I-57 Approved

[ilpt4u]

mvak36 posted this on the "Missouri"  thread on the Central States board, but I will cross-post here, as it is relevant for this discussion, also

MODOT is going to have a public meeting today to "discuss the next phase of Future I-57". There's no funding for this phase.

Meeting Handout: https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/US%2067%20Future%20I57%20Handout_Oct%202022%20Public%20Meeting.pdf

[MikieTimT]

Well, ARDOT has the DEIS done and have selected Alternative 2 selected through the river valley, and Alternative C selected to match up with Missouri's preferred alignment at the border.  There are public hearings from Dec. 13-15 at Walnut Ridge, Pocahontas, and Corning respectively each night from 4-7PM to present the findings and solicit comments.  Comments can also be done online.  Disappointed that Alternative 3 was the least supported alternative as it paralleled the rail through the area, but has more impacts on areas that are more developed, so I get it.  Made a prettier line on the map, though, even though it's actually more miles than the preferred alternative.  Glad to see the gap being addressed by both states now, and look forward to finalizing the route so they can work on digging around for funds.

https://future57.transportationplanroom.com/

[MikieTimT]

Reading through the DEIS, we get the answer as to whether anything will be signed I-57 prior to completion of the entire facility:

S.9, last sentence: All sections of future I-57 in Arkansas and Missouri will be completed to interstate standards before FHWA would request the facility be formally designated I-57.

[Road Hog]

Reading through the DEIS, we get the answer as to whether anything will be signed I-57 prior to completion of the entire facility:

S.9, last sentence: All sections of future I-57 in Arkansas and Missouri will be completed to interstate standards before FHWA would request the facility be formally designated I-57.

Well, that's a bummer.

[Bobby5280]

I think it's a lousy idea to wait until all future I-57 segments in Arkansas and Missouri are completed before any requests are made to sign any of it as I-57.

There is a couple of advantages in signing new segments of I-57 as they are completed to Interstate standards. One advantage is not having to change around 240 miles worth of highway route markers all at once. The other advantage is having two disconnected segments on I-57 signed on a map will do more to draw attention to that missing gap. With the current situation the only people who know of an future extension of I-57 are road geeks. To everyone else the proposal to extend I-57 down to Little Rock might as well have never happened. If I-57 was signed from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge it would generate more anticipation for the gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston to be filled. There would be more pressure from the general public on lawmakers to get the highway finished.

[Road Hog]

I think it's a lousy idea to wait until all future I-57 segments in Arkansas and Missouri are completed before any requests are made to sign any of it as I-57.

There is a couple of advantages in signing new segments of I-57 as they are completed to Interstate standards. One advantage is not having to change around 240 miles worth of highway route markers all at once. The other advantage is having two disconnected segments on I-57 signed on a map will do more to draw attention to that missing gap. With the current situation the only people who know of an future extension of I-57 are road geeks. To everyone else the proposal to extend I-57 down to Little Rock might as well have never happened. If I-57 was signed from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge it would generate more anticipation for the gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston to be filled. There would be more pressure from the general public on lawmakers to get the highway finished.

You're right about the attention, but you may have provided the reason in your own point there. State officials will want to hold off on re-shielding it in order to fade the heat. They will be trying to keep the public pressure off to fill the gap.

[MikieTimT]

I think it's a lousy idea to wait until all future I-57 segments in Arkansas and Missouri are completed before any requests are made to sign any of it as I-57.

There is a couple of advantages in signing new segments of I-57 as they are completed to Interstate standards. One advantage is not having to change around 240 miles worth of highway route markers all at once. The other advantage is having two disconnected segments on I-57 signed on a map will do more to draw attention to that missing gap. With the current situation the only people who know of an future extension of I-57 are road geeks. To everyone else the proposal to extend I-57 down to Little Rock might as well have never happened. If I-57 was signed from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge it would generate more anticipation for the gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston to be filled. There would be more pressure from the general public on lawmakers to get the highway finished.

You're right about the attention, but you may have provided the reason in your own point there. State officials will want to hold off on re-shielding it in order to fade the heat. They will be trying to keep the public pressure off to fill the gap.

I guess it begs the question: Are there ways to officially designate a segment of interstate highway other than FHWA request?  And this obviously doesn't preclude Missouri from making any decisions on their side of the border.  I'd figure on them signing the US-60 concurrency as soon as they get their projects on that segment done.

[Bobby5280]

I can understand how state officials might want to avoid signing portions of I-57 early so they don't get hounded by the general public to answer questions when the rest of it will be finished.

The flip-side is those state officials can use the pressure from the general public to hound the federal government to provide more specific funding to help get the project finished. It is an Interstate highway affecting long distance, multi-state commerce after all.

If these guys are holding off signing portions of I-57 when they're completed "because rules," I would just point to I-69. There are eight different disconnected yet signed segments of I-69 apart from the original I-69 going North out of Indianapolis. In the first 30 or so years of the Interstate highway system it was common to have disconnected segments of Interstate highway that were already carrying the Interstate logo. I see nothing wrong with re-signing US-67 from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge as I-57 once the upgrades in the Jacksonville, AR area are complete.

[MikieTimT]

I can understand how state officials might want to avoid signing portions of I-57 early so they don't get hounded by the general public to answer questions when the rest of it will be finished.

The flip-side is those state officials can use the pressure from the general public to hound the federal government to provide more specific funding to help get the project finished. It is an Interstate highway affecting long distance, multi-state commerce after all.

If these guys are holding off signing portions of I-57 when they're completed "because rules," I would just point to I-69. There are eight different disconnected yet signed segments of I-69 apart from the original I-69 going North out of Indianapolis. In the first 30 or so years of the Interstate highway system it was common to have disconnected segments of Interstate highway that were already carrying the Interstate logo. I see nothing wrong with re-signing US-67 from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge as I-57 once the upgrades in the Jacksonville, AR area are complete.

It's not like ARDOT waited on the request to change I-540 between Alma and Bella Vista to I-49 until the BVB was completed, literally one year ago!  And they were trying to have it designated I-49 back when the southern portion to Alma was completed.  Far be it for ARDOT to have any sense on the matter!

[Bobby5280]

On top of that Arkansas already has two different disconnected segments of I-49 within the state: the one going South out of Texarkana and the other going North out of Alma to Kansas City.

[MikieTimT]

On top of that Arkansas already has two different disconnected segments of I-49 within the state: the one going South out of Texarkana and the other going North out of Alma to Kansas City.

And don't get me started on the stupidity they settled on regarding the exit numbering/mile markers that this caused!

[skluth]

On top of that Arkansas already has two different disconnected segments of I-49 within the state: the one going South out of Texarkana and the other going North out of Alma to Kansas City.

And don't get me started on the stupidity they settled on regarding the exit numbering/mile markers that this caused!

If Arkansas is thinking whether to continue I-57 south of Little Rock eventually, they might want to wait signing I-57 north of Little Rock until the exit numbering can be determined.

[Road Hog]

On top of that Arkansas already has two different disconnected segments of I-49 within the state: the one going South out of Texarkana and the other going North out of Alma to Kansas City.

And don't get me started on the stupidity they settled on regarding the exit numbering/mile markers that this caused!

If Arkansas is thinking whether to continue I-57 south of Little Rock eventually, they might want to wait signing I-57 north of Little Rock until the exit numbering can be determined.

That's a good point, but the exits are already numbered as they would be if I-57 ended at I-40. Those won't change until when/if I-57 is extended south. And given that it's ARDOT, who knows if they'll bother to change them?

[vdeane]

I think it's a lousy idea to wait until all future I-57 segments in Arkansas and Missouri are completed before any requests are made to sign any of it as I-57.

There is a couple of advantages in signing new segments of I-57 as they are completed to Interstate standards. One advantage is not having to change around 240 miles worth of highway route markers all at once. The other advantage is having two disconnected segments on I-57 signed on a map will do more to draw attention to that missing gap. With the current situation the only people who know of an future extension of I-57 are road geeks. To everyone else the proposal to extend I-57 down to Little Rock might as well have never happened. If I-57 was signed from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge it would generate more anticipation for the gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston to be filled. There would be more pressure from the general public on lawmakers to get the highway finished.

I think we can safely infer from I-86 in NY, I-99 in NY/PA, and I-26 in NC that such doesn't actually happen.

[Bobby5280]

I think I-86 in upstate NY, I-99 in PA and I-26 in NC have limited regional value. The I-57 extension to Little Rock has arguably bigger implications for long distance commerce. There would be a fairly direct, toll-free Interstate route from the DFW area to Chicago. NY's I-86, I-99 and I-26 don't have those kinds of connections to giant metro areas.

[edwaleni]

Just do what North Carolina has done at Asheville with I-26.

Plaster tons of shields of I-57 along the route with the "Future" plate right above it.

Then when FHWA gives the green light, all you do is remove the "Future" plate and your are done.

[Bobby5280]

I remember the early 1980's when I-44 between Oklahoma City and Wichita Falls had "Future" tags over the I-44 shields.

[Life in Paradise]

I remember the early 1980's when I-44 between Oklahoma City and Wichita Falls had "Future" tags over the I-44 shields.

Or Missouri when they put "Temp" I-44 on areas of US 66 between St. Louis and Springfield back in the early days (I'm thinking late 60s, early 70s).

[vdeane]

Am I the only one who appreciates not having a bunch of short sections with gaps laying around?  The ones that existed decades ago were because the system was still incomplete and the pace of construction was faster.  Now we're talking about additions to a complete system with any gaps regularly lingering for 20-30+ years.

[MikieTimT]

Am I the only one who appreciates not having a bunch of short sections with gaps laying around?  The ones that existed decades ago were because the system was still incomplete and the pace of construction was faster.  Now we're talking about additions to a complete system with any gaps regularly lingering for 20-30+ years.

No, but on the same token, part of what lead to the faster pace of construction was that the states only had to come up with 10% back in those days.  Now it's 20%, unless a grant comes from the feds.

[edwaleni]

I remember the early 1980's when I-44 between Oklahoma City and Wichita Falls had "Future" tags over the I-44 shields.

Or Missouri when they put "Temp" I-44 on areas of US 66 between St. Louis and Springfield back in the early days (I'm thinking late 60s, early 70s).

Yes, I am old enough to remember this. This continued beyond Missouri. When my dad let my Aunt drive to Arizona, she asked about the on again-off again I-40 signs, he said "just stay on 66".

[edwaleni]

I got this email today from Garver , ARDOT's public involvement coordinator for I-57.

* * * *

Garver, in coordination with the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), will conduct Location Public Hearings to present and discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Walnut Ridge to Missouri State Line (Future I-57) connection in Clay, Greene, Lawrence, and Randolph counties. The hearings will be held at the following locations, and content will be the same at each meeting.

 

December 13, 2022
4:00 — 7:00 p.m.
Williams Baptist University
(Moody Room)
22 McClellan Dr.
Walnut Ridge, AR
   

December 14, 2022
4:00 — 7:00 p.m.
Pocahontas Community Center
300 Geneva Dr.
Pocahontas, AR
   

December 15, 2022
4:00 — 7:00 p.m.
M.B. Ainley Community Center
(Banquet Room)
536 E. Elm St.
Corning, AR

These will be open house meetings with no formal presentations. The public is invited to visit any time during the scheduled hours to view exhibits, ask questions, and offer comments. Project information is available online at Future57.TransportationPlanroom.com. The meeting materials and public comment form are also available on the project website. Any publicity you might give these meetings will be appreciated, and a notice flyer is attached.

[Bobby5280]

Am I the only one who appreciates not having a bunch of short sections with gaps laying around?  The ones that existed decades ago were because the system was still incomplete and the pace of construction was faster.  Now we're talking about additions to a complete system with any gaps regularly lingering for 20-30+ years.

North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge wouldn't be a short segment of I-57. That's about 123 miles that could be signed as I-57 within the near future.

The segment of US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston is around 50 or so miles; that segment could be upgraded to Interstate standards pretty easily. Add a few more miles of US-67 around the West side of Poplar Bluff. Roughly 75% of that 240 mile Little Rock-Sikeston segment of I-57 could be signed as such fairly easily. Certainly it will take longer to build out the remaining gap thru the Pocahontas and Corning areas up to Poplar Bluff. But it's not a big gap to fill.

Another important point on the side of signing these segments of US-67 as I-57 when they reach Interstate quality: the signing change does provide some marketing benefit to cities and towns along the route. It helps make them more visible on a map.

[sprjus4]

^ My guess is upgrading US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will be the last section to be completed. It is already a 4 lane divided highway with partial access control and functions adequately.

Priority should be, and appears to be, focused on upgrading / relocating US-67 to interstate standards between Poplar Bluff and Walnut Ridge. Once a fully 4 lane expressway is created throughout, then the focus can shift on "closing the gap"  on the US-60 portion.

[Tomahawkin]

I have a nasty feeling in my Big Boy Gut is that we will still be talking about this at the end of this decade. This should have been started early in the previous decade. This Stalemate on this and IH 49 is FUBAR