I-57 Approved

[mgk920]

My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

[sparker]

My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.   

[I-39]

My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.

[sparker]

My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.

This is, in all likelihood, going to be the major public issue in NWA for some time.  What the local public reaction to any of the three corridors will be will have a major impact on exactly what alignment is eventually selected.  Until then, everything else is mere speculation.   Remember that ADOT is a public entity ultimately reporting to the state legislature, which itself is attuned to feedback from the field -- regardless of what is presented, someone local will find fault with aspects of any of the options.  One corridor may be selected as a complete entity; more likely some "tweaking" will occur before anything is finalized to accommodate the more vocal objections.

[MikieTimT]

My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.

This is, in all likelihood, going to be the major public issue in NWA for some time.  What the local public reaction to any of the three corridors will be will have a major impact on exactly what alignment is eventually selected.  Until then, everything else is mere speculation.   Remember that ADOT is a public entity ultimately reporting to the state legislature, which itself is attuned to feedback from the field -- regardless of what is presented, someone local will find fault with aspects of any of the options.  One corridor may be selected as a complete entity; more likely some "tweaking" will occur before anything is finalized to accommodate the more vocal objections.

Corridor 2 is what I voted for on the virtual comment form as well.  However, it has more mileage through the 100 year floodplain than Corridor 3 does, so I trust they accounted for a substantial roadbed elevation above what US-67 suffers from in the Pocahontas area that submerges too frequently already, otherwise, the cost may be underestimated in the reported figure.  Corridor 1 is essentially a giveaway to Pocahontas, which unfortunately does have a couple of well-connected families, which holds more sway in this state than what it should, so it can't be completely discounted.  Corridor 3 has less mileage in the 100 year floodplain than the other 2, with pretty much just the Black River crossing to contend with.  From what I can gather in the meeting materials, the map with the environmental features that's sideways on the PDF indicates pretty much everything to the east of Corning is in 100 year floodplain, and there's a couple of small WMAs on that side of Corning which likely contributed to the hook on Corridor 3, otherwise, it likely would have been the shortest alternative.  I'm just thankful to finally see progress on a long-suffered gap in the 4-lane freeway system, Interstate or otherwise.  Now if only some funding alternatives would come to light...

[sparker]

My best guess as to why an eastern routing around Corning was dropped is that it precluded a potential routing that would go by Pocahontas.  There might be some expensive environmental issues with that potential eastern routing, too.

Corridor 2 does not look to be that appreciably longer than a Corridor 3 with an east bypass, too, it is still fairly direct.

Mike

IIRC, there was something of a consensus of businesses along US 67 between Pocahontas and Corning that preferred something basically overlaying the present highway so as to enhance access -- although it would have meant taking several "front yards" of such to install ostensibly a TX-like freeway+frontage road configuration to accommodate those businesses.  And since part of Option #1 includes such an overlay, it seems possible, given the occasional proximity of options #1 and #2, that a hybrid of those corridors could be possible -- bypassing the 5-lane portion of US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas, bypassing the latter but close enough so that traffic-dependent businesses could still remain viable or simply relocate to one of the proposed interchanges east of town.

And I'll concur that the addition of the "hook" to bypass Corning on the west would make that route, which was the more efficient option if the sole consideration is the accommodation of through traffic, less attractive that one following the RR tracks east of central Corning.  But there's likely enough pressure from Pocahontas boosters to sway the decision their way with options 1/2 or a combo thereof.

It appears the only viable option is 2 as it is the cheapest and straightest. Upgrading along the existing US 67 would be a disaster.

This is, in all likelihood, going to be the major public issue in NWA for some time.  What the local public reaction to any of the three corridors will be will have a major impact on exactly what alignment is eventually selected.  Until then, everything else is mere speculation.   Remember that ADOT is a public entity ultimately reporting to the state legislature, which itself is attuned to feedback from the field -- regardless of what is presented, someone local will find fault with aspects of any of the options.  One corridor may be selected as a complete entity; more likely some "tweaking" will occur before anything is finalized to accommodate the more vocal objections.

Corridor 2 is what I voted for on the virtual comment form as well.  However, it has more mileage through the 100 year floodplain than Corridor 3 does, so I trust they accounted for a substantial roadbed elevation above what US-67 suffers from in the Pocahontas area that submerges too frequently already, otherwise, the cost may be underestimated in the reported figure.  Corridor 1 is essentially a giveaway to Pocahontas, which unfortunately does have a couple of well-connected families, which holds more sway in this state than what it should, so it can't be completely discounted.  Corridor 3 has less mileage in the 100 year floodplain than the other 2, with pretty much just the Black River crossing to contend with.  From what I can gather in the meeting materials, the map with the environmental features that's sideways on the PDF indicates pretty much everything to the east of Corning is in 100 year floodplain, and there's a couple of small WMAs on that side of Corning which likely contributed to the hook on Corridor 3, otherwise, it likely would have been the shortest alternative.  I'm just thankful to finally see progress on a long-suffered gap in the 4-lane freeway system, Interstate or otherwise.  Now if only some funding alternatives would come to light...

I'd wager that the final corridor selection will be a hodgepodge of both Corridors 1 & 2; as stated, there are parties in and around Pocahontas that want a corridor as close to existing US 67 as feasible, and much of Corridor 2 is within floodplain boundaries.  So the more doable parts of #2 will likely be combined with much of #1 (particularly that stretch between Pocahontas and Corning dotted by local businesses) to (a) appease local influencers and (b) take as few in-town developed properties as possible to avoid issues and additional costs.   Something tells me #3 is as good as dead under current circumstances.   

[I-39]

Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor's state line travel plaza at the border.

[MikieTimT]

Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor's state line travel plaza at the border.

The hook in Corridor 3 is to cross the Black River as close to perpendicular as possible to reduce mileage in the floodplain and make as short a bridge as possible.  Still winds up being more expensive than the Corridor 2, although Corridor 2 spends an uncomfortable amount of mileage in the 100 year floodplain, which means that it had better be built up to the point of being a Black River levee essentially, otherwise it will go under just as often as US-67 does.  It'd suck to have acreage on the opposite side of the Black River in that case.

[sparker]

Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor's state line travel plaza at the border.

The hook in Corridor 3 is to cross the Black River as close to perpendicular as possible to reduce mileage in the floodplain and make as short a bridge as possible.  Still winds up being more expensive than the Corridor 2, although Corridor 2 spends an uncomfortable amount of mileage in the 100 year floodplain, which means that it had better be built up to the point of being a Black River levee essentially, otherwise it will go under just as often as US-67 does.  It'd suck to have acreage on the opposite side of the Black River in that case.

The present UPRR/former MoPac rail bridge, while virtually N-S in orientation, is not only a main through truss over the Black River channel but a series of berms and short bridges for drainage; this has been standard rail practice in floodplains for the last century and a half.  To do so with 4 lanes of traffic plus the requisite 28+ extra feet for shoulders would require much the same construction -- i.e., exceptionally expensive.  Locating a relatively narrow part of the floodplain and placing the bridge(s) there would undoubtedly cut down on the number of those; that is obviously what was planned for option #3.  Sticking with a full Option #2 may well involve one or more lengthy "berm/bridge" segments between Pocahontas and Corning as well, which is one of the reasons (besides the business service previously cited) why a "hybrid" 2/1 might well be considered, which would relocate part of the freeway to higher ground.

[MikieTimT]

Nice. So we could have potentially 2 interchanges along IH 57. One being with IH 555 and the other being with U.S. 412. That's interesting for a area with not much development

If only I-555 made it to Walnut Ridge.  US-63, being an "Arkansas Freeway" in its current 5 lane form, is likely all the area is going to get unless there is a much larger strategic federal emphasis on Interstate connectivity.  I'm of the mindset that there is a great need for more diagonal Interstates, especially west of the Mississippi, that run from southeast to northwest, including a continuation of I-22 up to Springfield or KC.  I'd love to see one from Webbers Falls, OK along the Muskogee Turnpike through Tulsa, Ponca City, Dodge City, and Kit Carson to Denver.  That one wouldn't even be dealing with very difficult terrain at all and the southern part is already mostly interstate grade already.

[I-39]

Corridor 3 would make the most sense were it not for the big awkward crooked hook. I do believe the cost is being underestimated for 1 and 2 due to the floodplain, but we need to go as straight as possible here so corridor 2 is the only one that makes sense. If Corridor 1 is built, it will likely obliterate some businesses, including Taylor's state line travel plaza at the border.

The hook in Corridor 3 is to cross the Black River as close to perpendicular as possible to reduce mileage in the floodplain and make as short a bridge as possible.  Still winds up being more expensive than the Corridor 2, although Corridor 2 spends an uncomfortable amount of mileage in the 100 year floodplain, which means that it had better be built up to the point of being a Black River levee essentially, otherwise it will go under just as often as US-67 does.  It'd suck to have acreage on the opposite side of the Black River in that case.

Now that you mention it, I've changed my mind and think Corridor 3 is the best option. The crooked hook is not that bad at second glance. Building in a floodplain is just going to be too dang expensive; Pocahontas needs to face reality.

[CoreySamson]

My opinions:

1. I think Corridor 2 is the best option out of the three in their current configurations.

2. If corridor 3 bypassed Corning to the east, that would be the best corridor. (Bypassing to the west looks worse than Segment B of the Grand Parkway's plan)

3. If Pocahontas really wants an interstate, they should advocate for a 555 extension.

[Tomahawkin]

MikieTimT

I haven't been up 555 past Hoxie in years but 15 years ago I had optimism that 555 would be a continuation of IH 22 to Kansas City. I had no idea 555 was not extended to Pocahontas. A 5 lane road is counter-productive and a waste of money IMO. OT it seems like the southern end of 269 in Mississippi was completed in 5 years and a lot of that goes through a floodplain as well as the Mississippi portion of the Memphis suburbs (people who live in Byhalia Mississippi and points south but work in Memphis) sorry if I'm going on a tangent

[capt.ron]

Here is some new info.

ArDOT is doing an online public comment regarding the alternatives for the Future I-57 section between Walnut Ridge and the state line. They have a website with all of the alternatives.

https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html

future57.transportationplanroom.com (project info website)

All of the alternatives bypass Corning to the west side. Predictably, it seems the most expensive option is to upgrade the existing alignment. The only one that makes sense is Corridor 2 (building near Pocahontas, but on a new alignment). That is the cheapest option.

I have left a comment on their future I-57 alignments page. My proposal is this: At Walnut Ridge, use corridor B and follow it until it bears northeast just before reaching "Skaggs", then make use of Corridor A. The existing 67 alignment will be a frontage road (once the new 4 lanes are built). Use connector A which places the new 4 lanes just west of the existing alignment at the AR/MO line. I say use connector "A" because Missouri is proposing building the new 4 lanes to the west of Neelyville and it would make better use of that alignment.

[sparker]

Here is some new info.

ArDOT is doing an online public comment regarding the alternatives for the Future I-57 section between Walnut Ridge and the state line. They have a website with all of the alternatives.

https://www.jonesborosun.com/times_dispatch/news/ardot-sets-online-meeting-regarding-i-57/article_eab3688d-1de2-57fb-9950-26e148661afd.html

future57.transportationplanroom.com (project info website)

All of the alternatives bypass Corning to the west side. Predictably, it seems the most expensive option is to upgrade the existing alignment. The only one that makes sense is Corridor 2 (building near Pocahontas, but on a new alignment). That is the cheapest option.

I have left a comment on their future I-57 alignments page. My proposal is this: At Walnut Ridge, use corridor B and follow it until it bears northeast just before reaching "Skaggs", then make use of Corridor A. The existing 67 alignment will be a frontage road (once the new 4 lanes are built). Use connector A which places the new 4 lanes just west of the existing alignment at the AR/MO line. I say use connector "A" because Missouri is proposing building the new 4 lanes to the west of Neelyville and it would make better use of that alignment.

Most of the above is probably what the corridor will end up looking like as a "finished product" -- a little bit of B/2 with enough of A/1 to satisfy local businesses.  I could even see much of Pocahontas to Corning as a Texas-style facility, with businesses flanking the central freeway on frontage roads.   As far as the northernmost AR alignment into MO; that's generally hashed out by the relevant DOT's; AFAIK it'll be a bit west of the existing US 67.     

[MikieTimT]

MikieTimT

I haven't been up 555 past Hoxie in years but 15 years ago I had optimism that 555 would be a continuation of IH 22 to Kansas City. I had no idea 555 was not extended to Pocahontas. A 5 lane road is counter-productive and a waste of money IMO. OT it seems like the southern end of 269 in Mississippi was completed in 5 years and a lot of that goes through a floodplain as well as the Mississippi portion of the Memphis suburbs (people who live in Byhalia Mississippi and points south but work in Memphis) sorry if I'm going on a tangent

No I-555 ends at AR-91 just at the edge of Jonesboro, and the 5 lane US-63 takes over after that last exit bypassing (mostly except for an annoying single traffic light) Bono until the junction with AR-25 at the far end of the new bridge over the Black River at Black Rock.  That's probably as close to Pocahontas as it gets as only US-62/US-67 go up there, not US-63.  I don't see any freeway expansions of I-555 anytime soon because of that 5 lane stretch.  Gets you a speed limit of 60 from Jonesboro to Portia at least, but chokes down big time there before crossing the river and becoming a standard 2 lane with occasional passing lanes up some hills.  Sure would prefer a 75MPH continuation of I-555 along to at least I-57/US-67 to knock 5 to 6 minutes off the drive across US-412 to Fayetteville, but I don't usually get my way on most things anyway.

[sprjus4]

^

Are they going to increase that 5 lane segment from 60 to 65 mph? I thought that was included in the new law, that undivided 5 lane segments can now also be 65 mph.

Regardless of whatever is on the small white signs, I'm sure the normal speed is closer to 70 mph or higher and won't change with a 5 being placed over the 0, though will at least bring the law closer to reality.

[US71]

ARDOT is holding an on-line public meeting for I-57 through September 2. Four plans are being considered, including one to make no improvements.

[sparker]

ARDOT is holding an on-line public meeting for I-57 through September 2. Four plans are being considered, including one to make no improvements.

Unless state law requires one to be included in all such proceedings, one would think that a "no build" option would be off the table considering the federal I-57 designation of the corridor as well as the efforts in MO for a corresponding facility. 

[sprjus4]

^

Isn't a No Build option required with anything under NEPA?

[Road Hog]

ARDOT is holding an on-line public meeting for I-57 through September 2. Four plans are being considered, including one to make no improvements.

Just based on cost alone, Option 2 is a no-brainer. Option 1 appears to indicate more than $100M in ROW acquisition.

[qguy]

A no-build alternative is a baseline for comparison. Valuable even if not seriously considered as a viable option.

[edwaleni]

MikieTimT

I haven't been up 555 past Hoxie in years but 15 years ago I had optimism that 555 would be a continuation of IH 22 to Kansas City. I had no idea 555 was not extended to Pocahontas. A 5 lane road is counter-productive and a waste of money IMO. OT it seems like the southern end of 269 in Mississippi was completed in 5 years and a lot of that goes through a floodplain as well as the Mississippi portion of the Memphis suburbs (people who live in Byhalia Mississippi and points south but work in Memphis) sorry if I'm going on a tangent

No I-555 ends at AR-91 just at the edge of Jonesboro, and the 5 lane US-63 takes over after that last exit bypassing (mostly except for an annoying single traffic light) Bono until the junction with AR-25 at the far end of the new bridge over the Black River at Black Rock.  That's probably as close to Pocahontas as it gets as only US-62/US-67 go up there, not US-63.  I don't see any freeway expansions of I-555 anytime soon because of that 5 lane stretch.  Gets you a speed limit of 60 from Jonesboro to Portia at least, but chokes down big time there before crossing the river and becoming a standard 2 lane with occasional passing lanes up some hills.  Sure would prefer a 75MPH continuation of I-555 along to at least I-57/US-67 to knock 5 to 6 minutes off the drive across US-412 to Fayetteville, but I don't usually get my way on most things anyway.

The ending of I-555 was discussed in another thread.

AASHTO approved it to be used as far as AR-91 and Google Maps shows that.

But per ARDOT, I-555 "officially" ends at US-49 Southwest Drive. It is not signed any further west. The official map of Jonesboro even has a notation on it that points to "end of I-555" at US-49.

As for the 3 corridors being presented for the new I-57...



Corridor 2 meets the needs of Pocahontas and their industrial/logistics park. Only crosses flood plain when it crosses the Black River and doesn't disrupt so many land owners along US-67.  Though if you look you will see that there are not a large number of homes or businesses along existing US-67 until it gets north of Datto around AR-211 (old US-67) and the Grassylead area.. All the studies showed a new route from Datto to the Corning bypass was required due to this..

[DJStephens]

Guessing this will go just east of Pocahontas due to their political clout.  Combination of # 1 & #2. Have to wonder though, why Alternative 3 (yellow) did not go E of Corning to head straight N to the state line?  Water table / flood plain issues?  Certainly would seem more direct.   

[edwaleni]

Guessing this will go just east of Pocahontas due to their political clout.  Combination of # 1 & #2. Have to wonder though, why Alternative 3 (yellow) did not go E of Corning to head straight N to the state line?  Water table / flood plain issues?  Certainly would seem more direct.

Quite a few reasons ;

- There isn't much open land between Corning and the Black River levee.
- A very large rice processor is located here (large employer)
- A large golf course
- The Manatt Drive home development
- All located in flood plain

That is why that corridor has to kick back west to go around Corning.

Also the land just after crossing the Black River is all flood plain south & west of Corning Lake.

If you look at the FEMA flood maps the railroad was raised all the way to Corning from just north of Knobel. It would be assumed that the corridor (if used) would have to do the same.

As for Pocahontas having any political clout, it's the *only* population center of any reasonable size between Corning and Walnut Ridge. The mileage will be the almost identical regardless, and it actually uses less flood plain on that corridor than the #3. I don't think it took much "clout" to consider that path.