AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 84849 times)

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 11082
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 02:31:58 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #650 on: May 10, 2021, 10:07:27 AM »


So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?


I-57 will be finished before I-49 (IMO)
.
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10887
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Needham
  • Last Login: Today at 01:36:06 PM
    • old interstate plans
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #651 on: May 10, 2021, 10:30:37 AM »


So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?


I-57 will be finished before I-49 (IMO)
.
I-49 in Arkansas? Is there even a route that they are building?

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1194
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 11:38:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #652 on: May 10, 2021, 10:38:04 AM »

The 40th biggest paper in the nation weighs in on the Road to Chicago:

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/may/08/future-i-57-already-has-wheels-in-motion/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%205-8-21%20nonsubscriber&utm_content=Morning%205-8-21%20nonsubscriber+CID_2e4ad3a603a53e42a63941775e717665&utm_source=Email%20Marketing%20Platform&utm_term=Future%20I-57%20already%20has%20wheels%20in%20motion

Glad to see it is building commercial interest locally. As in everything to be funded federally, its a give and take with Congress (less give lately, more take) and lets hope it rings well in Ways and Means when it comes out of Transportation.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8313
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:41 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #653 on: May 10, 2021, 01:33:52 PM »


So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?


I-57 will be finished before I-49 (IMO)

Of course it will; it's 40-45 miles of flatland and/or rolling hill construction (in AR) as opposed to about 165 miles of mostly mountain construction and one big old high-clearance bridge.  To demonstrate that they're perfectly capable of finishing off a corridor, ARDOT will in all likelihood slide I-57 into a prioritized position once the route is finalized.
.

Thought I'd toss this into the discussion. The video doesn't add much to what most here probably know. I haven't been following this thread, but I did once drive US 67 both ways from St Louis to Dallas in 2017 and found it more pleasant than taking I-44.
Is that a typo/error in the story? Surely they mean “Highway 67” and not “Highway 76” as reported, as this would be Interstate 57 conencting to the current US 67 Freeway in Walnut Ridge up to the Missouri State Line
Likely a typo, but I twitted them to be sure
The reporter in the video even read “Highway 76” in her report - probably because the typo was on the teleprompter
Further proof that news presenters and writers alike don't proof their copy before air. Besides that, this is an old story.
So ArDOT plans to complete the environmental study and get a Record of Decision from the FHWA next year, but does Arkansas have the money in hand to start construction afterward, or will it be another 40 years before we see US-67/Future I-57 completed between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line?

From the map provided, it appears that the eastern (basically AR 34/90) option is back in the mix; a year ago, it was pretty clear that the town of Pocahontas had effectively lobbied to shift the alignment to one of the two western options.  Just hope that routing "reinstatement" doesn't result in any more uncertainty and ensuing delay.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3110
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: August 03, 2021, 12:02:05 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #654 on: May 10, 2021, 07:26:22 PM »

Why was an alternative to following AR 34 and AR 90 between Walnut Ridge and Corning proposed? Would such a route be shorter than routing future Interstate 57 along the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Corning?
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6671
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:00 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #655 on: May 10, 2021, 07:48:02 PM »

Why was an alternative to following AR 34 and AR 90 between Walnut Ridge and Corning proposed? Would such a route be shorter than routing future Interstate 57 along the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Corning?
Barely, maybe 1 or 2 miles.

Using US-67 would be more beneficial in the long run and actually serve a population center - Pocahontas.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8313
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:41 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #656 on: May 10, 2021, 08:44:03 PM »

Why was an alternative to following AR 34 and AR 90 between Walnut Ridge and Corning proposed? Would such a route be shorter than routing future Interstate 57 along the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Corning?
Barely, maybe 1 or 2 miles.

Using US-67 would be more beneficial in the long run and actually serve a population center - Pocahontas.

The 34/90 alternative was proposed because it originally included a shorter crossing of the Black River floodplain, adjacent to the UPRR bridge.  But the current iteration curves the route back northwest to bypass Corning west of town rather than to the east; this functionally negates the advantage of the original proposed alignment -- the floodplain is wider to the west of Corning.  One of the other alternatives actually skirts the floodplain on its northern edge, while the third generally tracks US 62/67 between Pocahontas and Corning before veering north to bypass the latter town.   The two western alternatives cross that floodplain southeast of Pocahontas near the industrial area south of town; it's relatively narrow there although wider than the original eastern location south of Corning.   The two western corridors closely serve Pocahontas, while the eastern one simply bypasses it without much in the way of connections.  It would be interesting to see the cost breakdown of each of the three corridors; I would imagine the eastern option would entail less cost for ROW acquisition.   
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1194
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 11:38:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #657 on: May 10, 2021, 11:28:32 PM »

Why was an alternative to following AR 34 and AR 90 between Walnut Ridge and Corning proposed? Would such a route be shorter than routing future Interstate 57 along the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Corning?
Barely, maybe 1 or 2 miles.

Using US-67 would be more beneficial in the long run and actually serve a population center - Pocahontas.

The Pocahontas routing and UPRR routing are nearly identical in miles.

Either route has to cross flood plain, but the UPRR route has more actual flood plain miles to cover because of the need to go west of Corning. The Pocahontas route has to build 2 bridges, the UPRR route only has 1.

While the Pocahontas route showed "new mileage" ROW if so chosen they could use parts of the existing ROW if they had to (#1) with extensive frontage roads to support local traffic. However it is expensive, so for the moment, ArDOT is looking at a net new.

As for how Pocahontas local leadership felt at the end of 2020:

Quote
POCAHONTAS – During a special meeting of the Pocahontas City Council on Thursday, aldermen voted to table a resolution that would offer their support of the proposed Corridor 2 route of the Future I-57 highway project.

Recently the NEA Intermodal Facilities Authority along with the Randolph County Quorum Court and Randolph County Chamber of Commerce approved resolutions in favor of Corridor 2 for which Randolph County Judge David Jansen was preparing a letter to send to ARDOT detailing their support.

Pocahontas Mayor Keith Sutton said he attended a meeting regarding the issue which was attended by Jansen, ARDOT Area Maintenance Supervisor Paul Carr, ARDOT District 10 Engineer Brad Smithee and NEA Intermodal Executive Director Graycen Bigger. Sutton noted they came to the conclusion during discussions that out of the three corridor proposals presented, Corridor 2 would suffice Pocahontas better than the others. He said he was asked to present the resolution to the Council in support of Corridor 2.

Sutton said that Corridor 2 would be about 4 miles from Pocahontas on Highway 304. Corridor 1, he noted, is regarded as the most expensive and contains 85 dwellings that would have to be taken out along with around 19 bridges. Corridor 3 would be the furthest from Pocahontas and travels west of Crowley’s Ridge. All three corridors, however, begin at Walnut Ridge and end near the Corning Airport in Clay County.

Alderman Keith Futrell said he is not in support of Corridor 2 and that based on past studies by the highway department, the best route is the current which comes through Pocahontas to Corning.

“Now they’re wanting to have a different corridor two against ground that they don’t own,” said Futrell. “They don’t have any right-of-way through any of that, and there’s farm after farm after farm they’re going to cut… Right now the existing `67: they already have the right-of-way. It’s hard for me to believe that the existing Highway 67 doesn’t have enough area to build a four-lane interstate.”

Futrell also questioned, with the recent completion of the new Highway 67 Bridge, why ARDOT would build multiple other bridges for a different route.

Alderman Rob Olvey said that while he believes the resolution will ultimately not make a difference as to the route ARDOT takes, he believes that Corridor 1 is the only one that would truly benefit Pocahontas.

“I understand pricewise it probably won’t happen, but it wouldn’t bother me to be on record to say that’s the one that we think’s best for the City of Pocahontas,” Olvey said.

“I’m kind of like Rob,” added Futrell. “I believe if we change the wording for a resolution that is in support of Highway 57, but that it shows that the highway would benefit the City of Pocahontas as it would be routed, I could see putting it in those words. But for us to sit here as a city council and say that we think that Corridor 1, 2 or 3 is the best option, I don’t think any of us are knowledgeable enough to do that.”

Alderman Ben Pond said that he too believes Corridor 1 would be best as it’s slightly closer to Pocahontas than Corridor 2. He said his main priority is supporting an option that supports the Pocahontas community overall and that allows for more visitors coming in as well as recreation.

Alderman Nathan Camp said he believes Corridor 1 would offer a more favorable transition into Pocahontas off the interstate.

“The way that would transition off the existing path, you could see that road going into Pocahontas,” Camp explained. “And if you’re stopping, it’s an easy off to Pocahontas and an easy back on, instead of turning off on one highway and having to go all the way back out to `67, then turn again. The other thing I’m thinking of, and I’m putting the cart way before the horse here, but the closer we can get this thing to our established utilities the better off we’re going to be. Because any growth, especially anything retail or something like that, will tend to gravitate toward this interstate system.”

Camp said that he, like Futrell, would like for the route to come through Pocahontas as it would offer the best economic impact. However, he noted that it’s unlikely given ARDOT’s goal with the project of bypassing the cities and towns.

ARDOT has issued no timeline regarding construction of the project but say schedules will be determined as funding becomes available.


MoDOT release an updated NEPA in January of 2021.

This can be found here:

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf

Quote
In August 2019, the voters of the city of Poplar Bluff,
Missouri overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to fund
the expansion of U.S. Route 67 (Route 67) south of Poplar
Bluff to the Arkansas state line, which supports the planned
expansion of future Interstate 57 (I-57). This project includes
upgrading approximately ten miles of Route 67 in Butler
County from two lanes to a four-lane, fully-divided
controlled access highway on a new alignment, from the
Route 160/158 interchange to two miles north of the
Arkansas state line near County Road (CR) 274 (Figure 1). As
a result, the Missouri Department of Transportation
(MoDOT) is preparing to design and construct these
improvements to this portion of Route 67

Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2419
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:32 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #658 on: May 11, 2021, 11:05:37 PM »

Reading thru the MoDOT NEPA, it appears MoDOT’s first priority for I-57 is building an Interstate-Standard 4 Lane Freeway south from the Poplar Bluff Bypass to the Arkansas state line

Upgrades of the existing 4-lane Expressway between Sikeston and the Poplar Bluff Bypass are identified as “Phase 5” in the NEPA - of 5 phases identified
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2583
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 12:40:52 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #659 on: May 12, 2021, 12:03:05 AM »

That's kind of a pleasant surprise: get the more difficult highway upgrade out of the way first before dealing with the easier one (converting US-60 to Interstate quality between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston).

I would have thought upgrading US-60 to a completely limited access facility across Southern Missouri would have been a bigger priority than doing anything to help Arkansas.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6671
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:00 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #660 on: May 12, 2021, 01:08:56 AM »

It's pleasant in the fact it would at least complete a complete 4 lane corridor throughout, though also risks the fact Missouri may stall on upgrades to US-60 once they consider it virtually complete, in the sense of having 4 lanes. There would be lower priority on upgrading the segment of US-60 at that point. Then again, there is still that now so.

The increased through traffic, particularly freight, will likely start diverting in numbers to the new "I-57" corridor once the Popular Bluff to Walnut Ridge portion is complete. While that Missouri segment of US-60 may not be interstate standards immediately, it will still be 65 mph, free-flowing expressway, then 70-75 mph interstate once past Walnut Ridge. I'd take that any day over the congestion that is I-55 and even worse I-40 west of Memphis.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8313
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:41 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #661 on: May 12, 2021, 05:09:18 AM »

That's kind of a pleasant surprise: get the more difficult highway upgrade out of the way first before dealing with the easier one (converting US-60 to Interstate quality between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston).

I would have thought upgrading US-60 to a completely limited access facility across Southern Missouri would have been a bigger priority than doing anything to help Arkansas.

East of Willow Springs/US 63 US 60 across MO has never been a primary freight corridor; there's only limited efficient connectivity directly eastward from SE MO, and there's little in the way of actual commercial destinations along the US 60 trajectory east from there.  There's a reason the old "I-66" proposal fell by the wayside -- while traversing an area devoid of an E-W Interstate, there was little or no agreement among the various affected states as to how to connect it to US 60 east of Springfield, MO; too many parties wanted a "piece of the action" for a corridor with an uncertain volume potential.  It's far more likely that a Springfield-Memphis corridor using a combination of US 60, US 63, and I-555 would be developed as the next regional entity rather than a Springfield-Poplar Bluff upgrade; there are viable commercial destinations that can be accessed from either end.  The only way a Springfield-Poplar Bluff-Sikeston corridor could conceivably be viable would be if an efficient connector from SE MO to the Paducah (KY) area could also be built -- but that was also a problem for the I-66 backers; a new-terrain Mississippi River crossing doing just that has long been deemed too costly for the potential traffic level and hasn't been able to accumulate much in the way of political support.  MDOT was able to built out US 60 to conventional divided standards between Willow Springs and Poplar Bluff; that's more than sufficient to handle present traffic levels for that corridor.   
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 270
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: August 02, 2021, 04:25:37 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #662 on: May 12, 2021, 09:38:20 AM »

That's kind of a pleasant surprise: get the more difficult highway upgrade out of the way first before dealing with the easier one (converting US-60 to Interstate quality between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston).

I would have thought upgrading US-60 to a completely limited access facility across Southern Missouri would have been a bigger priority than doing anything to help Arkansas.

East of Willow Springs/US 63 US 60 across MO has never been a primary freight corridor; there's only limited efficient connectivity directly eastward from SE MO, and there's little in the way of actual commercial destinations along the US 60 trajectory east from there.  There's a reason the old "I-66" proposal fell by the wayside -- while traversing an area devoid of an E-W Interstate, there was little or no agreement among the various affected states as to how to connect it to US 60 east of Springfield, MO; too many parties wanted a "piece of the action" for a corridor with an uncertain volume potential.  It's far more likely that a Springfield-Memphis corridor using a combination of US 60, US 63, and I-555 would be developed as the next regional entity rather than a Springfield-Poplar Bluff upgrade; there are viable commercial destinations that can be accessed from either end.  The only way a Springfield-Poplar Bluff-Sikeston corridor could conceivably be viable would be if an efficient connector from SE MO to the Paducah (KY) area could also be built -- but that was also a problem for the I-66 backers; a new-terrain Mississippi River crossing doing just that has long been deemed too costly for the potential traffic level and hasn't been able to accumulate much in the way of political support.  MDOT was able to built out US 60 to conventional divided standards between Willow Springs and Poplar Bluff; that's more than sufficient to handle present traffic levels for that corridor.

Arkansas will increasingly want to connect NWA with NEA and would likely push any corridor to Harrison at the very least using US 412 as a basic path.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1194
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 11:38:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #663 on: May 12, 2021, 10:10:02 AM »

That's kind of a pleasant surprise: get the more difficult highway upgrade out of the way first before dealing with the easier one (converting US-60 to Interstate quality between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston).

I would have thought upgrading US-60 to a completely limited access facility across Southern Missouri would have been a bigger priority than doing anything to help Arkansas.

Arkansas did help Missouri get I-49 funding for the Bella Vista Bypass, so I am sure it is not a big reach for Missouri to help Arkansas with anything related to I-57.

Both roads are complimentary to both states, therefore helping each other is in their interests.

However what @sparker said is correct.  US60 will never get the needed connectivity to the east of the Mississippi and therefore not become a preferred freight route.

Ridiculous demands by Illinois to have it connect through the coal district to Cape Girardeau to prop up the AADT didn't help.

The Mississippi is one issue (cost of a bridge), the other is the fact that the area is the convergence of several states and has all of the regional, provincial self-interests that come with it.
Logged

sturmde

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Bangor, Maine, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:40 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #664 on: May 12, 2021, 10:34:34 AM »

With the possibility of the Memphis I-40 and I-55 bridges both failing... US 412/I-155 suddenly takes on added importance as the only crossing between Cairo and Helena.  (I'm not counting the ferry at Hickman as seriously helping if 40 and 55 are both shut down due to bridge issues...)  And if the 412 corridor is upgraded at least to four lane expressway across NEA to NWA, it does connect Nashville to Tulsa on a straight line by way of NWA.... that's a good commerce corridor, better than US 60.
.
As for I-57, thank goodness it's going to happen.  It's a logical addition to the grid that helps commercial traffic.  It reminds me of those of us who pitched and pushed for I-22 connecting Birmingham to Memphis twentyplus years ago successfully.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 11082
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 02:31:58 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #665 on: May 12, 2021, 11:24:35 AM »



Arkansas will increasingly want to connect NWA with NEA and would likely push any corridor to Harrison at the very least using US 412 as a basic path.

That's been in the works for years. I think the sticking point is bypassing Harrison.
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

sturmde

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Bangor, Maine, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:40 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #666 on: May 12, 2021, 03:10:16 PM »



Arkansas will increasingly want to connect NWA with NEA and would likely push any corridor to Harrison at the very least using US 412 as a basic path.

That's been in the works for years. I think the sticking point is bypassing Harrison.

Well, terrain says you'd build a bypass along the south, heading west from the 412-62 JCT with 65, and then swing north past Capps up to the Bear Springs split.  Keep it as tight to Harrison as possible, with multiple exits and room for industrial development.
.
Going along the east and north side would be more hilly, and also wouldn't open up land for development?  Either way, it would improve 65 also, giving more Springfield-Little Rock traffic a good alternative.
.
That might be the only part built as a freeway.  But maybe as an expressway for now, Texas style would work just as well?  I also think the Dothan, Alabama 1950's Ross Clark Circle concept works for Harrison.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8313
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:41 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #667 on: May 12, 2021, 07:04:34 PM »

With the possibility of the Memphis I-40 and I-55 bridges both failing... US 412/I-155 suddenly takes on added importance as the only crossing between Cairo and Helena.  (I'm not counting the ferry at Hickman as seriously helping if 40 and 55 are both shut down due to bridge issues...)  And if the 412 corridor is upgraded at least to four lane expressway across NEA to NWA, it does connect Nashville to Tulsa on a straight line by way of NWA.... that's a good commerce corridor, better than US 60.
.
As for I-57, thank goodness it's going to happen.  It's a logical addition to the grid that helps commercial traffic.  It reminds me of those of us who pitched and pushed for I-22 connecting Birmingham to Memphis twentyplus years ago successfully.

Speaking of Memphis bridges failing -- looks like I-40 was shut down to examine a structural crack in that bridge, with traffic rerouted over I-55 (and the Crump complex).  If that isn't enough to provoke local sentiment or even outrage toward either (a) resolving, as much as possible, the I-55 connection and/or (b) seriously exploring an additional river bridge at the north or south ends of the metro area,  I don't know what would be!   
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 270
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: August 02, 2021, 04:25:37 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #668 on: May 12, 2021, 07:45:01 PM »

With the possibility of the Memphis I-40 and I-55 bridges both failing... US 412/I-155 suddenly takes on added importance as the only crossing between Cairo and Helena.  (I'm not counting the ferry at Hickman as seriously helping if 40 and 55 are both shut down due to bridge issues...)  And if the 412 corridor is upgraded at least to four lane expressway across NEA to NWA, it does connect Nashville to Tulsa on a straight line by way of NWA.... that's a good commerce corridor, better than US 60.
.
As for I-57, thank goodness it's going to happen.  It's a logical addition to the grid that helps commercial traffic.  It reminds me of those of us who pitched and pushed for I-22 connecting Birmingham to Memphis twentyplus years ago successfully.

Speaking of Memphis bridges failing -- looks like I-40 was shut down to examine a structural crack in that bridge, with traffic rerouted over I-55 (and the Crump complex).  If that isn't enough to provoke local sentiment or even outrage toward either (a) resolving, as much as possible, the I-55 connection and/or (b) seriously exploring an additional river bridge at the north or south ends of the metro area,  I don't know what would be!   

If the Memphis bridges failed during a sizable seismic event, there's a good chance I-155 will be compromised as well. It thames are anything like the early 1800 quakes. The whole nation will suffer the effects.

I would suggest looking at a new Helena Bridge doing some additional work on Ark 1 and US 49
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1194
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 11:38:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #669 on: May 12, 2021, 10:46:43 PM »

With the possibility of the Memphis I-40 and I-55 bridges both failing... US 412/I-155 suddenly takes on added importance as the only crossing between Cairo and Helena.  (I'm not counting the ferry at Hickman as seriously helping if 40 and 55 are both shut down due to bridge issues...)  And if the 412 corridor is upgraded at least to four lane expressway across NEA to NWA, it does connect Nashville to Tulsa on a straight line by way of NWA.... that's a good commerce corridor, better than US 60.
.
As for I-57, thank goodness it's going to happen.  It's a logical addition to the grid that helps commercial traffic.  It reminds me of those of us who pitched and pushed for I-22 connecting Birmingham to Memphis twentyplus years ago successfully.

Speaking of Memphis bridges failing -- looks like I-40 was shut down to examine a structural crack in that bridge, with traffic rerouted over I-55 (and the Crump complex).  If that isn't enough to provoke local sentiment or even outrage toward either (a) resolving, as much as possible, the I-55 connection and/or (b) seriously exploring an additional river bridge at the north or south ends of the metro area,  I don't know what would be!   

Riverside also appears to be closed from Georgia Ave up to Union Ave. Is their a street festival going down?
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 270
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: August 02, 2021, 04:25:37 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #670 on: May 13, 2021, 12:49:05 AM »

With the possibility of the Memphis I-40 and I-55 bridges both failing... US 412/I-155 suddenly takes on added importance as the only crossing between Cairo and Helena.  (I'm not counting the ferry at Hickman as seriously helping if 40 and 55 are both shut down due to bridge issues...)  And if the 412 corridor is upgraded at least to four lane expressway across NEA to NWA, it does connect Nashville to Tulsa on a straight line by way of NWA.... that's a good commerce corridor, better than US 60.
.
As for I-57, thank goodness it's going to happen.  It's a logical addition to the grid that helps commercial traffic.  It reminds me of those of us who pitched and pushed for I-22 connecting Birmingham to Memphis twentyplus years ago successfully.

Speaking of Memphis bridges failing -- looks like I-40 was shut down to examine a structural crack in that bridge, with traffic rerouted over I-55 (and the Crump complex).  If that isn't enough to provoke local sentiment or even outrage toward either (a) resolving, as much as possible, the I-55 connection and/or (b) seriously exploring an additional river bridge at the north or south ends of the metro area,  I don't know what would be!   

Riverside also appears to be closed from Georgia Ave up to Union Ave. Is their a street festival going down?

Memphis in May. They are having a smaller BBQ contest this year but no Music Fest.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1798
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 10:58:05 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #671 on: May 13, 2021, 10:14:17 AM »

Hmm, I wonder if folks know that once I-57 ends that they can get on I-55 then get on I-40 if they want to stay on an Interstate.  Why the need for I-57?  US 67 is already upgraded all over AR and I-55 already exists.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6671
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:00 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #672 on: May 13, 2021, 10:15:21 AM »

Hmm, I wonder if folks know that once I-57 ends that they can get on I-55 then get on I-40 if they want to stay on an Interstate.  Why the need for I-57?  US 67 is already upgraded all over AR and I-55 already exists.
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 679
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 04:31:19 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #673 on: May 13, 2021, 11:07:12 AM »

Hmm, I wonder if folks know that once I-57 ends that they can get on I-55 then get on I-40 if they want to stay on an Interstate.  Why the need for I-57?  US 67 is already upgraded all over AR and I-55 already exists.
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Clearly doesn't get out of middle TN long enough to realize what driving I-40 from Memphis to LR and back is really like.  And how many rolling roadblocks you face.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1194
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 11:38:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #674 on: May 13, 2021, 12:12:31 PM »

US 67 is already upgraded all over AR and I-55 already exists.

Except north of Walnut Ridge to the Missouri border.

It's not just about access to interstate. Its also about capacity and resiliency.  In the case of I-40, its most definitely about capacity.
Logged

 


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.