News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-57 Approved

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

Previous topic - Next topic

jbnv

Quote from: 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.

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.)
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge


The Ghostbuster

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).

US71

Quote from: 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.

You'll have to take that up with Dr Boozman
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

sparker

Quote from: 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).

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.   

ilpt4u

Quote from: 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).
If I-57 were to take over I-530, would I-440 become I-457? Getting I-57 that first-born child/3di?

MikieTimT

Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2019, 01:19:10 PM
Quote from: 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).

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.

jbnv

Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:05:48 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?
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

MikieTimT

Quote from: jbnv on February 27, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:05:48 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".

ilpt4u

Quote from: jbnv on February 27, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:05:48 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

sparker

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.

edwaleni

Quote from: 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.

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.


MikieTimT

Quote from: edwaleni on February 27, 2019, 06:58:39 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.

US71

Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: 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).
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 ;)
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

TBKS1

Quote from: MikieTimT on February 27, 2019, 03:24:50 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 27, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:05:48 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".

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".
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

^^^^^^^^
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.   

MikieTimT

Quote from: TBKS1 on February 28, 2019, 02:11:12 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on February 27, 2019, 03:24:50 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 27, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 03:05:48 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".

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.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: 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.

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.

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. 

The Ghostbuster

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.

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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!

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerPersonally, 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.

Tomahawkin

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...

US71

Quote from: 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...

If memory serves correct, Arkansas law forbids tolls on public roadways.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

sparker

Quote from: US71 on February 28, 2019, 10:27:03 PM
Quote from: 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...

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!

US71

Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2019, 11:43:09 PM
Quote from: US71 on February 28, 2019, 10:27:03 PM
Quote from: 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...

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



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.