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

US 41

I think it makes sense. I-57 did not pass. US 67 in Missouri is currently just 4 lanes with at grades. Taking I-40 to I-55 isn't even that far out of the way. You currently only save 9 miles from LR to Sikeston via US 67. Let's assume that number would go up to 20 miles if it ever became I-57. It just doesn't seem like it's worth the money to make it interstate quality up to the border with MO. I always thought the point of upgrading US 67 was just so northeastern Arkansas, particularly Jonesboro, had a better road to Little Rock.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM


lordsutch

Well, I-57 "did not pass" because the 2017 transportation funding bill hasn't passed yet. But including US 67 from I-40 to US 412 in the Interstate highway system, albeit without a specific route number, is in the Senate version of the bill (S.2844) reported out of committee, so it has a decent chance of getting into whatever final bill makes it out of Congress.

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: US 41 on August 29, 2016, 12:31:53 AM
I think it makes sense. I-57 did not pass. US 67 in Missouri is currently just 4 lanes with at grades. Taking I-40 to I-55 isn't even that far out of the way. You currently only save 9 miles from LR to Sikeston via US 67. Let's assume that number would go up to 20 miles if it ever became I-57. It just doesn't seem like it's worth the money to make it interstate quality up to the border with MO. I always thought the point of upgrading US 67 was just so northeastern Arkansas, particularly Jonesboro, had a better road to Little Rock.

Connecting the US 67 freeway to I-57/I-55 has been on the "to do" list for a long time.   My Dad inherited some land near Poplar Bluff 30 years ago and even then he mentioned that an interstate was supposed to be going through.

It has always been about more than just a connector from NE Arkansas to Little Rock.

The Ghostbuster

They should figure out what they are going to do with the US 60/67 corridor between Corning AR and Sikeston (via Poplar Bluff) MO before choosing an Interstate designation for the corridor.

codyg1985

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 29, 2016, 04:48:16 PM
They should figure out what they are going to do with the US 60/67 corridor between Corning AR and Sikeston (via Poplar Bluff) MO before choosing an Interstate designation for the corridor.

Choosing an interstate designation would at least keep it from being built as a five lane undivided route or a four-lane divided with many intersections and driveways.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

NE2

US 75/US 69/I-44/I-55 and I-30/I-57 are practically equivalent Dallas-Chicago routes. Both probably merit improvements.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Bobby5280

I agree about US-75/US-69 in Oklahoma. Regardless of what happens in Arkansas, a great deal of commercial trucking traffic and a lot of other long distance traffic in general will keep using that route from Dallas to Big Cabin, OK due to shorter, more direct path. It's one of the nation's busiest highway corridors that isn't a superhighway.

Maybe if I-57 was completed between Little Rock and Sikeston it might draw some of that big rig traffic off US-69 in Oklahoma. No one likes stop lights, speed zones and speed traps when all they're trying to do is drive a long distance between point a and point b.

sparker

#382
Quote from: NE2 on August 30, 2016, 12:06:44 AM
US 75/US 69/I-44/I-55 and I-30/I-57 are practically equivalent Dallas-Chicago routes. Both probably merit improvements.
The one advantage that a I-30/"I-57" Dallas-Chicago routing has over any corridor through Oklahoma to I-44 is that it doesn't have to go through St. Louis, which is and always has been a chokepoint.  Little Rock is reasonably easy to negotiate (thanks to I-440/AR 440) compared to St. Louis and environs. 

Nonetheless, it's too bad local OK politics (and lack of $$) have prevented the state from taking advantage of that ISTEA codicil that states that US 69 from the state line to I-40 can become an Interstate whenever OKDOT (a) makes a formal application to that effect, and (b) actually completes the freeway along the route.  Of course, TX would have to apply for designation of US 75 as well to make the OK section continuous to Dallas (and nix the plans to "boulevardize" I-345).  With the pending completion of I-49 north of I-40, that corridor would constitute a mileage shortening for Dallas-Kansas City or St. Louis commercial traffic.  However, that may just be too many ducks to line up in a row -- especially if an extension from I-40 to I-44 would be proposed as well.  Don't see any action happening here anytime soon!     

Bobby5280

St. Louis is still a major hub in the Interstate highway system, considerably more so than Little Rock. I-270 and I-255 are sufficient at letting long distance traffic bypass the bottlenecks that can happen downtown. Their roadways are at least 3 or 4 lanes wide nearly their entire length, except for the far North section of I-270 which drops to 2 lanes each direction.

I don't know why or even how interests in Southeastern Oklahoma have blocked efforts of upgrading US-69 to Interstate standards. How does that region have the clout to do that? To me the efforts to keep US-69 backwards and inadequate are just stupid and even dangerous.

Just last week there was a fatal accident on US-69 in Caddo, OK involving a truck that was hauling acid. The acid spill closed the OK-22 bridge over US-75/US-69. This was at an Interstate style exit. Imagine the fun that would happen if the spill occurred in the middle of one of these little towns along US-69, such as Atoka. The funny thing is literally thousands of big rig trucks are hauling all sorts of flammable and hazardous liquids through there.

Most towns want heavy truck traffic diverted away from their downtown street infrastructure, especially if the towns are on the hook at all to pay for any of that street upkeep. But apparently not here! The stupidity makes me think of the stereotypes for SE OK, visions of the movie "Deliverance" with banjo playing mutants and other kinds of thumb-heads.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
I don't know why or even how interests in Southeastern Oklahoma have blocked efforts of upgrading US-69 to Interstate standards. How does that region have the clout to do that? To me the efforts to keep US-69 backwards and inadequate are just stupid and even dangerous.

Most towns want heavy truck traffic diverted away from their downtown street infrastructure, especially if the towns are on the hook at all to pay for any of that street upkeep. But apparently not here!
It seems there may be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel here: the 4-lane divided commercial stretch of US 69/75 between Durant and the TX line is planned for upgrading to a full freeway, matching the rest of the Durant bypass.  But Atoka, Stringtown, and the other burgs along the way apparently still want that steady stream of truck traffic through their midst -- maybe enough of it is stopping at the diners and fueling facilities to supply a significant amount of the town's revenue (I call it the Breezewood Syndrome -- and I'm probably not alone there!) -- and they don't want the cash cow to die.   

amroad17

Unless this proposed freeway is ever going to reach Poplar Bluff and then Sikeston, it should remain as US 67.  If Arkansas wants to make this an Interstate highway, then something like I-340 would suffice.

A couple of thoughts...

    1.  When I drove for an expedited company out of Cincinnati and had to go to Little Rock or even Dallas, I would avoid Nashville and Memphis.  I would take the Western Kentucky Pkwy., I-24, Purchase Pkwy., US 51, I-155/US 412, US 412 past Hayti all the way to Walnut Ridge, and pick up US 67 to Little Rock.  A selfish reason was that I only had to deal with two scalehouses between Cincinnati and Little Rock.  Anyway, I have wished for the US 412 corridor to be upgraded to expressway or freeway status from Walnut Ridge to Kennett, MO.  I know if that was so, many drivers from the Ohio Valley would go this way instead of dealing with Nashville and Memphis on their way to Little Rock or east Texas.  It is a pleasant drive, however, I know it might be a bit longer in distance.
         IIRC, one of our members had proposed, in the Fictional Section, an extension of I-30 along this routing to end near Lexington, KY.
    2.  Has Arkansas given any thought to a bypass of sorts of West Memphis?  This is in fictional territory, but I could see a "cutoff freeway" between a point near the TA Truckstop near Earle and going to a point near the I-55/I-555 interchange in Turrell.  If built, this would get rid of the "bend" one would make driving I-40 East to I-55 North and vice versa.  US 63 could be routed on this, as this wouldn't necessarily need an I-number.

Opinions are welcome on these thoughts.  Thanks in advance.
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: amroad17 on August 31, 2016, 04:38:23 AM
Unless this proposed freeway is ever going to reach Poplar Bluff and then Sikeston, it should remain as US 67.  If Arkansas wants to make this an Interstate highway, then something like I-340 would suffice.

A couple of thoughts...

    1.  When I drove for an expedited company out of Cincinnati and had to go to Little Rock or even Dallas, I would avoid Nashville and Memphis.  I would take the Western Kentucky Pkwy., I-24, Purchase Pkwy., US 51, I-155/US 412, US 412 past Hayti all the way to Walnut Ridge, and pick up US 67 to Little Rock.  A selfish reason was that I only had to deal with two scalehouses between Cincinnati and Little Rock.  Anyway, I have wished for the US 412 corridor to be upgraded to expressway or freeway status from Walnut Ridge to Kennett, MO.  I know if that was so, many drivers from the Ohio Valley would go this way instead of dealing with Nashville and Memphis on their way to Little Rock or east Texas.  It is a pleasant drive, however, I know it might be a bit longer in distance.
         IIRC, one of our members had proposed, in the Fictional Section, an extension of I-30 along this routing to end near Lexington, KY.
    2.  Has Arkansas given any thought to a bypass of sorts of West Memphis?  This is in fictional territory, but I could see a "cutoff freeway" between a point near the TA Truckstop near Earle and going to a point near the I-55/I-555 interchange in Turrell.  If built, this would get rid of the "bend" one would make driving I-40 East to I-55 North and vice versa.  US 63 could be routed on this, as this wouldn't necessarily need an I-number.

Opinions are welcome on these thoughts.  Thanks in advance.

They would never extend out that far. If they ever entertain that, it would run just to the east of Crawfordsville on US 64 and it would only make sense if two new bridges were built. One connecting  I-55/I-555 to I-269 north of Memphis and one that would run south of west Memphis and connect to something. I prefer the Tunica area and I-69

That would give you a complete loop of greater Memphis.


Bobby5280

If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.

Quote from: sparkerIt seems there may be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel here: the 4-lane divided commercial stretch of US 69/75 between Durant and the TX line is planned for upgrading to a full freeway, matching the rest of the Durant bypass.

I'm not sure if ODOT is going to upgrade the entire non-freeway segment of US-69 between the Platter Road exit and the Durant bypass. I thought I saw a map that showed the freeway upgrade only going from Chickasaw Road just South of Calera and up to the Durant bypass. That would still leave a couple or so miles of non-freeway 4-lane between Calera and Colbert.

One thing is certain, they need to upgrade the damned highway to Interstate standards. Too many people are getting hurt or even killed along the route. In addition to the fatal accident and acid spill last week a motorcyclist was killed recently in Calera, driving Southbound on US-69 when a lady pulled out in front of him from a cross street.

Revive 755

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
St. Louis is still a major hub in the Interstate highway system, considerably more so than Little Rock. I-270 and I-255 are sufficient at letting long distance traffic bypass the bottlenecks that can happen downtown. Their roadways are at least 3 or 4 lanes wide nearly their entire length, except for the far North section of I-270 which drops to 2 lanes each direction.

I-270 has been overtaken so much by suburban growth that it has some congestion during the peak hours.  I-255 is fine when not under construction, although queues from major incidents on I-270 can back up onto it on the Missouri side.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 31, 2016, 10:19:23 PM

I'm not sure if ODOT is going to upgrade the entire non-freeway segment of US-69 between the Platter Road exit and the Durant bypass. I thought I saw a map that showed the freeway upgrade only going from Chickasaw Road just South of Calera and up to the Durant bypass. That would still leave a couple or so miles of non-freeway 4-lane between Calera and Colbert.

One thing is certain, they need to upgrade the damned highway to Interstate standards. Too many people are getting hurt or even killed along the route. In addition to the fatal accident and acid spill last week a motorcyclist was killed recently in Calera, driving Southbound on US-69 when a lady pulled out in front of him from a cross street.
Well, that certainly sucks -- if they're only going to upgrade a couple of miles of 69/75 rather than the entire P.O.S. stretch south of Durant!  Most of my dad's side of the family lives in SE OK, spread out along US 70; and that's the road I normally use to and from Dallas or US 82 (I-40, US 287, and US 82 is my regular route when driving; Dallas is the nearest major airport otherwise).  I've had near-misses with semis and RV's crossing the road north of Colbert -- and the traffic volume certainly would make a freeway facility appropriate.  Whoever owns the land and/or the businesses along that stretch must wield a lot of political power in the state, using it Breezewood-style!     

US71

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 31, 2016, 10:19:23 PM
If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.


IF Missouri goes along. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Bobby5280

Even with Missouri's horrible political and budgetary issues, I still think we'll see both the Belle Vista bypass completed and I-57 completed between Little Rock and Sikeston long before we see things like the Great River Bridge get built, much less the rest of I-69 in Misssissippi, Arkansas and Louisiana. Texas might as well re-number I-69 as something else, like I-47.

It's basically going to take a massive change in federal government policy regarding Interstate highways to give I-69 any hope of being completed. It will never happen with individual states footing most of the bill. At least I-57 can slowly be piece-mealed together.

Quote from: sparkerI've had near-misses with semis and RV's crossing the road north of Colbert -- and the traffic volume certainly would make a freeway facility appropriate.  Whoever owns the land and/or the businesses along that stretch must wield a lot of political power in the state, using it Breezewood-style!

I think it's just Oklahoma being cheap as hell on infrastructure and having no forward looking plans on it either. It's literally taking ODOT decades to build one new interchange at I-44 and I-235 in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile they'll let developers build over the top of any obvious transportation corridors that will be badly needed in the future. Their "strategy" is doing a little as possible to get by.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
I think it's just Oklahoma being cheap as hell on infrastructure and having no forward looking plans on it either. It's literally taking ODOT decades to build one new interchange at I-44 and I-235 in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile they'll let developers build over the top of any obvious transportation corridors that will be badly needed in the future. Their "strategy" is doing a little as possible to get by.
Also known as "covering one's ass" in regards to criticism over lack of progress:  do a little project here and there to make it look like you're actually doing something significant, then rationalizing the project limitations by crying impoverishment, local preference, or any one of many excuses.  This has occurred repeatedly in not only OK but in a multitude of other states (my own CA included!); it's become S.O.P. for many DOT's.

Bobby5280

Meanwhile, South of the Red River some HUGE projects are actually moving forward toward completion. A 4 or 5 level stack interchange in Texas seems like a dime a dozen thing there. Enough of them get built that it seems like a surplus of them plop over into Louisiana in a few places. Meanwhile OK can't seem to manage anything like that. But I can't criticize too hard. Colorado can barely manage getting a decent 4 lane divided highway built, despite lots of fatalities along roads like US-24 East of Colorado Springs.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: sparker on September 01, 2016, 04:03:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
I think it's just Oklahoma being cheap as hell on infrastructure and having no forward looking plans on it either. It's literally taking ODOT decades to build one new interchange at I-44 and I-235 in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile they'll let developers build over the top of any obvious transportation corridors that will be badly needed in the future. Their "strategy" is doing a little as possible to get by.
Also known as "covering one's ass" in regards to criticism over lack of progress:  do a little project here and there to make it look like you're actually doing something significant, then rationalizing the project limitations by crying impoverishment, local preference, or any one of many excuses.  This has occurred repeatedly in not only OK but in a multitude of other states (my own CA included!); it's become S.O.P. for many DOT's.

It is what I have always called the "creating a diversion".  Look over here at this cool thing we built here.  Look away from the bad thing you are currently looking at.  This thing we did is so much better than the old one, and will be so much better.  Sure the problem still exists over there, but look at the shiny new thing!  Happens in Texas too.

sparker

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 02, 2016, 01:24:49 PM
It is what I have always called the "creating a diversion".  Look over here at this cool thing we built here.  Look away from the bad thing you are currently looking at.  This thing we did is so much better than the old one, and will be so much better.  Sure the problem still exists over there, but look at the shiny new thing!  Happens in Texas too.
Too true -- but at least in Texas, you tend to do things bigger and shinier -- 25 miles (the nascent I-14) or even 47 miles (I-2)  rather than 3 or 4 miles before calling it "mission accomplished!".  And at least TXDOT, via the "frontage road first" method, engages in ROW preservation.   And I haven't seen more stacks anywhere except the blackjack tables in Vegas!  I could go on........................

rte66man

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2016, 03:29:55 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
I don't know why or even how interests in Southeastern Oklahoma have blocked efforts of upgrading US-69 to Interstate standards. How does that region have the clout to do that? To me the efforts to keep US-69 backwards and inadequate are just stupid and even dangerous.

Most towns want heavy truck traffic diverted away from their downtown street infrastructure, especially if the towns are on the hook at all to pay for any of that street upkeep. But apparently not here!
It seems there may be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel here: the 4-lane divided commercial stretch of US 69/75 between Durant and the TX line is planned for upgrading to a full freeway, matching the rest of the Durant bypass.  But Atoka, Stringtown, and the other burgs along the way apparently still want that steady stream of truck traffic through their midst -- maybe enough of it is stopping at the diners and fueling facilities to supply a significant amount of the town's revenue (I call it the Breezewood Syndrome -- and I'm probably not alone there!) -- and they don't want the cash cow to die.   

Traffic fines are the "cash cow".  Stringtown was nationally known for it's "revenue raising" efforts until the Legislature passed a law capping the percentage of total revenue for a city that could come from traffic fines.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Bobby5280

If it was up to me I'd have those little burgs put all that speed trap cash cow revenue raising money back into maintenance of the truck pummeled streets they refuse to bypass. That's not to mention the medical bills of people getting hurt in accidents along that heavily traveled stop and go corridor.

Maybe if I-57 did get finished between Little Rock and Sikeston it might light a fire under some asses in Oklahoma to get US-69 un-f**cked and upgraded.

The Ghostbuster

Don't hold your breath on that!

US 41

Quote from: US71 on September 01, 2016, 10:56:50 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 31, 2016, 10:19:23 PM
If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.


IF Missouri goes along. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding.

I know this is completely fictional, but I think it would be better if AR 226 was upgraded to interstate quality and then a new interstate were built from Jonesboro over to I-155. Then just sign it as I-69 so it can get finished within the next 20 years. At Texarkana it can just follow US 59 down to Laredo.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM



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.