AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 91793 times)

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1624
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 11:53:21 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #625 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #626 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.   
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1227
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:23:32 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #627 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.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #628 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.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1227
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:23:32 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #629 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.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 11171
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:50:26 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #630 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 :)
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 844
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 11:14:42 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #631 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)
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2641
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 12:01:50 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #632 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."
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1624
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 11:53:21 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #633 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.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1624
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 11:53:21 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #634 on: February 01, 2021, 07:50:44 PM »


More 67 (57) news

Widening to 6 lanes,  reconstruction of 2 interchanges,  converting service roads to one-way.

Isn’t this old news?
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 11171
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:50:26 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #635 on: February 01, 2021, 08:22:35 PM »


More 67 (57) news

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
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 07:50:36 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #636 on: February 02, 2021, 08:25:26 AM »


More 67 (57) news

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?
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

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

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1624
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 11:53:21 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #637 on: February 02, 2021, 10:37:52 AM »


More 67 (57) news

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.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 07:50:36 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #638 on: February 02, 2021, 11:35:06 AM »


More 67 (57) news

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.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

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

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 307
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Central Arkansas
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 12:43:31 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #639 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.
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1053
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 08:21:44 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #640 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 for a US67 project. I think it is for the same project.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1624
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 11:53:21 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #641 on: February 02, 2021, 10:00:52 PM »


More 67 (57) news

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.
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1486
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:57:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #642 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.
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1388
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 12:40:22 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #644 on: May 09, 2021, 07:35:04 PM »

Thought I'd toss this 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.
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2470
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:46 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #645 on: May 09, 2021, 07:47:50 PM »

Thought I'd toss this 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
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 11171
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:50:26 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #646 on: May 09, 2021, 08:16:42 PM »

Thought I'd toss this 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
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2470
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:46 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #647 on: May 09, 2021, 09:34:24 PM »

Thought I'd toss this 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
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1486
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:57:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #648 on: May 10, 2021, 01:25:20 AM »

Thought I'd toss this 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.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 07:50:36 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #649 on: May 10, 2021, 09:32:23 AM »

Thought I'd toss this 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?
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

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

 


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