News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Future I-57/US 67

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

Quote from: TXtoNJIt makes rural yahoos very happy, and other folks in Congress aren't enough of roadgeeks to care about it one way or the other. We're just going to have to accept this as the new norm.

The nonsensical, political, ego-driven crap will eventually create a mess for drivers. I can imagine some drivers getting lost due to it.

At least the choice of using I-57 makes some logical sense. Meanwhile we have other politicians assigning 2di designations elsewhere to far shorter, little stubby routes while hoping (delusions of grandeur) the porky effort generates a far longer distance corridor in an area where the population and traffic counts will never justify it.


jbnv

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 28, 2016, 01:44:06 PM
Meanwhile we have other politicians assigning 2di designations elsewhere to far shorter, little stubby routes while hoping (delusions of grandeur) the porky effort generates a far longer distance corridor in an area where the population and traffic counts will never justify it.

Dude, we already get that you hate I-14. Got anything constructive to add to these discussions?
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

I-39

Quote from: NE2 on April 28, 2016, 11:37:09 AM
What happened to agricultural traffic when US 71 became I-49? If I'm not mistaken, large portions were upgraded on the spot with no old alignment or frontage road. Except for a bit just west of Dexter, old US 60 is all intact. The main obstacle is getting rid of the at-grades, of which I count about 25 plus some driveways. Many of the driveways can probably be closed with access provided from existing backage roads.

I don't think that is going to be an issue. US 60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff is easily upgradable.

The main thing Missouri is going to have to figure out is how to build the remaining four lane part of US 67 between the US 160/MO 158 interchange and the state line. I'm not sure what the existing plans are, but now that I-57 is in the official plans, it most likely will have to be built on a new alignment to the west of the existing one. I know a few years back US 67 widening to the state line was in the failed transportation tax referendum, does anyone know what the plans are here?

Then of course, Arkansas is still figuring out what alignment they want to do between Walnut Ridge and the state line. Any news on this front?

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: NE2 on April 28, 2016, 11:37:09 AM
. Many of the driveways can probably be closed with access provided from existing backage roads.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

QuoteThen of course, Arkansas is still figuring out what alignment they want to do between Walnut Ridge and the state line. Any news on this front?

I think this may be the big driver of this, to get it finalized and on the same page.

Wayward Memphian


US71

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 28, 2016, 01:44:06 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJIt makes rural yahoos very happy, and other folks in Congress aren't enough of roadgeeks to care about it one way or the other. We're just going to have to accept this as the new norm.

The nonsensical, political, ego-driven crap will eventually create a mess for drivers. I can imagine some drivers getting lost due to it.

Well, it IS an election year and Dr Boozman is up for re-election. If he can make a fuss about upgrading US 67, maybe people will forget everything else.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: US71 on May 02, 2016, 08:21:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 28, 2016, 01:44:06 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJIt makes rural yahoos very happy, and other folks in Congress aren't enough of roadgeeks to care about it one way or the other. We're just going to have to accept this as the new norm.

The nonsensical, political, ego-driven crap will eventually create a mess for drivers. I can imagine some drivers getting lost due to it.

Well, it IS an election year and Dr Boozman is up for re-election. If he can make a fuss about upgrading US 67, maybe people will forget everything else.

His seat is in very little danger as this is Arkansas but yeah, it helps a bit in NEA.

The Ghostbuster

When might Interstate 57 shields be added to the US 67 freeway? Will it be before or after it (hopefully eventually) connects with existing Interstate 57?

codyg1985

I would imagine that if there is enough of a push then AHTD would submit an application to AASHTO at the next SCOH meeting for shields to go up along its freeway portion of US 67.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

froggie

Would require FHWA approval as well.

Wayward Memphian

Shouldn't the thread title be changed? I-30 it isn't going to be.

Also, does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.

(Warning, Ghostbuster triggering alert)

If it does get signed all the down to Monticello, why not just push for I-57 to carry on to Monroe and Alexanderia.

jbnv

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 12:26:38 PM
Shouldn't the thread title be changed? I-30 it isn't going to be.

Also, does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.

I think it would be correct to include I-530 in here. Title it "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps I-530)".
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Grzrd

Quote from: jbnv on May 04, 2016, 12:48:04 PM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 12:26:38 PM
does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.
I think it would be correct to include I-530 in here. Title it "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps I-530)".

As far as I know, the idea of redesignating I-530 as I-57, although meritorious, is still in the Fictional realm.  On the other hand, Future I-530 from Pine Bluff to Monticello is SIU 28 of the Congressionally designated I-69 Corridor.  AHTD also conducted a Feasibility Study in 2009 for an I-69 Connector Extension to I-20, which has previously been discussed in the I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread (note the I-53 vs. I-57 speculation about the corridor in that thread). I would suggest keeping discussion about AR 530/ Future I-530 and AHTD's I-69 Connector Extension study in the I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread until if and when a firm plan to redesignate I-530 as I-57 is presented.

The Ghostbuster

I personally don't see 530 becoming part of 57, but stranger things have happened in the world of highways.

jbnv

Quote from: Grzrd on May 04, 2016, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 04, 2016, 12:48:04 PM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 12:26:38 PM
does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.
I think it would be correct to include I-530 in here. Title it "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps I-530)".

As far as I know, the idea of redesignating I-530 as I-57, although meritorious, is still in the Fictional realm.  ...  I would suggest keeping discussion about AR 530/ Future I-530 and AHTD's I-69 Connector Extension study in the I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread until if and when a firm plan to redesignate I-530 as I-57 is presented.

Change my proposed title to "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps more)". Are discussions about proposed highways completely banned from the regional boards? If not, then I think it is fair to talk about proposals for existing or planned routes, even if these ideas are of our own creation. Someone has to talk about it to get the board rolling.

Extending I-57 to Arkansas opens points of discussion for Louisiana. Surely Louisiana would be interested in connecting Monroe to Little Rock. From there, we can take the interstate down US 165, improving the connections to Alexandria and Lake Charles. This is more likely to happen on Louisiana's thin budget than Interstate 69, or Interstate 14 for that matter.

But if discussing such ideas is verboten in this forum, then so be it.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2016, 04:26:14 PM
I personally don't see 530 becoming part of 57, but stranger things have happened in the world of highways.

If US-67 is designated I-57 from Little Rock north, it makes perfect sense all the way down to Alexandria.

But you get touchy about open dicussions.

jbnv

Also, considering the title of this thread is still "Future I-30/US 67," it's rich to criticize me for putting speculation into the title.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Road Hog

I changed the thread title for this post!   :spin:

Once the extension to US 63 in Walnut Ridge is complete and open, then Arkansas is more likely to get the I-57 designation since it'll terminate at a major NHS highway.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that an Interstate tag will obligate the state to finish the rest of it as a full freeway, and not as an expressway or five-laner.

froggie

Pretty sure I've seen Arkansas interests (aside from this latest Walnut Ridge article) pushing the I-30 designation, not I-57.

Regardless of whether it's I-30 or I-57, it'll be a moot point for decades, as nobody in politics is willing to raise the level of capital that would be needed to finish an Interstate-grade roadway.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Road Hog on May 05, 2016, 01:49:28 AM
I changed the thread title for this post!   :spin:

Once the extension to US 63 in Walnut Ridge is complete and open, then Arkansas is more likely to get the I-57 designation since it'll terminate at a major NHS highway.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that an Interstate tag will obligate the state to finish the rest of it as a full freeway, and not as an expressway or five-laner.

Couldn't AR and MO slap "Future I-57" shields on the expressway segments from Walnut Ridge to Popular Bluff/Sikeston and delay full freeway upgrades?

I'm still not so sold on I-57, though, as the designation. I-30 made even less sense to me, but, unless we're declaring I-57 a diagonal; I'd still prefer I-53 for US 67 and I-51 (or even an I-51/I-53 concurrence) for I-530. But, as long as they make it an Interstate, I'm willing to hold my nose.

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: froggie on May 05, 2016, 07:37:00 AM
Pretty sure I've seen Arkansas interests (aside from this latest Walnut Ridge article) pushing the I-30 designation, not I-57.

Regardless of whether it's I-30 or I-57, it'll be a moot point for decades, as nobody in politics is willing to raise the level of capital that would be needed to finish an Interstate-grade roadway.

Most Arkansans could care less if it's 30, 57 or any other number, it's the interstate shield that matters. The CoCs of towns like Cabot, Searcy, Bald Knob, and Newport certainly don't care what a bunch of road enthusiasts on a message board think.

I like the future possibility of an Interstate that could stretch from Chicago to Alexandria maybe even Lake Charles LA. It's all fog and mist right now , but could happen.




As a Cubs fan, I'll call it my Wrigley Expressway or  Trail of Shattered Dreams

I-39

Quote from: froggie on May 05, 2016, 07:37:00 AM
Pretty sure I've seen Arkansas interests (aside from this latest Walnut Ridge article) pushing the I-30 designation, not I-57.

Regardless of whether it's I-30 or I-57, it'll be a moot point for decades, as nobody in politics is willing to raise the level of capital that would be needed to finish an Interstate-grade roadway.

It will be a lot easier to finish than I-49 though. They only have a grand total of a little over 50 miles of new Interstate-grade freeway that needs to be built (between Walnut Ridge, AR and the US 160/MO 158 interchange south of Poplar Bluff, MO). Then it's just a matter of Missouri converting the remaining expressway segments between Sikeston and the US 160/MO 158 interchange to freeway, which I don't think that will be as hard as some people are saying. Yes, I know funding will be an issue (particularly on the Missouri side).

Arkansas just needs to figure out what to do north of Walnut Ridge (i.e. what alignment to build), then everything else should fall into place.

I-39

And FYI, there are NO plans to continue I-57 down the I-530 corridor. That's just speculation and should be discussed in the fictional highways section. I-530 won't be finished for decades anyway (if ever) because I-69 is still decades away from being finished (if it ever is, at the rate it is going, it will be a century before it is).

US71

#273
Everyone KNOWS how business exploded in Jonesboro after US 63 became I-555. Same road, same worn pavement, but a new name. </sarcasm>
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

jbnv

Quote from: I-39 on May 05, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
And FYI, there are NO plans to continue I-57 down the I-530 corridor. That's just speculation and should be discussed in the fictional highways section.

Then this topic needs to be renamed to "US 67 between Little Rock and Poplar Bluff," because there are no plans to assign either I-30 or I-57 to this highway. That's just speculation inspired by chatter from a Senator and local businesspeople.

Nobody said that there are any plans to continue I-57 down I-530.

I'd appreciate clarification from the admins on what degree of speculation is tolerated in the regional boards.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge



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.