News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Future I-57/US 67

Started by bugo, June 14, 2012, 08:34:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

I-39

Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 10:35:55 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 05, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
And FYI, there are NO plans to continue I-57 down the I-530 corridor. That's just speculation and should be discussed in the fictional highways section.

Then this topic needs to be renamed to "US 67 between Little Rock and Poplar Bluff," because there are no plans to assign either I-30 or I-57 to this highway. That's just speculation inspired by chatter from a Senator and local businesspeople.

Wrong. It is in the 2017 Fiscal Year Transportation bill, the corridor is designated as "Future I-57" and the bill allows for the existing freeway segment from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge to be designated I-57.


lordsutch

Quote from: I-39 on May 05, 2016, 12:03:43 PM
Wrong. It is in the 2017 Fiscal Year Transportation bill, the corridor is designated as "Future I-57" and the bill allows for the existing freeway segment from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge to be designated I-57.

Well, until the FY2017 bill passes - which likely will stretch into FY2017 itself - there's always the chance the provision gets pulled out in conference committee or amended along the way, particularly if someone else wants to designate it I-30 instead or it becomes the target of an anti-pork crusade by some group. So it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics). Certainly it's more credible than someone from the Hoxie Chamber of Commerce sending out a press release though.

jbnv

In other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.

So calling it Future I-58 or Future I-30 at this point is just as speculative as suggesting that I-530 may eventually become part of it.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Grzrd

#278
Quote from: lordsutch on May 05, 2016, 12:17:41 PM
Well, until the FY2017 bill passes - which likely will stretch into FY2017 itself - there's always the chance the provision gets pulled out in conference committee or amended along the way, particularly if someone else wants to designate it I-30 instead or it becomes the target of an anti-pork crusade by some group. So it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics).

Here is a link to the draft bill S.2844 if anyone is interested in following its progress:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2844/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Fiscal+Year+2017+Transportation+Housing+and+Urban+Development+funding+bill%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1

Here is the current language relevant to this thread:

Quote
Sec. 126. (a) Identification Of High Priority Corridors On National Highway System.–Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(89) United State Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412." .
(b) Inclusion Of Certain Route Segments On Interstate System.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence by striking "and subsection (c)(83)"  and inserting "subsection (c)(83), and subsection (c)(89)" .
(c) Designation.–Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
"The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I—57" .




Quote from: lordsutch on May 05, 2016, 12:17:41 PM
Certainly it's more credible than someone from the Hoxie Chamber of Commerce sending out a press release though.

Also, only bugo can speak as to why he included "Future I-30" in the title of this thread (he is currently not posting in this Forum). That said, this January 27, 2012 article reported that then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe wanted an I-30 designation for U.S. 67:

Quote
Tom Lawson chairman of the Highway 67 Corporation and the Highway 67 Coalition ...
The governor wants to see Highway 67 designated as Interstate 30, but is open to building a "divided four-lane" that could be expanded to interstate standards in the future, according to Lawson. Beebe also said he would support designating Highway 67 as a high priority corridor.

Roughly five months after the article was published and roughly one month after discussion of the article in a predecessor thread, bugo started this thread. Again, not idle roadgeek speculation by bugo, but also not a legally done deal.

english si

Quote from: lordsutch on May 05, 2016, 12:17:41 PMSo it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics).
Indeed, but done deal =/= plan. While your post was entirely true, it wasn't addressing the direct disagreement at hand. And unsurprisingly it has been treated as such and so we have this nonsense:
Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 12:53:41 PMIn other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).

jbnv

Quote from: english si on May 05, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 12:53:41 PMIn other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).

You have the authority to schedule yourself for walking in Essex on Tuesday. Nobody in this forum has the authority to designate highways as part of the Interstate Highway System or develop plans for doing so.

The question at hand is what degree of speculation is allowed in this forum. Indicating that a route is "Future X-XX" is speculation unless such designation has been rendered by a proper authority. Saying that "perhaps route Y-YYY could become part of route X-XX" is also speculation. But the difference is that one has the backing of public leaders, and the other is the fancy of yeomen on an Internet forum. The admins should clarify which of these forms of speculation is allowed here.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Grzrd

Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
The question at hand is what degree of speculation is allowed in this forum. Indicating that a route is "Future X-XX" is speculation unless such designation has been rendered by a proper authority. Saying that "perhaps route Y-YYY could become part of route X-XX" is also speculation. But the difference is that one has the backing of public leaders, and the other is the fancy of yeomen on an Internet forum. The admins should clarify which of these forms of speculation is allowed here.

Here is a link to the posted guidance:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1809.msg40545#msg40545

It may help the admins if you ask for clarification about specific points in the guidance.

jbnv

Quote from: Grzrd on May 05, 2016, 01:56:48 PM
Here is a link to the posted guidance:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1809.msg40545#msg40545

It may help the admins if you ask for clarification about specific points in the guidance.

Thank you. I-530 fantasies are verboten. I-57 can stay because it in pending legislation.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

english si

Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 01:34:21 PMNobody in this forum has the authority to designate highways as part of the Interstate Highway System or develop plans for doing so.
But we're not talking about us, we're talking about Congress. At the moment Congress plans to designate US67 as I-57, and it has the authority to do so. Therefore nonsense like "it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed" is nonsense.

jbnv

Quote from: english si on May 05, 2016, 03:33:36 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 01:34:21 PMNobody in this forum has the authority to designate highways as part of the Interstate Highway System or develop plans for doing so.
But we're not talking about us, we're talking about Congress. At the moment Congress plans to designate US67 as I-57, and it has the authority to do so. Therefore nonsense like "it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed" is nonsense.

Members of Congress put all kinds of crap in bills all the time. All bills have to pass both houses and then be signed by the President. Not all bills become law. So yes, it is fair to say that Congress is not actually "planning" to do something until they put it in a bill and pass it. How many Congressmembers besides the one particular one from Arkansas are pushing to designate US 67 as I-57?
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

lordsutch

#285
Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 04:01:37 PM
Members of Congress put all kinds of crap in bills all the time. All bills have to pass both houses and then be signed by the President. Not all bills become law. So yes, it is fair to say that Congress is not actually "planning" to do something until they put it in a bill and pass it. How many Congressmembers besides the one particular one from Arkansas are pushing to designate US 67 as I-57?

Today's lesson on Congress...

There are bills and there are bills. The annual appropriations bills are, by and large, "must pass" bills that typically make it through the process eventually. If the senator in question had just introduced a bill saying "US 67 and US 60 between Little Rock and Sikeston shall be designated I-57," the odds of it passing on its own would be pretty slim (probably about zero). However, having the amendment already in a "must pass" bill essentially means at least it's getting to the conference committee stage, and by and large unless someone from the other chamber objects (since the conferees are typically the same people on the subcommittee who marked up the bill in their chamber) provisions introduced in one chamber will make it through. The sorts of things that get haggled over in appropriations bills are funding levels for programs, big policy questions, and earmarks, not adding a new interstate corridor without any designated funding for it.

The closest analogy here is probably to putting something in the Speech from the Throne in the UK. Will it happen? Most likely. Is it law yet? No, it probably requires a bill to get through Parliament first.* To me that would be enough to say "the Government plans to do X."

In this case I'd say "the Senate plans to designate I-57; the House may ultimately disagree but it's likely they'll go along with it, since designating interstates isn't a zero-sum game, and the additional odds of the president vetoing the bill if it has I-57 in it versus not having I-57 in it are about zero, since he doesn't really care either way." So at present it's about as much of a sure thing as you can get in Congress-world until it's on the president's desk.

This will be on the test. ;)

* Or following the procedure for an order-in-council or a statutory instrument (by-and-large the equivalents of an executive order or an agency rule-making action in the U.S.).

jbnv

#286
You must also think Donald Trump is the Republican Party's nominee for President. (Spoiler alert: He needs 1237 delegates to vote for him. They haven't cast the votes yet.)

There's nothing more to discuss on this matter.

Keep the politics out, please.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Road Hog

Quote from: Grzrd on May 05, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Also, only bugo can speak as to why he included "Future I-30" in the title of this thread (he is currently not posting in this Forum). That said, this January 27, 2012 article reported that then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe wanted an I-30 designation for U.S. 67:

Quote
Tom Lawson chairman of the Highway 67 Corporation and the Highway 67 Coalition ...
The governor wants to see Highway 67 designated as Interstate 30, but is open to building a "divided four-lane" that could be expanded to interstate standards in the future, according to Lawson. Beebe also said he would support designating Highway 67 as a high priority corridor.

Roughly five months after the article was published and roughly one month after discussion of the article in a predecessor thread, bugo started this thread. Again, not idle roadgeek speculation by bugo, but also not a legally done deal.

Mike Beebe's hometown is Searcy, which is along the highway in question. He had a self-interest in advocating a highway number that was familiar to him as well as one that ended in a zero, even if it violated numerous numbering conventions.

But Beebe left office in January 2015. I'm not aware if the current governor, Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, has a preference. At any rate, there's no longer a push from on high to call it I-30 (thankfully).

US71

Quote from: Road Hog on May 06, 2016, 12:52:38 AM

Mike Beebe's hometown is Searcy, which is along the highway in question. He had a self-interest in advocating a highway number that was familiar to him as well as one that ended in a zero, even if it violated numerous numbering conventions.

But Beebe left office in January 2015. I'm not aware if the current governor, Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, has a preference. At any rate, there's no longer a push from on high to call it I-30 (thankfully).

Asa has mentioned no preference other than fixing the roads in general.

My 2 pfennigs is improve 67, THEN worry about an upgraded designation.

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

The Ghostbuster

Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?

US71

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2016, 06:30:27 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: US71 on May 06, 2016, 07:22:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2016, 06:30:27 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.

226 was an epic $!#@ up. How Jonesboro isn't connected to US 67 via an interstate quality road is beyond me. If Beebe was intent on getting a interstate from Little Rock to his beloved Jonesboro why did he allow AHTD to settle on 226 the way it's being done, mind-boggling. 226 could be upgraded at major cost but to ever connect it to I-555 would require a southern bypass of Jonesboro from US 49 to just North of Bay.

I suppose we could sign up for the ASU sports message board and ask AmagonMB, since that's Mike.

US71

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 06, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 06, 2016, 07:22:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2016, 06:30:27 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.

226 was an epic $!#@ up. How Jonesboro isn't connected to US 67 via an interstate quality road is beyond me. If Beebe was intent on getting a interstate from Little Rock to his beloved Jonesboro why did he allow AHTD to settle on 226 the way it's being done, mind-boggling. 226 could be upgraded at major cost but to ever connect it to I-555 would require a southern bypass of Jonesboro from US 49 to just North of Bay.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but Arkansas doesn't have buckets of money. PLUS their priorities , IMO, are misplaced.  At least 226 will be expressway grade to from 67 to 49 when it's complete. though I'm still not sure how it will tie in with 49.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: US71 on May 06, 2016, 09:11:35 PM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 06, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 06, 2016, 07:22:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2016, 06:30:27 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.

226 was an epic $!#@ up. How Jonesboro isn't connected to US 67 via an interstate quality road is beyond me. If Beebe was intent on getting a interstate from Little Rock to his beloved Jonesboro why did he allow AHTD to settle on 226 the way it's being done, mind-boggling. 226 could be upgraded at major cost but to ever connect it to I-555 would require a southern bypass of Jonesboro from US 49 to just North of Bay.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but Arkansas doesn't have buckets of money. PLUS their priorities , IMO, are misplaced.  At least 226 will be expressway grade to from 67 to 49 when it's complete. though I'm still not sure how it will tie in with 49.

Knowing Arkansas, a stop sign.

KamKam

At AR 226 expressway will have a speed limit of 65

english si

Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: english si on May 05, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 12:53:41 PMIn other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).

You have the authority to schedule yourself for walking in Essex on Tuesday.
Sadly I don't have the authority to make it not rain. My walk didn't happen as it was raining and I therefore changed my mind about spending several hours walking in dreary drizzle. Still was a plan, just as I-57 is! Plans do not have to come into fruition to be plans.

rte66man

Quote from: english si on May 05, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on May 05, 2016, 12:17:41 PMSo it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics).
Indeed, but done deal =/= plan. While your post was entirely true, it wasn't addressing the direct disagreement at hand. And unsurprisingly it has been treated as such and so we have this nonsense:
Quote from: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 12:53:41 PMIn other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).

@english_si, where in Bucks do you live?  I lived in Chalfont St. Peter for 5 years, then in Beaconsfield for another 2.  The M25 went about a mile from our home.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

english si

Quote from: rte66man on May 20, 2016, 08:32:49 AM@english_si, where in Bucks do you live?  I lived in Chalfont St. Peter for 5 years, then in Beaconsfield for another 2.
Just up from both, in Amersham.

rte66man

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
Quote from: rte66man on May 20, 2016, 08:32:49 AM@english_si, where in Bucks do you live?  I lived in Chalfont St. Peter for 5 years, then in Beaconsfield for another 2.
Just up from both, in Amersham.

Went to the American high school in High Wycombe (closed in 2006).  Caught many a Metropolitan Line train at Chalfont and Latimer.  Loved the new (for the 1970's) indoor pool at Amersham.  Still have my "driving license" s0mewhere as it is good until 2029 :)
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

capt.ron

Quote from: US71 on May 06, 2016, 11:56:46 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 06, 2016, 12:52:38 AM

Mike Beebe's hometown is Searcy, which is along the highway in question. He had a self-interest in advocating a highway number that was familiar to him as well as one that ended in a zero, even if it violated numerous numbering conventions.

But Beebe left office in January 2015. I'm not aware if the current governor, Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, has a preference. At any rate, there's no longer a push from on high to call it I-30 (thankfully).

Asa has mentioned no preference other than fixing the roads in general.

My 2 pfennigs is improve 67, THEN worry about an upgraded designation.


As far as improvements to 67 goes, I'll compile a short list starting at the Lonoke / Pulaski County line
I'm not mentioning the widening to exit 16 since it's on the drawing board already.
Beginning with exit 16 and extending to Lonoke / White County, the road needs to be milled down like the portion from Lonoke / White County to just northeast of exit 31. Mill down and patch the concrete from exit 16 to the Lonoke / White county line and also from mile marker 32 (roughly where the milling stops) to all the way up north of exit 48, stopping at the new concrete.
Extend the acceleration / merge lane on northbound 67 at exit 19. It needs to extend to the crest of the hill, northeast of the interchange.



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.