Future I-57/US 67

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

Previous topic - Next topic

US71

Quote from: mgk920 on July 06, 2017, 10:05:48 AM
All that I did was mused about if and/or when we might start seeing some of the small-town local pols along the way begin to push for a southward extension of 'I-57'.

:-o

Mike

Maybe when they quit talking about high taxes.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast


Wayward Memphian

Quote from: codyg1985 on June 29, 2017, 07:15:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 28, 2017, 04:57:26 PM
Quote from: rte66man on June 28, 2017, 03:17:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 27, 2017, 11:34:43 PM
If you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

Never happen.  US65 from Harrison south to Conway would cost untold BILLIONS to build out to interstate standards. While it looks good in the fictional realm, it will never happen.  But I guess we can always dream........

Probably so.  Looks good on a map, but the Ozarks do pose a formidable obstacle to efficient construction.  Never been on this particular road; for realistic assessment, I'll gladly defer to those who have.   

It is quite a mountainous drive through quite scenic territory. I believe AHTD has plans to widen certain segments to four lanes, but I am not sure if it will be a typical "Arkansas Freeway" (five lanes or four lanes undivided) or two separate carriageways similar to US 65 north of Harrison.

US 412 should be of more focus. A four lane,  divided roadway with a good bit of limited access connecting NWA-Harrison- Mt Home -Jonesboro would benefit the state the most and certainly reduce presure  off of  I-40 and US 64 between Conway to Beebe. I can't tell you how many use that cutover to travel from NEA to NWA. I have  used it for years since my college days to going back east to duck hunt all because US 412 is just unimaginable to use as transit from one corner to the next.


The Ghostbuster

I hope they decide what to do with US 67 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO soon. I don't want to have to wait a few decades for them to make up their minds.

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2017, 05:03:06 PM
I hope they decide what to do with US 67 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO soon. I don't want to have to wait a few decades for them to make up their minds.

The choices are quite straightforward:  serve the local population (primarily Pocahontas) via an alignment along or near present US 67; this would involve more interchanges, a crossing of the Black River in a populated area, threading the facility between the river bottom and the Ozark fall line, and very likely more property acquisition expenses.  Despite all that, it may end up being the politically necessary choice.  The other alignment would head NE along AR 34 and AR 90, tracing the UP main RR line -- and subsequently crossing the Black River floodplain at pretty much the same point the RR crosses it.  Because it's mostly farmland, there would be fewer interchanges and lower property costs, as well as crossing the river bottom at one of its narrower points (as the RR did 100+ years ago!).  More direct with less cost, but has much less local service value.  Someone (ARDOT or maybe Boozman & Co.) will have to make a choice sooner than later if this corridor is to be in any way expedited; the rest of us will just have to hang in there and see what goes down!

I-39

Quote from: sparker on July 07, 2017, 09:31:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2017, 05:03:06 PM
I hope they decide what to do with US 67 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO soon. I don't want to have to wait a few decades for them to make up their minds.

The choices are quite straightforward:  serve the local population (primarily Pocahontas) via an alignment along or near present US 67; this would involve more interchanges, a crossing of the Black River in a populated area, threading the facility between the river bottom and the Ozark fall line, and very likely more property acquisition expenses.  Despite all that, it may end up being the politically necessary choice.  The other alignment would head NE along AR 34 and AR 90, tracing the UP main RR line -- and subsequently crossing the Black River floodplain at pretty much the same point the RR crosses it.  Because it's mostly farmland, there would be fewer interchanges and lower property costs, as well as crossing the river bottom at one of its narrower points (as the RR did 100+ years ago!).  More direct with less cost, but has much less local service value.  Someone (ARDOT or maybe Boozman & Co.) will have to make a choice sooner than later if this corridor is to be in any way expedited; the rest of us will just have to hang in there and see what goes down!

They need to choose the AR 34 alignment. Pocahontas may not like it, but it will be much easier and cheaper to go that way (especially since the road will now have to be Interstate-grade) and this project needs to get going. This was the original plan all along, but Pocahontas got all mad and complained about bypassing their town so they forced ArDOT to consider alignments closer to them. Problem is it will be an engineering nightmare and it will cost a ton more $$$ to run it by them since they are in a floodplain.

adventurernumber1

#630
I've known about this proposal for a long time (the future I-57 extension), but something in terms of facilitating transportation has just clicked with me personally for the first time. Existing Interstate 57 (a north-south way out of Chicago that avoids other metro areas like St. Louis) and Interstate 30 (a critical and beneficial "slip Interstate" that not only carries cross-country traffic switching from I-40 to I-20 et al., but is also obviously important locally for Arkansas and Texas) are both important, high-truck-traffic, "short-cut" interstates. Now, the connection between these two interstates (I-30 and I-57) will be directly bridged by a new Interstate 57 extension. This will provide a direct connection from Chicago to the Mid-South that completely bypasses all major metro areas except for Chicagoland itself. Once all is completed, this whole "short-cut" interstate can efficiently take you from Chicago ultimately to places like Arkansas (Little Rock directly), Louisiana, DFW (via I-30, which together with this forms a super "short-cut" Interstate corridor, aside from going through moderate-sized Little Rock and Texarkana), and the rest of Texas. I already thought the I-57 extension was a great idea, but after deeply thinking about this, I see even more of how true genius it is!!!! I am incredibly excited (especially now) to see the development of this extension of Interstate 57 in Missouri and Arkansas.

:thumbsup:  :cheers:
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

mgk920

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on September 21, 2017, 03:33:57 PM
I've known about this proposal for a long time (the future I-57 extension), but something in terms of facilitating transportation has just clicked with me personally for the first time. Existing Interstate 57 (a north-south way out of Chicago that avoids other metro areas like St. Louis) and Interstate 30 (a critical and beneficial "slip Interstate" that not only carries cross-country traffic switching from I-40 to I-20 et al., but is also obviously important locally for Arkansas and Texas) are both important, high-truck-traffic, "short-cut" interstates. Now, the connection between these two interstates (I-30 and I-57) will be directly bridged by a new Interstate 57 extension. This will provide a direct connection from Chicago to the Mid-South that completely bypasses all major metro areas except for Chicagoland itself. Once all is completed, this whole "short-cut" interstate can efficiently take you from Chicago ultimately to places like Arkansas (Little Rock directly), Louisiana, DFW (via I-30, which together with this forms a super "short-cut" Interstate corridor, aside from going through moderate-sized Little Rock and Texarkana), and the rest of Texas. I already thought the I-57 extension was a great idea, but after deeply thinking about this, I see even more of how true genius it is!!!! I am incredibly excited (especially now) to see the development of this extension of Interstate 57 in Missouri and Arkansas.

:thumbsup:  :cheers:

I think of I-57 in the same way, part of the original concept of the 'Interstate' system (cross-country commerce that bypasses major metros).

I see the same thing with US 41 between Chicagoland and Hopkinsville, KY and onward towards Atlanta via I-24 and 75, too.

Mike

sparker

Quote from: mgk920 on September 21, 2017, 11:18:33 PM
I think of I-57 in the same way, part of the original concept of the 'Interstate' system (cross-country commerce that bypasses major metros).

I see the same thing with US 41 between Chicagoland and Hopkinsville, KY and onward towards Atlanta via I-24 and 75, too.
Mike

Except for a few "missing links" such as I-22 and I-49 (and the potential I-40 extension into the San Joaquin Valley -- I just had to get that in there!!!!), I suspect a sizeable portion of planned future Interstate corridors will traverse regions marked more by smaller -- or even negligible -- urban areas rather than mimic the simple "connect-the-dots" interurban facilities that characterized the original Interstate network.  Part of that is political and/or developmental; smaller areas that don't wish to remain so perpetually press (individually or collectively if feasible) for corridors that serve their regions (the I-14 option via San Angelo, TX is a prime example of such, abetted by similar activities in Midland, Temple, and Bryan/State College), while mature urban areas that are already quite self-sufficient (e.g. Austin) don't see the need to acquire additional Interstate corridor access; they're doing fine without it.  Any additional Interstate connections will be imposed upon them from outside rather than initiated from within (i.e., TxDOT planning a corridor down TX 71 at the request of trucking interests and/or local political forces en route).  The other part, or "flip side" if you will, is congestion (even periodic) between metropolitan areas located moderate distances apart; "relief" routes -- often coincidentally serving other interim areas, are sometimes planned and even deployed (the eastern I-86 serves as an example of this); avoiding those "chokepoints" endemic to the larger "dots" in the extant "connect-the-dot" methodology is a primary raison d'etre of many newer corridor concepts.  The oft-discussed "Memphis-Atlanta" corridor via Huntsville and Rome, GA is specifically laid out to avoid both Birmingham, AL as well as the segment of I-20 between that city and Atlanta, which is subject to congestion even far afield from the anchoring metro areas (although Huntsville itself, growing as it has, may not be much better than Birmingham in the long haul). 

Clearly and obviously I-57 fits into that "relief" category; at its full planned length it encounters no major metro areas between Little Rock and Chicago save Champaign/Urbana.  Currently there's no really good relatively direct route between Nashville and Chicago that doesn't involve "slogs" through Louisville and Indianapolis (or the "long haul" 24/57 routing, which is more optimized for Nashville-St. Louis); so a N-S corridor via Terre Haute could well be considered as a future such relief route.  Don't think that it'll get all the way into Chicagoland itself; it'll likely merge with either I-65 somewhere around Rensselaer, IN or possibly, after utilizing most of IN 63, turn NW to get to I-57 somewhere in the Gilman, IL area (apologies for the fictional aspect of this post).  But it'll do what US 41 has always done -- provided an efficient corridor between Chicago and the Deep South, with only the moderately-sized cities of Evansville and Terre Haute providing any potential for delay.  And while not possessing the sheer ability to rival its I-65 alternate to the east in terms of potential AADT (not going through Indianapolis or Louisville will do that to you!), in all likelihood it'll eventually find its own ridership.  In other words, a "relief" corridor with its own particular utility; IMHO that's the type of corridor that will come to dominate Interstate network expansion efforts.

Curiously, three of the more recent additions to the network -- at least at the legislated level -- are inverse versions of the above concept:  I-41 in WI, I-86 in NY (and a bit in PA), and the potential I-7 or I-9 along CA 99.  All three function (or will) as regional "dot connectors", commissioned to serve as an alternative to other corridors that themselves avoid (or merely skirt) metro regions (although the extensive NY "x90" network effectively addresses that issue for I-90).  But I-86 blithely connects the secondary towns of Binghamton, Elmira, and Jamestown while cutting off quite a bit of mileage between NYC metro and Cleveland vis-a-vis I-90 in addition to providing a "shunpiking" option.  And in WI, while I-43, while serving secondary cities such as Sheboygan deliberately avoided the major developed area north of Milwaukee along Us 41 -- a concept recently addressed by I-41, which functions as a "main street" within the region.  And the potential Interstate along CA 99 will do much the same, connecting the cities (with many more of them possessing large population figures than in 1956-57) bypassed by I-5, while simultaneously serving as a relief route for that extant arterial.  Just goes to show -- the "relief route" concept is a double-edged sword!     

bugo

Pocahontas can stick it if they don't like it. It is already connected to Future I-30/57 at Walnut Ridge by an undivided 4-5 lane "Arkansas Freeway". US 62-67 could also be 4 laned between Pocahontas and Corning by a similar Arkansas Freeway undivided highway or even better, a true 4 lane divided expressway. An alternative would be to make AR 304 into an expressway to connect Pocahontas to I-30/57 east/north. This way Pocahontas would be served by 4 lane highways while I-30/57 would take the shorter, quicker, cheaper route along AR 34/90.

adventurernumber1

#634
Also, I have a question. For obvious reasons (with I-440 being an even I-x40), Interstate 440 currently ends at Interstate 40 (because it is prohibited from being a spur), and the road turns into AR 440 going north (still limited-access) until it ends at the US 67/US 167 freeway (FUTURE I-57). Once the US 67 freeway is designated as Interstate 57 in its totality, will all of this AR 440 be changed to I-440, since at that point it would be possible to do so. It wouldn't make any sense to me if they didn't do that.  :hmm:
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

ilpt4u

#635
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on September 23, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
Also, I have a question. For obvious reasons (with I-440 being an even I-x40), Interstate 440 currently ends at Interstate 40 (because it is prohibited from being a spur), and the road turns into AR 440 going north (still limited-access) until it ends at the US 67/US 167 freeway (FUTURE I-57). Once the US 67 freeway is designated as Interstate 57 in its totality, will all of this AR 440 be changed to I-440, since at that point it would be possible to do so. It wouldn't make any sense to me if they didn't do that.  :hmm:
I'd rather see I-440 decommissioned once I-57 makes it to Little Rock

One way or the other, route either I-30 or I-57 onto the current I/AR 440, and route the other thru Downtown on current I-30, multiplex with I-40 for a short jog, and then onto the US 67/167 Freeway, between the current junctions with I/AR 440

I would probably leave I-30 as the Downtown Thru Route, and put I-57 on the Decommissioned I/AR 440

This also leaves open a future possibility to continue I-57 Southward down current I-530. And if that option is to be entertained, I'd actually favor I-57 being the Downtown Thru route, and I-30 being routed over the current I/AR 440 bypass route. I-630 would have to be shifted to I-657 (or other even57), and I-57 would have its first child =)

sparker

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 23, 2017, 08:37:54 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on September 23, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
Also, I have a question. For obvious reasons (with I-440 being an even I-x40), Interstate 440 currently ends at Interstate 40 (because it is prohibited from being a spur), and the road turns into AR 440 going north (still limited-access) until it ends at the US 67/US 167 freeway (FUTURE I-57). Once the US 67 freeway is designated as Interstate 57 in its totality, will all of this AR 440 be changed to I-440, since at that point it would be possible to do so. It wouldn't make any sense to me if they didn't do that.  :hmm:
I'd rather see I-440 decommissioned once I-57 makes it to Little Rock

One way or the other, route either I-30 or I-57 onto the current I/AR 440, and route the other thru Downtown on current I-30, multiplex with I-40 for a short jog, and then onto the US 67/167 Freeway, between the current junctions with I/AR 440

I would probably leave I-30 as the Downtown Thru Route, and put I-57 on the Decommissioned I/AR 440

This also leaves open a future possibility to continue I-57 Southward down current I-530. And if that option is to be entertained, I'd actually favor I-57 being the Downtown Thru route, and I-30 being routed over the current I/AR 440 bypass route. I-630 would have to be shifted to I-657 (or other even57), and I-57 would have its first child =)

Still think I-530 should be in the mix somewhere:  an alternate plan would be:
(1)  Reroute I-30 over I-440 and its AR 440 extension.
(2)  I-57 will continue south (after a slight jog on I-40) via present I-30 through downtown Little Rock, and......
(2A)  ........continue south subsuming I-530 and eventually its AR 530 extension if & when that's built out to spec.
(3)  Everything else remains the same.

In short, no use keeping a long 3di around when there's a 2di in the wings ready to take up the gauntlet.

Bobby5280

IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.

mvak36

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2017, 07:16:36 PM
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.
Least confusing too. I just assumed that was what they were going to do, but you never know I guess.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

I-39

So, any news on finishing the remainder of the US 67 freeway (Future I-57)?

ilpt4u

Quote from: I-39 on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 PM
So, any news on finishing the remainder of the US 67 freeway (Future I-57)?
All the way to US 60/Poplar Bluff, MO?

MoDOT doesn't have the funding to do any more upgrades on their portion, at least at present

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2017, 07:16:36 PM
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.

Well, if they had taken my suggestion and designated it as I-53 rather than I-57, then you could make a case for realigning I-30 along that stretch of AR 440 to bypass LR, converting the N/S section of I-30 through LR to I-53, and then simply extending I-53 along I-530/AR 530 and further to at least I-20 in Monroe.

But, water under the bridge.

sparker

Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 25, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2017, 07:16:36 PM
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.

Well, if they had taken my suggestion and designated it as I-53 rather than I-57, then you could make a case for realigning I-30 along that stretch of AR 440 to bypass LR, converting the N/S section of I-30 through LR to I-53, and then simply extending I-53 along I-530/AR 530 and further to at least I-20 in Monroe.

But, water under the bridge.

Even though it's a bit out of grid, there's no reason why I-57 just couldn't be commissioned south of Little Rock per my previous suggestion as well as a slight numerical modification of the "I-53" plans stated above.  But until funds are found to complete I-57 in the north part of the state as well as within MO, there's no practical reason to make any such changes at this point in time.  By that time, AR 530 may even be completed down to Monticello, albeit as a 2-lane initial "placeholder" facility, so the rationale for effecting a designation change at that time may be somewhat more compelling.   

Henry

There is precedent for two 2di's ending in the same city where they could easily be combined into one longer route (Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City and potentially Chicago, if I-41 ever makes it there, come to mind).
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

Quote from: Henry on September 27, 2017, 09:21:08 AM
There is precedent for two 2di's ending in the same city where they could easily be combined into one longer route (Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City and potentially Chicago, if I-41 ever makes it there, come to mind).

Precedent, yes; mandate, no.  While technically I-530 could eventually find itself as I-53, particularly if ever extended to Monroe or Alexandria, there's really no rationale to favor that designation over a I-57 extension (except for grid purists).  Either designation would be appropriate -- even though a northerly I-53 extension, ostensibly up US 65 into MO, will likely never occur.  But, hell, this is Fictional -- so may as well speculate big!

edwaleni

I found this older press release on US-67

New US-67 route in the works between Walnut Ridge and Corning

WALNUT RIDGE, AR (KAIT) - After almost three years of going back and forth with having to agree on a new hwy 67 route to the Missouri state line, a compromise has been made. The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

"We expect announcements over the next year of multiple industrial developments along this route," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House.

With new developments in the work comes anticipated heavy traffic.  House said taking care of it now is important before it becomes a problem in the future.

"With all those plans in mind, we're trying to get ready for that," said House. "Some companies have already made some big investments in properties along this line."

Although, it took nearly three years to come up with a compromise from all the cities along highway 67, the new proposed route is much affordable and timely than what was originally discussed.

"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line," said House.  "We're following the existing route except for minor adjustments and the bypasses around Corning and around Pocahontas."

House said there's a lot more to this new proposal than just accommodating the amount of drivers who will be traveling on the highway.

"It's for safety, environmental impact, economic development and industrial growth," said House.

There's not a lot of money for the project now, but House said a new highway bill could fund the project much sooner than anticipated If it's approved.

"There are ways at which we may be able to begin the building of this project through some influence on the bill."

House said they are waiting for approval signatures from Searcy city officials, and plan to send the proposal to Governor Beebe and the Highway Commission to approve.

sparker

Quote from: edwaleni on September 28, 2017, 01:18:27 PM
I found this older press release on US-67

New US-67 route in the works between Walnut Ridge and Corning

WALNUT RIDGE, AR (KAIT) - After almost three years of going back and forth with having to agree on a new hwy 67 route to the Missouri state line, a compromise has been made. The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

"We expect announcements over the next year of multiple industrial developments along this route," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House.

With new developments in the work comes anticipated heavy traffic.  House said taking care of it now is important before it becomes a problem in the future.

"With all those plans in mind, we're trying to get ready for that," said House. "Some companies have already made some big investments in properties along this line."

Although, it took nearly three years to come up with a compromise from all the cities along highway 67, the new proposed route is much affordable and timely than what was originally discussed.

"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line," said House.  "We're following the existing route except for minor adjustments and the bypasses around Corning and around Pocahontas."

House said there's a lot more to this new proposal than just accommodating the amount of drivers who will be traveling on the highway.

"It's for safety, environmental impact, economic development and industrial growth," said House.

There's not a lot of money for the project now, but House said a new highway bill could fund the project much sooner than anticipated If it's approved.

"There are ways at which we may be able to begin the building of this project through some influence on the bill."

House said they are waiting for approval signatures from Searcy city officials, and plan to send the proposal to Governor Beebe and the Highway Commission to approve.

Older press release?  This sounds like a preliminary concept for one of the previously proffered concepts -- possibly a 5-lane surface facility -- that should be moot now that the I-57 designation has been applied to this corridor.  Check the date on that press release; if it's earlier than about mid-2015, it probably doesn't reflect recent corridor events.  This plan may still eventually be built primarily for safety purposes if the I-57 corridor bypasses the area to the east (the AR 34/90 alignment); Pocahontas & Corning would still benefit from those improvements independent of the Interstate corridor.  Now -- if I-57 ends up following US 67 on such an alignment via the more populated area, there will need to be extensive frontage roads and other concessions to local businesses, as well as multiple interchanges along the Pocahontas and Corning bypasses; it's likely that option would be considerably more costly than the eastern routing.   

MikieTimT

Not to mention underwater more often.

The Ghostbuster

Might the Pocahontas Bypass be built as a 2-lane highway initially (like the 549 Bella Vista Bypass, and the 569 Monticello Bypass), and expanded to four lanes at a later date?

I-39

Regardless of where the new US 67 (Future I-57) route ultimately goes (either to Pocahontas or along AR 34), they will likely have to put the Corning bypass on the west side of town. As such, they should get going on building that section right now (kind of like what they did with the Hoxie/Walnut Ridge bypass). Start with an interchange with the existing US 67 and build north and east, ending at AR 328.



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.