News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-57 Approved

Started by US71, October 11, 2017, 09:09:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

I-39

Quote from: ilpt4u on July 24, 2021, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: Tomahawkin on July 24, 2021, 06:53:36 PM
Any word on what the progress is on the Southern Missouri side of connecting IH-57. I was in the Sikeston area a year ago and didn't see much
The posts on this last page have been discussing what MoDOT is up to...their first priority to upgrade to I-57 appears to be upgrading the existing 2-lane US 67 south of Poplar Bluff to Interstate Standard, with a portion of it already funded and scheduled

Further upgrades to the existing US 60 Expresssway to get it to Interstate Standards west of I-55 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff are the lower priority and so far unfunded (I think?), but it is ultimately the plan to get the upgrade from the I-55/57/US 60 interchange to the MO/AR state line

Upgrading US 60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff should be the last thing done IMO. The new terrain sections in SE Missouri and NE Arkansas need to be built first.


Bobby5280

There are pros and cons to either approach.

The good thing about improving the section south of Poplar Bluff to the AR state line first: it's the more expensive project. The sooner it gets done the more it will get ahead of ever present road construction cost inflation. The US really needs to get a handle on that problem otherwise the costs of things like basic maintenance work will blast upward out of sight.

The bad thing about putting off upgrades to the section of US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff: that stretch of road is low hanging fruit. That segment of 4-lane divided highway will be relatively easy to upgrade to Interstate standards. And it can be signed as I-57 from Sikeston through Poplar Bluff as soon as the work is done. The highway improvements South of Poplar Bluff won't be able to be signed as I-57 until those new freeway segments are connected to other finished segments of I-57. Just getting new segments of I-57 signed in Missouri can be a big deal from a visual perspective. It could do more to sustain attention on that unfinished corridor. Disconnected segments of freeway that carry only a US highway (or state highway) designation won't gain as much attention on a map.

Road Hog

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2021, 11:30:09 PM
There are pros and cons to either approach.

The good thing about improving the section south of Poplar Bluff to the AR state line first: it's the more expensive project. The sooner it gets done the more it will get ahead of ever present road construction cost inflation. The US really needs to get a handle on that problem otherwise the costs of things like basic maintenance work will blast upward out of sight.

The bad thing about putting off upgrades to the section of US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff: that stretch of road is low hanging fruit. That segment of 4-lane divided highway will be relatively easy to upgrade to Interstate standards. And it can be signed as I-57 from Sikeston through Poplar Bluff as soon as the work is done. The highway improvements South of Poplar Bluff won't be able to be signed as I-57 until those new freeway segments are connected to other finished segments of I-57. Just getting new segments of I-57 signed in Missouri can be a big deal from a visual perspective. It could do more to sustain attention on that unfinished corridor. Disconnected segments of freeway that carry only a US highway (or state highway) designation won't gain as much attention on a map.
I agree with your low-hanging-fruit assessment, but the biggest part of it is getting the hard part done while MODOT and Missouri state government writ large have itchy feet. Let it lie for a few years and priorities may change.

SkyPesos

Somewhat random thought regarding I-57.

Currently, there are two direct routings between St Louis and Dallas, one using I-44/US 69/US 75 via Oklahoma, and the other using US 67/I-30 via Arkansas. From what I heard, the Oklahoma routing is a bit faster, and the preferred routing. I'm not sure how Oklahoma is doing right now with adding bypasses to the various small towns on US 69, but could the I-57 extension singlehandedly make the US 67/I-30 St Louis to Dallas routing preferable over the I-44/US 69 routing?

triplemultiplex

Quote from: SkyPesos on August 04, 2021, 01:46:40 PM
I'm not sure how Oklahoma is doing right now with adding bypasses to the various small towns on US 69,

Poorly.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

sparker

Quote from: SkyPesos on August 04, 2021, 01:46:40 PM
Somewhat random thought regarding I-57.

Currently, there are two direct routings between St Louis and Dallas, one using I-44/US 69/US 75 via Oklahoma, and the other using US 67/I-30 via Arkansas. From what I heard, the Oklahoma routing is a bit faster, and the preferred routing. I'm not sure how Oklahoma is doing right now with adding bypasses to the various small towns on US 69, but could the I-57 extension singlehandedly make the US 67/I-30 St Louis to Dallas routing preferable over the I-44/US 69 routing?

The I-30/57 alternative via LR (assuming one will bypass the city on I/AR-440), once the freeway is completed, would probably be a faster alternative to Chicago from DFW than 75/69/44/55 via Springfield and St. Louis; as for St. Louis itself, it might be more of a wash, since one would have to make the jog through Sikeston unless heading straight north on US 67 from Poplar Bluff.   Still, 30/57/55 will be totally free-flowing, so it has the potential to be a bit faster if not more direct; commercial drivers will likely have to decide whether the overall mileage or the overall time is more vital to them.   Nice to have a choice, even if one of them slogs through Atoka and Muskogee!

SkyPesos

Quote from: sparker on August 04, 2021, 04:40:20 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 04, 2021, 01:46:40 PM
Somewhat random thought regarding I-57.

Currently, there are two direct routings between St Louis and Dallas, one using I-44/US 69/US 75 via Oklahoma, and the other using US 67/I-30 via Arkansas. From what I heard, the Oklahoma routing is a bit faster, and the preferred routing. I'm not sure how Oklahoma is doing right now with adding bypasses to the various small towns on US 69, but could the I-57 extension singlehandedly make the US 67/I-30 St Louis to Dallas routing preferable over the I-44/US 69 routing?

The I-30/57 alternative via LR (assuming one will bypass the city on I/AR-440), once the freeway is completed, would probably be a faster alternative to Chicago from DFW than 75/69/44/55 via Springfield and St. Louis; as for St. Louis itself, it might be more of a wash, since one would have to make the jog through Sikeston unless heading straight north on US 67 from Poplar Bluff.   Still, 30/57/55 will be totally free-flowing, so it has the potential to be a bit faster if not more direct; commercial drivers will likely have to decide whether the overall mileage or the overall time is more vital to them.   Nice to have a choice, even if one of them slogs through Atoka and Muskogee!
From Poplar Bluff to St Louis, using US 67 directly north to I-55 at Festus (about 35 miles south of downtown St Louis) is the preferred choice, as it's an expressway between those two points, and is 50 miles shorter than US 60 (Future I-57) EB to I-55 NB.

sparker

Quote from: SkyPesos on August 04, 2021, 06:50:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 04, 2021, 04:40:20 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 04, 2021, 01:46:40 PM
Somewhat random thought regarding I-57.

Currently, there are two direct routings between St Louis and Dallas, one using I-44/US 69/US 75 via Oklahoma, and the other using US 67/I-30 via Arkansas. From what I heard, the Oklahoma routing is a bit faster, and the preferred routing. I'm not sure how Oklahoma is doing right now with adding bypasses to the various small towns on US 69, but could the I-57 extension singlehandedly make the US 67/I-30 St Louis to Dallas routing preferable over the I-44/US 69 routing?

The I-30/57 alternative via LR (assuming one will bypass the city on I/AR-440), once the freeway is completed, would probably be a faster alternative to Chicago from DFW than 75/69/44/55 via Springfield and St. Louis; as for St. Louis itself, it might be more of a wash, since one would have to make the jog through Sikeston unless heading straight north on US 67 from Poplar Bluff.   Still, 30/57/55 will be totally free-flowing, so it has the potential to be a bit faster if not more direct; commercial drivers will likely have to decide whether the overall mileage or the overall time is more vital to them.   Nice to have a choice, even if one of them slogs through Atoka and Muskogee!
From Poplar Bluff to St Louis, using US 67 directly north to I-55 at Festus (about 35 miles south of downtown St Louis) is the preferred choice, as it's an expressway between those two points, and is 50 miles shorter than US 60 (Future I-57) EB to I-55 NB.

Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway. 

ilpt4u

Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MoDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway.
Sounds like a perfect place for the first x57 - How about I-357?

Road Hog

Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MoDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway.
Sounds like a perfect place for the first x57 - How about I-357?
Perfect for Missouri. But that's already been proposed for the AR 226 connector from Jonesboro.

ilpt4u

Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MoDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway.
Sounds like a perfect place for the first x57 - How about I-357?
Perfect for Missouri. But that's already been proposed for the AR 226 connector from Jonesboro.
Granted, not in this part of the state (I don't think, anyway) but Boeing still has some Ops in Missouri (McDonnel-Douglas pre-merger with Boeing), so if not 357...I-757 is up next

SkyPesos

#761
Y'all talk about giving US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus a x57 number, and ignore 157 as a number? :sombrero: It seems like MoDOT doesn't care about duplicate state and interstate numbers with recent interstate additions in the state, as seen with 49, 64 and 72, and MO 157 is only 3 miles long.

Though even if it's upgraded from an expressway to a full freeway, I'm prefer it staying as US 67. An addition of exit numbers on that section would be nice too, even though MoDOT generally doesn't have exit numbers on non-interstate freeways outside of a select few like 364 and 370.

Road Hog

Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 11:28:11 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MoDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway.
Sounds like a perfect place for the first x57 - How about I-357?
Perfect for Missouri. But that's already been proposed for the AR 226 connector from Jonesboro.
Granted, not in this part of the state (I don't think, anyway) but Boeing still has some Ops in Missouri (McDonnel-Douglas pre-merger with Boeing), so if not 357...I-757 is up next
A good choice as well!

sparker

Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:40:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 11:28:11 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MoDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway.
Sounds like a perfect place for the first x57 - How about I-357?
Perfect for Missouri. But that's already been proposed for the AR 226 connector from Jonesboro.
Granted, not in this part of the state (I don't think, anyway) but Boeing still has some Ops in Missouri (McDonnel-Douglas pre-merger with Boeing), so if not 357...I-757 is up next
A good choice as well!

I'm going to be the contrarian here; in keeping with my aversion to overlong 3di's, I'd suggest I-53.  At least it's "grid-appropriate"!

ilpt4u

Quote from: sparker on August 06, 2021, 04:31:43 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:40:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 11:28:11 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MoDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway.
Sounds like a perfect place for the first x57 - How about I-357?
Perfect for Missouri. But that's already been proposed for the AR 226 connector from Jonesboro.
Granted, not in this part of the state (I don't think, anyway) but Boeing still has some Ops in Missouri (McDonnel-Douglas pre-merger with Boeing), so if not 357...I-757 is up next
A good choice as well!
I'm going to be the contrarian here; in keeping with my aversion to overlong 3di's, I'd suggest I-53.  At least it's "grid-appropriate"!
Another intrastate 2-Digit Interstate Highway? No thanks. Poplar Bluff to Festus does not warrant burning an available 2DI, imho

sparker

Quote from: ilpt4u on August 06, 2021, 09:18:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 06, 2021, 04:31:43 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:40:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 11:28:11 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2021, 11:03:48 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 05, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see US 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus added, at some point, as a "future Interstate" corridor (like the multitude of corridors stuffed into the I-14 extension amendment to the current infrastructure bill!), particularly if St. Louis representatives and MoDOT climb aboard.  Would make more sense than previous speculation about anything E-W along US 60 from Poplar Bluff west to Springfield; much of it would simply "piggyback" onto the present expressway.
Sounds like a perfect place for the first x57 - How about I-357?
Perfect for Missouri. But that's already been proposed for the AR 226 connector from Jonesboro.
Granted, not in this part of the state (I don't think, anyway) but Boeing still has some Ops in Missouri (McDonnel-Douglas pre-merger with Boeing), so if not 357...I-757 is up next
A good choice as well!
I'm going to be the contrarian here; in keeping with my aversion to overlong 3di's, I'd suggest I-53.  At least it's "grid-appropriate"!
Another intrastate 2-Digit Interstate Highway? No thanks. Poplar Bluff to Festus does not warrant burning an available 2DI, imho

Everyone has their opinion about this; you have mine.  Nevertheless -- conceivably such a corridor could be continued north of St. Louis along the Avenue of the Saints up through Hannibal and Cedar Rapids, IA, at that point obviously warranting a 2di designation.  But I remain a bit puzzled over the "burning" of an available 2di when the chances of that particular available pool (47,51,53) being exhausted are slim & none.  Poplar Bluff-Festus is about 110 miles; longer than I-19, the western I-86, I-66, I-83 (and we won't give I-97 any props here; even I think it's ridiculous!), and it's approximately the same length as I-68 (and I haven't heard anyone propose renumbering that one to I-170 or I-179!).  Unless one is assembling the roadgeek equivalent of a fantasy football team with Interstate numbers, there's no need to have a "reserve pool".  The numbers are not like Hummel dolls; they don't do anyone any good up on the shelf -- if there's a halfway decent corridor that could need them, they should be deployed.  And as the original "OG" (chargeable) Interstates 4, 12, 17, 19, 27, 37, 45, and 96 will attest, Interstate is a brand name, not a requirement!

Revive 755

Quote from: sparker on August 06, 2021, 09:49:17 PM
Unless one is assembling the roadgeek equivalent of a fantasy football team with Interstate numbers, there's no need to have a "reserve pool".  The numbers are not like Hummel dolls; they don't do anyone any good up on the shelf -- if there's a halfway decent corridor that could need them, they should be deployed.

I don't agree - I'd rather see some thought into the future of the interstate system rather than ending up with a repeat of the cluster in Wisconsin or some future super long, multi-state 3di's.

I can see 47, 51, 53 pool getting exhausted if some of the current expressways in Missouri, Iowa, and/or Illinois get upgraded in the far future.

sparker

Quote from: Revive 755 on August 06, 2021, 10:46:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 06, 2021, 09:49:17 PM
Unless one is assembling the roadgeek equivalent of a fantasy football team with Interstate numbers, there's no need to have a "reserve pool".  The numbers are not like Hummel dolls; they don't do anyone any good up on the shelf -- if there's a halfway decent corridor that could need them, they should be deployed.

I don't agree - I'd rather see some thought into the future of the interstate system rather than ending up with a repeat of the cluster in Wisconsin or some future super long, multi-state 3di's.

I can see 47, 51, 53 pool getting exhausted if some of the current expressways in Missouri, Iowa, and/or Illinois get upgraded in the far future.

At the risk of fictional speculation, the only N-S corridor in MO/IA (at least east of I-35) that would be a potential new Interstate is the AOS; that's actually a likely candidate.  Illinois is pretty much "full up" unless a combination of the CKC and US 67 south of Macomb would be combined into a regional corridor, which is much less likely to occur without massive political input.  Nevertheless, either of those could be extended down US 67 to Poplar Bluff.  And although talk of a N-S corridor through Jefferson City has cropped up from time to time, not much has come of it, probably because of low through traffic potential.  So if an I-51 or I-53 were to be applied to US 67, the odds are that it'd be extended north at some point (my $$ would be on the AOS).   

edwaleni

Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2021, 06:14:26 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 06, 2021, 10:46:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 06, 2021, 09:49:17 PM
Unless one is assembling the roadgeek equivalent of a fantasy football team with Interstate numbers, there's no need to have a "reserve pool".  The numbers are not like Hummel dolls; they don't do anyone any good up on the shelf -- if there's a halfway decent corridor that could need them, they should be deployed.

I don't agree - I'd rather see some thought into the future of the interstate system rather than ending up with a repeat of the cluster in Wisconsin or some future super long, multi-state 3di's.

I can see 47, 51, 53 pool getting exhausted if some of the current expressways in Missouri, Iowa, and/or Illinois get upgraded in the far future.

At the risk of fictional speculation, the only N-S corridor in MO/IA (at least east of I-35) that would be a potential new Interstate is the AOS; that's actually a likely candidate.  Illinois is pretty much "full up" unless a combination of the CKC and US 67 south of Macomb would be combined into a regional corridor, which is much less likely to occur without massive political input.  Nevertheless, either of those could be extended down US 67 to Poplar Bluff.  And although talk of a N-S corridor through Jefferson City has cropped up from time to time, not much has come of it, probably because of low through traffic potential.  So if an I-51 or I-53 were to be applied to US 67, the odds are that it'd be extended north at some point (my $$ would be on the AOS).   

I could see why someone would want to extend a future I-number north of St Louis.

For years regional highway planners have been trying to optimize the Twin Cities- St Louis truck routes.

Iowa built what became I-380 to Iowa City and Illinois built I-155 from Peoria to Lincoln.

Illinois wanted the CKC with the idea it would link into some future N/S route.

Iowa upgraded US-218 from Iowa City to the state line with Missouri.

When a fresh proposal to get an interstate from TC to St Louis was proposed in Congress, the Wisconsin delegation interfered by saying they wouldn't approve it unless it came though them!! So it died.

MoDOT upgraded their north-south route from the Iowa border (MO-27) to US-61 (Keokuk Cutoff) and this continues to US-24 for the Hannibal Bypass. Unfortunately MoDOT hasn't had the money to finish the bypass, so this has forced US-61 traffic in and around Hannibal.

South of Hannibal US-61 is a 4 lane freeway all the way to St Louis where it becomes the western terminus of I-64.

Illinois has tried to close their gap using the CKC to Macomb and an upgraded US-67 all the way to IL-255/I-255.

The people I speak to who know and drive the route say they prefer the Missouri ROW.

So if an I route were to be extended north, it would most definitely go from Wentzville to Iowa City once the Hannibal Bypass was completed. But I can't see it south of St Louis.

sprjus4

^ US-61 isn't built to freeway standards between Hannibal and I-70.

It's a four lane divided highway with some sections limited access in the sense of having continuous frontage roads for local access, but nonetheless there's still at grade intersections. Interchanges are located at busier intersections.

It's a free-flowing four lane expressway. But not controlled access freeway.

sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 07, 2021, 06:57:09 PM
^ US-61 isn't built to freeway standards between Hannibal and I-70.

It's a four lane divided highway with some sections limited access in the sense of having continuous frontage roads for local access, but nonetheless there's still at grade intersections. Interchanges are located at busier intersections.

It's a free-flowing four lane expressway. But not controlled access freeway.

In general the AOS, in both states it traverses, is a bit "bipolar" in its configuration, particularly when it comes to private access to the carriageways.  One can always tell which expressway section was divided by "twinning" an existing alignment and which was built on new-terrain routing -- obviously, the sporadic full-freeway sections were either on new terrain or completely rebuilt with access points routed elsewhere, either to adjacent roads or frontage roads.  But there are plenty of sections with private driveways, both commercial and residential, intersecting the main carriageways; these were invariably the "twinned" portions.  Most of these are configured as RIRO's; not very many feature crossovers between directions. 

Nevertheless, bringing the whole AOS up to Interstate standards won't be all that simple, despite the presence of longish full freeway segments -- and the current I-380 in IA, which will need no work at all.  There are still surface-street segments in the Cedar Falls area along IA 58 that'll have to be addressed, as well as the Hannibal bypass -- although the most recent GSV shows closely parallel grading along US 24 north of the US 36 interchange, which is planned to be part of the bypass route.  But at present there is no concerted effort toward a wholesale corridor upgrade; unless it's been very recently added to the present bill in process, it doesn't seem to be on any agenda anywhere.  But like I-49 to the southwest, it serves a region that has historically lacked a singular N-S artery; the fact that it was the 2nd (after the aforementioned I-49 route) high priority corridor to be designated back in 1991 -- and the fact that it has been deemed worthy of 4-laning along its entire length except for the in-town segments cited above -- makes it a potential Interstate corridor "candidate" -- but one likely requiring the type of directed congressional attention exemplified by the I-57 extension and, just recently, the I-14 corridor across the Gulf states, in order to even be placed in the queue for funding.  It may just be a matter of time -- or it may never happen; we'll just have to see.   

rte66man

Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2021, 09:06:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 07, 2021, 06:57:09 PM
^ US-61 isn't built to freeway standards between Hannibal and I-70.

It's a four lane divided highway with some sections limited access in the sense of having continuous frontage roads for local access, but nonetheless there's still at grade intersections. Interchanges are located at busier intersections.

It's a free-flowing four lane expressway. But not controlled access freeway.

In general the AOS, in both states it traverses, is a bit "bipolar" in its configuration, particularly when it comes to private access to the carriageways.  One can always tell which expressway section was divided by "twinning" an existing alignment and which was built on new-terrain routing -- obviously, the sporadic full-freeway sections were either on new terrain or completely rebuilt with access points routed elsewhere, either to adjacent roads or frontage roads.  But there are plenty of sections with private driveways, both commercial and residential, intersecting the main carriageways; these were invariably the "twinned" portions.  Most of these are configured as RIRO's; not very many feature crossovers between directions. 

Nevertheless, bringing the whole AOS up to Interstate standards won't be all that simple, despite the presence of longish full freeway segments -- and the current I-380 in IA, which will need no work at all.  There are still surface-street segments in the Cedar Falls area along IA 58 that'll have to be addressed, as well as the Hannibal bypass -- although the most recent GSV shows closely parallel grading along US 24 north of the US 36 interchange, which is planned to be part of the bypass route.  But at present there is no concerted effort toward a wholesale corridor upgrade; unless it's been very recently added to the present bill in process, it doesn't seem to be on any agenda anywhere.  But like I-49 to the southwest, it serves a region that has historically lacked a singular N-S artery; the fact that it was the 2nd (after the aforementioned I-49 route) high priority corridor to be designated back in 1991 -- and the fact that it has been deemed worthy of 4-laning along its entire length except for the in-town segments cited above -- makes it a potential Interstate corridor "candidate" -- but one likely requiring the type of directed congressional attention exemplified by the I-57 extension and, just recently, the I-14 corridor across the Gulf states, in order to even be placed in the queue for funding.  It may just be a matter of time -- or it may never happen; we'll just have to see.   

IIRC, IDOT has plans for making IA58 a freeway south to US20 in Cedar Falls.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Road Hog

Been a while since there has been any news on Future I-57. Hopefully now that the BVB has been opened, the two states can turn their attention to getting this done.

edwaleni


https://talkbusiness.net/2021/05/nea-leaders-update-on-i-57-possibilities/

Generations of civic and business leaders in Northeast Arkansas have dreamed of U.S. 67 being transformed into a complete, four-lane interstate highway stretching to the Missouri border. If the route were completely four-laned, it would become the primary thoroughfare connecting Chicago to large cities in Texas.

A group of civic leaders recently met to discuss finishing this project which started back in the 1950s. Walnut Ridge Mayor Charles Snapp told Talk Business & Politics he thinks completing the highway could become one of the most significant economic events in the region — ever.

"Once that road system is complete, Northeast Arkansas would become the halfway point between Chicago and the big city markets in Texas,"  Snapp said.

Most of the route which stretches in Arkansas from Texarkana to Corning is already interstate grade, but the 30 or so miles on the northern end of the route from Pocahontas to Corning remains a two-lane. Once complete, it would become part of the recently created I-57 system.

Nearly $32 million has been allocated for preliminary engineering and studies, Arkansas Highway Commission Vice Chairman Alec Farmer said. Three options to complete the highway are under consideration at this time, he said.

The price range to complete the project could cost anywhere from $490 million to $600 million, Farmer said. An environmental impact study is expected to be completed by the end of 2022. It's part of a planning project study that was launched in 2015.

Once an option is selected and it passes environmental muster, it will be time to find funding, he added.

Work on U.S. 67 connecting the region with Little Rock began in 1956. That first 16 miles cost $6.4 million and was finished in 1962. Through the years, the highway was four-laned to Bald Knob and then to Newport in 1994. A few years ago, the final expanded connector between Newport and Walnut Ridge was finished.

The 123 miles that stretch from North Little Rock into Northeast Arkansas has cost $700 million so far, and if it were done today, it would cost more than $1 billion, Farmer said.

Landowners along the U.S. 67 in the area of the proposed expansion have seen teams of surveyors and engineers in the field collecting data, Arkansas Department of Transportation District 10 engineer Brad Smithee said. One proposal is along the current highway and two alternate routes are under consideration.

Cost, how many motorists will use each route, environmental impacts, engineering viability and other factors will be considered when making a final determination, he said.

U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said he's optimistic that federal dollars will be allocated towards the project. When complete, it will provide an economic boon to all the cities and towns along the route.

"Business owners, civic leaders and travelers all understand the importance of connecting Northeast and Central Arkansas to this major interstate because it creates economic growth and development opportunities and allows for increased ease of movement,"  Boozman said.

"I am pleased to have been updated on the latest developments with the effort to plan and complete the construction of an interstate-quality highway and bring I-57 from the Missouri border all the way to North Little Rock. I look forward to further helping make this vision a reality,"  he added.


Road Hog

Drove up that way for Turkey Day and I hope I'm eyeballing the inside and outside shoulders incorrectly, because both seemed way short of interstate specs on the new construction up to the Heber exit.

The 2-mile Jax segment between Vandenburg and Main hasn't been touched yet. In fact, weeds are growing in the road cracks. They need to dig that shit up when they terraform Mars.



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.