraded between Walnut Ridge and Paragould, so that addresses what little connectivity increases would be needed for Paragould to be well connected for Alternative A.  US-67 both to Walnut Ridge and Corning from Pocahontas would almost certainly get similar improvements if alternatives A or B are selected, so Pocahontas will be thrown a bone regardless of the alternative selected.  I'd love for more people outside the state to kick in on more of the funding to make the most efficient route for bypassing Memphis and connecting Texas to all parts northeast, but if left to Arkansas to fund the lion's share, I pretty well know how my state is going to choose.  And it's likely NOT B.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on April 24, 2020, 05:18:15 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
If the political atmosphere in & around Pocahontas is as described above, then some version of "C" will be the likely choice, regardless of floodplain issues and the corresponding alignment and structural expenses that'll be incurred as a result.  Obviously, for the purpose of providing a throughput routing "B" is the obvious choice; even though "A" might completely avoid the floodplain to the east, the UP (former MP) main line is placed where it is because it doesn't display recurring flooding problems; it's a major main line, and RR management would have moved it long ago if that were the case.  Nevertheless, if politics continues to drive the alignment process, and Pocahontas interests are able to prevail in this instance, then some semblance of "C", with as much use of the present US 67 roadway as is feasible, will likely be the choice.  They want their businesses to directly benefit from the presence of I-57, and placing a river between the corridor and the town doesn't accomplish that.     
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on April 24, 2020, 11:03:28 AM
The stub at Walnut Ridge favors no corridor.

The Pocahontas Route would turn north and pass east of the old airbase. An exit would be installed at AR-304 to service the business park. There are plans to expand that biz park with a logistics center.

The estimates for the the bridges over the Black River were almost the same regardless if it crossed at Pocahontas or south of Corning. 

A business route exit would be built northeast of Pocahontas where US-67 makes its turn to the NE.

There are are no subdivisions or adjoining property creep all the way from Pochahontas to just west of Corning at Grassylead.

From Grassylead to Corning, there is property creep and it really comes down to when ARDOT starts the Corning Bypass, at the Corning Airport (3 miles), or at the State Hatchery (3.5 miles).

While I relate to direct routing of freeways in planning, I have also seen many a town die due to the far away bypass of a new interstate.

With a difference of only a couple of miles, I think the Pocahontas Route is the best of both worlds.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on April 24, 2020, 01:26:47 PM
Building C would be much more expensive due to the floodplain. B is the only one that makes sense.

Regardless, it’s almost certain the Corning bypass will go on the west side of town, so ARDOT should go ahead and plan/construct the Corning-MO state line first since it is more straightforward.

Why isn’t the MoDOT segment going all the way to the border? Is there still uncertainty as to where it will meet?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: AcE_Wolf_287 on April 24, 2020, 02:16:30 PM
Building C would be much more expensive due to the floodplain. B is the only one that makes sense.

Regardless, it’s almost certain the Corning bypass will go on the west side of town, so ARDOT should go ahead and plan/construct the Corning-MO state line first since it is more straightforward.


The B doesn't run into any houses, C Would be favored by the 2 Towns nearby but the exit onto the highway is only c a couple of miles and impretty sure ARDOT and afford Millions of more money being wasted in a little turn that wont matter
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on April 24, 2020, 03:43:36 PM
Building C would be much more expensive due to the floodplain. B is the only one that makes sense.

Regardless, it’s almost certain the Corning bypass will go on the west side of town, so ARDOT should go ahead and plan/construct the Corning-MO state line first since it is more straightforward.

Why isn’t the MoDOT segment going all the way to the border? Is there still uncertainty as to where it will meet?

As for the floodplain, I checked FEMA's flood maps for the area.

The "C" route would be in floodplain from the Black River along US-67 until it crosses the Current River, then it would be high & dry to the Corning Bypass.

The "B" route would hit floodplain south of the Black River and be in it all the way to Corning. (In fact the UP railroad shows up as a long line that is above the floodplain)

Both routes would be in floodplain if the Corning Bypass goes east of town.  If it goes west, the "C" route would miss it completely.

If the "B" route goes west for the bypass then it will hit the Cypress Creek floodplain.

So with regards to the cost of passing through the local floodplains, it is nearly the same distance for each corridor that will have to be elevated. (4.9 miles for "C", 4.7 miles for "B")

As for where they will meet at the state line, the two DOT's don't have a MOU yet.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on April 25, 2020, 09:11:33 PM
I do wonder how MoDOT will fix the issues with the most recent US 67 upgrades completed in 2013. The MO 158 interchange will have to be upgraded to meet interstate standards, they should convert it to a standard diamond interchange. Additionally, the pavement north of there with the concrete barrier has narrower shoulders than current interstate standards.

And that EIS document is not completely specific as to where the interchange at MO 142 in Neelyville will go. Will it impact the Corkwood conservation area? If so, that could be an issue.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2020, 02:02:22 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on May 11, 2020, 02:27:21 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2020, 02:28:12 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?
Neither is I-49.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on May 11, 2020, 02:39:08 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?
Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on May 11, 2020, 02:52:13 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?
Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on May 11, 2020, 02:56:19 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?
Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.
I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders. If they were to fully pave the right shoulders to 10 feet and realign a couple of the exit ramps, it would be enough to allow I-57 signage to be posted. Now, whether ARDOT wants to do a full upgrade - tear up the highway, build a six-lane interstate section with full shoulders on both sides, completely realigned exits, bridge replacements, etc. - that's up to them. Ultimately, I would assume a full upgrade would be planned. Since it's near the metro and growth is expanding northward, traffic demand likely warrants a rebuild.

Edit - Looking at US-67 north of Jacksonville, it looks like they just did a full reconstruction of that segment that included 6 lane widening. A project to fully reconstruct and widen the segment through Jacksonville is also planned / funded. Once this is done, I-57 should be able to be signed for the 123 mile segment between Walnut Ridge and I-40.

Question - what is the intended route for I-57 near Little Rock? It is intended to follow the US-67 freeway and terminate at I-40, or is it follow the AR-440 / I-440 loop crossing I-40 then terminating at I-30?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on May 11, 2020, 03:04:38 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?
Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.
I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders. If they were to fully pave the right shoulders to 10 feet and realign a couple of the exit ramps, it would be enough to allow I-57 signage to be posted. Now, whether ARDOT wants to do a full upgrade - tear up the highway, build a six-lane interstate section with full shoulders on both sides, completely realigned exits, bridge replacements, etc. - that's up to them. Ultimately, I would assume a full upgrade would be planned. Since it's near the metro and growth is expanding northward, traffic demand likely warrants a rebuild.

Question - what is the intended route for I-57 near Little Rock? It is intended to follow the US-167 freeway and terminate at I-40, or is it follow the AR-440 / I-440 loop crossing I-40 then terminating at I-30?

ArDOT plans to do a full rebuild though Jacksonville in three phases. The first phase from Redmond Road to West Main Street is complete. Funding hasn't yet been secured for the remaining two phases that run from West Main Street to Vandenberg Blvd.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on May 11, 2020, 03:35:55 PM
 
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?
Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.
I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders. If they were to fully pave the right shoulders to 10 feet and realign a couple of the exit ramps, it would be enough to allow I-57 signage to be posted. Now, whether ARDOT wants to do a full upgrade - tear up the highway, build a six-lane interstate section with full shoulders on both sides, completely realigned exits, bridge replacements, etc. - that's up to them. Ultimately, I would assume a full upgrade would be planned. Since it's near the metro and growth is expanding northward, traffic demand likely warrants a rebuild.

Edit - Looking at US-67 north of Jacksonville, it looks like they just did a full reconstruction of that segment that included 6 lane widening. A project to fully reconstruct and widen the segment through Jacksonville is also planned / funded. Once this is done, I-57 should be able to be signed for the 123 mile segment between Walnut Ridge and I-40.

Question - what is the intended route for I-57 near Little Rock? It is intended to follow the US167 freeway and terminate at I-40, or is it follow the AR-440 / I-440 loop crossing I-40 then terminating at I-30?

A few situational differences between the I-540/49 situation in NWA and the US 67/I-57 corridor.  Two initially come to mind; the first being that NWA is, as a whole, a substantial metropolitan area (the reason the "placeholder" I-540 designation was extended there in the late '90's), as well as the fact that prior to the designation switch several years ago, the plans for completing the "missing link" into MO were in place, with the only stumbling block to full completion being identifying and coordinating the funding between and among the two states.  Such plans are still tentative re I-57; while MO appears to be ready to adopt an alignment south of Poplar Bluff (partially dependent upon AR's eventual choice of route), AR's options seem to be caught up in local politics re service to Pocahontas, which won't be resolved quickly.  And given the lack of substantial metro areas clamoring for Interstate service along the current US 67 freeway, there seems to be no perceived need to erect I-57 signage along the route until the plans for the extension into MO have been at least finalized.

Re the Little Rock routing:  Unless there's something most of us have missed, I-57 will simply stay on US 67/167 to a terminus point at I-40.  There has been some speculation that I-530 (and eventually its AR 530 extension) will become a I-57 extension at some point; how that would affect the various LR freeways would thus also be speculative.  My 2 cents worth:  if that ever happens, realign I-30 over I-440 and AR 440, and extend I-57 over current I-30 between present I-440/530 and I-40.  But let I-57 actually be built and signed north of Little Rock and worry about any extension later.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on May 11, 2020, 03:55:38 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

They are still working on the substandard portion in the Jacksonville area with shoulder width/ramp length issues.

https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xrmu-GhKiUk (https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xrmu-GhKiUk)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bwana39 on May 11, 2020, 05:19:35 PM
Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

They are still working on the substandard portion in the Jacksonville area with shoulder width/ramp length issues.

https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xrmu-GhKiUk (https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xrmu-GhKiUk)

Basically the same as the Sherman TX gap on US-75.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on May 11, 2020, 06:35:36 PM
A few situational differences between the I-540/49 situation in NWA and the US 67/I-57 corridor.  Two initially come to mind; the first being that NWA is, as a whole, a substantial metropolitan area (the reason the "placeholder" I-540 designation was extended there in the late '90's), as well as the fact that prior to the designation switch several years ago, the plans for completing the "missing link" into MO were in place, with the only stumbling block to full completion being identifying and coordinating the funding between and among the two states.  Such plans are still tentative re I-57; while MO appears to be ready to adopt an alignment south of Poplar Bluff (partially dependent upon AR's eventual choice of route), AR's options seem to be caught up in local politics re service to Pocahontas, which won't be resolved quickly.  And given the lack of substantial metro areas clamoring for Interstate service along the current US 67 freeway, there seems to be no perceived need to erect I-57 signage along the route until the plans for the extension into MO have been at least finalized.
 

I agree on the signage.

Until this project for upgrading US67 south of Poplar Bluff came along, I was pessimistic about MO ever building any part of I-57 from the AR state line to Sikeston. I'd say the chances were slim to none two years ago, but things have changed with Gov. Parson.

I think most of the work left (other than the 2 mile segment on 67 from Neelyville to the MO/AR border) after this project is along US60 from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston closing the at-grade intersections along the stretch, but MODOT can do them over time while AR figures out what to do on their side.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: armadillo speedbump on May 11, 2020, 08:29:13 PM
Quote
Quote
Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders.

I'd say the biggest issue is the terrible exit ramps designs.  That nb Ramada St ramp is about the worst I've ever seen. 

I get the cost and process factors of a full rebuild, but it seems like in the interim they could have made those parallel streets into 1-way feeder roads, and with just a tiny bit of pavement additions made those ramps a lot safer.  I'm guessing too much NIMBY/"It's always been this way" pushback?  "It's mainly just out of towners and drunks getting in wrecks there."
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on May 11, 2020, 10:29:38 PM
Quote
Quote
Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders.

I'd say the biggest issue is the terrible exit ramps designs.  That nb Ramada St ramp is about the worst I've ever seen. 

I get the cost and process factors of a full rebuild, but it seems like in the interim they could have made those parallel streets into 1-way feeder roads, and with just a tiny bit of pavement additions made those ramps a lot safer.  I'm guessing too much NIMBY/"It's always been this way" pushback?  "It's mainly just out of towners and drunks getting in wrecks there."
I was merely referring to reason for no interstate signage. If they merely added shoulders, they could likely sign it. Of course though, an entire rebuild to a 6 lane modern interstate highway is planned so that will address all the problems.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 11:28:12 PM
That Ramada Street "ramp" just needs to be completely eliminated. Really that's not an exit ramp. It's an at-grade right turn. Worse, that "ramp" movement immediately conflicts with the odd two-way frontage road closely parallel to the highway. The SB exit ramp on the opposite side of the US-67 freeway is nearly as bad as the Ramada Street ramp.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on May 12, 2020, 03:38:16 AM
I went to the Arkansashighways.com (ARDot) site and stumbled across a proposal for widening on US 67 (Future I-57) from exit 16 to 19. Looks like my wish may be granted in the future. Anyway, it is a proposal at the moment. As per the pdf file, the meeting occurred on 8/29/2019 in Cabot (Veterans Park Event Center).
This may tie in with the proposal of the new exit 16 and 19 interchanges.
Do you have a link?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on May 12, 2020, 04:21:01 AM
Pocahontas is already connected to the US 67 freeway by the 4-5 lane Arkansas Freeway US 67.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on May 12, 2020, 10:06:10 AM
There needs to be more overpasses between Exits 11 and 16 so frontage roads can be converted to one way. The old Coffelt Crossing should be a full interchange. Also should have a slip ramp at about Mile 15 to relieve congestion at the first Cabot exit.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bwana39 on May 12, 2020, 11:27:57 AM
Quote
Quote
Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders.

I'd say the biggest issue is the terrible exit ramps designs.  That nb Ramada St ramp is about the worst I've ever seen. 

I get the cost and process factors of a full rebuild, but it seems like in the interim they could have made those parallel streets into 1-way feeder roads, and with just a tiny bit of pavement additions made those ramps a lot safer.  I'm guessing too much NIMBY/"It's always been this way" pushback?  "It's mainly just out of towners and drunks getting in wrecks there."

Texas the HOME of one way frontage (feeder, service, etc) roads had tremendous pushback when the made the ones in Sulphur Springs (and other places)  into one way.   One way service roads, much like bypasses, are seen as reducing business opportunities to the businesses directly adjacent to the frontage roads.   Safer ramps are rarely; if ever, a priority for the locals.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on May 13, 2020, 01:05:57 AM
I went to the Arkansashighways.com (ARDot) site and stumbled across a proposal for widening on US 67 (Future I-57) from exit 16 to 19. Looks like my wish may be granted in the future. Anyway, it is a proposal at the moment. As per the pdf file, the meeting occurred on 8/29/2019 in Cabot (Veterans Park Event Center).
This may tie in with the proposal of the new exit 16 and 19 interchanges.
Do you have a link?

I didn't find the link that I was wanting to see but here is one that is talking about re configuring exits 16 and 19 into SPUI type interchanges. A while back, they had mock-up drawings of the interchanges and it also showed the freeway with 6 lanes in between the 2 exits mentioned. I haven't heard anything else about that upcoming project.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2019_news/NR%2019-083.pdf
[edit] Found the other pdf's and pages.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2019_PM/061631/061631_Display.pdf
http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2019_PM/061631/061631.aspx
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on June 17, 2020, 02:49:54 PM
https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

Quote
U.S. 67 project from Little Rock to Jonesboro funded

The Arkansas Department of Transportation will be awarded $40 million to reconstruct and improve two sections of US 67 northeast of Little Rock. U.S. Senators John Boozman, Tom Cotton, along with U.S. Reps Rick Crawford and French Hill announced the project on Tuesday (June 16).

The project will widen US 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges. The funding comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program.

“Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This major award from the Department of Transportation will help facilitate the ongoing upgrade of Highway 67 to meet interstate requirements. Completion of this project is key to encouraging economic development in neighboring communities,” Boozman said.

The senator authored the language to designate the portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as “Future I-57.”

“An interstate-quality road system enables faster movement of people and goods—an important asset for any community. This important investment from the Department of Transportation will make the towns of northeast Arkansas even more attractive places to live, work, or start a business. I worked hard to help secure this grant for the Natural State, and I’m pleased that the administration is keeping its promise to invest in rural America,” Cotton said.

“This INFRA grant puts us one step closer to I-57. This grant is the latest in a series of Federal investments in Arkansas and I applaud Secretary Chao’s leadership in ensuring rural America is included in the national infrastructure conversation,” Crawford said.

“This major grant from the DOT will go a long-ways towards improving Highway 67. The ‘Future I-57’ will enhance economic opportunities in communities throughout central Arkansas by promoting commerce and encouraging job growth. Improving infrastructure throughout the state helps all Arkansans and will bring more visitors in to enjoy our Natural State,” said Hill.

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on June 17, 2020, 04:03:03 PM
https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

Quote
U.S. 67 project from Little Rock to Jonesboro funded

The Arkansas Department of Transportation will be awarded $40 million to reconstruct and improve two sections of US 67 northeast of Little Rock. U.S. Senators John Boozman, Tom Cotton, along with U.S. Reps Rick Crawford and French Hill announced the project on Tuesday (June 16).

The project will widen US 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges. The funding comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program.

“Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This major award from the Department of Transportation will help facilitate the ongoing upgrade of Highway 67 to meet interstate requirements. Completion of this project is key to encouraging economic development in neighboring communities,” Boozman said.

The senator authored the language to designate the portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as “Future I-57.”

“An interstate-quality road system enables faster movement of people and goods—an important asset for any community. This important investment from the Department of Transportation will make the towns of northeast Arkansas even more attractive places to live, work, or start a business. I worked hard to help secure this grant for the Natural State, and I’m pleased that the administration is keeping its promise to invest in rural America,” Cotton said.

“This INFRA grant puts us one step closer to I-57. This grant is the latest in a series of Federal investments in Arkansas and I applaud Secretary Chao’s leadership in ensuring rural America is included in the national infrastructure conversation,” Crawford said.

“This major grant from the DOT will go a long-ways towards improving Highway 67. The ‘Future I-57’ will enhance economic opportunities in communities throughout central Arkansas by promoting commerce and encouraging job growth. Improving infrastructure throughout the state helps all Arkansans and will bring more visitors in to enjoy our Natural State,” said Hill.

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.

One section is likely near Little Rock since it mentions converting frontage roads to one-way traffic.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on June 17, 2020, 04:05:25 PM
https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

Quote
U.S. 67 project from Little Rock to Jonesboro funded

The Arkansas Department of Transportation will be awarded $40 million to reconstruct and improve two sections of US 67 northeast of Little Rock. U.S. Senators John Boozman, Tom Cotton, along with U.S. Reps Rick Crawford and French Hill announced the project on Tuesday (June 16).

The project will widen US 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges. The funding comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program.

“Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This major award from the Department of Transportation will help facilitate the ongoing upgrade of Highway 67 to meet interstate requirements. Completion of this project is key to encouraging economic development in neighboring communities,” Boozman said.

The senator authored the language to designate the portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as “Future I-57.”

“An interstate-quality road system enables faster movement of people and goods—an important asset for any community. This important investment from the Department of Transportation will make the towns of northeast Arkansas even more attractive places to live, work, or start a business. I worked hard to help secure this grant for the Natural State, and I’m pleased that the administration is keeping its promise to invest in rural America,” Cotton said.

“This INFRA grant puts us one step closer to I-57. This grant is the latest in a series of Federal investments in Arkansas and I applaud Secretary Chao’s leadership in ensuring rural America is included in the national infrastructure conversation,” Crawford said.

“This major grant from the DOT will go a long-ways towards improving Highway 67. The ‘Future I-57’ will enhance economic opportunities in communities throughout central Arkansas by promoting commerce and encouraging job growth. Improving infrastructure throughout the state helps all Arkansans and will bring more visitors in to enjoy our Natural State,” said Hill.

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.

Got to be in the LR/Jacksonville area.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on June 17, 2020, 04:12:05 PM
https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.

One section is likely near Little Rock since it mentions converting frontage roads to one-way traffic.

Got to be in the LR/Jacksonville area.

I found this project: https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xup3_-d7m70

The article mentioned something about building an overpass and reconstructing two interchanges so I was thinking there was another section they're talking about.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on June 17, 2020, 04:14:08 PM
Would these projects upgrade US-67 to the point of being able to carry I-57 signage between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sturmde on June 17, 2020, 04:25:03 PM
So, is there any reason it shouldn't head northward from the current 67/412 interchange, passing on new terrain about 1/2 mile east of US 67, with an exit at College City to give that old base value, and then bypass Pocahontas on the SE and run up 62/67 utilizing the parts around Poplar Bluff MO that are already upgradeable?
.
As for the bridges over nothing at the current 67/412, the "nothing" grades can be paved and extended and adapted to curl back SE-ward and be US 412.  US 412 can be moved to run S with 67, down to the 63 and bypass Walnut Ridge and Hoxie (with current 412 from the interchange west to US63 being Business US 412.  We know ARDOT loves Business US routes).
.
Having lived in North Carolina a long time and seeing the unfinished 26 and 73/74... I think they might as well post I-57 where standards are met (or FUTURE 57 as mandated) and TO 57 from Walnut Ridge to Harviell, MO....  It's no more objectionable than the current 26, 73/74, and 49 in AR/MO.  And it hearkens back to the 1960's when we had no problem with incomplete interstate signage at all!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on June 17, 2020, 06:10:31 PM
The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn’t come close to Jonesboro.

There’s still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on June 17, 2020, 07:54:54 PM
The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn’t come close to Jonesboro.

There’s still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

Prosaic license from a media outlet, since Jonesboro is the largest city in NE AR, and the US 67 freeway is part of the most direct route from LR.  Maybe they think the plans for an Interstate spur along AR 226 (dating from I-30 speculation days) are still active. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on June 17, 2020, 10:24:23 PM
Project map:

(https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/assets/images/maps/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county.jpg)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Gordon on June 17, 2020, 10:30:08 PM
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-170.pdf This news article say is will from HWY. 5 to HWY. 89.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on June 17, 2020, 11:31:16 PM
So this fixes the remaining substandard sections of the US 67 freeway in the Little Rock area, but what about continuing the highway north to the state line? It’s been radio silence forever on that front.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 12:32:05 AM
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-170.pdf This news article say is will from HWY. 5 to HWY. 89.

The section from Little Rock AFB (Vandenberg Blvd) to Hwy 5 is already under construction. The projects mentioned in the press release are immediately to the north and south of this section.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on June 18, 2020, 02:20:10 AM
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-170.pdf This news article say is will from HWY. 5 to HWY. 89.

The section from Little Rock AFB (Vandenberg Blvd) to Hwy 5 is already under construction. The projects mentioned in the press release are immediately to the north and south of this section.
Vandenberg to Highway 5 is finished.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 09:21:04 AM
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2020_news/NR%2020-170.pdf This news article say is will from HWY. 5 to HWY. 89.

The section from Little Rock AFB (Vandenberg Blvd) to Hwy 5 is already under construction. The projects mentioned in the press release are immediately to the north and south of this section.
Vandenberg to Highway 5 is finished.

They got that done quick. Photos on Google Maps show the stretch as still under construction. Figure Google needs to update their aerial photos and street-level view for this stretch.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2020, 01:19:34 PM
The aerial imagery is from October of 2018. Street View imagery is from August of 2019, showing the project from Vandenberg Blvd up to AR-5 mostly finished.

The stretch from Vandenberg Blvd down to Main Street is more problematic. The 8/2019 street view imagery shows no progress yet on that segment. And that's the one with the really BAD off ramps, like the sudden right turn at Ramada. That stupid nonsense was even built into new concrete slab right at the North end of that US-67 expansion project. The North side of the Main Street exit needs to be completely re-configured, and with that ramp to Ramada eliminated.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on June 18, 2020, 02:28:50 PM
Here's the link to the INFRA grant factsheet: https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf

It looks like they're going to build an SPUI at the interchange with AR-5.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on June 18, 2020, 08:13:10 PM
Here's the link to the INFRA grant factsheet: https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf

It looks like they're going to build an SPUI at the interchange with AR-5.

That interchange is a clusterfork being so close to 367.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on June 18, 2020, 08:41:18 PM
The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn’t come close to Jonesboro.

There’s still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

Prosaic license from a media outlet, since Jonesboro is the largest city in NE AR, and the US 67 freeway is part of the most direct route from LR.  Maybe they think the plans for an Interstate spur along AR 226 (dating from I-30 speculation days) are still active.

AR-226 is 4 lane from US-67 to US-49, but the rest of the route to I-555 is "Arkansas Freeway" 5-lane.  It'd take quite a lot of work to put an Interstate through there as AR-226 has quite a few at-grade intersections and is seemingly always only a foot above the regular flooding on both sides of it.  I'd almost bet that US-63 from the end of I-555 to Walnut Ridge would be a better candidate for Interstate expansion in that area.  It would take new terrain with quite a bit of roadbed elevation as well as that stretch is flood-prone as well, especially NW of Bono.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2020, 09:30:24 PM
The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn’t come close to Jonesboro.

There’s still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

Prosaic license from a media outlet, since Jonesboro is the largest city in NE AR, and the US 67 freeway is part of the most direct route from LR.  Maybe they think the plans for an Interstate spur along AR 226 (dating from I-30 speculation days) are still active.

AR-226 is 4 lane from US-67 to US-49, but the rest of the route to I-555 is "Arkansas Freeway" 5-lane.  It'd take quite a lot of work to put an Interstate through there as AR-226 has quite a few at-grade intersections and is seemingly always only a foot above the regular flooding on both sides of it.  I'd almost bet that US-63 from the end of I-555 to Walnut Ridge would be a better candidate for Interstate expansion in that area.  It would take new terrain with quite a bit of roadbed elevation as well as that stretch is flood-prone as well, especially NW of Bono.

Believe it or not, that short stretch of AR 226, along with US 49 from the 49/226 junction to I-555, is in itself a federal high priority corridor (#52), listed since the SAFETEA-LU act of 2005.  Thus it's likely that significant federal funds were utilized in the construction of the 4-lane facility (and likely the 5-lane section of US 49 as well).  Why it wasn't placed on some sort of berm to raise it above regular flood levels, since it is a portion of the main LR-Jonesboro route (at least since the extension of the US 67 freeway), is a question for ADOT (likely $$).  Previous speculation aside, it'll likely never be considered for Interstate upgrades, since any extension of I-555 past Jonesboro would almost certainly utilize US 63's alignment. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on June 18, 2020, 09:31:15 PM
The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn’t come close to Jonesboro.

There’s still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

Prosaic license from a media outlet, since Jonesboro is the largest city in NE AR, and the US 67 freeway is part of the most direct route from LR.  Maybe they think the plans for an Interstate spur along AR 226 (dating from I-30 speculation days) are still active.

AR-226 is 4 lane from US-67 to US-49, but the rest of the route to I-555 is "Arkansas Freeway" 5-lane.  It'd take quite a lot of work to put an Interstate through there as AR-226 has quite a few at-grade intersections and is seemingly always only a foot above the regular flooding on both sides of it.  I'd almost bet that US-63 from the end of I-555 to Walnut Ridge would be a better candidate for Interstate expansion in that area.  It would take new terrain with quite a bit of roadbed elevation as well as that stretch is flood-prone as well, especially NW of Bono.

At one time, AR 226 was going become an Interstate x49, but I don't know if that's still on the table.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2020, 09:55:53 PM
The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn’t come close to Jonesboro.

There’s still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

Prosaic license from a media outlet, since Jonesboro is the largest city in NE AR, and the US 67 freeway is part of the most direct route from LR.  Maybe they think the plans for an Interstate spur along AR 226 (dating from I-30 speculation days) are still active.

AR-226 is 4 lane from US-67 to US-49, but the rest of the route to I-555 is "Arkansas Freeway" 5-lane.  It'd take quite a lot of work to put an Interstate through there as AR-226 has quite a few at-grade intersections and is seemingly always only a foot above the regular flooding on both sides of it.  I'd almost bet that US-63 from the end of I-555 to Walnut Ridge would be a better candidate for Interstate expansion in that area.  It would take new terrain with quite a bit of roadbed elevation as well as that stretch is flood-prone as well, especially NW of Bono.

At one time, AR 226 was going become an Interstate x49, but I don't know if that's still on the table.

Never heard of an I-x49; wrong side of the state for such a designation.  The "I-730" designation was bandied about for a while during the time it was expected that any Interstate upgrade of US 67 would simply be an extension of I-30.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on June 18, 2020, 10:35:38 PM
The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn’t come close to Jonesboro.

There’s still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

Prosaic license from a media outlet, since Jonesboro is the largest city in NE AR, and the US 67 freeway is part of the most direct route from LR.  Maybe they think the plans for an Interstate spur along AR 226 (dating from I-30 speculation days) are still active.

AR-226 is 4 lane from US-67 to US-49, but the rest of the route to I-555 is "Arkansas Freeway" 5-lane.  It'd take quite a lot of work to put an Interstate through there as AR-226 has quite a few at-grade intersections and is seemingly always only a foot above the regular flooding on both sides of it.  I'd almost bet that US-63 from the end of I-555 to Walnut Ridge would be a better candidate for Interstate expansion in that area.  It would take new terrain with quite a bit of roadbed elevation as well as that stretch is flood-prone as well, especially NW of Bono.

At one time, AR 226 was going become an Interstate x49, but I don't know if that's still on the table.

Never heard of an I-x49; wrong side of the state for such a designation.  The "I-730" designation was bandied about for a while during the time it was expected that any Interstate upgrade of US 67 would simply be an extension of I-30.

Yeah. I got confused for a moment.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on August 07, 2020, 07:44:30 PM
Any updates on this project? MoDOT stated they were going to finishing the EIS review for the next segment in July, and ArDOT has to be getting close to finding an alignment right?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on August 07, 2020, 10:39:39 PM
I’m to the point where I say just give Pocahontas their dang interstate and let’s start turning dirt.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on August 08, 2020, 12:29:06 AM
I’m to the point where I say just give Pocahontas their dang interstate and let’s start turning dirt.
That's likely what the preferred alternative will ultimately be. Only a couple more miles of construction, and actually serves a population center vs. nothing.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on August 08, 2020, 04:27:53 PM
Any updates on this project? MoDOT stated they were going to finishing the EIS review for the next segment in July, and ArDOT has to be getting close to finding an alignment right?

Here is the draft route in Missouri.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50200019196_41ace94688_z.jpg)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on August 08, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Any updates on this project? MoDOT stated they were going to finishing the EIS review for the next segment in July, and ArDOT has to be getting close to finding an alignment right?

Funding issues due to COVID. Overall state revenues are down.

They are pushing for an extension of a sales tax and a fuel tax increase to cover the identified needs.

http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2020/Issue%201%20Presentation%20Website%20Version.pdf
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on August 13, 2020, 01:58:51 PM
Here is some new info.

ArDOT is doing an online public comment regarding the alternatives for the Future I-57 section between Walnut Ridge and the state line. They have a website with all of the alternatives.

https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html (https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html)

future57.transportationplanroom.com (http://future57.transportationplanroom.com) (project info website)

All of the alternatives bypass Corning to the west side. Predictably, it seems the most expensive option is to upgrade the existing alignment. The only one that makes sense is Corridor 2 (building near Pocahontas, but on a new alignment). That is the cheapest option.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on August 13, 2020, 02:10:19 PM
Without the eastern Corning bypass, the UPRR route doesn’t make as much sense, just to jog back to the west to take a western Corning bypass

Yeah, of these 3, Corridor 2 probably has it in the bag

Wonder what killed the Corning eastern bypass in conjunction with the UPRR/Corridor 3 routing?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2020, 02:15:04 PM
I would have preferred the Corridor 3 option, which follows AR-34 and the rail corridor somewhat parallel and completely bypasses Pocahontas. Unfortunately that route alternative has a really crooked hook at the top to tie into a Western bypass of Corning. That ends up making the Corridor 2 option look better. Plus it at least gets within the outskirts of Pocahontas.

The Corridor 1 option is just stupid. At least Corridors 2 & 3 would be able to use the existing US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge without any significant alterations.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on August 13, 2020, 03:24:16 PM
Where would a potential IH 57, U.S. 412 Interchange be at? That would be the biggest interchange in NEA, excluding the 55/555 interchange but I dont consider that a true interchange because no one uses the Eastern AR highway 77 route
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on August 13, 2020, 03:30:36 PM
Where would a potential IH 57, U.S. 412 Interchange be at? That would be the biggest interchange in NEA, excluding the 55/555 interchange but I dont consider that a true interchange because no one uses the Eastern AR highway 77 route
That interchange is already there — US 67/Future I-57 and US 412. It is where the current US 67 Freeway ends east of Walnut Ridge, and the freeway stub for the next freeway segment, that is being studied for selection now, is already at this interchange
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on August 13, 2020, 04:13:13 PM
Nice. So we could have potentially 2 interchanges along IH 57. One being with IH 555 and the other being with U.S. 412. That's interesting for a area with not much development
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mgk920 on August 13, 2020, 04:33:22 PM
My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 13, 2020, 05:28:44 PM
My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on August 13, 2020, 07:26:18 PM
My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 13, 2020, 09:40:11 PM
My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.

This is, in all likelihood, going to be the major public issue in NWA for some time.  What the local public reaction to any of the three corridors will be will have a major impact on exactly what alignment is eventually selected.  Until then, everything else is mere speculation.   Remember that ADOT is a public entity ultimately reporting to the state legislature, which itself is attuned to feedback from the field -- regardless of what is presented, someone local will find fault with aspects of any of the options.  One corridor may be selected as a complete entity; more likely some "tweaking" will occur before anything is finalized to accommodate the more vocal objections.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on August 17, 2020, 02:30:31 PM
My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.

This is, in all likelihood, going to be the major public issue in NWA for some time.  What the local public reaction to any of the three corridors will be will have a major impact on exactly what alignment is eventually selected.  Until then, everything else is mere speculation.   Remember that ADOT is a public entity ultimately reporting to the state legislature, which itself is attuned to feedback from the field -- regardless of what is presented, someone local will find fault with aspects of any of the options.  One corridor may be selected as a complete entity; more likely some "tweaking" will occur before anything is finalized to accommodate the more vocal objections.

Corridor 2 is what I voted for on the virtual comment form as well.  However, it has more mileage through the 100 year floodplain than Corridor 3 does, so I trust they accounted for a substantial roadbed elevation above what US-67 suffers from in the Pocahontas area that submerges too frequently already, otherwise, the cost may be underestimated in the reported figure.  Corridor 1 is essentially a giveaway to Pocahontas, which unfortunately does have a couple of well-connected families, which holds more sway in this state than what it should, so it can't be completely discounted.  Corridor 3 has less mileage in the 100 year floodplain than the other 2, with pretty much just the Black River crossing to contend with.  From what I can gather in the meeting materials, the map with the environmental features that's sideways on the PDF indicates pretty much everything to the east of Corning is in 100 year floodplain, and there's a couple of small WMAs on that side of Corning which likely contributed to the hook on Corridor 3, otherwise, it likely would have been the shortest alternative.  I'm just thankful to finally see progress on a long-suffered gap in the 4-lane freeway system, Interstate or otherwise.  Now if only some funding alternatives would come to light...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2020, 02:38:19 PM
My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.

This is, in all likelihood, going to be the major public issue in NWA for some time.  What the local public reaction to any of the three corridors will be will have a major impact on exactly what alignment is eventually selected.  Until then, everything else is mere speculation.   Remember that ADOT is a public entity ultimately reporting to the state legislature, which itself is attuned to feedback from the field -- regardless of what is presented, someone local will find fault with aspects of any of the options.  One corridor may be selected as a complete entity; more likely some "tweaking" will occur before anything is finalized to accommodate the more vocal objections.

Corridor 2 is what I voted for on the virtual comment form as well.  However, it has more mileage through the 100 year floodplain than Corridor 3 does, so I trust they accounted for a substantial roadbed elevation above what US-67 suffers from in the Pocahontas area that submerges too frequently already, otherwise, the cost may be underestimated in the reported figure.  Corridor 1 is essentially a giveaway to Pocahontas, which unfortunately does have a couple of well-connected families, which holds more sway in this state than what it should, so it can't be completely discounted.  Corridor 3 has less mileage in the 100 year floodplain than the other 2, with pretty much just the Black River crossing to contend with.  From what I can gather in the meeting materials, the map with the environmental features that's sideways on the PDF indicates pretty much everything to the east of Corning is in 100 year floodplain, and there's a couple of small WMAs on that side of Corning which likely contributed to the hook on Corridor 3, otherwise, it likely would have been the shortest alternative.  I'm just thankful to finally see progress on a long-suffered gap in the 4-lane freeway system, Interstate or otherwise.  Now if only some funding alternatives would come to light...

I'd wager that the final corridor selection will be a hodgepodge of both Corridors 1 & 2; as stated, there are parties in and around Pocahontas that want a corridor as close to existing US 67 as feasible, and much of Corridor 2 is within floodplain boundaries.  So the more doable parts of #2 will likely be combined with much of #1 (particularly that stretch between Pocahontas and Corning dotted by local businesses) to (a) appease local influencers and (b) take as few in-town developed properties as possible to avoid issues and additional costs.   Something tells me #3 is as good as dead under current circumstances.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on August 17, 2020, 11:09:10 PM
Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor’s state line travel plaza at the border.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on August 18, 2020, 04:35:57 PM
Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor’s state line travel plaza at the border.

The hook in Corridor 3 is to cross the Black River as close to perpendicular as possible to reduce mileage in the floodplain and make as short a bridge as possible.  Still winds up being more expensive than the Corridor 2, although Corridor 2 spends an uncomfortable amount of mileage in the 100 year floodplain, which means that it had better be built up to the point of being a Black River levee essentially, otherwise it will go under just as often as US-67 does.  It'd suck to have acreage on the opposite side of the Black River in that case.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 18, 2020, 05:03:23 PM
Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor’s state line travel plaza at the border.

The hook in Corridor 3 is to cross the Black River as close to perpendicular as possible to reduce mileage in the floodplain and make as short a bridge as possible.  Still winds up being more expensive than the Corridor 2, although Corridor 2 spends an uncomfortable amount of mileage in the 100 year floodplain, which means that it had better be built up to the point of being a Black River levee essentially, otherwise it will go under just as often as US-67 does.  It'd suck to have acreage on the opposite side of the Black River in that case.

The present UPRR/former MoPac rail bridge, while virtually N-S in orientation, is not only a main through truss over the Black River channel but a series of berms and short bridges for drainage; this has been standard rail practice in floodplains for the last century and a half.  To do so with 4 lanes of traffic plus the requisite 28+ extra feet for shoulders would require much the same construction -- i.e., exceptionally expensive.  Locating a relatively narrow part of the floodplain and placing the bridge(s) there would undoubtedly cut down on the number of those; that is obviously what was planned for option #3.  Sticking with a full Option #2 may well involve one or more lengthy "berm/bridge" segments between Pocahontas and Corning as well, which is one of the reasons (besides the business service previously cited) why a "hybrid" 2/1 might well be considered, which would relocate part of the freeway to higher ground.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on August 18, 2020, 08:03:39 PM
Nice. So we could have potentially 2 interchanges along IH 57. One being with IH 555 and the other being with U.S. 412. That's interesting for a area with not much development

If only I-555 made it to Walnut Ridge.  US-63, being an "Arkansas Freeway" in its current 5 lane form, is likely all the area is going to get unless there is a much larger strategic federal emphasis on Interstate connectivity.  I'm of the mindset that there is a great need for more diagonal Interstates, especially west of the Mississippi, that run from southeast to northwest, including a continuation of I-22 up to Springfield or KC.  I'd love to see one from Webbers Falls, OK along the Muskogee Turnpike through Tulsa, Ponca City, Dodge City, and Kit Carson to Denver.  That one wouldn't even be dealing with very difficult terrain at all and the southern part is already mostly interstate grade already.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on August 18, 2020, 08:46:01 PM
Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor’s state line travel plaza at the border.

The hook in Corridor 3 is to cross the Black River as close to perpendicular as possible to reduce mileage in the floodplain and make as short a bridge as possible.  Still winds up being more expensive than the Corridor 2, although Corridor 2 spends an uncomfortable amount of mileage in the 100 year floodplain, which means that it had better be built up to the point of being a Black River levee essentially, otherwise it will go under just as often as US-67 does.  It'd suck to have acreage on the opposite side of the Black River in that case.

Now that you mention it, I’ve changed my mind and think Corridor 3 is the best option. The crooked hook is not that bad at second glance. Building in a floodplain is just going to be too dang expensive; Pocahontas needs to face reality.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: CoreySamson on August 18, 2020, 08:55:55 PM
My opinions:

1. I think Corridor 2 is the best option out of the three in their current configurations.

2. If corridor 3 bypassed Corning to the east, that would be the best corridor. (Bypassing to the west looks worse than Segment B of the Grand Parkway's plan)

3. If Pocahontas really wants an interstate, they should advocate for a 555 extension.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on August 18, 2020, 09:38:19 PM
MikieTimT

I haven't been up 555 past Hoxie in years but 15 years ago I had optimism that 555 would be a continuation of IH 22 to Kansas City. I had no idea 555 was not extended to Pocahontas. A 5 lane road is counter-productive and a waste of money IMO. OT it seems like the southern end of 269 in Mississippi was completed in 5 years and a lot of that goes through a floodplain as well as the Mississippi portion of the Memphis suburbs (people who live in Byhalia Mississippi and points south but work in Memphis) sorry if I'm going on a tangent
 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on August 19, 2020, 02:09:38 AM
Here is some new info.

ArDOT is doing an online public comment regarding the alternatives for the Future I-57 section between Walnut Ridge and the state line. They have a website with all of the alternatives.

https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html (https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html)

future57.transportationplanroom.com (http://future57.transportationplanroom.com) (project info website)

All of the alternatives bypass Corning to the west side. Predictably, it seems the most expensive option is to upgrade the existing alignment. The only one that makes sense is Corridor 2 (building near Pocahontas, but on a new alignment). That is the cheapest option.
I have left a comment on their future I-57 alignments page. My proposal is this: At Walnut Ridge, use corridor B and follow it until it bears northeast just before reaching "Skaggs", then make use of Corridor A. The existing 67 alignment will be a frontage road (once the new 4 lanes are built). Use connector A which places the new 4 lanes just west of the existing alignment at the AR/MO line. I say use connector "A" because Missouri is proposing building the new 4 lanes to the west of Neelyville and it would make better use of that alignment.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 19, 2020, 03:02:16 AM
Here is some new info.

ArDOT is doing an online public comment regarding the alternatives for the Future I-57 section between Walnut Ridge and the state line. They have a website with all of the alternatives.

https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html (https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html)

future57.transportationplanroom.com (http://future57.transportationplanroom.com) (project info website)

All of the alternatives bypass Corning to the west side. Predictably, it seems the most expensive option is to upgrade the existing alignment. The only one that makes sense is Corridor 2 (building near Pocahontas, but on a new alignment). That is the cheapest option.
I have left a comment on their future I-57 alignments page. My proposal is this: At Walnut Ridge, use corridor B and follow it until it bears northeast just before reaching "Skaggs", then make use of Corridor A. The existing 67 alignment will be a frontage road (once the new 4 lanes are built). Use connector A which places the new 4 lanes just west of the existing alignment at the AR/MO line. I say use connector "A" because Missouri is proposing building the new 4 lanes to the west of Neelyville and it would make better use of that alignment.

Most of the above is probably what the corridor will end up looking like as a "finished product" -- a little bit of B/2 with enough of A/1 to satisfy local businesses.  I could even see much of Pocahontas to Corning as a Texas-style facility, with businesses flanking the central freeway on frontage roads.   As far as the northernmost AR alignment into MO; that's generally hashed out by the relevant DOT's; AFAIK it'll be a bit west of the existing US 67.     
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on August 19, 2020, 04:04:53 PM
MikieTimT

I haven't been up 555 past Hoxie in years but 15 years ago I had optimism that 555 would be a continuation of IH 22 to Kansas City. I had no idea 555 was not extended to Pocahontas. A 5 lane road is counter-productive and a waste of money IMO. OT it seems like the southern end of 269 in Mississippi was completed in 5 years and a lot of that goes through a floodplain as well as the Mississippi portion of the Memphis suburbs (people who live in Byhalia Mississippi and points south but work in Memphis) sorry if I'm going on a tangent

No I-555 ends at AR-91 just at the edge of Jonesboro, and the 5 lane US-63 takes over after that last exit bypassing (mostly except for an annoying single traffic light) Bono until the junction with AR-25 at the far end of the new bridge over the Black River at Black Rock.  That's probably as close to Pocahontas as it gets as only US-62/US-67 go up there, not US-63.  I don't see any freeway expansions of I-555 anytime soon because of that 5 lane stretch.  Gets you a speed limit of 60 from Jonesboro to Portia at least, but chokes down big time there before crossing the river and becoming a standard 2 lane with occasional passing lanes up some hills.  Sure would prefer a 75MPH continuation of I-555 along to at least I-57/US-67 to knock 5 to 6 minutes off the drive across US-412 to Fayetteville, but I don't usually get my way on most things anyway.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on August 19, 2020, 06:55:13 PM
^

Are they going to increase that 5 lane segment from 60 to 65 mph? I thought that was included in the new law, that undivided 5 lane segments can now also be 65 mph.

Regardless of whatever is on the small white signs, I'm sure the normal speed is closer to 70 mph or higher and won't change with a 5 being placed over the 0, though will at least bring the law closer to reality.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on August 20, 2020, 11:35:07 PM
 ARDOT  (https://www.cctimesdemocrat.com/story/2829431.html) is holding an on-line public meeting for I-57 through September 2. Four plans are being considered, including one to make no improvements.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on August 21, 2020, 06:32:36 AM
ARDOT  (https://www.cctimesdemocrat.com/story/2829431.html) is holding an on-line public meeting for I-57 through September 2. Four plans are being considered, including one to make no improvements.



Unless state law requires one to be included in all such proceedings, one would think that a "no build" option would be off the table considering the federal I-57 designation of the corridor as well as the efforts in MO for a corresponding facility. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on August 21, 2020, 10:22:22 AM
^

Isn’t a No Build option required with anything under NEPA?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on August 21, 2020, 11:02:57 AM
ARDOT  (https://www.cctimesdemocrat.com/story/2829431.html) is holding an on-line public meeting for I-57 through September 2. Four plans are being considered, including one to make no improvements.

Just based on cost alone, Option 2 is a no-brainer. Option 1 appears to indicate more than $100M in ROW acquisition.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: qguy on August 21, 2020, 09:09:06 PM
A no-build alternative is a baseline for comparison. Valuable even if not seriously considered as a viable option.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on August 22, 2020, 06:11:39 PM
MikieTimT

I haven't been up 555 past Hoxie in years but 15 years ago I had optimism that 555 would be a continuation of IH 22 to Kansas City. I had no idea 555 was not extended to Pocahontas. A 5 lane road is counter-productive and a waste of money IMO. OT it seems like the southern end of 269 in Mississippi was completed in 5 years and a lot of that goes through a floodplain as well as the Mississippi portion of the Memphis suburbs (people who live in Byhalia Mississippi and points south but work in Memphis) sorry if I'm going on a tangent

No I-555 ends at AR-91 just at the edge of Jonesboro, and the 5 lane US-63 takes over after that last exit bypassing (mostly except for an annoying single traffic light) Bono until the junction with AR-25 at the far end of the new bridge over the Black River at Black Rock.  That's probably as close to Pocahontas as it gets as only US-62/US-67 go up there, not US-63.  I don't see any freeway expansions of I-555 anytime soon because of that 5 lane stretch.  Gets you a speed limit of 60 from Jonesboro to Portia at least, but chokes down big time there before crossing the river and becoming a standard 2 lane with occasional passing lanes up some hills.  Sure would prefer a 75MPH continuation of I-555 along to at least I-57/US-67 to knock 5 to 6 minutes off the drive across US-412 to Fayetteville, but I don't usually get my way on most things anyway.

The ending of I-555 was discussed in another thread.

AASHTO approved it to be used as far as AR-91 and Google Maps shows that.

But per ARDOT, I-555 "officially" ends at US-49 Southwest Drive. It is not signed any further west. The official map of Jonesboro even has a notation on it that points to "end of I-555" at US-49.

As for the 3 corridors being presented for the new I-57...

(https://www.cctimesdemocrat.com/photos/35/24/91/3524917-B.jpg)

Corridor 2 meets the needs of Pocahontas and their industrial/logistics park. Only crosses flood plain when it crosses the Black River and doesn't disrupt so many land owners along US-67.  Though if you look you will see that there are not a large number of homes or businesses along existing US-67 until it gets north of Datto around AR-211 (old US-67) and the Grassylead area.. All the studies showed a new route from Datto to the Corning bypass was required due to this..
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: DJStephens on August 23, 2020, 10:50:14 AM
Guessing this will go just east of Pocahontas due to their political clout.  Combination of # 1 & #2. Have to wonder though, why Alternative 3 (yellow) did not go E of Corning to head straight N to the state line?  Water table / flood plain issues?  Certainly would seem more direct.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on August 23, 2020, 03:38:06 PM
Guessing this will go just east of Pocahontas due to their political clout.  Combination of # 1 & #2. Have to wonder though, why Alternative 3 (yellow) did not go E of Corning to head straight N to the state line?  Water table / flood plain issues?  Certainly would seem more direct.

Quite a few reasons ;

- There isn't much open land between Corning and the Black River levee.
- A very large rice processor is located here (large employer)
- A large golf course
- The Manatt Drive home development
- All located in flood plain

That is why that corridor has to kick back west to go around Corning.

Also the land just after crossing the Black River is all flood plain south & west of Corning Lake.

If you look at the FEMA flood maps the railroad was raised all the way to Corning from just north of Knobel. It would be assumed that the corridor (if used) would have to do the same.

As for Pocahontas having any political clout, it's the *only* population center of any reasonable size between Corning and Walnut Ridge. The mileage will be the almost identical regardless, and it actually uses less flood plain on that corridor than the #3. I don't think it took much "clout" to consider that path.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on August 23, 2020, 03:49:36 PM
As for Pocahontas having any political clout, it's the *only* population center of any reasonable size between Corning and Walnut Ridge. The mileage will be the almost identical regardless, and it actually uses less flood plain on that corridor than the #3. I don't think it took much "clout" to consider that path.
Not to mention, it parallels the existing US-67 corridor, which all the other freeway segments do. I hadn't even thought of the other corridor until it was mentioned on this forum.

Alternative #2 is the most logical option.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Scott5114 on August 27, 2020, 01:49:56 AM
Posts about a possible Denver-OKC interstate have been moved to a new Fictional thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27549.0).

Posts about diagonal interstates in general have been moved to Diagonal Interstates (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27537.0).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: texaskdog on August 27, 2020, 02:07:17 AM
Looked interesting then I realized this is 3 years old :P  so it's not happening I take it?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on August 27, 2020, 02:15:23 AM
The last couple pages of the thread are ARDOT doing virtual public meetings for route selection: https://future57.transportationplanroom.com/

Virtual meeting is open until Sept 2nd. I think progress is being made
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bugo on August 27, 2020, 05:40:35 AM


The southern part is already mostly interstate grade already.

The Muskogee Turnpike, the BA west of I-44, the IDL, the Keystone Expressway and the Cimarron Turnpike are nowhere near I standards. The Keystone even has an at grade intersection. The existing highway would pretty much have to be completely rebuilt before it met I standards.

U304AA

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on September 10, 2020, 11:34:25 PM
Proof that ARDOT is listening to the posts on the I-57 interactive map.

I put in a request for the 100 year flood map or the FEMA flood zones and voila, it is now an option to view.

I don't like how it is displayed (on the road line only) as i wanted an overlay instead, but hey, they did respond to the request.

https://future57.transportationplanroom.com/environmental-map
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on September 14, 2020, 10:37:28 AM
https://talkbusiness.net/2020/09/lane-expansion-planned-for-u-s-67/
Quote
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has awarded $10 million for improvements to U.S. Highway 67 northeast of Little Rock and $4 million for the construction of a railroad overpass in Monticello.

DOT awarded a $10 million grant from the Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development (BUILD) program, which will be used to widen U.S. Highway 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges.

This grant follows a $40 million award the project received from DOT’s Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program in June.

Arkansas’ congressional delegation announced the projects Thursday (Sept. 10).

“This is great news for Arkansas, which has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make U.S. Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This funding will bring us closer to completing ‘Future I-57,” which is key for making the communities around it even more attractive places to live, work or start a business,” the delegation said in a collective statement.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on September 14, 2020, 01:52:00 PM
https://talkbusiness.net/2020/09/lane-expansion-planned-for-u-s-67/
Quote
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has awarded $10 million for improvements to U.S. Highway 67 northeast of Little Rock and $4 million for the construction of a railroad overpass in Monticello.

DOT awarded a $10 million grant from the Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development (BUILD) program, which will be used to widen U.S. Highway 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges.

This grant follows a $40 million award the project received from DOT’s Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program in June.

Arkansas’ congressional delegation announced the projects Thursday (Sept. 10).

“This is great news for Arkansas, which has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make U.S. Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This funding will bring us closer to completing ‘Future I-57,” which is key for making the communities around it even more attractive places to live, work or start a business,” the delegation said in a collective statement.

I checked out the Monticello grant to see if it had I-69 impacts (it doesn't).  The town is literally split in two when a long haul train blows through. It essentially builds a bridge for Main Street over the tracks, which just happens to be next to the courthouse.

But glad to hear on the other grants. Things are moving forward.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: rte66man on September 14, 2020, 09:34:20 PM
The southern part is already mostly interstate grade already.

The Muskogee Turnpike, the BA west of I-44, the IDL, the Keystone Expressway and the Cimarron Turnpike are nowhere near I standards. The Keystone even has an at grade intersection. The existing highway would pretty much have to be completely rebuilt before it met I standards.
U304AA

I had forgotten about that at-grade just west of OK 151.  Somehow I thought it had been removed and a frontage road had been built south to OK 151 just before the dam.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on September 20, 2020, 10:13:11 PM
The road milling project between Newport and Bald Knob are making that stretch a lot smoother, albeit quite dusty as they didn't bother sweeping off the shaved layer as of yesterday.  Rather long stretch of single lane through that area while they are doing it, but it'll be ready to bump up to 75MPH after they finish that up.  The mileage south of Bald Knob would rattle your teeth at 75, so they're probably holding off until they make it a little more driveable.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on September 20, 2020, 11:59:31 PM
Regarding the road milling and bridge rehab, things are progressing nicely from MM 49 to Beebe. What I don't get is why ARDOT is letting the Lonoke Co. section go. A portion of 67 got milled some 9 years ago from MM 33 to the White / Lonoke Co line and it's rather smooth except for the cracked slabs that they are now repairing / replacing. But the Lonoke County section is HORRIBLE, especially once you approach exit 22 going southbound. I do know that the section from exit 19 to the existing 6 lane is slated for widening in the future, along with the total replacement of the interchanges in the Cabot area (16,19)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 27, 2020, 10:21:30 AM
I'm almost in the opinion to just connect 57 to U.S 412 and make a bypass that will go around the small towns in NEA which could be a cheaper option. IMO
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 27, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
I'm almost in the opinion to just connect 57 to U.S 412 and make a bypass that will go around the small towns in NEA which could be a cheaper option. IMO

Requires cosigning 55 & 57.

I think they want to get Little Rock and Texas bound traffic off I-55 from Illinois to Memphis.

Arkansas also wants the business development opportunities for NEA.

Diesel/gas road taxes alone will help those counties, as well as the pass through business for truck stops, food, warehousing and logistics.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 27, 2020, 02:36:15 PM
Good point! IMO 55 should be 3 lanes in both directions from Jonesboro to Memphis because of the truck traffic. Holiday traffic is hell on the travel days. But this may not happen or be considered for 20 years. IH 30 outside of Little Rock is hell
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 27, 2020, 09:42:03 PM
I'm almost in the opinion to just connect 57 to U.S 412 and make a bypass that will go around the small towns in NEA which could be a cheaper option. IMO

Requires cosigning 55 & 57.

I think they want to get Little Rock and Texas bound traffic off I-55 from Illinois to Memphis.

Arkansas also wants the business development opportunities for NEA.

Diesel/gas road taxes alone will help those counties, as well as the pass through business for truck stops, food, warehousing and logistics.

Good point! IMO 55 should be 3 lanes in both directions from Jonesboro to Memphis because of the truck traffic. Holiday traffic is hell on the travel days. But this may not happen or be considered for 20 years. IH 30 outside of Little Rock is hell

To even consider moving I-57 onto US 421 and away from US 67 and US 60 (via Poplar Bluff) would require changing the definition of High Priority Corridor #89, the vehicle for the full I-57 extension that specifies US 67 and US 60 as the alignments.  Since the corridor is a joint AR/MO venture (all right, mostly AR!), both states would have to sign off on any realignment.  Since the current proposed routings north of Walnut Ridge all pass through or very near the extended Pocahontas-Corning metro area, which pushed for the route's establishment to begin with, it's unlikely that a route completely avoiding that area would ever be considered -- the howls from both regional boosters and their state/congressional representatives would be deafening! 

But I-55 itself definitely needs upgrades; it's one of the older sections of Interstate and is all but falling apart (what is there about original NE AR Interstates? -- oh yeah, lotsa truck traffic!).  Hopefully ADOT will at some not-too-distant point secure enough funds to effect at least upgrades to the 4-lane facility if not outright expansion to 3+3.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 27, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

But I-55 itself definitely needs upgrades; it's one of the older sections of Interstate and is all but falling apart (what is there about original NE AR Interstates? -- oh yeah, lotsa truck traffic!).  Hopefully ADOT will at some not-too-distant point secure enough funds to effect at least upgrades to the 4-lane facility if not outright expansion to 3+3.

What mile markers were you thinking of where it is in bad shape?

North of Hayti MoDOT gave it a resurface. Around Blythesdale, the section joints are rough in places along with the joints with certain bridges but it looks pretty healthy.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on November 28, 2020, 08:32:41 PM
I'm almost in the opinion to just connect 57 to U.S 412 and make a bypass that will go around the small towns in NEA which could be a cheaper option. IMO

Requires cosigning 55 & 57.

I think they want to get Little Rock and Texas bound traffic off I-55 from Illinois to Memphis.

Arkansas also wants the business development opportunities for NEA.

Diesel/gas road taxes alone will help those counties, as well as the pass through business for truck stops, food, warehousing and logistics.

Good point! IMO 55 should be 3 lanes in both directions from Jonesboro to Memphis because of the truck traffic. Holiday traffic is hell on the travel days. But this may not happen or be considered for 20 years. IH 30 outside of Little Rock is hell

To even consider moving I-57 onto US 421 and away from US 67 and US 60 (via Poplar Bluff) would require changing the definition of High Priority Corridor #89, the vehicle for the full I-57 extension that specifies US 67 and US 60 as the alignments.  Since the corridor is a joint AR/MO venture (all right, mostly AR!), both states would have to sign off on any realignment.  Since the current proposed routings north of Walnut Ridge all pass through or very near the extended Pocahontas-Corning metro area, which pushed for the route's establishment to begin with, it's unlikely that a route completely avoiding that area would ever be considered -- the howls from both regional boosters and their state/congressional representatives would be deafening! 

But I-55 itself definitely needs upgrades; it's one of the older sections of Interstate and is all but falling apart (what is there about original NE AR Interstates? -- oh yeah, lotsa truck traffic!).  Hopefully ADOT will at some not-too-distant point secure enough funds to effect at least upgrades to the 4-lane facility if not outright expansion to 3+3.

Memphis needs a new north and a new south bridge but I digress.  But when it comes to 3 lanes I-40 from West Memphis to Little Rock need done a decade along and needs it long before I-55

Read a couple of weeks back where the head of Savannah GA Port said 1/5 of all the goods unloaded there end up in Memphis.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 28, 2020, 08:53:45 PM
I'm almost in the opinion to just connect 57 to U.S 412 and make a bypass that will go around the small towns in NEA which could be a cheaper option. IMO

Requires cosigning 55 & 57.

I think they want to get Little Rock and Texas bound traffic off I-55 from Illinois to Memphis.

Arkansas also wants the business development opportunities for NEA.

Diesel/gas road taxes alone will help those counties, as well as the pass through business for truck stops, food, warehousing and logistics.

Good point! IMO 55 should be 3 lanes in both directions from Jonesboro to Memphis because of the truck traffic. Holiday traffic is hell on the travel days. But this may not happen or be considered for 20 years. IH 30 outside of Little Rock is hell

To even consider moving I-57 onto US 421 and away from US 67 and US 60 (via Poplar Bluff) would require changing the definition of High Priority Corridor #89, the vehicle for the full I-57 extension that specifies US 67 and US 60 as the alignments.  Since the corridor is a joint AR/MO venture (all right, mostly AR!), both states would have to sign off on any realignment.  Since the current proposed routings north of Walnut Ridge all pass through or very near the extended Pocahontas-Corning metro area, which pushed for the route's establishment to begin with, it's unlikely that a route completely avoiding that area would ever be considered -- the howls from both regional boosters and their state/congressional representatives would be deafening! 

But I-55 itself definitely needs upgrades; it's one of the older sections of Interstate and is all but falling apart (what is there about original NE AR Interstates? -- oh yeah, lotsa truck traffic!).  Hopefully ADOT will at some not-too-distant point secure enough funds to effect at least upgrades to the 4-lane facility if not outright expansion to 3+3.

Memphis needs a new north and a new south bridge but I digress.  But when it comes to 3 lanes I-40 from West Memphis to Little Rock need done a decade along and needs it long before I-55

Read a couple of weeks back where the head of Savannah GA Port said 1/5 of all the goods unloaded there end up in Memphis.

IIRC, the I-55 bridge at Memphis was supposed to close for repairs, but the idea was scrapped/postponed at the last minute for fear of overloading I-40
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 28, 2020, 11:23:25 PM
W-Memphian, I'm not suprised that the port of Savannah distributes that much freight to the mid south and mid west. That's another reason as to why more interstates need to be built from Savannah to Texas. Both IH 40 and 20 and IH 10, are crazy congested, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few other North/South interstate routes...
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 29, 2020, 08:59:40 AM
W-Memphian, I'm not suprised that the port of Savannah distributes that much freight to the mid south and mid west. That's another reason as to why more interstates need to be built from Savannah to Texas. Both IH 40 and 20 and IH 10, are crazy congested, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few other North/South interstate routes...

This is why I-22 needs to be extended to at least Macon, if not taking over I-16 all the way to Savannah. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2020, 02:20:20 PM
Most of the cargo coming into the Ports at Savannah and Brunswick is leaving for other points in the US via rail. I-16 is the main East-West highway outlet for Savannah. It's mostly 2 lanes in each direction. Meanwhile I-75 is 3 lanes or wider in both directions all across Georgia.

Brunswick is home to one of the biggest vehicle import facilities in the US. The main Westbound highway outlet for Brunswick is US-82/GA-520; it's a regular 4 lane divided highway with undivided sections in towns. The corridor has only a couple of limited access segments in Albany and through Fort Benning.

I think Columbus and Macon could use a direct Interstate quality link. But where do you build it? It might need to be a new terrain route that splits the difference between GA-22 and GA-96. It would also be nice if I-22 could be extended farther Southeast past Birmingham down through Auburn and to Columbus. There has been a long-standing proposal to extend I-85 West from Montgomery to I-20/59 and the outskirts of Meridian, MS. I would prefer that to be an even-numbered route (such as I-16). I don't like the idea of I-85 crossing I-20 twice.

I-20 and I-40 are busy for many reasons. Georgia port activity may put some trucks onto those Interstates. But so do the ports in Charleston, Georgetown and Wilmington. I think I-20 really should be extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

Back to Memphis: IMHO the federal government will have to step in and do something BIG regarding that hub. The existing I-40 and I-55 Mississippi River bridge crossings need serious improvements, if not total replacement. Then a good case could be made for building two other bridges farther North and South to make I-269 a full outer loop around the Memphis area. It might seem like overkill, but Memphis is a very serious hub point in the Interstate system.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on November 29, 2020, 02:30:01 PM
Back to Memphis: IMHO the federal government will have to step in and do something BIG regarding that hub. The existing I-40 and I-55 Mississippi River bridge crossings need serious improvements, if not total replacement. Then a good case could be made for building two other bridges farther North and South to make I-269 a full outer loop around the Memphis area. It might seem like overkill, but Memphis is a very serious hub point in the Interstate system.

It would have to be a very big push from the feds before anything happens with Memphis.  It's the red-headed stepchild of Tennessee's road dept., and Nashville doesn't send much love westward.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2020, 03:09:58 PM
Back to Memphis: IMHO the federal government will have to step in and do something BIG regarding that hub. The existing I-40 and I-55 Mississippi River bridge crossings need serious improvements, if not total replacement. Then a good case could be made for building two other bridges farther North and South to make I-269 a full outer loop around the Memphis area. It might seem like overkill, but Memphis is a very serious hub point in the Interstate system.

It would have to be a very big push from the feds before anything happens with Memphis.  It's the red-headed stepchild of Tennessee's road dept., and Nashville doesn't send much love westward.

As far as additional bridges are concerned, it seems that anything completely new (such as the I-269 loop concept cited above) would require some funding and cooperation from ADOT as well, and they've already got a lot on their plate currently -- while bridge improvements for existing facilities could well be a unilateral undertaking by TDOT (Arkansas would likely welcome "freebies" that extend a few hundred yards beyond the state line).  It wouldn't necessarily be the bridge structures themselves that would be at issue, it would be the remainder of the facilities either to the nearest Interstate or comprising a full loop.  Possibly a decade or two down the line, once ADOT has a sizeable portion of their present workload in the rear view mirror vis-a-vis I-49 & I-57, if both TN and MS can find a way to cooperate as they did with I-269, some plan may yet be cobbled together.  But a hell of a lot of TN intrastate political favors called in and/or extensive lobbying would be necessary to get TNDOT rolling on such a concept.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on November 29, 2020, 03:17:27 PM
I-16 is the main East-West highway outlet for Savannah. It's mostly 2 lanes in each direction.
I-16 only carries between 20,000 - 30,000 AADT with 20-30% truck traffic. It seems adequate with only 4 lanes, there's little reason to embark on a multi-billion dollar project widening the corridor to 6 lanes.

I think I-20 really should be extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.
Once I-74 is complete between I-95 and Wilmington, this would be a largely redundant route to the existing I-20 -> I-95 -> US-74 (Future I-74) movement that is perfectly adequate for that traffic load. US-74 carries around 15,000 AADT for most of its length, there's not demand for a second redundant route that would cost SCDOT billions of dollars.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2020, 03:36:38 PM
I think I-20 really should be extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

20-odd years ago NCDOT thought the same thing and projected a I-20 freeway east along US 76 from Florence to the I-74 junction, then actually into Wilmington as I-74 turned southeast along NC 211.  But SC demurred, which wasn't and isn't surprising -- just look at the problems they've encountered with their stretch of I-73. 

Re I-22:  with AL's moratorium on new limited-access construction (that even stopped the AL 108 Montgomery bypass in its tracks), it's more likely (marginally) that I-22 will extend to Springfield, MO before any eastward AL extensions even reach the planning stage.  Apologies for the little digression into Fictional!
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2020, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT
It would have to be a very big push from the feds before anything happens with Memphis.  It's the red-headed stepchild of Tennessee's road dept., and Nashville doesn't send much love westward.

State budget limitations in Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi are exactly why the Federal government would have to provide a really big push to get any Mississippi River bridge improvement and replacement projects done for I-40 and I-55, much less build anything brand new for a possible extension of the I-269 outer loop. Not only would the federal government have to provide a great deal of the funding they would probably have to provide a lot of organizational help to keep all 3 states on the same page.

Quote from: sprjus4
I-16 only carries between 20,000 - 30,000 AADT with 20-30% truck traffic. It seems adequate with only 4 lanes, there's little reason to embark on a multi-billion dollar project widening the corridor to 6 lanes.

I wasn't really suggesting I-16 be widened; I was only pointing out the difference between it and and I-75. Earlier it sounded to me others were implying the port at Savannah was generating a great deal of vehicle traffic to over-load I-20 and I-40. If that was the case the traffic levels on I-16 would be much heavier and the highway would look more like I-75 elsewhere in Georgia.

Quote from: sprjus4
Once I-74 is complete between I-95 and Wilmington, this would be a largely redundant route to the existing I-20 -> I-95 -> US-74 (Future I-74) movement that is perfectly adequate for that traffic load. US-74 carries around 15,000 AADT for most of its length, there's not demand for a second redundant route that would cost SCDOT billions of dollars.

I thought the long term plan for I-74 was still to extend it into South Carolina to connect into an extension of the Carolina Bays Parkway.

I would personally prefer I-74 to go to Wilmington, overlapping US-74. Upgrading the remaining non-freeway segments of US-74 between I-95 and Wilmington would be far less costly. With all the improvement projects along US-74 that continue to be made it appears likely US-74 will be fully limited access between Charlotte and Wilmington before anything new happens at all with I-73 and I-74 in South Carolina. For all we know the remaining sections of I-73 and I-74 in South Carolina may never get built, kind of like the other effectively dead sections of proposed I-73 and I-74.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on November 29, 2020, 06:22:09 PM
W-Memphian, I'm not suprised that the port of Savannah distributes that much freight to the mid south and mid west. That's another reason as to why more interstates need to be built from Savannah to Texas. Both IH 40 and 20 and IH 10, are crazy congested, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few other North/South interstate routes...

This is why I-22 needs to be extended to at least Macon, if not taking over I-16 all the way to Savannah.


Most of that Savannah frieght is coming into the Midsoith via rail.

On I-22....

And to I-35 via ,North Arkansas and Tulsa but I'm digressing again and daydreaming as well.

The Big River Steel plant is about to double in size in Osceola.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 29, 2020, 08:57:56 PM
Not to get to far off the thread line, but there was a coalition to bring more federal funding for interstate highways across the south for east-west commerce.

Somewhere in AARoads I have posted on it, but it was all pretty speculative. Most of it was designed to connect eastern ports below Norfolk but above Jacksonville.

The last traffic study I saw for improvements west of Brunswick on the GA-520/US-83 corridor showed most of it diverts going west past Albany and goes straight to Montgomery, not to Columbus & Fort Benning.

Going east it jumps in the I-75/Tifton area but is average to Waycross.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 29, 2020, 11:54:29 PM
Now, Im going OT, Atlanta is opening amazon distributions centers in the area due to the close range of area airports. the Amazon truck traffic here is just adding to the traffic quagmire here? Are there plans for amazon to open up fulfillment/distribution centers in the Little Rock or NEA??? This would really necessitate interstate growth in Arkansas and the Memphis area...IMO It would be a game changer if amazon invested in business in NEA or NWA
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on November 30, 2020, 01:23:15 AM
Now, Im going OT, Atlanta is opening amazon distributions centers in the area due to the close range of area airports. the Amazon truck traffic here is just adding to the traffic quagmire here? Are there plans for amazon to open up fulfillment/distribution centers in the Little Rock or NEA??? This would really necessitate interstate growth in Arkansas and the Memphis area...IMO It would be a game changer if amazon invested in business in NEA or NWA
Amazon announced this year a fulfillment center at the Port of Little Rock (along I-440). Opens in 2021.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on November 30, 2020, 09:09:00 AM
Amazon has warehouses throughout Arkansas.

Proctor, Crawfordsville, West Memphis, Marion, Joiner, Sherwood, just to name a few.

They are opening a fulfillment center in Republic, Missouri the same time as Little Rock locale and Tulsa opened last year.

So I think that has NWA covered.

When I-57 opens all the way to the Missouri state line, then the Little Rock center will probably cover NEA.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 30, 2020, 12:22:03 PM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 30, 2020, 02:04:00 PM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on November 30, 2020, 05:40:31 PM
Are there any new updates on the I-57 extension on either side of the border?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on November 30, 2020, 06:04:44 PM
Are there any new updates on the I-57 extension on either side of the border?

Last update I could find was July
https://standard-democrat.com/story/2820610.html
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: yakra on December 01, 2020, 12:31:56 PM
with AL's moratorium on new limited-access construction (that even stopped the AL 108 Montgomery bypass in its tracks)
Interesting. I'd like to hear the rationale behind this. Got any juicy links?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on December 01, 2020, 01:43:12 PM
Are there any new updates on the I-57 extension on either side of the border?

MoDOT is still in the planning phase on their side of the border.  Much of the EIS work was from 2005 and had to be updated. It was originally scheduled to be complete by July 2020, but Covid has delayed it a bit. The ROW has already been defined except where it will interface with ARDOT at the border.

As for the Arkansas side, the virtual public comments phase closed in September 2020 and they are compiling the final report on the public hearings which is due by the EOY. The record of decision on the ROW centerline has not been established yet.

There are 3 routes being considered based on the virtual public hearings with 1 being the preferred route by ARDOT. The preferred route is all new ROW from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri border. Will cross the Black River east of Pocahontas, turn NE until it gets west of Corning and then will bypass Corning on its west side and turn north to meet the MoDOT routing.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: vdeane on December 01, 2020, 02:23:23 PM
There are 3 routes being considered based on the virtual public hearings with 1 being the preferred route by ARDOT. The preferred route is all new ROW from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri border. Will cross the Black River east of Pocahontas, turn NE until it gets west of Corning and then will bypass Corning on its west side and turn north to meet the MoDOT routing.
I thought corridor 1 was the one along existing US 67?  The route you describe sounds like corridor 2 on the map (https://garver.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=78e76eae79c1420387ffda0c74060e55).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2020, 09:14:09 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath on more of the US 67/future Interstate 57 freeway being built anytime soon. After all, it took decades for the existing US 67 freeway to be built from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge. It might take decades for future 57 to reach Poplar Bluff, let alone Sikeston.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 01, 2020, 09:44:18 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath on more of the US 67/future Interstate 57 freeway being built anytime soon. After all, it took decades for the existing US 67 freeway to be built from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge. It might take decades for future 57 to reach Poplar Bluff, let alone Sikeston.

IIRC, the freeway in Missouri from MO 158 to just two miles north of the state line is funded under a cost sharing program and construction will begin within the next few years.

Also, the transportation sales tax in Arkansas was recently made permanent, and will likely fund at least some of the improvements between Walnut Ridge and the state line.

Honestly, this could be done within 15 years if they just go for it. This is much easier to finish than say, I-49.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on December 01, 2020, 10:56:35 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath on more of the US 67/future Interstate 57 freeway being built anytime soon. After all, it took decades for the existing US 67 freeway to be built from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge. It might take decades for future 57 to reach Poplar Bluff, let alone Sikeston.

IIRC, the freeway in Missouri from MO 158 to just two miles north of the state line is funded under a cost sharing program and construction will begin within the next few years.

Also, the transportation sales tax in Arkansas was recently made permanent, and will likely fund at least some of the improvements between Walnut Ridge and the state line.

Honestly, this could be done within 15 years if they just go for it. This is much easier to finish than say, I-49.

Hopefully that's the case.  Now that the tax is permanent, there is no longer as much accountability as to how the money is spent, and historically speaking, Little Rock most definitely gets the lion's share of the funds and work, and now there isn't a sunset to serve as a check and balance to ensure the rest of the state is relatively well served.  So, we'll see.  I truly hope you're right.  I-57 needs to happen.  I-49 needs to happen and the Ouachitas and Arkansas River bridged.  US-82 needs some work.  US-412 needs some work and a Springdale bypass completed.  I-30 and I-40 east almost assuredly will be 6 laned by then absent a renewed focus on I-69, and perhaps necessary regardless.  And countless growth needs and general maintenance (and bridge rebuilds) all around the state.  The good thing about this state is that it is truly almost the only place in the country right now with a willingness to invest in infrastructure despite our relative lack of wealth.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 02, 2020, 12:36:04 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath on more of the US 67/future Interstate 57 freeway being built anytime soon. After all, it took decades for the existing US 67 freeway to be built from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge. It might take decades for future 57 to reach Poplar Bluff, let alone Sikeston.

IIRC, the freeway in Missouri from MO 158 to just two miles north of the state line is funded under a cost sharing program and construction will begin within the next few years.

Also, the transportation sales tax in Arkansas was recently made permanent, and will likely fund at least some of the improvements between Walnut Ridge and the state line.

Honestly, this could be done within 15 years if they just go for it. This is much easier to finish than say, I-49.

Hopefully that's the case.  Now that the tax is permanent, there is no longer as much accountability as to how the money is spent, and historically speaking, Little Rock most definitely gets the lion's share of the funds and work, and now there isn't a sunset to serve as a check and balance to ensure the rest of the state is relatively well served.  So, we'll see.  I truly hope you're right.  I-57 needs to happen.  I-49 needs to happen and the Ouachitas and Arkansas River bridged.  US-82 needs some work.  US-412 needs some work and a Springdale bypass completed.  I-30 and I-40 east almost assuredly will be 6 laned by then absent a renewed focus on I-69, and perhaps necessary regardless.  And countless growth needs and general maintenance (and bridge rebuilds) all around the state.  The good thing about this state is that it is truly almost the only place in the country right now with a willingness to invest in infrastructure despite our relative lack of wealth.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see near-term emphasis on I-57, since it requires cooperation and coordination with MoDOT -- something that seem to be somewhat higher on that state's agenda than in previous years (e.g. the long delay but recent progress on the joint I-49 state line segment).  Striking "while the iron is hot" might be the optimal approach here.  I-49 work south of I-40, being largely a unilateral AR project (the slight foray into TX notwithstanding), can proceed as in-state fiscal support dictates.  But those two routes deserve prioritization (although S. AR may demur) principally because of the benefits to be derived both regionally and locally.  And the completion of I-57 with the likely shift of Chicago/St. Louis/upper Midwest traffic to that facility may mean that I-40 expansion from Little Rock to West Memphis can proceed at a somewhat more "leisurely" pace. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 02, 2020, 08:42:43 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath on more of the US 67/future Interstate 57 freeway being built anytime soon. After all, it took decades for the existing US 67 freeway to be built from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge. It might take decades for future 57 to reach Poplar Bluff, let alone Sikeston.

IIRC, the freeway in Missouri from MO 158 to just two miles north of the state line is funded under a cost sharing program and construction will begin within the next few years.

Also, the transportation sales tax in Arkansas was recently made permanent, and will likely fund at least some of the improvements between Walnut Ridge and the state line.

Honestly, this could be done within 15 years if they just go for it. This is much easier to finish than say, I-49.

Hopefully that's the case.  Now that the tax is permanent, there is no longer as much accountability as to how the money is spent, and historically speaking, Little Rock most definitely gets the lion's share of the funds and work, and now there isn't a sunset to serve as a check and balance to ensure the rest of the state is relatively well served.  So, we'll see.  I truly hope you're right.  I-57 needs to happen.  I-49 needs to happen and the Ouachitas and Arkansas River bridged.  US-82 needs some work.  US-412 needs some work and a Springdale bypass completed.  I-30 and I-40 east almost assuredly will be 6 laned by then absent a renewed focus on I-69, and perhaps necessary regardless.  And countless growth needs and general maintenance (and bridge rebuilds) all around the state.  The good thing about this state is that it is truly almost the only place in the country right now with a willingness to invest in infrastructure despite our relative lack of wealth.

The tax being permanent isn't that big of a deal. Road construction/maintenance isn't going away, so a steady stream of funding is needed.

I-57 should top the list, followed by I-49 and widening I-30 & 40. I-69 needs to be at the rock bottom of the list, it isn't needed at all.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: jbnv on December 02, 2020, 11:45:33 AM
The good thing about this state is that it is truly almost the only place in the country right now with a willingness to invest in infrastructure despite our relative lack of wealth.

Arkansas would be pretty stupid not to. Arkansas is well positioned to be an economic and distribution hub--not just physically but also commercially with Walmart. It's a logical next step for goods coming in from Mexico via Texas. And if Arkansas doesn't build the infrastructure for that traffic, it will end up flowing around Arkansas.

Frankly, as a Louisianan by birth and by choice, I'd love to see the same sense of urgency. It's good that we've improved US 165 to an expressway, but jumping on the I-57 bandwagon to bring it all the way to Lake Charles would help us take advantage of the growth and help everyone else by adding even more redundancy to the pipeline.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on December 02, 2020, 03:12:46 PM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.

K-mart Tried but failed damn near everywhere. They did start their Super K-Mart experiment and built a Store in Rogers. That store closed when they pulled the plug on Super K's, that had a lot to do with them using Fleming as it's food distributor. Fleming had also bought out Malone and Hyde out of Memphis. That did Fleming in. Otherwise K Mart held on in Springdale till a couple of years ago. When most others had closed.

If Kroger introduced a Dillion's Marketplace back into the market at the right locations, they would do well. Too many folks have moved in in that had other options and aren't Walmart loyal. Kroger pulled Dullions out 10 years ago because their Store were old and small and not worth the trouble. They'd knee cap Harps big time.

I am shocked there is no Costco yet.  All those new Sam's were a launch across the bow but most would shop at Costco as well, especially the new transplants.

Amazon is about to build a large dc in Lowell AR.  Not those rinky dinks mentioned  above.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 02, 2020, 05:10:35 PM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.

K-mart Tried but failed damn near everywhere. They did start their Super K-Mart experiment and built a Store in Rogers. That store closed when they pulled the plug on Super K's, that had a lot to do with them using Fleming as it's food distributor. Fleming had also bought out Malone and Hyde out of Memphis. That did Fleming in. Otherwise K Mart held on in Springdale till a couple of years ago. When most others had closed.

If Kroger introduced a Dillion's Marketplace back into the market at the right locations, they would do well. Too many folks have moved in in that had other options and aren't Walmart loyal. Kroger pulled Dullions out 10 years ago because their Store were old and small and not worth the trouble. They'd knee cap Harps big time.

I am shocked there is no Costco yet.  All those new Sam's were a launch across the bow but most would shop at Costco as well, especially the new transplants.

Amazon is about to build a large dc in Lowell AR.  Not those rinky dinks mentioned  above.


With Wal-Mart being based in NWA, it's tough for anyone else to get a toe hold.  I remember when IGA was the force to be reckoned with.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Life in Paradise on December 03, 2020, 01:27:53 PM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.

K-mart Tried but failed damn near everywhere. They did start their Super K-Mart experiment and built a Store in Rogers. That store closed when they pulled the plug on Super K's, that had a lot to do with them using Fleming as it's food distributor. Fleming had also bought out Malone and Hyde out of Memphis. That did Fleming in. Otherwise K Mart held on in Springdale till a couple of years ago. When most others had closed.

If Kroger introduced a Dillion's Marketplace back into the market at the right locations, they would do well. Too many folks have moved in in that had other options and aren't Walmart loyal. Kroger pulled Dullions out 10 years ago because their Store were old and small and not worth the trouble. They'd knee cap Harps big time.

I am shocked there is no Costco yet.  All those new Sam's were a launch across the bow but most would shop at Costco as well, especially the new transplants.

Amazon is about to build a large dc in Lowell AR.  Not those rinky dinks mentioned  above.


With Wal-Mart being based in NWA, it's tough for anyone else to get a toe hold.  I remember when IGA was the force to be reckoned with.
In theory, with their background, Sears would have been the perfect Amazon killer, but over the years (from perhaps as far back as the 70s, they kept shooting themselves in the foot so much that they lost all their toes, and then started amputating other appendages, so there is basically nothing left of value (except memories).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on December 03, 2020, 07:47:36 PM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.

K-mart Tried but failed damn near everywhere. They did start their Super K-Mart experiment and built a Store in Rogers. That store closed when they pulled the plug on Super K's, that had a lot to do with them using Fleming as it's food distributor. Fleming had also bought out Malone and Hyde out of Memphis. That did Fleming in. Otherwise K Mart held on in Springdale till a couple of years ago. When most others had closed.

If Kroger introduced a Dillion's Marketplace back into the market at the right locations, they would do well. Too many folks have moved in in that had other options and aren't Walmart loyal. Kroger pulled Dullions out 10 years ago because their Store were old and small and not worth the trouble. They'd knee cap Harps big time.

I am shocked there is no Costco yet.  All those new Sam's were a launch across the bow but most would shop at Costco as well, especially the new transplants.

Amazon is about to build a large dc in Lowell AR.  Not those rinky dinks mentioned  above.


With Wal-Mart being based in NWA, it's tough for anyone else to get a toe hold.  I remember when IGA was the force to be reckoned with.

As long as your wholesaler is Associated Grocers you aren't a force to reckoned with. That is why they went away around like the Do Do bird. Harps is somewhat becoming their own distributor but they ain't there yet.

As I said too many folks have moved in from places with choice and constantly bitch about it being all Walmart and expensive as hell Harps.  If Kroger dropped a Marketplace under either Dillions or Kroger branding on the east Side of Fayetteville like at, oh say, the northwest corner of the intersection of AR16 and AR 265(Huntsville Rd and Crossover) it would become a mint for Kroger. One local grocery had the idea over 20 years ago but was a decade too soon. I am shocked Walmart hasn't at least entertained the ideal of one of the Smaller Single entrance/exit Supercenters there or some where between there and Elkins.

I'm amazed at the guts Dollar General has. They recently opened up to stores in Wesley(between Elkins and Huntsville ) on AR 74 and on US 412 in Marble. Both seem to be doing well.

None of this is neither here or there about I-57..and folks can disagree with this up coming statement but we need lots more limited access roads across his country.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 04, 2020, 11:39:53 AM

As I said too many folks have moved in from places with choice and constantly bitch about it being all Walmart and expensive as hell Harps.  If Kroger dropped a Marketplace under either Dillions or Kroger branding on the east Side of Fayetteville like at, oh say, the northwest corner of the intersection of AR16 and AR 265(Huntsville Rd and Crossover) it would become a mint for Kroger. One local grocery had the idea over 20 years ago but was a decade too soon. I am shocked Walmart hasn't at least entertained the ideal of one of the Smaller Single entrance/exit Supercenters there or some where between there and Elkins.

I'm amazed at the guts Dollar General has. They recently opened up to stores in Wesley(between Elkins and Huntsville ) on AR 74 and on US 412 in Marble. Both seem to be doing well.


DG also has a store in Dyer-Mulberry, taking over a Walmart Express.

265 at 16 has always been odd. Watson's died on that corner and you now have both Harps and Neighborhood Market just 2 miles north at 45.

I'm waiting for one or the other to establish themselves in Mountainburg, maybe razing that old truck stop.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Wayward Memphian on December 04, 2020, 02:58:49 PM

As I said too many folks have moved in from places with choice and constantly bitch about it being all Walmart and expensive as hell Harps.  If Kroger dropped a Marketplace under either Dillions or Kroger branding on the east Side of Fayetteville like at, oh say, the northwest corner of the intersection of AR16 and AR 265(Huntsville Rd and Crossover) it would become a mint for Kroger. One local grocery had the idea over 20 years ago but was a decade too soon. I am shocked Walmart hasn't at least entertained the ideal of one of the Smaller Single entrance/exit Supercenters there or some where between there and Elkins.

I'm amazed at the guts Dollar General has. They recently opened up to stores in Wesley(between Elkins and Huntsville ) on AR 74 and on US 412 in Marble. Both seem to be doing well.


DG also has a store in Dyer-Mulberry, taking over a Walmart Express.

265 at 16 has always been odd. Watson's died on that corner and you now have both Harps and Neighborhood Market just 2 miles north at 45.

I'm waiting for one or the other to establish themselves in Mountainburg, maybe razing that old truck stop.

Walmart abandoned that concept way too soon, they will pay for it and likely revisit it.

Watson's move was too soon but it had a crappy old store much like the existing Dillions were.

Seems like hundreds of new homes under construction from that intersection and Elkins plus all the home construction on 15th between Armstrong and School.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 04, 2020, 09:34:46 PM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.

K-mart Tried but failed damn near everywhere. They did start their Super K-Mart experiment and built a Store in Rogers. That store closed when they pulled the plug on Super K's, that had a lot to do with them using Fleming as it's food distributor. Fleming had also bought out Malone and Hyde out of Memphis. That did Fleming in. Otherwise K Mart held on in Springdale till a couple of years ago. When most others had closed.

If Kroger introduced a Dillion's Marketplace back into the market at the right locations, they would do well. Too many folks have moved in in that had other options and aren't Walmart loyal. Kroger pulled Dullions out 10 years ago because their Store were old and small and not worth the trouble. They'd knee cap Harps big time.

I am shocked there is no Costco yet.  All those new Sam's were a launch across the bow but most would shop at Costco as well, especially the new transplants.

Amazon is about to build a large dc in Lowell AR.  Not those rinky dinks mentioned  above.


With Wal-Mart being based in NWA, it's tough for anyone else to get a toe hold.  I remember when IGA was the force to be reckoned with.
In theory, with their background, Sears would have been the perfect Amazon killer, but over the years (from perhaps as far back as the 70s, they kept shooting themselves in the foot so much that they lost all their toes, and then started amputating other appendages, so there is basically nothing left of value (except memories).

Sears decline began in the 80s when they lost focus on what mattered and tried to be everything to everyone, putting a strain on the overall business. This lead to Walmart surpassing them by 1990. They further shot themselves in the foot when they closed the catalog business in 1993 and dismantled the underlying infrastructure. Had they kept it going, they would’ve been in a position to be as big as Amazon/Walmart today.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: rte66man on December 05, 2020, 07:30:34 AM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.

K-mart Tried but failed damn near everywhere. They did start their Super K-Mart experiment and built a Store in Rogers. That store closed when they pulled the plug on Super K's, that had a lot to do with them using Fleming as it's food distributor. Fleming had also bought out Malone and Hyde out of Memphis. That did Fleming in. Otherwise K Mart held on in Springdale till a couple of years ago. When most others had closed.

If Kroger introduced a Dillion's Marketplace back into the market at the right locations, they would do well. Too many folks have moved in in that had other options and aren't Walmart loyal. Kroger pulled Dullions out 10 years ago because their Store were old and small and not worth the trouble. They'd knee cap Harps big time.

I am shocked there is no Costco yet.  All those new Sam's were a launch across the bow but most would shop at Costco as well, especially the new transplants.

Amazon is about to build a large dc in Lowell AR.  Not those rinky dinks mentioned  above.


With Wal-Mart being based in NWA, it's tough for anyone else to get a toe hold.  I remember when IGA was the force to be reckoned with.
In theory, with their background, Sears would have been the perfect Amazon killer, but over the years (from perhaps as far back as the 70s, they kept shooting themselves in the foot so much that they lost all their toes, and then started amputating other appendages, so there is basically nothing left of value (except memories).

Sears decline began in the 80s when they lost focus on what mattered and tried to be everything to everyone, putting a strain on the overall business. This lead to Walmart surpassing them by 1990. They further shot themselves in the foot when they closed the catalog business in 1993 and dismantled the underlying infrastructure. Had they kept it going, they would’ve been in a position to be as big as Amazon/Walmart today.

Although I believe your idea is good, I think they would have found some way to "shoot themselves" in the foot if they had kept the catalog business. Their management was really hosed up during that time
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 05, 2020, 09:53:14 AM
Oh, nice, This is seriously good news to hear! Thanks all on the 411 about amazon, never thought I would see wal mart have competition in Arkansas

K-Mart tried, but failed. Ditto Venture and Gibson's.

K-mart Tried but failed damn near everywhere. They did start their Super K-Mart experiment and built a Store in Rogers. That store closed when they pulled the plug on Super K's, that had a lot to do with them using Fleming as it's food distributor. Fleming had also bought out Malone and Hyde out of Memphis. That did Fleming in. Otherwise K Mart held on in Springdale till a couple of years ago. When most others had closed.

If Kroger introduced a Dillion's Marketplace back into the market at the right locations, they would do well. Too many folks have moved in in that had other options and aren't Walmart loyal. Kroger pulled Dullions out 10 years ago because their Store were old and small and not worth the trouble. They'd knee cap Harps big time.

I am shocked there is no Costco yet.  All those new Sam's were a launch across the bow but most would shop at Costco as well, especially the new transplants.

Amazon is about to build a large dc in Lowell AR.  Not those rinky dinks mentioned  above.


With Wal-Mart being based in NWA, it's tough for anyone else to get a toe hold.  I remember when IGA was the force to be reckoned with.
In theory, with their background, Sears would have been the perfect Amazon killer, but over the years (from perhaps as far back as the 70s, they kept shooting themselves in the foot so much that they lost all their toes, and then started amputating other appendages, so there is basically nothing left of value (except memories).

Sears decline began in the 80s when they lost focus on what mattered and tried to be everything to everyone, putting a strain on the overall business. This lead to Walmart surpassing them by 1990. They further shot themselves in the foot when they closed the catalog business in 1993 and dismantled the underlying infrastructure. Had they kept it going, they would’ve been in a position to be as big as Amazon/Walmart today.

Although I believe your idea is good, I think they would have found some way to "shoot themselves" in the foot if they had kept the catalog business. Their management was really hosed up during that time

Maybe, but the point is keeping the catalog business going would have allowed them to keep the underlying infrastructure which would have made the transition to e-commerce much easier. They had all the cards to be just as dominate as Amazon, they just totally misplayed them. Really is a great shame.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2020, 08:33:05 PM
Over the past two decades most of the misfortunes of Sears have been directly related to Eddie Lampert and his hedge fund company. Previous executives did make a series of stupid mistakes. But Lampert ran what was left of Sears since the year 2000 straight into the toilet. They wouldn't pay to maintain anything. Cheapest of cheapskates. I know this personally because my mother worked at Sears for over 20 years, the first few here in Lawton and then for nearly 20 years in Colorado Springs. The last few years our Lawton location of Sears inside Central Mall was in operation it was so run down looking that most thrift stores looked better. JCPenney is in terrible shape and suffered very stupid strategic errors from former CEOs over the previous decade, but at least JCPenney tried keeping their stores looking presentable. The executives at Sears didn't even allow for that.

These "private equity" companies who buy up other companies are like vultures. They literally pick apart and ruin what they acquire. I use a certain graphics application pretty heavily in my day job. The software company that makes it has been bought and sold by two different private equity companies and both appear to be doing their best to put this software company out of business. Adobe is a juggernaut and this smaller rival is just not being provided the resources it needs to remain as a viable alternative.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 05, 2020, 09:19:03 PM
Over the past two decades most of the misfortunes of Sears have been directly related to Eddie Lampert and his hedge fund company. Previous executives did make a series of stupid mistakes. But Lampert ran what was left of Sears since the year 2000 straight into the toilet. They wouldn't pay to maintain anything. Cheapest of cheapskates. I know this personally because my mother worked at Sears for over 20 years, the first few here in Lawton and then for nearly 20 years in Colorado Springs. The last few years our Lawton location of Sears inside Central Mall was in operation it was so run down looking that most thrift stores looked better. JCPenney is in terrible shape and suffered very stupid strategic errors from former CEOs over the previous decade, but at least JCPenney tried keeping their stores looking presentable. The executives at Sears didn't even allow for that.

These "private equity" companies who buy up other companies are like vultures. They literally pick apart and ruin what they acquire. I use a certain graphics application pretty heavily in my day job. The software company that makes it has been bought and sold by two different private equity companies and both appear to be doing their best to put this software company out of business. Adobe is a juggernaut and this smaller rival is just not being provided the resources it needs to remain as a viable alternative.

These are great points and I’d like to discuss this further, but we probably should move this to the off topic section and get this thread back to the I-57 extension.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on December 07, 2020, 01:25:08 PM
Just north of the MO/AR line... a future I-57 sign greets drivers heading north.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5039095,-90.5398204,3a,75y,2.75h,103.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFyYujw0oki28b2Xjtc5ffg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 3467 on December 07, 2020, 01:46:43 PM
Missouri likes future Interstates it has no money for. 57 gets added to 49 and 72.
Also will Arkansas ask Illinois to change the control city to Little Rock from Memphis?
Be warned though if there is a fight with Memphis ,Illinois could just change it to
 " Southern States"
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: -- US 175 -- on December 07, 2020, 01:48:47 PM
Just north of the MO/AR line... a future I-57 sign greets drivers heading north.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5039095,-90.5398204,3a,75y,2.75h,103.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFyYujw0oki28b2Xjtc5ffg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder when they put that sign up.  It wasn't there the last time I looked at this area on GSV.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on December 07, 2020, 02:12:10 PM
Missouri likes future Interstates it has no money for. 57 gets added to 49 and 72.
Also will Arkansas ask Illinois to change the control city to Little Rock from Memphis?
Be warned though if there is a fight with Memphis ,Illinois could just change it to
 " Southern States"

I-72 isn't going to happen. I-57 only requires 12 miles of new construction, the rest is simply converting existing high quality expressway segments to freeway. Not really as big of a deal as the amount of work Arkansas needs to bring it up to the state line (as well as finishing I-49).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 07, 2020, 04:22:50 PM
Missouri likes future Interstates it has no money for. 57 gets added to 49 and 72.
Also will Arkansas ask Illinois to change the control city to Little Rock from Memphis?
Be warned though if there is a fight with Memphis ,Illinois could just change it to
 " Southern States"

......or "other Southern cities".  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 07, 2020, 06:50:33 PM
I think Sikeston should have always been the control city for Southbound I-57 signs in Illinois. The Memphis designation makes no sense. Even if/when I-57 is completed Sikeston should still be the control city for those signs in Illinois. Changing the signs from Memphis to Little Rock won't be any better of a solution.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on December 07, 2020, 09:13:37 PM
I think Sikeston should have always been the control city for Southbound I-57 signs in Illinois. The Memphis designation makes no sense. Even if/when I-57 is completed Sikeston should still be the control city for those signs in Illinois. Changing the signs from Memphis to Little Rock won't be any better of a solution.

I guess I don't really have a problem with the Memphis as the control city. I think that once it's completed, MO might do something like Poplar Bluff/Little Rock on their part of I-57. Not sure what IL will do. I wouldn't blame them if they just kept it as Memphis.

FWIW, my personal preference is to have bigger cities as primary control cities and smaller cities like Sikeston be secondary control cities.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on December 07, 2020, 10:11:14 PM
I think Sikeston should have always been the control city for Southbound I-57 signs in Illinois. The Memphis designation makes no sense. Even if/when I-57 is completed Sikeston should still be the control city for those signs in Illinois. Changing the signs from Memphis to Little Rock won't be any better of a solution.

I guess I don't really have a problem with the Memphis as the control city. I think that once it's completed, MO might do something like Poplar Bluff/Little Rock on their part of I-57. Not sure what IL will do. I wouldn't blame them if they just kept it as Memphis.

Maybe they'll surprise everyone and change it from Memphis to Nashville?  :spin:

Sikeston is too small (around 16,000) to be a control city all the way up in Chicagoland.  Definitely smaller than Champaign, and about the same size as Marion and Mount Vernon.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 3467 on December 08, 2020, 10:03:48 AM
Sorry I was doing a little control city humor . For those in Mid South that have not seen our endless discussions of Chicago control suburbs. IDOT stopped using suburban names because the ones not mentioned get upset.

I had this vision of a fight between Little Rock Memphis and heck maybe Dallas causing IDOT to go with

Southern Cities
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: CoreySamson on December 08, 2020, 08:14:45 PM
I think that the control cities should be either major cities, or smaller cities where the route intersects other major routes. Also, who says you can't put more than one or two control cities on a BGS? Here's how I would do it from Chicago southbound:

Chicago: Champaign, Little Rock, and STL Bypass
Champaign: Effingham, Little Rock
Effingham: Mount Vernon, Little Rock
Mount Vernon: Sikeston, Little Rock, Memphis
Sikeston: Jonesboro (opt.) Little Rock
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on December 08, 2020, 08:50:29 PM
I think that the control cities should be either major cities, or smaller cities where the route intersects other major routes. Also, who says you can't put more than one or two control cities on a BGS? Here's how I would do it from Chicago southbound:

Chicago: Champaign, Little Rock, and STL Bypass
Champaign: Effingham, Little Rock
Effingham: Mount Vernon, Little Rock
Mount Vernon: Sikeston, Little Rock, Memphis
Sikeston: Jonesboro (opt.) Little Rock
Once again, Marion (IL) gets skipped. I-57 and I-24 I guess ain’t major enough

IDOT D1 isn’t signing “STL Bypass” - they would sooner sign I-57 South as “Arkansas” than “STL Bypass” - and “Arkansas” would cover both Little Rock AND STL Bypass. Why not add a 4th state to the existing “Iowa” “Wisconsin” and “Indiana” controls?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 3467 on December 08, 2020, 09:54:13 PM
255 is signed Memphis too. And Alton.It's not a really congested St Louis Bypass.

I was think control states too. The Memphis sign is old dates from the Des Moines Toledo days in 80 . I think the only cities left are STL Milwaukee and Rockford.

I think Texas should be the state . AR is same pop as Chicago so go grand This would be the road to take for Dallas and Houston with 69.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: jbnv on December 09, 2020, 04:58:38 PM
"Memphis" would still be appropriate. I briefly thought "Missouri" would make the most sense but then I remembered that St. Louis is also in Missouri. Memphis *is* the next major city served by I-57. Having an easier way to get to Little Rock doesn't change that.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on December 09, 2020, 05:16:30 PM
"Memphis" would still be appropriate. I briefly thought "Missouri" would make the most sense but then I remembered that St. Louis is also in Missouri. Memphis *is* the next major city served by I-57. Having an easier way to get to Little Rock doesn't change that.
Except for the minor fact that I-57 has never gone to Memphis, and when the extension is completed and signed, it will still never go to Memphis. Since I-57 never reaches Memphis, and needs another interstate (or US route, if you prefer) to get there, one could argue it would make more sense to sign Nashville for I-57 over Memphis today, as the trip to Nashville via I-57 SB/I-24 EB is shorter than to Memphis via I-57 SB/I-55 SB

AFA IDOT signing Missouri...Growing up in Will County, it struck me as odd then and still strikes me as odd to this day, that the controls at I-55 and I-80 are:
55: Chicago, St Louis
80: Iowa, Indiana

For consistency sake, 55 SB should be changed to “Missouri.” For most of MO, I-55 is your best bet from the Chicago area (in spite of IL 110/CKC). If you are headed to the Bootheel...well you already know to use I-57

So yeah, IDOT D1: Double-Down on State Controls! Change I-55 SB to Missouri and, when the extension is completed, I-57 SB to Arkansas
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on December 09, 2020, 09:33:59 PM
Sorry I was doing a little control city humor . For those in Mid South that have not seen our endless discussions of Chicago control suburbs. IDOT stopped using suburban names because the ones not mentioned get upset.

I had this vision of a fight between Little Rock Memphis and heck maybe Dallas causing IDOT to go with

Southern Cities
Do it like English motorways and just sign it “The South.”
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on December 09, 2020, 09:44:28 PM
Sorry I was doing a little control city humor . For those in Mid South that have not seen our endless discussions of Chicago control suburbs. IDOT stopped using suburban names because the ones not mentioned get upset.

I had this vision of a fight between Little Rock Memphis and heck maybe Dallas causing IDOT to go with

Southern Cities
Do it like English motorways and just sign it “The South.”
I would actually be quite OK with that for I-57 leaving Chicagoland
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2020, 12:34:30 AM
Quote from: Revive 755
Sikeston is too small (around 16,000) to be a control city all the way up in Chicagoland.

Sikeston is at the current terminus of I-57, and is the turning point to get on I-55 to actually drive down to Memphis. That makes Sikeston 100% valid as a control city. Once I-57 is completed to the Little Rock area that will make Memphis really silly as a control city for I-57 signs in Illinois. Sikeston will really be the only thing that makes sense as a control city then. Once I-57 is extended then Poplar Bluff will work as the control city for I-57 going past the I-55/I-57 interchange. Maybe Little Rock can be added too. But Memphis is going to have to go. Memphis should only appear on I-57 as a control city for entering I-55 Southbound.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on December 10, 2020, 09:39:43 AM
Quote from: Revive 755
Sikeston is too small (around 16,000) to be a control city all the way up in Chicagoland.

Sikeston is at the current terminus of I-57, and is the turning point to get on I-55 to actually drive down to Memphis. That makes Sikeston 100% valid as a control city. Once I-57 is completed to the Little Rock area that will make Memphis really silly as a control city for I-57 signs in Illinois. Sikeston will really be the only thing that makes sense as a control city then. Once I-57 is extended then Poplar Bluff will work as the control city for I-57 going past the I-55/I-57 interchange. Maybe Little Rock can be added too. But Memphis is going to have to go. Memphis should only appear on I-57 as a control city for entering I-55 Southbound.

I would think that Memphis would still be a valid control city for I-57 in Illinois, given that it does serve as an alternative route for traffic wanting to bypass St. Louis when traveling between Memphis and Chicago. I would add Little Rock as a control city to signage in Illinois, but I wouldn't necessarily delete Memphis.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on December 10, 2020, 10:22:17 AM
Quote from: Revive 755
Sikeston is too small (around 16,000) to be a control city all the way up in Chicagoland.

Sikeston is at the current terminus of I-57, and is the turning point to get on I-55 to actually drive down to Memphis. That makes Sikeston 100% valid as a control city. Once I-57 is completed to the Little Rock area that will make Memphis really silly as a control city for I-57 signs in Illinois. Sikeston will really be the only thing that makes sense as a control city then. Once I-57 is extended then Poplar Bluff will work as the control city for I-57 going past the I-55/I-57 interchange. Maybe Little Rock can be added too. But Memphis is going to have to go. Memphis should only appear on I-57 as a control city for entering I-55 Southbound.

I would think that Memphis would still be a valid control city for I-57 in Illinois, given that it does serve as an alternative route for traffic wanting to bypass St. Louis when traveling between Memphis and Chicago. I would add Little Rock as a control city to signage in Illinois, but I wouldn't necessarily delete Memphis.

Agreed. Just make it Memphis and Little Rock.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on December 10, 2020, 04:15:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755
Sikeston is too small (around 16,000) to be a control city all the way up in Chicagoland.

Sikeston is at the current terminus of I-57, and is the turning point to get on I-55 to actually drive down to Memphis. That makes Sikeston 100% valid as a control city. Once I-57 is completed to the Little Rock area that will make Memphis really silly as a control city for I-57 signs in Illinois. Sikeston will really be the only thing that makes sense as a control city then. Once I-57 is extended then Poplar Bluff will work as the control city for I-57 going past the I-55/I-57 interchange. Maybe Little Rock can be added too. But Memphis is going to have to go. Memphis should only appear on I-57 as a control city for entering I-55 Southbound.

I would think that Memphis would still be a valid control city for I-57 in Illinois, given that it does serve as an alternative route for traffic wanting to bypass St. Louis when traveling between Memphis and Chicago. I would add Little Rock as a control city to signage in Illinois, but I wouldn't necessarily delete Memphis.

Agreed. Just make it Memphis and Little Rock.

And one more concurrence with the above idea.  The original I-57 referencing Memphis has been around long enough that it's probably a bit iconic with both commercial and "civilian" drivers; eliminating it now would simply cause confusion.  Just add Little Rock as a secondary city -- particularly at and south of the I-24 interchange -- once the gap is filled.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ChimpOnTheWheel on December 10, 2020, 07:37:19 PM
Is there any actual updates to the construction of I-57 between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge? Or any news on signage of I-57 between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Revive 755 on December 10, 2020, 09:34:22 PM
Quote from: Revive 755
Sikeston is too small (around 16,000) to be a control city all the way up in Chicagoland.

Sikeston is at the current terminus of I-57, and is the turning point to get on I-55 to actually drive down to Memphis. That makes Sikeston 100% valid as a control city.

If you want to sign using 'turning points' might as well sign Pulley's Mill first.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on December 10, 2020, 09:43:02 PM
Is there any actual updates to the construction of I-57 between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge? Or any news on signage of I-57 between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?
There is a Future I-57 sign southbound just south of the US 63 interchange.

The control city is still St. Louis on the south end. They are on overhead gantries just off I-40 and start showing up on BGSes just past Beebe.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:59:41 AM
Knowing Illinois signing practices, we'll just get "Arkansas".
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on December 11, 2020, 01:13:07 PM
Is there any actual updates to the construction of I-57 between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge? Or any news on signage of I-57 between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?

Since this posting, no.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2551106#msg2551106 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2551106#msg2551106)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on December 11, 2020, 10:20:34 PM
Where is that ARDOT poster? He used to give good 411 on interstate projects! I hope to see news that 57 will get started by June of next year or at least a planned projection of the 57 routing??? This has been 20 years overdue! IMO because of the commercial traffic from Chicago to Texas
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 11, 2020, 10:58:08 PM
AR DOT could start signing US-67 as I-57 from the I-40 interchange in North Little Rock up to the AR-440 interchange and sign AR-440 and I-440 while they're at it. Jacksonville still remains the big hold-up for signing US-67 as I-57 any farther North. There's still a bunch of sub-standard bridges, ramps and other garbage along US-67 through there. A lot of work has been done on US-67 both North and South of Jacksonville. The stuff within Jacksonville needs to be fixed now. From Cabot on North the main problem with US-67 is sub-standard shoulders. That's easier to fix than bad ramps and bridges.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on December 13, 2020, 07:35:51 PM
Where is that ARDOT poster? He used to give good 411 on interstate projects! I hope to see news that 57 will get started by June of next year or at least a planned projection of the 57 routing??? This has been 20 years overdue! IMO because of the commercial traffic from Chicago to Texas

I know the PR guy for ARDOT (Randy?) is no longer there. I'm not sure who took over, off hand.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 13, 2021, 01:58:02 PM
I just noticed something. All of the alternatives for Future I-57 between Corning and the Missouri state line cross the existing US 67 just south of AR 328. Why not have it cross AR 328 and keep it west of the current alignment? It seems there is more open land there.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 14, 2021, 08:57:18 AM
I just noticed something. All of the alternatives for Future I-57 between Corning and the Missouri state line cross the existing US 67 just south of AR 328. Why not have it cross AR 328 and keep it west of the current alignment? It seems there is more open land there.

Because west of US-67 but north of AR-328 is a FEMA certified flood zone. East of the current ROW is considered low risk.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 14, 2021, 09:11:51 AM
The current US-67 was built before FEMA zones were established. Some of the zone passes east of the current ROW. But for all basic purposes, they are avoiding it as much as possible.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50835054152_f0063bf910_z.jpg)

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer (https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 14, 2021, 09:40:31 AM
The current US-67 was built before FEMA zones were established. Some of the zone passes east of the current ROW. But for all basic purposes, they are avoiding it as much as possible.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50835054152_f0063bf910_z.jpg)

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer (https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer)

Fair enough. It looks like they can't avoid it either way, but its a bit less on the eastern side.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 3467 on January 14, 2021, 10:21:19 AM
And if the levees have issues it gets worse. There are old discussions of US 34 in Illinois.
You can still build but the costs are wild. In This case it's 120 to 250 million for 5 rural miles.
67 In Illinois has similar huge streaches.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on January 14, 2021, 09:53:05 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.  Funny thing -- when those rail lines were being surveyed and subsequently built in the latter part of the 19th century, for the most part they managed to skirt those areas prone to flooding (and without the aid of aerial surveys!).  Surprised tracking that old MoPac line as much as possible hasn't occurred to both MODOT and ADOT (and guessing that local issues have intervened otherwise).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 14, 2021, 10:54:49 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.  Funny thing -- when those rail lines were being surveyed and subsequently built in the latter part of the 19th century, for the most part they managed to skirt those areas prone to flooding (and without the aid of aerial surveys!).  Surprised tracking that old MoPac line as much as possible hasn't occurred to both MODOT and ADOT (and guessing that local issues have intervened otherwise).

Nevertheless, it is still going to head through a lot of flood zone areas near Pocahontas (the most likely alignment for north of Walnut Ridge). But I guess the eastern route would be better as it will tie into the Missouri section better.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 14, 2021, 11:56:50 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.  Funny thing -- when those rail lines were being surveyed and subsequently built in the latter part of the 19th century, for the most part they managed to skirt those areas prone to flooding (and without the aid of aerial surveys!).  Surprised tracking that old MoPac line as much as possible hasn't occurred to both MODOT and ADOT (and guessing that local issues have intervened otherwise).

I will go back and look, but I am pretty sure that this particular line was under water during the Floods of 1927 in Arkansas. They spent several months after raising the grade above what was the floodline of that time. So I don't want to knock the ingenuity of Jay Gould's land engineers, but I am pretty sure the original rail was laid at ground elevation. The only planned (if you can call it that) avoidance at the time was the swamps surrounding the Black River.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on January 15, 2021, 10:59:17 AM
And if the levees have issues it gets worse. There are old discussions of US 34 in Illinois.
You can still build but the costs are wild. In This case it's 120 to 250 million for 5 rural miles.
67 In Illinois has similar huge streaches.

Especially true if they end up building a long viaduct over the floodplain, which is what I would do to eliminate the concern of the highway flooding and allowing the water to freely flow beneath the highway to avoid more severe flooding that would occur if they built the highway across the floodplain on elevated embankments. The flooding of I-40 near the White River back in 2011 should be a really good lesson learned for designing the US-67 freeway extension.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: 3467 on January 15, 2021, 11:07:45 AM
That is what the corps to IDOT it needed to do to 4 lane 34 in Henderson County. They responded by saying we are road builders not dam builders.....I think they ran into this all over and that along with too little traffic killed off most projects.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 15, 2021, 11:59:42 AM
Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 15, 2021, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 16, 2021, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.

As I noted earlier, the Pocahontas route is the same mileage as the railroad route. The route miles that would cross flood plain is actually slightly more on the railroad side then it is on the Pocahontas side. As for the number of bridges, it would require the same on either route, so the costs would be roughly the same. The hassle of using the railroad route is 2 things. There is industrial/residential east of Corning that would be expensive to acquire. Second there is extensive flood plain south and southeast of Corning, hence the desire to keep the Corning bypass to the west of town.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 16, 2021, 01:45:34 PM
Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.

As I noted earlier, the Pocahontas route is the same mileage as the railroad route. The route miles that would cross flood plain is actually slightly more on the railroad side then it is on the Pocahontas side. As for the number of bridges, it would require the same on either route, so the costs would be roughly the same. The hassle of using the railroad route is 2 things. There is industrial/residential east of Corning that would be expensive to acquire. Second there is extensive flood plain south and southeast of Corning, hence the desire to keep the Corning bypass to the west of town.

They aren’t even considering an eastern bypass of Corning anymore. And how is it so the number of flood plain miles is more on the railroad side? It passes further away from Black River WLMA than the Pocahontas route does.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2021, 03:04:55 PM
Although this would likely jack up the price of building the roadway, I would advocate elevating the US 67/future Interstate 57 proposed freeway through the flood plains.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on January 16, 2021, 03:48:39 PM
Although this would likely jack up the price of building the roadway, I would advocate elevating the US 67/future Interstate 57 proposed freeway through the flood plains.
Is it cheaper to build a berm or a viaduct?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on January 16, 2021, 05:26:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Since the current plan is to "cut the corner" and route I-57 to the northwest of Corning, if it were to more closely follow the UP tracks it would have to cross US 67 north of town and then curve north on the west side of the rail line.  From what I understand from reading the previous posts, the plan is to stay west of US 67 in order to meet the MO planned alignment -- but that passes directly through much of the historic floodplain in both states.  A question that needs to be answered before any more speculation occurs is this:  is the MO alignment functionally "written in stone"; i.e., has the ROW been acquired or the route publicized as a final choice, which would make it difficult if not impossible to modify at this juncture.  If that toggles toward a yes, then ADOT would have to build their west-of-67 alignment in a fashion to mitigate against potential flooding (if this were CA, it would be on a not-terribly-high berm with relatively closely-spaced bridges and/or culverts).  The choice between bridge/viaduct or berm would likely hinge upon the stability of the soil along the ROW.  OTOH, if MO hasn't fully finalized their exact route, then it's possible that a reroute across US 67 and along the tracks could obviate much of the "floodproofing" -- but that would involve a berm at least the elevation of the tracks -- but on, in all probability, more solid ground.  Nevertheless, chances are that if MDOT has put time & effort into determining their best option north of the state line, that'll be what will eventually be built -- and ADOT will simply need to do what they have to do to construct a secure facility.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 16, 2021, 11:05:53 PM
Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.

As I noted earlier, the Pocahontas route is the same mileage as the railroad route. The route miles that would cross flood plain is actually slightly more on the railroad side then it is on the Pocahontas side. As for the number of bridges, it would require the same on either route, so the costs would be roughly the same. The hassle of using the railroad route is 2 things. There is industrial/residential east of Corning that would be expensive to acquire. Second there is extensive flood plain south and southeast of Corning, hence the desire to keep the Corning bypass to the west of town.

They aren’t even considering an eastern bypass of Corning anymore. And how is it so the number of flood plain miles is more on the railroad side? It passes further away from Black River WLMA than the Pocahontas route does.

As for flood plain being slightly more on the railroad side, south of Corning is a flood plain around Lake Corning that extends around a creek of whose name I cant recall at the moment, all the way to the Black River, and then continues south all the way to just north of Nobel. The railroad raised their ROW years ago to deal with this. In fact it shows up as a nice line in the flood report.

But on the Pocahontas route the flood plain is only where it crosses the Black and the Current. It's high and dry until you get west of Corning. When you measure it out, the railroad route actually has more (not by much). I know its hard to believe, I think the difference is less than a mile overall, I was surprised when I mapped it out myself. It's probably why US-67 was routed this way after WW2. They had better topographic information than the railroad did in 1885.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf)

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 02:13:55 PM
What caught my eye was the construction phasing on pages 17 and 18 of that pdf.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/12408_27_01_21_2_13_18.png)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:20:16 PM
What caught my eye was the construction phasing on pages 17 and 18 of that pdf.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/12408_27_01_21_2_13_18.png)

So there is a real possibility this could become another Bella Vista bypass situation.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf)

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:36:54 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf)

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 04:11:09 PM
So there is a real possibility this could become another Bella Vista bypass situation.

I'm hoping that this isn't a repeat of that lol. At least they don't need to blast through rock to build this segment.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 05:06:09 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf)

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.

When I saw the remark that Clay County, Arkansas doesn't want the highway, I did some research.

Seems that WalMart shut their store in Corning in the past year permanently. Huge loss in sales tax revenue for the local schools.

The Corning City council had a vote on the new highway back in September, but you would be hard pressed to find the results.

The city website has never ever had one agenda or meeting notes posted. I guess Arkansas doesn't have a sunshine law.

The county newspaper editor wrote an editorial expressing total support for the new highway and the new economic benefits it can bring, if the town chooses to embrace it.

Pocahontas passed a resolution supporting Corridor 2 since it will bring the road closer to the town and their business park.

If the people of Corning aren't interested, then it can clearly bypass farther away to suit them. But if they are hog tied by a loss of tax revenue, perhaps they should take a more pragmatic approach like Pocahontas.

Pocahontas is already looking at annexing up to the new road if it comes by so they can extend water and electric for any new services that build out at the 2 planned exits in Corridor 2.

If Corning wants the opposite, that is clearly their choice. But the retail that US-67 supports through the center of town will begin to dry up and people pass them by.

Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 05:38:36 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf)

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.

When I saw the remark that Clay County, Arkansas doesn't want the highway, I did some research.

Seems that WalMart shut their store in Corning in the past year permanently. Huge loss in sales tax revenue for the local schools.

The Corning City council had a vote on the new highway back in September, but you would be hard pressed to find the results.

The city website has never ever had one agenda or meeting notes posted. I guess Arkansas doesn't have a sunshine law.

The county newspaper editor wrote an editorial expressing total support for the new highway and the new economic benefits it can bring, if the town chooses to embrace it.

Pocahontas passed a resolution supporting Corridor 2 since it will bring the road closer to the town and their business park.

If the people of Corning aren't interested, then it can clearly bypass farther away to suit them. But if they are hog tied by a loss of tax revenue, perhaps they should take a more pragmatic approach like Pocahontas.

Pocahontas is already looking at annexing up to the new road if it comes by so they can extend water and electric for any new services that build out at the 2 planned exits in Corridor 2.

If Corning wants the opposite, that is clearly their choice. But the retail that US-67 supports through the center of town will begin to dry up and people pass them by.

Each corridor has an interchange on the west side of town. Wouldn’t be surprised if Walmart came back when it goes in.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on January 27, 2021, 06:42:59 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf)

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.

When I saw the remark that Clay County, Arkansas doesn't want the highway, I did some research.

Seems that WalMart shut their store in Corning in the past year permanently. Huge loss in sales tax revenue for the local schools.

The Corning City council had a vote on the new highway back in September, but you would be hard pressed to find the results.

The city website has never ever had one agenda or meeting notes posted. I guess Arkansas doesn't have a sunshine law.

The county newspaper editor wrote an editorial expressing total support for the new highway and the new economic benefits it can bring, if the town chooses to embrace it.

Pocahontas passed a resolution supporting Corridor 2 since it will bring the road closer to the town and their business park.

If the people of Corning aren't interested, then it can clearly bypass farther away to suit them. But if they are hog tied by a loss of tax revenue, perhaps they should take a more pragmatic approach like Pocahontas.

Pocahontas is already looking at annexing up to the new road if it comes by so they can extend water and electric for any new services that build out at the 2 planned exits in Corridor 2.

If Corning wants the opposite, that is clearly their choice. But the retail that US-67 supports through the center of town will begin to dry up and people pass them by.

Each corridor has an interchange on the west side of town. Wouldn’t be surprised if Walmart came back when it goes in.

Either that -- or Wal-Mart will build one "superstore" somewhere between Pocahontas & Corning to serve the extended area.  If the eventually selected alignment is within shouting distance of present US 62/67, such a store would likely front on the old highway but have signage that can be seen at a distance on the new freeway.  At least that's what they've done out here, especially in the US 101 corridor from Gilroy to San Jose; Gilroy's facility was enlarged to accommodate folks coming in from Hollister to the south and Morgan Hill to the north (although the latter retained its small "neighborhood" store).  But that company won't do anything until the freeway is practically a reality. 
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 07:35:25 PM
So there is a real possibility this could become another Bella Vista bypass situation.

I'm hoping that this isn't a repeat of that lol. At least they don't need to blast through rock to build this segment.

I’m thinking upgrading the US 60 section between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff may not be as straightforward as it looks. Not only will a lot of new interchanges, overpasses, cul-de-sac’s and frontage roads need to be built, but the pavement itself in some areas may need to be replaced. Some of the mainline bridges are not fully interstate standard (no shoulders).
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2021, 08:18:48 PM
US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:47:29 PM
Is there a timeline for upgrading US 60 to freeway standards? I would think they should tackle that first.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 10:38:35 PM
Is there a timeline for upgrading US 60 to freeway standards? I would think they should tackle that first.

No, there is not.

The remaining new terrain segments need to be built first.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 10:40:17 PM
US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 10:55:26 PM
US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 11:08:01 PM
US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.

Yes, it goes East/West there, but when it becomes I-57 it will be north and south.

The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 11:13:41 PM

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.

Yes, it goes East/West there, but when it becomes I-57 it will be north and south.

The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.

Ah ok. Makes more sense now. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

This might be a stupid question, but is there a way to add shoulders to a bridge without having to build a new one altogether?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 11:19:01 PM

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.

Yes, it goes East/West there, but when it becomes I-57 it will be north and south.

The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.

Ah ok. Makes more sense now. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

This might be a stupid question, but is there a way to add shoulders to a bridge without having to build a new one altogether?

Idk, but those bridges are so old anyway they need to be replaced, especially with increased traffic coming from an interstate.

It appears MoDOT took the cheap way out here and simply made US 60 four lanes by adding two lanes without reconstructing the existing pavement/bridges, eerily similar to what they did with US 36. That’s really annoying.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Tomahawkin on January 28, 2021, 12:13:16 AM
Bridges need to be replaced nationwide. I'm not suprised that they would go Cheap. Those antiquated intersections in Jacksonville are dangerous because they are so 1970s. Those should have been replaced in the 90s at the latest. I'm sure the politicians there pocketed the money on road improvements there as well as on IH 30 SW of Little Rock.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on January 28, 2021, 12:32:32 AM
Bridges need to be replaced nationwide. I'm not suprised that they would go Cheap. Those antiquated intersections in Jacksonville are dangerous because they are so 1970s. Those should have been replaced in the 90s at the latest. I'm sure the politicians there pocketed the money on road improvements there as well as on IH 30 SW of Little Rock.
Well you know how they roll in Arkansas. They should have 6 laned US 67 through Jacksonville to the NLR (I-40) interchange since the mid 1990's but it didn't happen. Now with the increased traffic counts, when they do get around to expanding US 67 in Jacksonville to 6 lanes, it's going to be a nightmare. I'm guessing that the stubby right "exit" just after the Main St. exit will go away, along with the short on-ramp just before the James Street overpass will also go away. TP White (from Main St. to Vandenberg Blvd) which sets just feet from the northbound lanes will also have to be relocated as well. All of the bridges, with the exception of the Main St will have to be replaced as well.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2021, 10:21:10 AM
The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.
From a look at aerial imagery, it appears the problematic bridges are all (with the exception of like 3) in the southbound / westbound direction.

And it looks like that MoDOT has replaced a number of them in the past decade looking at Street View, and will likely continue doing so regardless of what happens with I-57. It will likely progress at a steady pace of a bridge here and there, interchange addition here and there, overpass addition here and there, etc. until the entire corridor meets interstate standards.

The biggest priority would seemingly be US-67 south of Popular Bluff to at least provide a 4 lane corridor throughout the entire Future I-57 route in the interim, then of course fill in the pieces, specifically along US-60, and designate the entire system as Interstate 57.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2021, 12:30:08 PM
Quote from: I-39
The remaining new terrain segments need to be built first.

Uh, what for? All of the new terrain segments have to go through years of Draft EIS, EIS, public meetings, lawsuits and other crap to finally get to a ROD (record of decision) and then get shovels in motion. Existing US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff can proceed in the meantime since most of that red tape is not necessary to proceed with upgrades.

It's better to build the stuff that can be built up NOW all while dealing with the red tape surrounding the new terrain alignments.

Quote from: I-39
But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Bridge upgrades and replacements on existing 4-lane highways is very routine. Traffic gets shifted to one line for upgrades to an existing bridge, or traffic gets routed to the opposing roadway for bridges to be replaced one at a time. It's really no big deal. If an existing bridge is in good enough shape it can be refurbished and widened to accommodate bigger shoulders. If not, it can be replaced. There isn't very many main lanes bridges along US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

Not only would I suggest MO DOT get on the ball upgrading that segment of US-60 to I-57, but I would also have them sign I-57 to Poplar Bluff as soon as the work was done. That would put ever more visual pressure on getting the rest of the I-57 segments built.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2021, 12:45:00 PM
Uh, what for? All of the new terrain segments have to go through years of Draft EIS, EIS, public meetings, lawsuits and other crap to finally get to a ROD (record of decision) and then get shovels in motion. Existing US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff can proceed in the meantime since most of that red tape is not necessary to proceed with upgrades.
The new location segment already has an EIS... and an EIS Re-evaluation, it's linked below. That exhaustive process is largely complete. Outlined in the EIS Re-evaluation, construction on all new location segments (with the exception of 2 miles north of the Arkansas line not included) is to begin between 2022 and 2025 in 3 phases.

Bridge upgrades and replacements on existing 4-lane highways is very routine. Traffic gets shifted to one line for upgrades to an existing bridge, or traffic gets routed to the opposing roadway for bridges to be replaced one at a time. It's really no big deal. If an existing bridge is in good enough shape it can be refurbished and widened to accommodate bigger shoulders. If not, it can be replaced. There isn't very many main lanes bridges along US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.
At least 12 bridges need to be replaced, mostly in the southbound / westbound direction. A number of private driveways need to be addressed through the construction of miles of frontage roads, plus at least a dozen or more overpass bridges and interchanges constructed.

Not only would I suggest MO DOT get on the ball upgrading that segment of US-60 to I-57, but I would also have them sign I-57 to Poplar Bluff as soon as the work was done. That would put ever more visual pressure on getting the rest of the I-57 segments built.
It seems, and the current plan suggests the same, the best route to go is completing 4 lanes to the 2 miles north of the Arkansas state line, leaving that stretch of US-60 the last to be improved as its already more adequate today than US-67 south of Popular Bluff is.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: MikieTimT on January 28, 2021, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: I-39
The remaining new terrain segments need to be built first.

Uh, what for? All of the new terrain segments have to go through years of Draft EIS, EIS, public meetings, lawsuits and other crap to finally get to a ROD (record of decision) and then get shovels in motion. Existing US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff can proceed in the meantime since most of that red tape is not necessary to proceed with upgrades.

It's better to build the stuff that can be built up NOW all while dealing with the red tape surrounding the new terrain alignments.

Quote from: I-39
But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Bridge upgrades and replacements on existing 4-lane highways is very routine. Traffic gets shifted to one line for upgrades to an existing bridge, or traffic gets routed to the opposing roadway for bridges to be replaced one at a time. It's really no big deal. If an existing bridge is in good enough shape it can be refurbished and widened to accommodate bigger shoulders. If not, it can be replaced. There isn't very many main lanes bridges along US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

Not only would I suggest MO DOT get on the ball upgrading that segment of US-60 to I-57, but I would also have them sign I-57 to Poplar Bluff as soon as the work was done. That would put ever more visual pressure on getting the rest of the I-57 segments built.


My guess is that MDoT's goal isn't necessarily to get the low hanging fruit done while doing what is needed to get the new terrain portions done, but their goal is likely to do as little as possible until they can get as many federal dollars as possible on any or all of the remaining work; so in their minds, it's more prudent to wait on as much as possible until the money fairy drops as much funding as possible for the US-60 upgrade as well as the new terrain portions of US-67.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 28, 2021, 05:23:11 PM
There should be no signing of any portions of I-57 between Sikeston and the state line until the entire freeway is completed, as designating it as I-57 will require assigning exit numbers and renumbering the ones on the existing I-57. The priority needs to be getting the four lane to the state line. It should have been done already, but Missouri's refusal to raise the gas tax has delayed it.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on January 28, 2021, 06:09:53 PM
There should be no signing of any portions of I-57 between Sikeston and the state line until the entire freeway is completed, as designating it as I-57 will require assigning exit numbers and renumbering the ones on the existing I-57. The priority needs to be getting the four lane to the state line. It should have been done already, but Missouri's refusal to raise the gas tax has delayed it.

I've heard that MODOT has already placed sporadic "Future I-57" green roadside signs along that section of US 60; that's probably all that will be done prior to full completion of the freeway within the state.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 29, 2021, 11:15:34 AM

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.

Yes, it goes East/West there, but when it becomes I-57 it will be north and south.

The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.

Ah ok. Makes more sense now. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

This might be a stupid question, but is there a way to add shoulders to a bridge without having to build a new one altogether?

Idk, but those bridges are so old anyway they need to be replaced, especially with increased traffic coming from an interstate.

It appears MoDOT took the cheap way out here and simply made US 60 four lanes by adding two lanes without reconstructing the existing pavement/bridges, eerily similar to what they did with US 36. That’s really annoying.

I have driven US-60 across Missouri from Springfield to Sikeston. The freeway from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston is a mixture of old and new. Some are exits, some are ground level intersections. Some parts have standard medians, some don't. Some parts have regulation shoulders, some parts don't.

It probably reflects the budget MoDOT had at the time they extended the 4 lane to Poplar Bluff in the 70's and 80's.

MoDOT just upgraded US-60 from Springfield to Rogersville to freeway standards, but is still a 3 lane (center left turn lane) in Mountain View.  I would very much like this route to get upgraded to an I route, if anything to get rid of some of those dangerous road level intersections with these county marked ones. i have seen some really bad encounters with trucks at these intersections where people are misjudging the speed of oncoming vehicles.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2021, 11:58:46 AM
^

Freeway would be the wrong word, those segments you mention are only divided highways. A freeway would entail full control of access, no at-grade intersections, interchanges and overpasses only, etc.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on January 29, 2021, 01:00:48 PM
^

Freeway would be the wrong word, those segments you mention are only divided highways. A freeway would entail full control of access, no at-grade intersections, interchanges and overpasses only, etc.

I stand corrected. They didn't take out those 2 intersections. Just built a big exit at Rogersville.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on January 29, 2021, 11:17:16 PM
Freeway (disambiguation)

A freeway is a common name for different types of limited-access highways.

Freeway or Free Way may also refer to:

Controlled-access highway mostly in the form of divided highways
Two-lane expressway, sometimes called a "two lane freeway"

From wikipedia :)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: bwana39 on January 30, 2021, 12:38:54 PM
^

Freeway would be the wrong word, those segments you mention are only divided highways. A freeway would entail full control of access, no at-grade intersections, interchanges and overpasses only, etc.

I tend to agree that we tend in the vernacular at least to use the term Freeway to only mean fully controlled access. In Texas it tends to only refer to the free to drive on ones at that. With the advent of all the Texpress lanes that mingle free and for charge lanes adjacent to one another in the same controlled access facility , that distinction is becoming a little murkier.

I used the word vernacular. That is what we call it in our part of the world.

In some parts of the US, the road that would be called an EXPRESSWAY. That said, in some regions, an EXPRESSWAY is far less. So I hear, some parts of the US call the Interstate Highways Expressway.  In Texas, no one would call ANY road an expressway. The only notable EXPRESSWAY in Texas is Central Expressway in Dallas.  It was a name that was obsolete when it was chosen. The Texas Highway Department (now TxDOT) admonished them at the time to call it a freeway not an expressway. (Dredged up from Oscar Slotboom's DFW Freeways Book's accounting of a quote originally reported by the Fort Worth Star Telegram)
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2021, 01:34:35 PM
I usually think of the term "expressway" as a step down from a fully controlled access Interstate style highway. An expressway can be a divided highway with some at-grade intersections and driveways. If there is a lot of crossing streets and traffic signals as well as lots of entrances to retail or residential properties then that 4-lane divided highway is no longer an "expressway" and is, instead, just a busy surface street.

A "freeway" is generally a 100% controlled access highway, usually 4-lane divided but can be just 2 lanes. I also only apply the term "freeway" to limited access highways that don't have any tolls. It's usually assumed any toll road, thruway or turnpike will be 100% controlled access.

To me, "super highway" is about the only all-purpose term for limited access highways that have or don't have tolls on them. But "super highway" uses up more syllables and letters than a more simple term like "freeway."
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on January 30, 2021, 08:13:35 PM
Back to I-57, it appears the construction done on US 67 south of Poplar Bluff in the 2012-2013 timeframe deviated from the original plan. They were going to have it parallel the existing alignment and they ended up shifting it south. In addition to the problems with the Route 158 interchange, the shoulders on the section between there and County C (the concrete barrier median) are not up to par for an Interstate, and there are two at grade intersections that will need to be eliminated north of that point.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on February 01, 2021, 07:50:44 PM

More 67 (57)  news  (https://www.kait8.com/2020/06/16/ardot-receives-million-award-us-upgrades/?fbclid=IwAR3s11-owHQPbSrL89Zu8zStWEL08rcqRAgC3c6-4MjD29YqKnK_tSfFDT8)

Widening to 6 lanes,  reconstruction of 2 interchanges,  converting service roads to one-way.

Isn’t this old news?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on February 01, 2021, 08:22:35 PM

More 67 (57)  news  (https://www.kait8.com/2020/06/16/ardot-receives-million-award-us-upgrades/?fbclid=IwAR3s11-owHQPbSrL89Zu8zStWEL08rcqRAgC3c6-4MjD29YqKnK_tSfFDT8)

Widening to 6 lanes,  reconstruction of 2 interchanges,  converting service roads to one-way.

Isn’t this old news?

My bad, KAIT had it posted a new
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on February 02, 2021, 08:25:26 AM

More 67 (57)  news  (https://www.kait8.com/2020/06/16/ardot-receives-million-award-us-upgrades/?fbclid=IwAR3s11-owHQPbSrL89Zu8zStWEL08rcqRAgC3c6-4MjD29YqKnK_tSfFDT8)

Widening to 6 lanes,  reconstruction of 2 interchanges,  converting service roads to one-way.

Isn’t this old news?

My bad, KAIT had it posted a new

Speaking of the widening through Jacksonville, has ArDOT awarded a contract for that work yet, and if so has construction started?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on February 02, 2021, 10:37:52 AM

More 67 (57)  news  (https://www.kait8.com/2020/06/16/ardot-receives-million-award-us-upgrades/?fbclid=IwAR3s11-owHQPbSrL89Zu8zStWEL08rcqRAgC3c6-4MjD29YqKnK_tSfFDT8)

Widening to 6 lanes,  reconstruction of 2 interchanges,  converting service roads to one-way.

Isn’t this old news?

My bad, KAIT had it posted a new

Speaking of the widening through Jacksonville, has ArDOT awarded a contract for that work yet, and if so has construction started?

I’m not sure. Also not sure what is taking so long on this stretch.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on February 02, 2021, 11:35:06 AM

More 67 (57)  news  (https://www.kait8.com/2020/06/16/ardot-receives-million-award-us-upgrades/?fbclid=IwAR3s11-owHQPbSrL89Zu8zStWEL08rcqRAgC3c6-4MjD29YqKnK_tSfFDT8)

Widening to 6 lanes,  reconstruction of 2 interchanges,  converting service roads to one-way.

Isn’t this old news?

My bad, KAIT had it posted a new

Speaking of the widening through Jacksonville, has ArDOT awarded a contract for that work yet, and if so has construction started?

I’m not sure. Also not sure what is taking so long on this stretch.

The stretch through Jacksonville was built on a fairly narrow right-of-way, so I suspect there is some property acquisition and utility relocations that have to happen first before they can break ground on the widening project.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: capt.ron on February 02, 2021, 12:39:46 PM
To answer the question regarding the Jacksonville section from Main St to Vandenberg, no, the construction has not started yet. It is scheduled to start sometime in 2022.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: mvak36 on February 02, 2021, 05:34:38 PM
To answer the question regarding the Jacksonville section from Main St to Vandenberg, no, the construction has not started yet. It is scheduled to start sometime in 2022.
I think this is the site for that project (Job CA0604): https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.YBnRfXlMEuU

ARDOT also got a BUILD grant (https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-09/BUILD%202020%20Fact%20Sheets-.pdf) for a US67 project. I think it is for the same project.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: I-39 on February 02, 2021, 10:00:52 PM

More 67 (57)  news  (https://www.kait8.com/2020/06/16/ardot-receives-million-award-us-upgrades/?fbclid=IwAR3s11-owHQPbSrL89Zu8zStWEL08rcqRAgC3c6-4MjD29YqKnK_tSfFDT8)

Widening to 6 lanes,  reconstruction of 2 interchanges,  converting service roads to one-way.

Isn’t this old news?

My bad, KAIT had it posted a new

I hate it when news sites do that. Happens all the time in Google searches.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on February 03, 2021, 11:30:09 AM
Once they get the ROW cleared, the Jacksonville project should be fairly straightforward. The project is just over 2 miles from Main to Vandenberg. But a lot of storefronts and parking lots are going to go bye-bye. That's going to take some time, so the sooner they start clearing it and finishing the utility work, the better.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on May 08, 2021, 04:44:04 PM
The 40th biggest paper in the nation weighs in on the Road to Chicago:

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/may/08/future-i-57-already-has-wheels-in-motion/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%205-8-21%20nonsubscriber&utm_content=Morning%205-8-21%20nonsubscriber+CID_2e4ad3a603a53e42a63941775e717665&utm_source=Email%20Marketing%20Platform&utm_term=Future%20I-57%20already%20has%20wheels%20in%20motion
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: skluth on May 09, 2021, 07:35:04 PM
Thought I'd toss this (https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-department-of-transportation-considering-3-route-options-for-i-57) into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on May 09, 2021, 07:47:50 PM
Thought I'd toss this (https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-department-of-transportation-considering-3-route-options-for-i-57) into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Is that a typo/error in the story? Surely they mean “Highway 67” and not “Highway 76” as reported, as this would be Interstate 57 conencting to the current US 67 Freeway in Walnut Ridge up to the Missouri State Line
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on May 09, 2021, 08:16:42 PM
Thought I'd toss this (https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-department-of-transportation-considering-3-route-options-for-i-57) into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Is that a typo/error in the story? Surely they mean “Highway 67” and not “Highway 76” as reported, as this would be Interstate 57 conencting to the current US 67 Freeway in Walnut Ridge up to the Missouri State Line

Likely a typo, but I twitted them to be sure
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: ilpt4u on May 09, 2021, 09:34:24 PM
Thought I'd toss this (https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-department-of-transportation-considering-3-route-options-for-i-57) into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Is that a typo/error in the story? Surely they mean “Highway 67” and not “Highway 76” as reported, as this would be Interstate 57 conencting to the current US 67 Freeway in Walnut Ridge up to the Missouri State Line
Likely a typo, but I twitted them to be sure
The reporter in the video even read “Highway 76” in her report - probably because the typo was on the teleprompter
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Road Hog on May 10, 2021, 01:25:20 AM
Thought I'd toss this (https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-department-of-transportation-considering-3-route-options-for-i-57) into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Is that a typo/error in the story? Surely they mean “Highway 67” and not “Highway 76” as reported, as this would be Interstate 57 conencting to the current US 67 Freeway in Walnut Ridge up to the Missouri State Line
Likely a typo, but I twitted them to be sure
The reporter in the video even read “Highway 76” in her report - probably because the typo was on the teleprompter
Further proof that news presenters and writers alike don't proof their copy before air. Besides that, this is an old story.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: abqtraveler on May 10, 2021, 09:32:23 AM
Thought I'd toss this (https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-department-of-transportation-considering-3-route-options-for-i-57) into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Is that a typo/error in the story? Surely they mean “Highway 67” and not “Highway 76” as reported, as this would be Interstate 57 conencting to the current US 67 Freeway in Walnut Ridge up to the Missouri State Line
Likely a typo, but I twitted them to be sure
The reporter in the video even read “Highway 76” in her report - probably because the typo was on the teleprompter
Further proof that news presenters and writers alike don't proof their copy before air. Besides that, this is an old story.
So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: US71 on May 10, 2021, 10:07:27 AM

So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?


I-57 will be finished before I-49 (IMO)
.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 10, 2021, 10:30:37 AM

So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?


I-57 will be finished before I-49 (IMO)
.
I-49 in Arkansas? Is there even a route that they are building?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: edwaleni on May 10, 2021, 10:38:04 AM
The 40th biggest paper in the nation weighs in on the Road to Chicago:

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/may/08/future-i-57-already-has-wheels-in-motion/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%205-8-21%20nonsubscriber&utm_content=Morning%205-8-21%20nonsubscriber+CID_2e4ad3a603a53e42a63941775e717665&utm_source=Email%20Marketing%20Platform&utm_term=Future%20I-57%20already%20has%20wheels%20in%20motion

Glad to see it is building commercial interest locally. As in everything to be funded federally, its a give and take with Congress (less give lately, more take) and lets hope it rings well in Ways and Means when it comes out of Transportation.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on May 10, 2021, 01:33:52 PM

So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?


I-57 will be finished before I-49 (IMO)

Of course it will; it's 40-45 miles of flatland and/or rolling hill construction (in AR) as opposed to about 165 miles of mostly mountain construction and one big old high-clearance bridge.  To demonstrate that they're perfectly capable of finishing off a corridor, ARDOT will in all likelihood slide I-57 into a prioritized position once the route is finalized.
.

Thought I'd toss this (https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-department-of-transportation-considering-3-route-options-for-i-57) into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Is that a typo/error in the story? Surely they mean “Highway 67” and not “Highway 76” as reported, as this would be Interstate 57 conencting to the current US 67 Freeway in Walnut Ridge up to the Missouri State Line
Likely a typo, but I twitted them to be sure
The reporter in the video even read “Highway 76” in her report - probably because the typo was on the teleprompter
Further proof that news presenters and writers alike don't proof their copy before air. Besides that, this is an old story.
So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?

From the map provided, it appears that the eastern (basically AR 34/90) option is back in the mix; a year ago, it was pretty clear that the town of Pocahontas had effectively lobbied to shift the alignment to one of the two western options.  Just hope that routing "reinstatement" doesn't result in any more uncertainty and ensuing delay.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 10, 2021, 07:26:22 PM
Why was an alternative to following AR 34 and AR 90 between Walnut Ridge and Corning proposed? Would such a route be shorter than routing future Interstate 57 along the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Corning?
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sprjus4 on May 10, 2021, 07:48:02 PM
Why was an alternative to following AR 34 and AR 90 between Walnut Ridge and Corning proposed? Would such a route be shorter than routing future Interstate 57 along the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Corning?
Barely, maybe 1 or 2 miles.

Using US-67 would be more beneficial in the long run and actually serve a population center - Pocahontas.
Title: Re: I-57 Approved
Post by: sparker on May 10, 2021, 08:44:03 PM
Why was an alternative to following AR 34 and AR 90 between Walnut Ridge and Corning proposed? Would such a route be shorter than routing future Interstate 57 along the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Corning?
Barely, maybe 1 or 2 miles.

Using US-67 would be more beneficial in the long run and actually serve a population center - Pocahontas.

The 34/90 alternative was proposed because it originally included a shorter crossing of the Black River floodplain, adjacent to the UPRR bridge.  But the current iteration curves the route back northwest to bypass Corning west of town rather than to the east; this functionally negates the advantage of the original proposed alignment -- the floodplain is wider to the west of Corning.  One of the other alternatives actually skirts the floodplain on its northern edge, while the third generally tracks US 62/67 between Pocahontas and Corning before veering north to bypass the latter town.   The two western alternatives cross that floodplain southeast of Pocahontas near the industrial area south of town; it's relatively narrow there although wider than the original eastern location south of Corning.   The two western corridors closely serve Pocahontas, while the eastern one simply bypasses it without much in the way of connections.  It would be interesting to see the cost breakdown of each of the three corridors; I would imagine the eastern option would entail less cost for ROW acquisition.   
Title: Re: I-57 Approved