AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 150833 times)

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 08:00:27 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #950 on: March 16, 2023, 02:26:11 PM »

I went back and looked at the MoDOT planning documents. I remember they had I-57 going around the Neelyville Baptist Church to the west, and the current ROW maps shows the church as a potential relocation property without the bypass.

They (the church) had just built a new building and had objected to having it torn down so soon. So perhaps in the interim they came up with something they agreed to.

Looks like they've recommended bulldozing the church to remove 3 curves and save a house and $200K.
Logged

Rick Powell

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 727
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 05:38:28 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #951 on: March 16, 2023, 03:40:24 PM »

I-57 is going to end up with a gap just like the BVB, I'm afraid.
If so, at least it won't be 18 miles through a rocky bluff. :D  Assuming AR builds its piece up to the state line, 2 miles of flatland interstate will not be a huge lift when the time comes.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1689
  • Last Login: Today at 01:25:39 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #952 on: March 16, 2023, 05:32:54 PM »

I went back and looked at the MoDOT planning documents. I remember they had I-57 going around the Neelyville Baptist Church to the west, and the current ROW maps shows the church as a potential relocation property without the bypass.

They (the church) had just built a new building and had objected to having it torn down so soon. So perhaps in the interim they came up with something they agreed to.

Looks like they've recommended bulldozing the church to remove 3 curves and save a house and $200K.

I didnt catch this in the re-evaluation. The bypass is still in the maps in the document however.

Fellowship Southern Baptist Church of Neelyville
In the 2005 EIS, the alignment of Alternate R was proposed to the west of the Fellowship Southern
Baptist Church of Neelyville to avoid the church. This church was newly constructed at the time of the
2005 EIS. This area has been reviewed and a modified Alternate R has been developed, which removes
the western shift and straightens out the alignment. The modified Alternate R lies adjacent to the west
right of way of existing Route 67. Impacts associated with the straightened alignment differ from what
was presented in the 2005 EIS, particularly that the church is now counted as a displacement. A
comparison of impacts between the original Alternate R from the 2005 EIS and the modified Alternate R
is provided in Appendix A of this re-evaluation.


Appendix A says:

 Modify Alternate R at the Fellowship Southern Baptist Church of Neelyville by:
o removing the curves that place the alternative west of the church,
o straightening the alignment so that it is parallel and adjacent to existing Route 67, and
o providing an overpass at CR 338 for connectivity between frontage roads on either side of
proposed Route 67


I love how they word this so that the change doesn't say "tear the church down" they state it in how placing a bypass there causes undue harm to farmland, ecology, and the goals of US-67.

For what its worth, the trees they say will have to be removed used to be along the Hoxie Subdivision of the Frisco (StL&SF) Railroad. It ran from Cape Girardeau to Walnut Ridge/Hoxie and crossed US-67 there. It was abandoned in 1965.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 08:00:27 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #953 on: March 16, 2023, 08:09:44 PM »

Yeah, right above that in Tables 1 and 2, it is indicated in the Modified Alternate R that the church is toast, it's just they refer to it as "displaced".  Like they're going to pick it up and move it over...
« Last Edit: March 17, 2023, 08:36:07 AM by MikieTimT »
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1234
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 03:54:58 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #954 on: March 16, 2023, 09:42:37 PM »

I-57 is going to end up with a gap just like the BVB, I'm afraid.

I think they will (hopefully) get the gap completed faster than the BVB. It's a lot easier terrain.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 08:00:27 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #955 on: March 17, 2023, 08:40:52 AM »

I-57 is going to end up with a gap just like the BVB, I'm afraid.

I think they will (hopefully) get the gap completed faster than the BVB. It's a lot easier terrain.

For sure.
No comparison.
https://goo.gl/maps/CzyZpN7AyKUwbArS8
vs.
https://goo.gl/maps/nGFURCivbvAunsW86

Only difficulties whatsoever are funding, bridges, and maybe locating fill to build up the carriageways.
Logged

Rick Powell

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 727
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 05:38:28 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #956 on: March 17, 2023, 09:17:47 AM »

Yeah, right above that in Tables 1 and 2, it is indicated in the Modified Alternate R that the church is toast, it's just they refer to it as "displaced".  Like they're going to pick it up and move it over...

Although it's been done before. The house that sits on the northeast quadrant of IL 71 and I-39 was right on the centerline of the soon-to-be-built I-39. The owners took the buyout, but then hired a house-moving company to move the house to an adjacent plot of land rather than being demolished.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2650386,-89.0797393,3a,15y,72.64h,84.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7poKyIZt7z9SCavFHyDA6Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D7poKyIZt7z9SCavFHyDA6Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D196.98962%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1016
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 11:41:39 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #957 on: March 17, 2023, 09:29:23 AM »

Yeah, right above that in Tables 1 and 2, it is indicated in the Modified Alternate R that the church is toast, it's just they refer to it as "displaced".  Like they're going to pick it up and move it over...
The DOT would have to pay to "relocate" the church. In other words, the Fellowship Baptist Church would get a shiny new campus in a new location on the taxpayer dime before the current one gets bulldozed to make way for the freeway.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1689
  • Last Login: Today at 01:25:39 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #958 on: March 17, 2023, 11:03:46 AM »

Yeah, right above that in Tables 1 and 2, it is indicated in the Modified Alternate R that the church is toast, it's just they refer to it as "displaced".  Like they're going to pick it up and move it over...
The DOT would have to pay to "relocate" the church. In other words, the Fellowship Baptist Church would get a shiny new campus in a new location on the taxpayer dime before the current one gets bulldozed to make way for the freeway.

I am looking at their lot now and it appears the new church building was built (in 2022) at the back end of their property. I would surmise that they will probably keep the new building and have a driveway on a frontage road.

Then the only building to take would be the old one.

So it definitely appears they were aware that the bypass was not going to happen.



« Last Edit: March 17, 2023, 11:06:56 AM by edwaleni »
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1016
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 11:41:39 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #959 on: March 17, 2023, 03:54:38 PM »

Construction starts on the US-67/167 widening through Jacksonville next Monday. It doesn't look like there will be any king of groundbreaking ceremony. It'll just be the construction crews moving in and getting to work.

https://www.thv11.com/article/news/local/construction-hwy-67-jacksonville/91-afa40030-fe1e-49cc-9b92-6def3698802e
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Tomahawkin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 612
  • Last Login: Today at 03:18:25 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #960 on: March 17, 2023, 05:27:01 PM »

Are we getting 6 lanes or 8 lanes total through Jacksonville? I'm guessing Arkansas is too Cheap to go to 8 lanes through that stretch?
Logged

Great Lakes Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 867
  • Ain't nobody got time for that!!

  • Age: 23
  • Location: La Porte, Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 04:29:58 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #961 on: March 17, 2023, 05:28:48 PM »

Are we getting 6 lanes or 8 lanes total through Jacksonville? I'm guessing Arkansas is too Cheap to go to 8 lanes through that stretch?

6 lanes to match the other reconstructed sections.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1001
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 06:08:34 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #962 on: March 19, 2023, 12:09:04 PM »

Six through main lanes through a burg the size of Jacksonville AR should be plenty.   
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8134
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:46 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #963 on: March 19, 2023, 12:41:57 PM »

Six through main lanes through a burg the size of Jacksonville AR should be plenty.
For this specific instance, true, but using the size of a particular locality the highway is passing through, to determine the number of lanes, isnít a good measure.

It should be based off traffic volumes. A major 8 lane interstate highway with 100,000 AADT passing through a rural area should be no less than 8 lanes, even if thereís no physical city or town there.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3672
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 03:08:37 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #964 on: March 19, 2023, 12:53:38 PM »

In the specific case of the Jacksonville segment, that substandard segment is bookended on both sides by newer 3x3 configured freeways. It would be weird those couple of new miles of road as a 4x4 configuration, even if AADT figures could justify it.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8134
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:46 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #965 on: March 19, 2023, 01:12:16 PM »

In the specific case of the Jacksonville segment, that substandard segment is bookended on both sides by newer 3x3 configured freeways. It would be weird those couple of new miles of road as a 4x4 configuration, even if AADT figures could justify it.
Auxiliary lanes perhaps? But yeah, otherwise, I would agree. 6 lanes is probably adequate.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 08:00:27 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #966 on: March 20, 2023, 10:04:15 AM »

In the specific case of the Jacksonville segment, that substandard segment is bookended on both sides by newer 3x3 configured freeways. It would be weird those couple of new miles of road as a 4x4 configuration, even if AADT figures could justify it.
Auxiliary lanes perhaps? But yeah, otherwise, I would agree. 6 lanes is probably adequate.

They are converting the access roads in that 2 mile stretch to 1 way on each side.  The local traffic should be more than handled with 2 lane access roads on each side.
Logged

 


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.