Future of I-72 in Missouri?

[edwaleni]

Quincy Herald-Whig in 2017.

https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html

The Missouri Department of Transportation's request that interstate status along I-72/U.S. 36 be extended from Hannibal to the junction with U.S. 24 has been denied -- for now.

The Federal Highway Administration recently cited rules that would prevent it from terminating an interstate highway at the junction most people identify with the Rocket truck stop. Interstates almost always hook up with other interstates, and U.S. 24 doesn't qualify.

There's a little irony in that decision, because I-72 crosses the I-72 Mark Twain Bridge at Hannibal and then connects with U.S. 61, which is not an interstate.

However, U.S. 61 was the best alternative available when the Mark Twain Bridge opened in September 2000.

I-72 crosses Illinois and was completed in 1991. However, there was no hope at that time of considering the old Mark Twain Memorial Bridge an interstate structure. The 1936-era bridge only had two narrow lanes.

But by the time the new bridge was completed, Hannibal had a new entryway that was designed to meet interstate standards. It had no at-grade crossings, wide lanes, medians and shoulders, was designed for higher speeds and had sloping pavement to shed rain water.

With a new bridge that met interstate standards, the Federal Highway Administration agreed to allow I-72 designation to U.S. 61, about 1.75 miles west of the bridge.

Last September, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission formally requested -- on behalf of the Hannibal community -- that I-72 be extended another 6 miles west to the U.S. 24 junction. Hannibal businessman Tom Boland, a former chairman of the commission, said the interstate designation would help highlight the highway's general design and could prove helpful for the city's economic development efforts.

Thomas A. Oakley of the Tri-State Development Summit's steering committee showed aerial photos of the highway to the commission as it met in Hannibal on Sept. 1.

"There is substantial vacant ground on both sides of the highway for restaurants, additional motels, retail, manufacturing, distribution, hospital and clinic expansion, as well as the newly approved certified industrial park," Oakley said.

Kevin James, assistant district engineer for the MoDOT's Northeast District, said the denial letter was fairly short. It didn't help that there are no long-range plans for upgrading U.S. 36 from expressway standards to interstate standards.

It would be costly to create overpasses and interchanges at numerous crossroads along U.S. 36. Many of the smaller bridges don't have shoulders, and a few other design features would have to be addressed.

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.

The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.

"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.

When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

[mvak36]

It would have been nice if the study for the Hannibal bypass would have been approved but that was also vetoed by the governor.

https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/rpt/HB19vl.pdf

[sprjus4]

Quincy Herald-Whig in 2017.

https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html

The Missouri Department of Transportation's request that interstate status along I-72/U.S. 36 be extended from Hannibal to the junction with U.S. 24 has been denied -- for now.

The Federal Highway Administration recently cited rules that would prevent it from terminating an interstate highway at the junction most people identify with the Rocket truck stop. Interstates almost always hook up with other interstates, and U.S. 24 doesn't qualify.

This does not make any logical sense. The FHWA allows interstate highways to connect with logical termini, and US-24, being a US highway, is a logical terminus. I-72 does connect with an interstate highway in the eastern half, both with I-55 and I-57.

[Sapphuby]

Quincy Herald-Whig in 2017.

https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html

The Missouri Department of Transportation's request that interstate status along I-72/U.S. 36 be extended from Hannibal to the junction with U.S. 24 has been denied -- for now.

The Federal Highway Administration recently cited rules that would prevent it from terminating an interstate highway at the junction most people identify with the Rocket truck stop. Interstates almost always hook up with other interstates, and U.S. 24 doesn't qualify.

This does not make any logical sense. The FHWA allows interstate highways to connect with logical termini, and US-24, being a US highway, is a logical terminus. I-72 does connect with an interstate highway in the eastern half, both with I-55 and I-57.

My main argument would be, "What's the more logical terminus, US 61 or US 24?" Thinking about it, would it really make sense to slap shields and exit numbers for 6 miles to an exit out in the middle of nowhere, or would it make more sense to not do all of that and instead end it inside of a town? I-72 connects with I-55 and I-57 in the east, but it connects nowhere in the west, which was why I-35 was the plan from the start, but they're not getting there anytime soon, so might as well pick the best spot. And besides, US 61 bisects the interstate, while US 24 serves its purpose by joining the expressway westward and splitting eastward compass North. US 61 is also a major thoroughfare for cities like the Quad Cities, St. Louis, and it carries the Avenue of the Saints, which channels drivers to St. Paul, and it carries a lot of truck traffic. US 24 arguably doesn't do a lot in that department. It goes to Quincy, and so does I-172. Now if the Hannibal Bypass was finished, then yes, end I-72 over at the bypass. That's where the traffic flow is.

[DJStephens]

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.  When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor.   Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal.  Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated.  Now is that correct?  Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade.  Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?   

[mvak36]

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.  When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor.   Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal.  Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated.  Now is that correct?  Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade.  Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?

I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.

[edwaleni]

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.  When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor.   Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal.  Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated.  Now is that correct?  Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade.  Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?

I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.

I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.

I don't think these decisions are being driven by anyone in the Beltway, but strictly from the state house in Jeff City.

I feel like the need to improve I-70 is probably sucking the wind out of some other projects. It's a big deal financially for Missouri.

[Sapphuby]

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.  When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor.   Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal.  Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated.  Now is that correct?  Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade.  Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?

Only one I can even think of is the overhead lights at the B/E intersection with US 61 north of Troy. I'm not even sure if that counts.

[Molandfreak]

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.  When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor.   Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal.  Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated.  Now is that correct?  Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade.  Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?

I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.

I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.

The two are north of US 20 in Cedar Falls.

[edwaleni]

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.  When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor.   Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal.  Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated.  Now is that correct?  Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade.  Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?

I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.

I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.

The two are north of US 20 in Cedar Falls.

Thanks, Viking Road and Greenhill Road in Cedar Falls.

[mvak36]

There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.  When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.

The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor.   Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal.  Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated.  Now is that correct?  Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade.  Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?

I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.

I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.

I don't think these decisions are being driven by anyone in the Beltway, but strictly from the state house in Jeff City.

I feel like the need to improve I-70 is probably sucking the wind out of some other projects. It's a big deal financially for Missouri.

That is my bad. I had a total brain fart on that one.

[RoadMaster09]

From what I can tell, the AADT is between 8,000 and 12,000 on nearly the entire corridor. That's a good level for a 4-lane expressway, but marginal for an Interstate-standard freeway.

That said, it could relieve I-70 and provide an alternate connection across the northern tier of Missouri, especially as that is close to warranting 6 lanes. And I agree, it should go all the way to St. Joseph, not just I-35.

[JREwing78]

The whole CKC Hwy 110 designation was supposed to help highlight the option to take US-36 across Missouri v.s. I-70. While ideally US-36 would be a complete freeway, it's plenty adequate as it is for long-haul travel. I would personally select it over I-70 even once its 6-laning is complete. 

Add in a 4-lane US-60 connecting I-55 to Springfield, Hwys 7 and 13 connecting Springfield to Kansas City, and substantial lengths of US-50 paralleling I-70 also 4-laned, I'm not sure what the logic would be in forestalling I-70 widening at this point. There's several viable options for long-haul drivers to avoid taking I-70 across Missouri.

There's no reason to take I-72 off the table, for sure. But if we're strictly talking about spending limited highway funding to greatest effect, there's no reason to wait for further 4-laning or freeway conversion work to finish elsewhere before pushing an I-70 expansion. It's not a great loss if it takes 20-30 more years for I-72 to span the state. 

[Henry]

The whole CKC Hwy 110 designation was supposed to help highlight the option to take US-36 across Missouri v.s. I-70. While ideally US-36 would be a complete freeway, it's plenty adequate as it is for long-haul travel. I would personally select it over I-70 even once its 6-laning is complete.

Add in a 4-lane US-60 connecting I-55 to Springfield, Hwys 7 and 13 connecting Springfield to Kansas City, and substantial lengths of US-50 paralleling I-70 also 4-laned, I'm not sure what the logic would be in forestalling I-70 widening at this point. There's several viable options for long-haul drivers to avoid taking I-70 across Missouri.

There's no reason to take I-72 off the table, for sure. But if we're strictly talking about spending limited highway funding to greatest effect, there's no reason to wait for further 4-laning or freeway conversion work to finish elsewhere before pushing an I-70 expansion. It's not a great loss if it takes 20-30 more years for I-72 to span the state.

Good point, although they're probably going to keep I-72 around as a potential shunpike route to the north if I-70 gets tolls on it, in the same way that I-44 and I-49 are to the south (and it's crazy how the former becomes a series of toll roads itself once it crosses into OK!).

[sprjus4]

The whole CKC Hwy 110 designation was supposed to help highlight the option to take US-36 across Missouri v.s. I-70. While ideally US-36 would be a complete freeway, it's plenty adequate as it is for long-haul travel. I would personally select it over I-70 even once its 6-laning is complete.

Add in a 4-lane US-60 connecting I-55 to Springfield, Hwys 7 and 13 connecting Springfield to Kansas City, and substantial lengths of US-50 paralleling I-70 also 4-laned, I'm not sure what the logic would be in forestalling I-70 widening at this point. There's several viable options for long-haul drivers to avoid taking I-70 across Missouri.

There's no reason to take I-72 off the table, for sure. But if we're strictly talking about spending limited highway funding to greatest effect, there's no reason to wait for further 4-laning or freeway conversion work to finish elsewhere before pushing an I-70 expansion. It's not a great loss if it takes 20-30 more years for I-72 to span the state.

Good point, although they're probably going to keep I-72 around as a potential shunpike route to the north if I-70 gets tolls on it, in the same way that I-44 and I-49 are to the south (and it's crazy how the former becomes a series of toll roads itself once it crosses into OK!).

As far as I'm aware, I-70 widening is occurring now and continuing over the next several years... and includes no tolls. It's long past the "planning" phase, it's being built.

[PColumbus73]

I-72 is effectively dead in Missouri, correct? Similar to I-73 in Virginia or South Carolina? Is it fair to compare I-72 to I-73?

I think I've heard that the Governor of Missouri declined to approve funding for I-72, which is similar to the SC Governor not funding I-73. Is there a huge push for I-72, or is it a handful of business groups and counties that really want it while the rest of the state shrugs?

[Molandfreak]

I-72 is effectively dead in Missouri, correct? Similar to I-73 in Virginia or South Carolina?

No, I-72 has an existing segment in Missouri.

[PColumbus73]

I-72 is effectively dead in Missouri, correct? Similar to I-73 in Virginia or South Carolina?

No, I-72 has an existing segment in Missouri.

The western extension, I mean

[Sani]

As far as I'm aware, I-70 widening is occurring now and continuing over the next several years... and includes no tolls. It's long past the "planning" phase, it's being built.

Yes, the whole Improve I-70 project is funded to improve various interchanges and widen the whole thing to three lanes from Blue Strings to Wentzville. It should be complete by the end of 2030.

I took US 36 from Kansas City to and from Chicago in September, and while it's the most direct route, I will say it could definitely use some work. If the state/MoDOT are unlikely to upgrade it to interstate standards, there are several sections with hills and crests that need to be flattened, and it needs a focus on major pavement repair work the same way I-70 did in the 2000s.

[JREwing78]

I-72 is effectively dead in Missouri, correct? Similar to I-73 in Virginia or South Carolina? Is it fair to compare I-72 to I-73?

I think I've heard that the Governor of Missouri declined to approve funding for I-72, which is similar to the SC Governor not funding I-73. Is there a huge push for I-72, or is it a handful of business groups and counties that really want it while the rest of the state shrugs?

In 2023, Gov. Parsons vetoed a study for extending I-72 while approving $2.8 billion for I-70 expansion. The explanation from the Gov. is that it's a waste of time and money to do the study if they can't get the Interstate conversion underway before the study becomes obsolete.

While I think the Gov. has things a bit backwards - he thinks he need preparation to do a feasibility study, whereas most folks would understand the study itself IS the preparation - I understand the compulsion to focus funding on I-70 when that's going to be the priority for the next 10-20 years.

If the Feds shoveled money at Missouri to extend I-72, I doubt they would turn them down.

So, I don't call it dead by any means - nothing's been done that precludes extending I-72 westward. But Missouri has bigger priorities.

[PColumbus73]

I-72 is effectively dead in Missouri, correct? Similar to I-73 in Virginia or South Carolina? Is it fair to compare I-72 to I-73?

I think I've heard that the Governor of Missouri declined to approve funding for I-72, which is similar to the SC Governor not funding I-73. Is there a huge push for I-72, or is it a handful of business groups and counties that really want it while the rest of the state shrugs?

In 2023, Gov. Parsons vetoed a study for extending I-72 while approving $2.8 billion for I-70 expansion. The explanation from the Gov. is that it's a waste of time and money to do the study if they can't get the Interstate conversion underway before the study becomes obsolete.

While I think the Gov. has things a bit backwards - he thinks he need preparation to do a feasibility study, whereas most folks would understand the study itself IS the preparation - I understand the compulsion to focus funding on I-70 when that's going to be the priority for the next 10-20 years.

If the Feds shoveled money at Missouri to extend I-72, I doubt they would turn them down.

So, I don't call it dead by any means - nothing's been done that precludes extending I-72 westward. But Missouri has bigger priorities.

I assume that after I-70, I-57 will be the next big push.

[splashflash]

I-72 is effectively dead in Missouri, correct? Similar to I-73 in Virginia or South Carolina? Is it fair to compare I-72 to I-73?

I think I've heard that the Governor of Missouri declined to approve funding for I-72, which is similar to the SC Governor not funding I-73. Is there a huge push for I-72, or is it a handful of business groups and counties that really want it while the rest of the state shrugs?

In 2023, Gov. Parsons vetoed a study for extending I-72 while approving $2.8 billion for I-70 expansion. The explanation from the Gov. is that it's a waste of time and money to do the study if they can't get the Interstate conversion underway before the study becomes obsolete.

While I think the Gov. has things a bit backwards - he thinks he need preparation to do a feasibility study, whereas most folks would understand the study itself IS the preparation - I understand the compulsion to focus funding on I-70 when that's going to be the priority for the next 10-20 years.

If the Feds shoveled money at Missouri to extend I-72, I doubt they would turn them down.

So, I don't call it dead by any means - nothing's been done that precludes extending I-72 westward. But Missouri has bigger priorities.

I assume that after I-70, I-57 will be the next big push.

Then US 60 (Springfield moving east) and US 61 north of Wentzville.  The Sikeston to Poplar Bluff section of US 60 conversion to I-57 may be slow going though, no?

[Revive 755]

I assume that after I-70, I-57 will be the next big push.

Then US 60 (Springfield moving east) and US 61 north of Wentzville.  The Sikeston to Poplar Bluff section of US 60 conversion to I-57 may be slow going though, no?

A focus on six laning I-44 across a lot of the state seems more likely than a major upgrade of US 61 north of Wentzville and US 60 east of Springfield.  Those corridor will more likely have a piecemeal upgrade with J-turns and interchanges at some of the problematic locations.

It's possible work on I-57 stalls out in Missouri after the section between Poplar Bluff and the Arkansas border is completed.  There's no slow towns on the US 60 corridor between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston in need of bypasses, unlike Hannibal on US 61 and Macon on US 63 (both of which IMHO should have bypasses completed prior to upgrading US 60 between Poplar Bluff in Sikeston).

[RoadMaster09]

I assume that after I-70, I-57 will be the next big push.

Then US 60 (Springfield moving east) and US 61 north of Wentzville.  The Sikeston to Poplar Bluff section of US 60 conversion to I-57 may be slow going though, no?

A focus on six laning I-44 across a lot of the state seems more likely than a major upgrade of US 61 north of Wentzville and US 60 east of Springfield.  Those corridor will more likely have a piecemeal upgrade with J-turns and interchanges at some of the problematic locations.

It's possible work on I-57 stalls out in Missouri after the section between Poplar Bluff and the Arkansas border is completed.  There's no slow towns on the US 60 corridor between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston in need of bypasses, unlike Hannibal on US 61 and Macon on US 63 (both of which IMHO should have bypasses completed prior to upgrading US 60 between Poplar Bluff in Sikeston).

US 60 is more of a niche purpose and wouldn't be really taking traffic off any other routes that critically need relief (as it doesn't help grab trucks that could use I-40 or I-44).

That said, west of US 63, AADT ranges from 13,000 to 20,000, which is a good level for warranting an Interstate-standard freeway. East of US 63, AADT is between 5,000 and 8,000 until it gets to Poplar Bluff, so it would be quite low there. It would be a "connector" between I-57 and I-44 if signed as a different number. That is lower than the AADT on US 36.

[ski12616]

I haven't been this way in a couple of years, but looking around Google Street View, has the MoDOT Northwest district removed all CKC/MO 110 signs in the last year? For example, where the eastbound CKC turns from I-35 to US-36, signs are present in July 2023 but removed by October 2024. On the other side of this interchange and at other major junctions along US-36, other CKC/110 signs were removed between October 2024 and October 2025. I have not located one anywhere within the Northwest district in imagery later than October 2024.

It is still signed in the most recent imagery after crossing into Macon County (Northeast district) and Clay County (Kansas City district). The Kansas City district has kept the CKC signs when they recently re-added the I-35 shields that were dropped when the CKC/110 designation was posted in the early 2010s. Here is the first southbound sign after entering Clay County in January 2024 vs. October 2025.