I-57 Approved

[Roadgeekteen]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?

Neither is I-49.

[US71]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?

Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

[abqtraveler]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?

Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

[sprjus4]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?

Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders. If they were to fully pave the right shoulders to 10 feet and realign a couple of the exit ramps, it would be enough to allow I-57 signage to be posted. Now, whether ARDOT wants to do a full upgrade - tear up the highway, build a six-lane interstate section with full shoulders on both sides, completely realigned exits, bridge replacements, etc. - that's up to them. Ultimately, I would assume a full upgrade would be planned. Since it's near the metro and growth is expanding northward, traffic demand likely warrants a rebuild.

Edit - Looking at US-67 north of Jacksonville, it looks like they just did a full reconstruction of that segment that included 6 lane widening. A project to fully reconstruct and widen the segment through Jacksonville is also planned / funded. Once this is done, I-57 should be able to be signed for the 123 mile segment between Walnut Ridge and I-40.

Question - what is the intended route for I-57 near Little Rock? It is intended to follow the US-67 freeway and terminate at I-40, or is it follow the AR-440 / I-440 loop crossing I-40 then terminating at I-30?

[abqtraveler]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?

Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders. If they were to fully pave the right shoulders to 10 feet and realign a couple of the exit ramps, it would be enough to allow I-57 signage to be posted. Now, whether ARDOT wants to do a full upgrade - tear up the highway, build a six-lane interstate section with full shoulders on both sides, completely realigned exits, bridge replacements, etc. - that's up to them. Ultimately, I would assume a full upgrade would be planned. Since it's near the metro and growth is expanding northward, traffic demand likely warrants a rebuild.

Question - what is the intended route for I-57 near Little Rock? It is intended to follow the US-167 freeway and terminate at I-40, or is it follow the AR-440 / I-440 loop crossing I-40 then terminating at I-30?

ArDOT plans to do a full rebuild though Jacksonville in three phases. The first phase from Redmond Road to West Main Street is complete. Funding hasn't yet been secured for the remaining two phases that run from West Main Street to Vandenberg Blvd.

[sparker]

 

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?

Neither is I-49.

Talk to the AASHTO...maybe they can explain

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders. If they were to fully pave the right shoulders to 10 feet and realign a couple of the exit ramps, it would be enough to allow I-57 signage to be posted. Now, whether ARDOT wants to do a full upgrade - tear up the highway, build a six-lane interstate section with full shoulders on both sides, completely realigned exits, bridge replacements, etc. - that's up to them. Ultimately, I would assume a full upgrade would be planned. Since it's near the metro and growth is expanding northward, traffic demand likely warrants a rebuild.

Edit - Looking at US-67 north of Jacksonville, it looks like they just did a full reconstruction of that segment that included 6 lane widening. A project to fully reconstruct and widen the segment through Jacksonville is also planned / funded. Once this is done, I-57 should be able to be signed for the 123 mile segment between Walnut Ridge and I-40.

Question - what is the intended route for I-57 near Little Rock? It is intended to follow the US167 freeway and terminate at I-40, or is it follow the AR-440 / I-440 loop crossing I-40 then terminating at I-30?

A few situational differences between the I-540/49 situation in NWA and the US 67/I-57 corridor.  Two initially come to mind; the first being that NWA is, as a whole, a substantial metropolitan area (the reason the "placeholder" I-540 designation was extended there in the late '90's), as well as the fact that prior to the designation switch several years ago, the plans for completing the "missing link" into MO were in place, with the only stumbling block to full completion being identifying and coordinating the funding between and among the two states.  Such plans are still tentative re I-57; while MO appears to be ready to adopt an alignment south of Poplar Bluff (partially dependent upon AR's eventual choice of route), AR's options seem to be caught up in local politics re service to Pocahontas, which won't be resolved quickly.  And given the lack of substantial metro areas clamoring for Interstate service along the current US 67 freeway, there seems to be no perceived need to erect I-57 signage along the route until the plans for the extension into MO have been at least finalized.

Re the Little Rock routing:  Unless there's something most of us have missed, I-57 will simply stay on US 67/167 to a terminus point at I-40.  There has been some speculation that I-530 (and eventually its AR 530 extension) will become a I-57 extension at some point; how that would affect the various LR freeways would thus also be speculative.  My 2 cents worth:  if that ever happens, realign I-30 over I-440 and AR 440, and extend I-57 over current I-30 between present I-440/530 and I-40.  But let I-57 actually be built and signed north of Little Rock and worry about any extension later.   

[MikieTimT]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

They are still working on the substandard portion in the Jacksonville area with shoulder width/ramp length issues.

https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xrmu-GhKiUk

[bwana39]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

They are still working on the substandard portion in the Jacksonville area with shoulder width/ramp length issues.

https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xrmu-GhKiUk

Basically the same as the Sherman TX gap on US-75.

[mvak36]

A few situational differences between the I-540/49 situation in NWA and the US 67/I-57 corridor.  Two initially come to mind; the first being that NWA is, as a whole, a substantial metropolitan area (the reason the "placeholder" I-540 designation was extended there in the late '90's), as well as the fact that prior to the designation switch several years ago, the plans for completing the "missing link" into MO were in place, with the only stumbling block to full completion being identifying and coordinating the funding between and among the two states.  Such plans are still tentative re I-57; while MO appears to be ready to adopt an alignment south of Poplar Bluff (partially dependent upon AR's eventual choice of route), AR's options seem to be caught up in local politics re service to Pocahontas, which won't be resolved quickly.  And given the lack of substantial metro areas clamoring for Interstate service along the current US 67 freeway, there seems to be no perceived need to erect I-57 signage along the route until the plans for the extension into MO have been at least finalized.

I agree on the signage.

Until this project for upgrading US67 south of Poplar Bluff came along, I was pessimistic about MO ever building any part of I-57 from the AR state line to Sikeston. I'd say the chances were slim to none two years ago, but things have changed with Gov. Parson.

I think most of the work left (other than the 2 mile segment on 67 from Neelyville to the MO/AR border) after this project is along US60 from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston closing the at-grade intersections along the stretch, but MODOT can do them over time while AR figures out what to do on their side.

[armadillo speedbump]

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders.

I'd say the biggest issue is the terrible exit ramps designs.  That nb Ramada St ramp is about the worst I've ever seen. 

I get the cost and process factors of a full rebuild, but it seems like in the interim they could have made those parallel streets into 1-way feeder roads, and with just a tiny bit of pavement additions made those ramps a lot safer.  I'm guessing too much NIMBY/"It's always been this way" pushback?  "It's mainly just out of towners and drunks getting in wrecks there."

[sprjus4]

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders.

I'd say the biggest issue is the terrible exit ramps designs.  That nb Ramada St ramp is about the worst I've ever seen. 

I get the cost and process factors of a full rebuild, but it seems like in the interim they could have made those parallel streets into 1-way feeder roads, and with just a tiny bit of pavement additions made those ramps a lot safer.  I'm guessing too much NIMBY/"It's always been this way" pushback?  "It's mainly just out of towners and drunks getting in wrecks there."

I was merely referring to reason for no interstate signage. If they merely added shoulders, they could likely sign it. Of course though, an entire rebuild to a 6 lane modern interstate highway is planned so that will address all the problems.

[Bobby5280]

That Ramada Street "ramp" just needs to be completely eliminated. Really that's not an exit ramp. It's an at-grade right turn. Worse, that "ramp" movement immediately conflicts with the odd two-way frontage road closely parallel to the highway. The SB exit ramp on the opposite side of the US-67 freeway is nearly as bad as the Ramada Street ramp.

[bugo]

I went to the Arkansashighways.com (ARDot) site and stumbled across a proposal for widening on US 67 (Future I-57) from exit 16 to 19. Looks like my wish may be granted in the future. Anyway, it is a proposal at the moment. As per the pdf file, the meeting occurred on 8/29/2019 in Cabot (Veterans Park Event Center).
This may tie in with the proposal of the new exit 16 and 19 interchanges.

Do you have a link?

[bugo]

Pocahontas is already connected to the US 67 freeway by the 4-5 lane Arkansas Freeway US 67.

[Road Hog]

There needs to be more overpasses between Exits 11 and 16 so frontage roads can be converted to one way. The old Coffelt Crossing should be a full interchange. Also should have a slip ramp at about Mile 15 to relieve congestion at the first Cabot exit.

[bwana39]

Because about 2 miles of US-67 through Jacksonville is of pre-interstate era design with a narrow median, closely-spaced exit and entrance ramps and narrow shoulders. This section needs to be upgraded to interstate standards before I-57 signs can be posted.

I'd say the biggest thing is the shoulders.

I'd say the biggest issue is the terrible exit ramps designs.  That nb Ramada St ramp is about the worst I've ever seen. 

I get the cost and process factors of a full rebuild, but it seems like in the interim they could have made those parallel streets into 1-way feeder roads, and with just a tiny bit of pavement additions made those ramps a lot safer.  I'm guessing too much NIMBY/"It's always been this way" pushback?  "It's mainly just out of towners and drunks getting in wrecks there."

Texas the HOME of one way frontage (feeder, service, etc) roads had tremendous pushback when the made the ones in Sulphur Springs (and other places)  into one way.   One way service roads, much like bypasses, are seen as reducing business opportunities to the businesses directly adjacent to the frontage roads.   Safer ramps are rarely; if ever, a priority for the locals.

[capt.ron]

I went to the Arkansashighways.com (ARDot) site and stumbled across a proposal for widening on US 67 (Future I-57) from exit 16 to 19. Looks like my wish may be granted in the future. Anyway, it is a proposal at the moment. As per the pdf file, the meeting occurred on 8/29/2019 in Cabot (Veterans Park Event Center).
This may tie in with the proposal of the new exit 16 and 19 interchanges.

Do you have a link?

I didn't find the link that I was wanting to see but here is one that is talking about re configuring exits 16 and 19 into SPUI type interchanges. A while back, they had mock-up drawings of the interchanges and it also showed the freeway with 6 lanes in between the 2 exits mentioned. I haven't heard anything else about that upcoming project.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2019_news/NR%2019-083.pdf
[edit] Found the other pdf's and pages.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2019_PM/061631/061631_Display.pdf
http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2019_PM/061631/061631.aspx

[mvak36]

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

U.S. 67 project from Little Rock to Jonesboro funded

The Arkansas Department of Transportation will be awarded $40 million to reconstruct and improve two sections of US 67 northeast of Little Rock. U.S. Senators John Boozman, Tom Cotton, along with U.S. Reps Rick Crawford and French Hill announced the project on Tuesday (June 16).

The project will widen US 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges. The funding comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program.

"Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This major award from the Department of Transportation will help facilitate the ongoing upgrade of Highway 67 to meet interstate requirements. Completion of this project is key to encouraging economic development in neighboring communities,"  Boozman said.

The senator authored the language to designate the portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as "Future I-57."

"An interstate-quality road system enables faster movement of people and goods–an important asset for any community. This important investment from the Department of Transportation will make the towns of northeast Arkansas even more attractive places to live, work, or start a business. I worked hard to help secure this grant for the Natural State, and I'm pleased that the administration is keeping its promise to invest in rural America,"  Cotton said.

"This INFRA grant puts us one step closer to I-57. This grant is the latest in a series of Federal investments in Arkansas and I applaud Secretary Chao's leadership in ensuring rural America is included in the national infrastructure conversation,"  Crawford said.

"This major grant from the DOT will go a long-ways towards improving Highway 67. The "˜Future I-57' will enhance economic opportunities in communities throughout central Arkansas by promoting commerce and encouraging job growth. Improving infrastructure throughout the state helps all Arkansans and will bring more visitors in to enjoy our Natural State,"  said Hill.

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.

[US71]

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

U.S. 67 project from Little Rock to Jonesboro funded

The Arkansas Department of Transportation will be awarded $40 million to reconstruct and improve two sections of US 67 northeast of Little Rock. U.S. Senators John Boozman, Tom Cotton, along with U.S. Reps Rick Crawford and French Hill announced the project on Tuesday (June 16).

The project will widen US 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges. The funding comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program.

"Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This major award from the Department of Transportation will help facilitate the ongoing upgrade of Highway 67 to meet interstate requirements. Completion of this project is key to encouraging economic development in neighboring communities,"  Boozman said.

The senator authored the language to designate the portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as "Future I-57."

"An interstate-quality road system enables faster movement of people and goods–an important asset for any community. This important investment from the Department of Transportation will make the towns of northeast Arkansas even more attractive places to live, work, or start a business. I worked hard to help secure this grant for the Natural State, and I'm pleased that the administration is keeping its promise to invest in rural America,"  Cotton said.

"This INFRA grant puts us one step closer to I-57. This grant is the latest in a series of Federal investments in Arkansas and I applaud Secretary Chao's leadership in ensuring rural America is included in the national infrastructure conversation,"  Crawford said.

"This major grant from the DOT will go a long-ways towards improving Highway 67. The "˜Future I-57' will enhance economic opportunities in communities throughout central Arkansas by promoting commerce and encouraging job growth. Improving infrastructure throughout the state helps all Arkansans and will bring more visitors in to enjoy our Natural State,"  said Hill.

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.

One section is likely near Little Rock since it mentions converting frontage roads to one-way traffic.

[MikieTimT]

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

U.S. 67 project from Little Rock to Jonesboro funded

The Arkansas Department of Transportation will be awarded $40 million to reconstruct and improve two sections of US 67 northeast of Little Rock. U.S. Senators John Boozman, Tom Cotton, along with U.S. Reps Rick Crawford and French Hill announced the project on Tuesday (June 16).

The project will widen US 67 from four to six lanes, construct an overpass, convert frontage roads to one-way operation and reconstruct two interchanges. The funding comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program.

"Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This major award from the Department of Transportation will help facilitate the ongoing upgrade of Highway 67 to meet interstate requirements. Completion of this project is key to encouraging economic development in neighboring communities,"  Boozman said.

The senator authored the language to designate the portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as "Future I-57."

"An interstate-quality road system enables faster movement of people and goods–an important asset for any community. This important investment from the Department of Transportation will make the towns of northeast Arkansas even more attractive places to live, work, or start a business. I worked hard to help secure this grant for the Natural State, and I'm pleased that the administration is keeping its promise to invest in rural America,"  Cotton said.

"This INFRA grant puts us one step closer to I-57. This grant is the latest in a series of Federal investments in Arkansas and I applaud Secretary Chao's leadership in ensuring rural America is included in the national infrastructure conversation,"  Crawford said.

"This major grant from the DOT will go a long-ways towards improving Highway 67. The "˜Future I-57' will enhance economic opportunities in communities throughout central Arkansas by promoting commerce and encouraging job growth. Improving infrastructure throughout the state helps all Arkansans and will bring more visitors in to enjoy our Natural State,"  said Hill.

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.

Got to be in the LR/Jacksonville area.

[mvak36]

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/u-s-67-project-from-little-rock-to-jonesboro-funded/

I'm not sure where these two sections of US67 are. The article wasn't very clear.

One section is likely near Little Rock since it mentions converting frontage roads to one-way traffic.

Got to be in the LR/Jacksonville area.

I found this project: https://www.connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/11/highway-67-pulaski-lonoke-county/#.Xup3_-d7m70

The article mentioned something about building an overpass and reconstructing two interchanges so I was thinking there was another section they're talking about.

[sprjus4]

Would these projects upgrade US-67 to the point of being able to carry I-57 signage between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?

[sturmde]

So, is there any reason it shouldn't head northward from the current 67/412 interchange, passing on new terrain about 1/2 mile east of US 67, with an exit at College City to give that old base value, and then bypass Pocahontas on the SE and run up 62/67 utilizing the parts around Poplar Bluff MO that are already upgradeable?
.
As for the bridges over nothing at the current 67/412, the "nothing" grades can be paved and extended and adapted to curl back SE-ward and be US 412.  US 412 can be moved to run S with 67, down to the 63 and bypass Walnut Ridge and Hoxie (with current 412 from the interchange west to US63 being Business US 412.  We know ARDOT loves Business US routes).
.
Having lived in North Carolina a long time and seeing the unfinished 26 and 73/74... I think they might as well post I-57 where standards are met (or FUTURE 57 as mandated) and TO 57 from Walnut Ridge to Harviell, MO....  It's no more objectionable than the current 26, 73/74, and 49 in AR/MO.  And it hearkens back to the 1960's when we had no problem with incomplete interstate signage at all!

[Road Hog]

The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn't come close to Jonesboro.

There's still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

[sparker]

The headline on that story is misleading because US67 doesn't come close to Jonesboro.

There's still the Jacksonville project to even start, and there has been talk of widening 67 between Exit 16 and Exit 19. Maybe those are the projects.

Prosaic license from a media outlet, since Jonesboro is the largest city in NE AR, and the US 67 freeway is part of the most direct route from LR.  Maybe they think the plans for an Interstate spur along AR 226 (dating from I-30 speculation days) are still active.