News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-57 Approved

Started by US71, October 11, 2017, 09:09:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

edwaleni

Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2018, 12:07:37 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on May 30, 2018, 11:48:34 PM
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.


capt.ron

Quote from: edwaleni on May 28, 2018, 11:39:56 PM
Quote from: 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?

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.

I-39

Quote from: capt.ron on May 31, 2018, 12:53:58 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).

Bobby5280

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.

TBKS1

Some stuff I got on the trip to Saint Louis. I took what will become I-57 most of the way



Future I-57 Exit 111 by TheInstrumentalist, on Flickr



Future I-57 Exit 121 by TheInstrumentalist, on Flickr
I take pictures of road signs, that's about it.

General rule of thumb: Just stay in the "Traffic Control" section of the forum and you'll be fine.

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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!

Revive 755

Quote from: 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.

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.

Bobby5280

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.

sparker

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. 

cjk374

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 02, 2018, 10:21:21 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

captkirk_4

Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Quote from: 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.
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.

Revive 755

Quote from: captkirk_4 on June 03, 2018, 11:29:12 AM
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.

Quote from: captkirk_4 on June 03, 2018, 11:29:12 AMThe 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.

I-39

Quote from: 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.

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.

Rothman

There is no TIGER, only BUILD!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bugo

Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2018, 09:11:23 PM
Quote from: capt.ron on May 31, 2018, 12:53:58 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.

bugo

Quote from: cjk374 on June 03, 2018, 11:04:56 AM
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.

bugo

Quote from: captkirk_4 on June 03, 2018, 11:29:12 AM
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.

cjk374

Quote from: bugo on June 10, 2018, 10:49:04 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 03, 2018, 11:04:56 AM
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.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

sparker

Quote from: cjk374 on June 11, 2018, 09:28:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 10, 2018, 10:49:04 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 03, 2018, 11:04:56 AM
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. 

edwaleni

Quote from: 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.

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.

Grzrd

Baby steps .... This July 18 article 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 does not show any planned progress on the Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line segment, not even project development.

MikieTimT

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.

GreenLanternCorps

A minor note.   AAA has Future I-57 marked on their Central States and Provinces map I picked up this week.


US71

Quote from: 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.

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

sparker

Quote from: US71 on August 04, 2018, 11:34:14 AM
Quote from: 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.

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". 



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.