I-57 Approved

[sprjus4]

IMO, the interstate would be best off following US-67 and serving Pocahontas.

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

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

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

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

IMO, when they built I-69 for instance in Indiana, they probably could've provided better local connectivity at Washington by building the interstate around the western and northern side, and had at least 2 or 3 local exits instead of going well east of of the town and providing a single exit at US-150. It would've only been one mile of additional construction.

[Bobby5280]

I-69 in Southern Indiana already sucks enough as it is for having an already very crooked route. No need to make it any worse.

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

There are many examples of Interstates that do not ping pong to every small town within the county. Even good sized cities are skirted or largely bypassed by Interstates in favor of maintaining a direct route between major urban destinations. The smaller cities and towns connect via smaller routes more appropriate to their traffic counts.

[MikieTimT]

ArDOT has scheduled this HWY. 67 Walnut Ridge - Missouri State Line (Future I-57) Project Development in 2022 that includes 39.20 miles of roadway. So I would guess that is the time it will be decided.

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

Since the federal govt. doesn't kick in as much percentage-wise as the original Interstates got, then that means that the states which fund a larger percentage now would obviously be more representative of the local interests of those in the general corridor.  It makes financial sense to try to encourage as much development as possible from the investment, especially in a depressed area like NE Arkansas.  As much as it offends our anal-retentive tendencies as roadgeeks to see an obviously shorter route not taken, Pocahontas likely isn't a large enough city to warrant a 3-DI to serve it, so adding a couple of miles isn't going to be a deal-breaker for those who would add much more mileage to bypass the St. Louis and Memphis metropolitan areas to save time.

[vdeane]

Serving Pocahontas doesn't strike me as a significantly larger diversion than many ones in the original interstate system - as long as it's on the southeast side.  I do agree that swinging over to the northwest side is too much.

[sparker]

Serving Pocahontas doesn't strike me as a significantly larger diversion than many ones in the original interstate system - as long as it's on the southeast side.  I do agree that swinging over to the northwest side is too much.

The only issue that can be seen with an alignment along the southeast side of Pocahontas (essentially slightly east of current US 67) is that unless there's a lot of taking of improved properties it has little chance of staying out of the floodplain (ironically, the current Google Earth pix of the area were taken during flood season about 6 years ago and much of the area is inundated -- so it gives one a good idea regarding areas to avoid).   From what I understand the plans for the freeway between Pocahontas and Corning essentially duplicate the present US 62/67 routing except right in the towns;  it might be that to "stay dry" both communities could conceivably see bypass plans veering a bit to the west out of necessity.   

[vdeane]

Yeah, that's a bit closer than I'd go.  I was thinking more along the lines of following the existing freeway stub at Walnut Ridge, turning north to parallel the north-south bit of AR 90, then turn to follow US 62/67 southwest of Biggers.  Bypassing it to the west would seem to emulate the sawtooth pattern of I-14.

[Tomahawkin]

OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

[MikieTimT]

OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

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

[US71]

OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

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

40 still floods, though.

[sparker]

OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

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

40 still floods, though.

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

[MikieTimT]

OT does anyone forsee a lot of the 57 route being built as a viaduct due to the region being in a floodplain? I noticed that IH 269 has several viaduct bridges south of Memphis. If this is the plan for IH 57 in NEA, then I could see this project being more costly and probably wont get started until the mid 2020's

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

40 still floods, though.

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

It's no more a priority than it would be to keep I-40 flood-free.  Any closures of I-40 have a much greater impact to the general public than a completed I-57 ever would.  I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.

[sprjus4]

I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.

I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

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

[sparker]

I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.

I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

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

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

[3467]

Also lots of food manufacturing in Midwest and plastic is the key packaging material..
I think the auto industry stamps out it's own plastic but it needs the raw material.

[US71]

I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.

I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

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

[sparker]

I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.

I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

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

While technically I-40 west heads for OKC, much of the commercial traffic turns SW in or around Little Rock onto I-30 toward Texas.  But the point regarding West Memphis and its complement of truck facilities is simple -- both I-40 and I-55 multiplex at that point, and it's not a major problem for trucks going from EB 40 to NB 55 and vice-versa to head down the multiplex for an exit or two and turn around to continue their trip.  And they get the traffic to Memphis and points beyond as well right along the main conduit.   They'll likely get an additional "bonus" whenever I-69 north of Memphis is completed; until that time -- likely well distant into the future if at all -- when the Memphis-Shreveport segment of I-69 is built, most of the Texas-bound traffic will segue onto west I-40, potentially providing a few extra patrons for those already busy truck stops.   But it is also likely that when I-57 is completed, a similar number of customers will be diverted away from West Memphis.   It'll be interesting to see just how much the completion of those two (57 & 69 north) corridors affects the economic status quo of the region.     

[edwaleni]

In the hearing they clearly verbalized that if any future I-57 came that way it would cross the river SE of Pocahontas and follow the current US-67 route to a Corning bypass west of town. No other routes were described in that discussion.

2 possible exits were mentioned.

South of town to service the business park and east of town after crossing the river.

[sprjus4]

In the hearing they clearly verbalized that if any future I-57 came that way it would cross the river SE of Pocahontas and follow the current US-67 route to a Corning bypass west of town. No other routes were described in that discussion.

2 possible exits were mentioned.

South of town to service the business park and east of town after crossing the river.

A proper routing IMO. That business district and business park exit could really see a boost in further developments if an exit is properly constructed there.

[I-39]

Did anyone see this?

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

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

[Life in Paradise]

Did anyone see this?

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

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

[MikieTimT]

Did anyone see this?

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

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

About time to start nailing down the route from Walnut Ridge to the state line so that Missouri knows where to meet them up at.  Has MDOT determined which side of Neelyville they are bypassing on?  I would be guessing the new alignment would be to the west, but there's a conservation area next to Neelyville that they'd have to swing wide of.

[bwana39]

I-57 will not be taking enough traffic off that segment of I-40 to ever be higher density.  Memphis is still going to be a major freight hub and draw a significant portion of the current traffic.

I disagree. I find it hard to believe a "significant portion of the current traffic" is Memphis-bound. There's a large amount of long-distance truckers that may stop on the western outskirts of Memphis for services, but they only are stopping there because the current routing goes through there.

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

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

Guys,

I think you are discounting Dallas Fort Worth for this discussion. Things don't always go from South to North. Sometimes they go N to South. Dallas Fort Worth and perhaps even Houston have eclipsed Chicago in size and scope of trade and industry.

[Tomahawkin]

Good point. IMO both of those cities and respective suburbs in Texas occupy a similar land area as big as Chicago

[ilpt4u]

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

That is also because of the Waterway importance of Chicago. It is a major inland waterway port, because it serves and connects both the Great Lakes Waterway AND the Mississippi River Waterway

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

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

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

[MikieTimT]

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

That is also because of the Waterway importance of Chicago. It is a major inland waterway port, because it serves and connects both the Great Lakes Waterway AND the Mississippi River Waterway

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

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

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

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