AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 82303 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #675 on: May 13, 2021, 01:04:04 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

Well, it looks like potentially several months before the I-40 bridge is back in service.  Whether that is taken as a sign that redundancy beyond what's currently available should be explored seriously remains to be seen.  But Memphis' location in TN's SW corner generally means that multiple states need to be on board with most plans extending outside the city limits or, definitely, involving river crossings -- and that has demonstrated to be the biggest roadblock to such actions (and that's including low prioritization from Nashville as well).  Anyway, the story hit NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/memphis-cracked-i-40-bridge-creates-headaches-traffic-shipping-n1267187
 
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1799
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 10:30:53 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #676 on: May 13, 2021, 01:07:01 PM »

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.

Rolling roadblocks are everywhere.  It is a highway of national defense and commerce.  It isn't a highway of leisure and open road.  Stay in your lane and stay alive.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 750
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:48 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #677 on: May 13, 2021, 01:43:40 PM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?


 
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.

Rolling roadblocks are everywhere.  It is a highway of national defense and commerce.  It isn't a highway of leisure and open road.  Stay in your lane and stay alive.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1799
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 10:30:53 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #678 on: May 13, 2021, 01:58:56 PM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?


 
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.

Rolling roadblocks are everywhere.  It is a highway of national defense and commerce.  It isn't a highway of leisure and open road.  Stay in your lane and stay alive.

To fit the grid better? 
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 750
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:48 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #679 on: May 13, 2021, 02:52:35 PM »

BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?

To fit the grid better?

When I-10 & I-20 meet, I-10 continues. When I-20 & I-30 Meet, I-20 continues.  The only difference I see is that I-30 meets I-40 at an eastern terminus as opposed to the other two meeting at a western terminus. One might argue that I-30 was never going to be transcontinental had it continued, but....

As far as the grid goes, where should I-30 have gone? The only real option would have been the route of I-22.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6588
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:42 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #680 on: May 13, 2021, 03:33:24 PM »

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.

Rolling roadblocks are everywhere.  It is a highway of national defense and commerce.  It isn't a highway of leisure and open road.  Stay in your lane and stay alive.
So improvements shouldn’t be built?

Glad to see the officials and what’s actually getting built strongly disagree with your position.

Having an I-57 would separate traffic heading from Little Rock towards I-55 North off of I-40, helping to reduce congestion on that corridor with diverted trips. A similar argument could be made for I-69, which has less support, likely because unlike I-57, nothing has really been built yet. It would divert trips to eastern and southern Texas off of I-40 and I-30.

It both of these routes could be built, I-40’s traffic loads would be split into 3 and it wouldn’t be carrying all of the weight across its mere 4 lanes. It would also allow redundancy in the network.

You seem to be a stickler of this idea that the interstate highway system should never be expanded. Fortunately, that mindset doesn’t seem to sit in the real world.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #681 on: May 13, 2021, 04:55:53 PM »

BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?

To fit the grid better?

When I-10 & I-20 meet, I-10 continues. When I-20 & I-30 Meet, I-20 continues.  The only difference I see is that I-30 meets I-40 at an eastern terminus as opposed to the other two meeting at a western terminus. One might argue that I-30 was never going to be transcontinental had it continued, but....

As far as the grid goes, where should I-30 have gone? The only real option would have been the route of I-22.

We're getting into "retro-fictional" here, but if I-20 had continued along US 80 via Montgomery and Columbus, GA to Savannah, then I-30 could have multiplexed with I-40 to Memphis and then taken the path of I-22 and I-20 east of there.  But remember MacDonald and his fellow planners were trying to squeeze a transcontinental system into about 30K miles at the time (expanded to 41K by '56), so a lot of regional connectors that would otherwise make sense were discarded in the process.   
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 11050
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 08:38:17 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #682 on: May 13, 2021, 08:04:21 PM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?



???
I-30 ends at I-40 in North Little Rock.
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6588
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:42 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #683 on: May 13, 2021, 08:40:21 PM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?



???
I-30 ends at I-40 in North Little Rock.
Why doesn't I-30 take over I-40 east of Little Rock is I'm pretty sure what's being said.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 11050
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 08:38:17 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #684 on: May 13, 2021, 08:51:39 PM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?



???
I-30 ends at I-40 in North Little Rock.
Why doesn't I-30 take over I-40 east of Little Rock is I'm pretty sure what's being said.

Believe it or not, that was a proposal for I-30 "back in the day". Obviously, they never routed it that way.
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 750
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:48 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #685 on: May 13, 2021, 11:42:18 PM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?



???
I-30 ends at I-40 in North Little Rock.
Why doesn't I-30 take over I-40 east of Little Rock is I'm pretty sure what's being said.

This was probably a question from someone who calls Tarrant County Texas "DALLAS" 
I should have said METRO Little Rock  (BTW for Tarrant County, DFW or North Texas would be fine. Even Fort Worth would work generically. Dallas is a whole separate place though. )

And yes, that was my question.
 


When I-10 & I-20 meet, I-10 continues. When I-20 & I-30 Meet, I-20 continues.  The only difference I see is that I-30 meets I-40 at an eastern terminus as opposed to the other two meeting at a western terminus. One might argue that I-30 was never going to be transcontinental had it continued, but....
   
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #686 on: May 14, 2021, 02:56:40 AM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?



???
I-30 ends at I-40 in North Little Rock.
Why doesn't I-30 take over I-40 east of Little Rock is I'm pretty sure what's being said.

Believe it or not, that was a proposal for I-30 "back in the day". Obviously, they never routed it that way.

It's likely I-40 was selected to continue east of Little Rock for a couple of reasons:  it continued east at close to the latitude of the western part of its routing, and the idea of signing the route as an effective transcontinental overrode any notion of splitting the route into a western I-40 and an eastern I-30 (which, IMO, would have been silly and gratuitous in any case).  The system as laid out in 1956-58 didn't lend itself to more than a few true transcons; the fact that we got "3.5" (considering I-40 ending at I-15 -- and before 1968, at I-85 in NC, and I-70 originally ending at I-25 in Denver before being extended into Utah) is about all that could have been asked for with the original mileage cap.  Something had to give, and it was the I-30 designation, likely selected because it was available.  Besides, it followed US 67, itself a diagonal route, so whatever was designated over the DFW-LR corridor was going to be a regional connector -- albeit one that has taken on increased importance with the growth of TX in general and DFW metro in particular, both as a population center and a commercial hub.  So much so that the clear goal of Houston interests, via the development of the I-69 corridor, have specified connection from there to I-30 at Texarkana as a principal goal (via I-369, of course); the potential of extending that basic corridor directly to Chicago via I-57 likely has them drooling with anticipation! 
Logged

ibthebigd

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 162
  • Location: US
  • Last Login: Today at 08:05:26 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #687 on: May 14, 2021, 03:27:28 AM »

You look at a map and see Houston has no Interstate going to the Northeast of Houston is to me the most glaring hole in the interstate system beside Las Vegas to Phoenix.

SM-G950U

Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6588
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:42 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #688 on: May 14, 2021, 04:12:18 AM »

You look at a map and see Houston has no Interstate going to the Northeast of Houston is to me the most glaring hole in the interstate system beside Las Vegas to Phoenix.

SM-G950U
I-69 will hopefully fill that gap one day, then I-11 with the latter.

At least at minimum planning efforts are underway for these gaps - they also do exist elsewhere in the country with corridors planned. Now, there just needs to be increased federal involvement at funding these projects. But unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to the focus of the current proposals.
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1444
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 09:38:59 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #689 on: May 14, 2021, 05:24:28 AM »

I-40 is the confluence of I-30 and I-40 traffic combined between Little Rock and Memphis.  BTW anyone know why I-30 ends at Little Rock as opposed to I-40?



???
I-30 ends at I-40 in North Little Rock.
Why doesn't I-30 take over I-40 east of Little Rock is I'm pretty sure what's being said.

This was probably a question from someone who calls Tarrant County Texas "DALLAS" 
I should have said METRO Little Rock  (BTW for Tarrant County, DFW or North Texas would be fine. Even Fort Worth would work generically. Dallas is a whole separate place though. )

And yes, that was my question.
 


When I-10 & I-20 meet, I-10 continues. When I-20 & I-30 Meet, I-20 continues.  The only difference I see is that I-30 meets I-40 at an eastern terminus as opposed to the other two meeting at a western terminus. One might argue that I-30 was never going to be transcontinental had it continued, but....
   
Barely. I-30 ends near Aledo in Parker County.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #690 on: May 14, 2021, 12:55:48 PM »

You look at a map and see Houston has no Interstate going to the Northeast of Houston is to me the most glaring hole in the interstate system beside Las Vegas to Phoenix.

SM-G950U
I-69 will hopefully fill that gap one day, then I-11 with the latter.

At least at minimum planning efforts are underway for these gaps - they also do exist elsewhere in the country with corridors planned. Now, there just needs to be increased federal involvement at funding these projects. But unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to the focus of the current proposals.

What is today's I-49 corridor (with a projected terminus in Baton Rouge rather than Lafayette), plus an additional corridor from Shreveport to Houston (sound familiar?) were included in the initial iteration of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions before that legislation was trimmed from 4500 to 1500 miles when funding became an issue.  Those mid-continent "missing links" have been on the radar since the initial 1958 system finalization.  I-11 didn't become a cohesive concept until both Phoenix and Las Vegas experienced outsized growth starting in the late 1970's and "snowballed" ever since. 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6588
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:42 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #691 on: May 14, 2021, 04:35:30 PM »

What is today's I-49 corridor (with a projected terminus in Baton Rouge rather than Lafayette), plus an additional corridor from Shreveport to Houston (sound familiar?) were included in the initial iteration of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions before that legislation was trimmed from 4500 to 1500 miles when funding became an issue.  Those mid-continent "missing links" have been on the radar since the initial 1958 system finalization.
So, these got denied, yet I-27 got approved? I sense some sort of political pull.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #692 on: May 14, 2021, 04:55:37 PM »

What is today's I-49 corridor (with a projected terminus in Baton Rouge rather than Lafayette), plus an additional corridor from Shreveport to Houston (sound familiar?) were included in the initial iteration of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions before that legislation was trimmed from 4500 to 1500 miles when funding became an issue.  Those mid-continent "missing links" have been on the radar since the initial 1958 system finalization.
So, these got denied, yet I-27 got approved? I sense some sort of political pull.

That's an understatement!  Then Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen got I-72 through his hometown of Decatur, IL built (he retired the next year, so maybe that was his "gold watch").  Also then Sen. Jacob Javits got I-88 in NY through (considered more of an in-state "make work" project).  Originally, I-27 was to extend south to Big Spring, but it was truncated in Lubbock when the mileage was cut back.  At the time LBJ was still president, and TX had a lot of pull then as now. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2558
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 09:16:24 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #693 on: May 14, 2021, 09:04:48 PM »

Quote from: ibthebigd
You look at a map and see Houston has no Interstate going to the Northeast of Houston is to me the most glaring hole in the interstate system beside Las Vegas to Phoenix.

The only destination of significance Northeast of Houston is Shreveport. That will (eventually) be filled by I-69. But Shreveport alone is not a big enough reason to build that stretch of road. I'd say the links from Houston down SW to Corpus Christi and then directly South to Brownsville are even more important. There is far more people living in the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities down in the South end of Texas than there is in Shreveport.

Las Vegas to Phoenix is a relatively short, but still badly missing link in the Interstate system. Sadly, it looks like I-11 will end up getting built as anything but a direct link between Vegas and Phoenix. I guess the plan is once I-11 gets as far South as Wickenburg it will just do a big detour around the Phoenix metro. I'm sure motorists from Vegas staying on I-11 will be happy to get bounced clear out to Buckeye just to get to Phoenix. And if they're headed to Tucson why not go out of the way to Gila Bend?

I think the Denver metro along with other Front Range cities is a big enough to warrant a diagonal NW to SE Interstate similar to the diagonal that I-44 runs between St Louis and Oklahoma City. The Northwest US hardly has anything in terms of diagonal routes. I-84 from Portland to Northern Utah is the only one. A Denver-OKC route would act as a direct gateway from the Northwest US down to the Deep South.

Quote from: DJStephens
The DFW - Amarillo diagonal is another possibility, as many here have posited.  Am of the opinion that the US 60/70 diagonal (las Cruces - Amarillo) should have been upgraded to at least an expressway grade four lane, with Interstate level bypasses around towns.   There was actually a proposal coming out of NM in the late sixties, for such an upgrade.

Wasn't there a High Priority Corridor proposal or something like that for the Las Cruces to Amarillo Corridor? Or was that the US-54 corridor going North out of New Mexico and up into Kansas. I forget. It seemed like some of the weird I-66 concepts were working one of those routes into the idea.

Quote from: sparker
Then Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen got I-72 through his hometown of Decatur, IL built (he retired the next year, so maybe that was his "gold watch").  Also then Sen. Jacob Javits got I-88 in NY through (considered more of an in-state "make work" project).  Originally, I-27 was to extend south to Big Spring, but it was truncated in Lubbock when the mileage was cut back.  At the time LBJ was still president, and TX had a lot of pull then as now.

I-27 might have been a fairly "porky" route back then. The corridor is more legit now and in growing need of extension South out of Lubbock. The Permian Basin is generating a great deal of commercial truck traffic. While the cities out in West Texas may not be growing as fast as those in the Central Texas Triangle they're still growing nonetheless.

Interstate highway corridors are built far closer together in the Northeast US. But with the sustained migration of population farther South and West it is increasing the need to increase super highway corridor density in those areas gaining population fast. Texas has multiple corridors worthy of upgrading to Interstate quality.

I'm pulling the most for US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth. But US-290 between Houston and Austin is a legit upgrade opportunity, as well as TX-71. I think US-290 needs to be Interstate quality going West out of Austin all the way to I-10. Austin is big enough to warrant its own "thru" East-West Interstate corridor. We've been talking about US-281 going North out of San Antonio. Then there's all the I-69 and I-2 stuff in South Texas. That's a huge burden of super highway to build. But look at all the people moving to these various regions around the state.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6588
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:42 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #694 on: May 14, 2021, 09:41:47 PM »

The only destination of significance Northeast of Houston is Shreveport. That will (eventually) be filled by I-69. But Shreveport alone is not a big enough reason to build that stretch of road. I'd say the links from Houston down SW to Corpus Christi and then directly South to Brownsville are even more important. There is far more people living in the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities down in the South end of Texas than there is in Shreveport.
As you've made the bigger picture connections with your other proposals like a diagonal across Oklahoma and Colorado, a northeastern connection would then link Houston to I-20 and I-30, then to Little Rock, Memphis, and the rest of the Northeast.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #695 on: May 15, 2021, 05:40:53 AM »

The only destination of significance Northeast of Houston is Shreveport. That will (eventually) be filled by I-69. But Shreveport alone is not a big enough reason to build that stretch of road. I'd say the links from Houston down SW to Corpus Christi and then directly South to Brownsville are even more important. There is far more people living in the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities down in the South end of Texas than there is in Shreveport.
As you've made the bigger picture connections with your other proposals like a diagonal across Oklahoma and Colorado, a northeastern connection would then link Houston to I-20 and I-30, then to Little Rock, Memphis, and the rest of the Northeast.

Getting to Shreveport itself is a secondary concern to Houston-based commercial interests; the more immediate goal is a direct connection to the northeast, which is intended to be achieved by a combination of I-69 and I-369 to Texarkana, where the greater flow of traffic would turn northeast onto I-30 toward destinations or distribution points in the central midwest -- Chicago being the "goal" of choice here, with Memphis (and its FedEx hub status) being a secondary or alternate destination.  Of course I-69 itself is supposed to string a number of the interim points together before striking out toward Indiana and Michigan, but the TX folks backing that corridor have no intention of waiting for funding for the Great River Bridge and the central I-69 segment between Shreveport and Memphis to be developed; the first order of business is getting the freeway done up to I-30 for a more near-term "payout". 

As far as Shreveport is concerned -- if traffic headed that way from Houston could simply hit I-20 at Marshall (along I-369) and hang a right, most of the Houston I-69 backers would be satisfied if not actually delighted (likely one of the reasons that planning for the I-69 trunk northeast of the I-369 split has progressed at a snails' pace).   
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 270
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: July 22, 2021, 10:31:04 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #696 on: May 15, 2021, 08:50:29 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.

Rolling roadblocks are everywhere.  It is a highway of national defense and commerce.  It isn't a highway of leisure and open road.  Stay in your lane and stay alive.
Yes, rolling roadblocks are everywhere but Lit- Mem is a special case. It can literally be groups of 20 trucks playing slo mo leap fog at 65 mph and the check ups reducing you down to 50mph when one of themndecide to whip out in front of traffic in the left lane. I-40 west of Little Rock is a banking breeze.
Logged

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 270
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: July 22, 2021, 10:31:04 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #697 on: May 15, 2021, 09:00:39 AM »

The only destination of significance Northeast of Houston is Shreveport. That will (eventually) be filled by I-69. But Shreveport alone is not a big enough reason to build that stretch of road. I'd say the links from Houston down SW to Corpus Christi and then directly South to Brownsville are even more important. There is far more people living in the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities down in the South end of Texas than there is in Shreveport.
As you've made the bigger picture connections with your other proposals like a diagonal across Oklahoma and Colorado, a northeastern connection would then link Houston to I-20 and I-30, then to Little Rock, Memphis, and the rest of the Northeast.

Getting to Shreveport itself is a secondary concern to Houston-based commercial interests; the more immediate goal is a direct connection to the northeast, which is intended to be achieved by a combination of I-69 and I-369 to Texarkana, where the greater flow of traffic would turn northeast onto I-30 toward destinations or distribution points in the central midwest -- Chicago being the "goal" of choice here, with Memphis (and its FedEx hub status) being a secondary or alternate destination.  Of course I-69 itself is supposed to string a number of the interim points together before striking out toward Indiana and Michigan, but the TX folks backing that corridor have no intention of waiting for funding for the Great River Bridge and the central I-69 segment between Shreveport and Memphis to be developed; the first order of business is getting the freeway done up to I-30 for a more near-term "payout". 

As far as Shreveport is concerned -- if traffic headed that way from Houston could simply hit I-20 at Marshall (along I-369) and hang a right, most of the Houston I-69 backers would be satisfied if not actually delighted (likely one of the reasons that planning for the I-69 trunk northeast of the I-369 split has progressed at a snails' pace).   

There is no slowdown in DC building in the Memphis area. Walgreens announced a new DC yesterday.  They want to hire 200. I wish them luck. Speculative warehouses are built and leased with ease.

Extending I-57 to Lake Charles should be the end result or at least to near Monroe. That traffic you mention piling on to I-20 could turn north there and keep going to Chicago without doing I-40 to I-55.


Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 750
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:48 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #698 on: May 15, 2021, 11:11:31 AM »

The only destination of significance Northeast of Houston is Shreveport. That will (eventually) be filled by I-69. But Shreveport alone is not a big enough reason to build that stretch of road. I'd say the links from Houston down SW to Corpus Christi and then directly South to Brownsville are even more important. There is far more people living in the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities down in the South end of Texas than there is in Shreveport.
As you've made the bigger picture connections with your other proposals like a diagonal across Oklahoma and Colorado, a northeastern connection would then link Houston to I-20 and I-30, then to Little Rock, Memphis, and the rest of the Northeast.


Getting to Shreveport itself is a secondary concern to Houston-based commercial interests; the more immediate goal is a direct connection to the northeast, which is intended to be achieved by a combination of I-69 and I-369 to Texarkana, where the greater flow of traffic would turn northeast onto I-30 toward destinations or distribution points in the central midwest -- Chicago being the "goal" of choice here, with Memphis (and its FedEx hub status) being a secondary or alternate destination.  Of course I-69 itself is supposed to string a number of the interim points together before striking out toward Indiana and Michigan, but the TX folks backing that corridor have no intention of waiting for funding for the Great River Bridge and the central I-69 segment between Shreveport and Memphis to be developed; the first order of business is getting the freeway done up to I-30 for a more near-term "payout". 

As far as Shreveport is concerned -- if traffic headed that way from Houston could simply hit I-20 at Marshall (along I-369) and hang a right, most of the Houston I-69 backers would be satisfied if not actually delighted (likely one of the reasons that planning for the I-69 trunk northeast of the I-369 split has progressed at a snails' pace).   


No, The point is that I-69 is Minimal priority in Louisiana outside of Shreveport / Bossier.  I-69 is pretty far down the list of priorities to Baton Rouge. It is the third or forth priority in Arkansas. It is less than zero in Jackson.  Through those states especially Mississippi, getting it built without a clear federal mandate is going to be difficult if not impossible.   For Texas as long as the other states are setting their own priorities it makes sense to finish the link to I-49 at Texarkana (I-49 to NWA is moderately higher up Arkansas' list of to do's than I-69) and to I-30 to Little Rock and points north.

Yes, I agree that Shreveport as a destination is of little import to Houston and the Rio Grande Valley.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 06:00:20 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1180
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:58 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #699 on: May 16, 2021, 05:43:18 PM »

Build I-57 now.
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.