AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 91799 times)

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 844
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 11:14:42 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #700 on: May 16, 2021, 06:19:06 PM »

What is today's I-49 corridor (with a projected terminus in Baton Rouge rather than Lafayette), plus an additional corridor from Shreveport to Houston (sound familiar?) were included in the initial iteration of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions before that legislation was trimmed from 4500 to 1500 miles when funding became an issue.  Those mid-continent "missing links" have been on the radar since the initial 1958 system finalization.
So, these got denied, yet I-27 got approved? I sense some sort of political pull.

That's an understatement!  Then Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen got I-72 through his hometown of Decatur, IL built (he retired the next year, so maybe that was his "gold watch").  Also then Sen. Jacob Javits got I-88 in NY through (considered more of an in-state "make work" project).  Originally, I-27 was to extend south to Big Spring, but it was truncated in Lubbock when the mileage was cut back.  At the time LBJ was still president, and TX had a lot of pull then as now.

How do you think the location for the proposed Great River Bridge on I-69 was chosen? Then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is from Grenada MS. It is the spot on I-55 closest to the crossing. It made sense that Mississippi would just run I-55 & I-69 together from there when the money was too difficult to come up with. (About 60 miles to I-55 versus ~110 miles to Memphis) The Speaker of the Arkansas General Assembly (House) was from Arkansas City  where it is proposed for the bridge to cross. (He is still on the Highway Commission.)

It makes MUCH better sense for I-69 to follow US-79 roughly and then cross the Mississippi River closer to Memphis.IE near Tunica Lakes.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: September 13, 2021, 11:10:39 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #701 on: May 17, 2021, 11:13:47 AM »

What is today's I-49 corridor (with a projected terminus in Baton Rouge rather than Lafayette), plus an additional corridor from Shreveport to Houston (sound familiar?) were included in the initial iteration of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions before that legislation was trimmed from 4500 to 1500 miles when funding became an issue.  Those mid-continent "missing links" have been on the radar since the initial 1958 system finalization.
So, these got denied, yet I-27 got approved? I sense some sort of political pull.

That's an understatement!  Then Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen got I-72 through his hometown of Decatur, IL built (he retired the next year, so maybe that was his "gold watch").  Also then Sen. Jacob Javits got I-88 in NY through (considered more of an in-state "make work" project).  Originally, I-27 was to extend south to Big Spring, but it was truncated in Lubbock when the mileage was cut back.  At the time LBJ was still president, and TX had a lot of pull then as now.

How do you think the location for the proposed Great River Bridge on I-69 was chosen? Then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is from Grenada MS. It is the spot on I-55 closest to the crossing. It made sense that Mississippi would just run I-55 & I-69 together from there when the money was too difficult to come up with. (About 60 miles to I-55 versus ~110 miles to Memphis) The Speaker of the Arkansas General Assembly (House) was from Arkansas City  where it is proposed for the bridge to cross. (He is still on the Highway Commission.)

It makes MUCH better sense for I-69 to follow US-79 roughly and then cross the Mississippi River closer to Memphis.IE near Tunica Lakes.

It'd take an enormous push and funding from the feds to run the route almost entirely through Arkansas given that it'd have to cross 3 navigable rivers (very tall bridges for barge/sailboat traffic) and federal and state Wildlife Management Areas.  It's pretty low and prone to flooding immensely between the Arkansas and White River floodplains, which is why it's pretty much the duck hunting capital of the world and where most of the country's rice is grown.  As long as Arkansas has to fund more than 10% of the route, it's going to serve as an economic development corridor for a depressed area of the state more than a direct through route for interstate traffic.
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 271
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: September 17, 2021, 08:49:30 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #702 on: May 17, 2021, 11:52:35 AM »

Yep, that three bridges. And,   if it were to happen replacing the old bridge at Helena would be best.  They it could connect to the I-69 to Tunica plan and also run a 4 lane divided to to Batesville. I would like to point out the many sections of Arkansas 1 that is 4 lane from Forrest City to Helena. I would push for that to be US 49 from Jonesboro to Barton and US 63 replacing US 49 from Jonesboro to Brinkley. It would be part if a larger Greater Memphis outer loop that included I-155, US 412, US 45, US 278.

Jonesboro to Paragould to Kennett to Dyersburg to Corinth to Tupelo to Batesville to Helena  to Forrest City to Jonesboro
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1835
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 15, 2021, 09:22:21 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #703 on: May 17, 2021, 01:53:41 PM »

Will they designate any of the former roadway(s) as Business Loop or Spur 57.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #704 on: May 17, 2021, 01:54:25 PM »

Will they designate any of the former roadway(s) as Business Loop or Spur 57.
I doubt it. Business interstate loops are a thing of the past.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3135
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #705 on: May 17, 2021, 01:55:30 PM »

Which do you think will be built first? The freeway extension of US 67/future Interstate 57 from Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff? Or the upgrade of US 60 to Interstate Standards between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston?
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2470
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:46 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #706 on: May 17, 2021, 02:10:09 PM »

Which do you think will be built first? The freeway extension of US 67/future Interstate 57 from Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff? Or the upgrade of US 60 to Interstate Standards between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston?
MoDOT's own documents that they have online (someone posted it upthread - on Page 27) is that their priority is building Poplar Bluff to the Ark state line as a 4 lane Interstate-standard freeway, and the first 2 phases of the project are already funded and scheduled.

The last phase in that document was Phase 5: Upgrading US 60 from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston to Interstate-standard
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 02:12:15 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1053
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 08:21:44 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #707 on: May 17, 2021, 05:18:32 PM »

Which do you think will be built first? The freeway extension of US 67/future Interstate 57 from Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff? Or the upgrade of US 60 to Interstate Standards between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston?

From the EIS reevaluation
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #708 on: May 17, 2021, 05:31:50 PM »

Which do you think will be built first? The freeway extension of US 67/future Interstate 57 from Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff? Or the upgrade of US 60 to Interstate Standards between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston?
I’d say the US-60 upgrade is the lowest priority.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #709 on: May 18, 2021, 05:02:03 AM »

Which do you think will be built first? The freeway extension of US 67/future Interstate 57 from Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff? Or the upgrade of US 60 to Interstate Standards between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston?
I’d say the US-60 upgrade is the lowest priority.

While featuring multiple at-grade intersections, the US 60 section to be addressed in Phase 5 will be upgradeable without new-terrain lanes; the present ROW, already a divided expressway, will be rebuilt as necessary.  Since it's presently a high-speed facility, there's little need nor pressure for immediate activity.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1835
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 15, 2021, 09:22:21 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #710 on: May 18, 2021, 07:24:42 AM »

Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #711 on: May 18, 2021, 09:17:19 AM »

Build I-57 now.

Why?
Because I-55 and I-40 are over capacity and carry far too much truck traffic than they were designed for. Another north-south alternative is needed to divert trucks from the I-57 corridor bound to I-30 off of I-40.
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2470
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:46 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #712 on: May 18, 2021, 09:49:58 AM »

Build I-57 now.
Why?
Because I-55 and I-40 are over capacity and carry far too much truck traffic than they were designed for. Another north-south alternative is needed to divert trucks from the I-57 corridor bound to I-30 off of I-40.
I-30/57 is a pretty logical mid-America corridor, also, linking two of the country's, not just region's, largest cities/metro areas, and unlike I-69, most of I-30/57 between Dallas and Chicago already exists
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1227
  • Last Login: September 19, 2021, 10:23:32 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #713 on: May 18, 2021, 10:06:33 AM »

Build I-57 now.

Why?

Because the discussion had gotten a little off on the shoulders, so I incremented the page to refocus it back to the thread title.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1835
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 15, 2021, 09:22:21 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #714 on: May 18, 2021, 10:55:01 AM »

Build I-57 now.

Why?
Because I-55 and I-40 are over capacity and carry far too much truck traffic than they were designed for. Another north-south alternative is needed to divert trucks from the I-57 corridor bound to I-30 off of I-40.

I can about guarantee that this will not be the panacea to relieve traffic off of I-40 as you imagine.  I bet it will just as clogged. 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #715 on: May 18, 2021, 11:00:55 AM »

I can about guarantee that this will not be the panacea to relieve traffic off of I-40 as you imagine.  I bet it will just as clogged.
It will certainly help, and for diverted trips, will provide an easier and more direct route than I-55 and I-40 currently provides.

I don't think volumes are going to exponentially increase to the point it will become "just as clogged" as I-40 for many years, if not decades to come.

The problem isn't necessarily the volumes on I-40, it's the sheer amount of truck traffic. If all those trucks were cars, it would be more adequate. If you can split that truck traffic though between two corridors, the problem will be spread out and not as problematic on either route.

It also provides redundancy in the system.

I-69 between Memphis and Texas also has the same potential, and despite what others have said, the route isn't longer in distance compared to the I-40/I-30 route that would discourage people from using it, you would get equal if not faster travel times on a completed I-69 for southeast traffic.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1835
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 15, 2021, 09:22:21 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #716 on: May 19, 2021, 10:05:54 AM »

I can about guarantee that this will not be the panacea to relieve traffic off of I-40 as you imagine.  I bet it will just as clogged.
It will certainly help, and for diverted trips, will provide an easier and more direct route than I-55 and I-40 currently provides.

I don't think volumes are going to exponentially increase to the point it will become "just as clogged" as I-40 for many years, if not decades to come.

The problem isn't necessarily the volumes on I-40, it's the sheer amount of truck traffic. If all those trucks were cars, it would be more adequate. If you can split that truck traffic though between two corridors, the problem will be spread out and not as problematic on either route.

It also provides redundancy in the system.

I-69 between Memphis and Texas also has the same potential, and despite what others have said, the route isn't longer in distance compared to the I-40/I-30 route that would discourage people from using it, you would get equal if not faster travel times on a completed I-69 for southeast traffic.

I think that is a pie-in-the-sky wish.  No way the truck traffic will be diverted enough to see a noticeable difference.  The brokers and firms will still demand the trucks on the most efficient routes to get the freight there.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6976
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:13:13 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #717 on: May 19, 2021, 10:18:37 AM »

I can about guarantee that this will not be the panacea to relieve traffic off of I-40 as you imagine.  I bet it will just as clogged.
It will certainly help, and for diverted trips, will provide an easier and more direct route than I-55 and I-40 currently provides.

I don't think volumes are going to exponentially increase to the point it will become "just as clogged" as I-40 for many years, if not decades to come.

The problem isn't necessarily the volumes on I-40, it's the sheer amount of truck traffic. If all those trucks were cars, it would be more adequate. If you can split that truck traffic though between two corridors, the problem will be spread out and not as problematic on either route.

It also provides redundancy in the system.

I-69 between Memphis and Texas also has the same potential, and despite what others have said, the route isn't longer in distance compared to the I-40/I-30 route that would discourage people from using it, you would get equal if not faster travel times on a completed I-69 for southeast traffic.

I think that is a pie-in-the-sky wish.  No way the truck traffic will be diverted enough to see a noticeable difference.  The brokers and firms will still demand the trucks on the most efficient routes to get the freight there.
You do realize I-57 would be shorter than I-55 and I-40, and that I-69 will be the same distance, if not a few miles shorter than I-40 and I-30?
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1835
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 15, 2021, 09:22:21 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #718 on: May 19, 2021, 10:20:22 AM »

I can about guarantee that this will not be the panacea to relieve traffic off of I-40 as you imagine.  I bet it will just as clogged.
It will certainly help, and for diverted trips, will provide an easier and more direct route than I-55 and I-40 currently provides.

I don't think volumes are going to exponentially increase to the point it will become "just as clogged" as I-40 for many years, if not decades to come.

I-69 now that is funny.  They haven't even come up with a crossing point yet.

The problem isn't necessarily the volumes on I-40, it's the sheer amount of truck traffic. If all those trucks were cars, it would be more adequate. If you can split that truck traffic though between two corridors, the problem will be spread out and not as problematic on either route.

It also provides redundancy in the system.

I-69 between Memphis and Texas also has the same potential, and despite what others have said, the route isn't longer in distance compared to the I-40/I-30 route that would discourage people from using it, you would get equal if not faster travel times on a completed I-69 for southeast traffic.

I think that is a pie-in-the-sky wish.  No way the truck traffic will be diverted enough to see a noticeable difference.  The brokers and firms will still demand the trucks on the most efficient routes to get the freight there.
You do realize I-57 would be shorter than I-55 and I-40, and that I-69 will be the same distance, if not a few miles shorter than I-40 and I-30?
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 271
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: September 17, 2021, 08:49:30 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #719 on: May 19, 2021, 10:29:42 AM »

I can about guarantee that this will not be the panacea to relieve traffic off of I-40 as you imagine.  I bet it will just as clogged.
It will certainly help, and for diverted trips, will provide an easier and more direct route than I-55 and I-40 currently provides.

I don't think volumes are going to exponentially increase to the point it will become "just as clogged" as I-40 for many years, if not decades to come.

The problem isn't necessarily the volumes on I-40, it's the sheer amount of truck traffic. If all those trucks were cars, it would be more adequate. If you can split that truck traffic though between two corridors, the problem will be spread out and not as problematic on either route.

It also provides redundancy in the system.

I-69 between Memphis and Texas also has the same potential, and despite what others have said, the route isn't longer in distance compared to the I-40/I-30 route that would discourage people from using it, you would get equal if not faster travel times on a completed I-69 for southeast traffic.

Modern technology and real time traffic monitoring will help adjust routing.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2641
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 09:38:07 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #720 on: May 19, 2021, 01:18:24 PM »

Quote from: sprjus4
You do realize I-57 would be shorter than I-55 and I-40, and that I-69 will be the same distance, if not a few miles shorter than I-40 and I-30?

I thought he was talking about I-69 between Texas and Memphis. The I-69 route from the I-369 split in Tenaha, TX up to Memphis does not look like it will save any mileage at all versus the I-369/I-30/I-40 combo to get to Memphis. It looks like the I-69 route will be longer for all the crooked bends in it. Plus it's going to be forever and a day before the Great River Bridge is ever built. Odds are I-369 in Texas will be completed significantly earlier.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #721 on: May 19, 2021, 03:37:41 PM »

Quote from: sprjus4
You do realize I-57 would be shorter than I-55 and I-40, and that I-69 will be the same distance, if not a few miles shorter than I-40 and I-30?

I thought he was talking about I-69 between Texas and Memphis. The I-69 route from the I-369 split in Tenaha, TX up to Memphis does not look like it will save any mileage at all versus the I-369/I-30/I-40 combo to get to Memphis. It looks like the I-69 route will be longer for all the crooked bends in it. Plus it's going to be forever and a day before the Great River Bridge is ever built. Odds are I-369 in Texas will be completed significantly earlier.

Of course it will; it's what the Alliance for I-69/Texas, the instigators of the corridor and its branches, have been pressing for over the last 30 years -- an outlet from Houston and by extension the "Chemical Coast" to the northeast.  And with the I-57 extension in the works, it'll be pretty much a straight shot from Houston to Chicago, without DFW, St. Louis, or Memphis-area chokepoints with which to contend (all right, there's Little Rock, but that can be circumvented by I/AR-440).  As far as any section of I-69 northeast of the 369 split is concerned, that's simply "icing on the cake" that can be applied later if needed!  If anything, the prospect of the full I-57 is likely to provoke the Alliance and their legislative allies to pressure TxDOT into expediting development of the composite I-69/369 corridor; the Houston corporations that are footing the Alliance's lobbying bill would prefer deploying their trucking fleets over that corridor sooner than later.   
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1053
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 08:21:44 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #722 on: May 20, 2021, 11:08:42 AM »

Something I always wondered. Is that part of AR440 North of I-40 going to become an interstate once I-57 is signed? Seems like it would be but I'm not sure if the road is up to interstate standards.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: September 13, 2021, 11:10:39 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #723 on: May 20, 2021, 01:41:18 PM »

Something I always wondered. Is that part of AR440 North of I-40 going to become an interstate once I-57 is signed? Seems like it would be but I'm not sure if the road is up to interstate standards.

It's up to code and is 6-laned for a good portion even.  Even has those tantalizing stubs on the north end end for an eventual closing of the loop back around to I-40.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #724 on: May 20, 2021, 06:27:04 PM »

Something I always wondered. Is that part of AR440 North of I-40 going to become an interstate once I-57 is signed? Seems like it would be but I'm not sure if the road is up to interstate standards.

It's up to code and is 6-laned for a good portion even.  Even has those tantalizing stubs on the north end end for an eventual closing of the loop back around to I-40.

Don't think ARDOT is going to pass up that opportunity; the AASHTO request for such will probably be filed ten minutes after I-57 signage goes up on US 67/167. 
Logged

 


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