News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Future I-57/US 67

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Grzrd

#200
Quote from: Road Hog on January 23, 2016, 09:57:02 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on January 23, 2016, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2016, 03:00:46 PM
Can someone remove the Future I-30 from the subject heading?
Or maybe change it to "Future I-57"
:)
LIKE!
No offense intended to St. Louis, but a more direct route between Chicago and Dallas is much more of a benefit to the nation's economy than some little-used pork project so a governor can go watch the Cardinals play.
Quote from: US71 on March 10, 2016, 01:04:17 PM
I-555 dedication Friday 11-1 in Jonesboro.
(bottom quote from AR: Future I-555 thread)

The article linked by US71 includes an audio clip of an interview with U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, who was instrumental in facilitating the I-555 designation from I-55 to Jonesboro, about the possibility of designating the interstate-grade section of US 67/167 as an interstate.  The reporter first notes as follows:

Quote
While the dedication of I-555 takes place Friday, another stretch of highway that is interstate quality that is not an interstate is Highway 67/167.  I asked Congressman Crawford what is preventing that highway from being an interstate

In his audio response, Rep. Crawford notes that the current 43 mile non-interstate grade stretch from AR 226 to the Missouri state line is the "encumbrance" to an interstate designation.  He then notes that, at least in his mind, the desire is to have an interstate route from Dallas to St. Louis (I interpret his mention of Dallas instead of Little Rock as a preference for an I-30 (not I-57) designation).

He continues his comments by stating that they "could take that same approach" (presumably designate all currently existing interstate-grade sections on US 67/167 now). He then concludes by stating that doing so could make a "huge difference" and that the communities from "Little Rock to Corning" would benefit.

It may well be possible that there will be a push for an I-x30 (or I-x40?) designation from I-40 to Walnut Ridge later this year after the AR 226 to Walnut Ridge section is opened to traffic.


I-39

But have they decided on a route yet? They can't do a Interstate designation if they upgrade the existing route, which I thought that is what they were leaning towards.

Grzrd

#202
Quote from: I-39 on March 11, 2016, 01:56:25 PM
But have they decided on a route yet? They can't do a Interstate designation if they upgrade the existing route, which I thought that is what they were leaning towards.

To my knowledge, AHTD has neither selected a route nor decided what type of facility will be built. I believe Rep. Crawford was simply commenting on the current I-40 to AR 226 interstate-grade section (as well as the soon to be completed AR 226 to Walnut Ridge interstate-grade section). I think those sections could be designated as an I-x30 (or I-x40?), regardless of whether the remainder to the Missouri state line is ever built as an interstate-grade facility.

The Ghostbuster

I think the US 67 freeway is too long to be a 3-digit Interstate. Give it a 2-digit Interstate designation, or leave it US 67.

wdcrft63

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 11, 2016, 05:02:41 PM
I think the US 67 freeway is too long to be a 3-digit Interstate. Give it a 2-digit Interstate designation, or leave it US 67.
It can simply be I-30. There are several examples of 2di's that simply end, at not a coast. A good precedent is I-26: Tennessee asked for and got permission to add the former I-181 to I-26, so I-26 now ends at Kingsport.

Bobby5280

I-30 is a major Interstate designation (a 2di route ending in a "0" or "5"), even though it's not an especially long Interstate. But its end points are similar to how other major Interstate routes end.

Terminus points of major Interstates land in three types of places: 1.: at an interchange with another Interstate highway (usually another major Interstate), 2: on/near an international border, 3: near an ocean or large body of water (such as Lake Superior).

If the US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge was to be designated as I-30 then at least some kind of long term plan would need to be in place to ultimately extend I-30 farther Northeast into Missouri and likely to the I-55 and I-57 interchange near Sikeston. Simply ending I-30 at Walnut Ridge would be strange.

Several 2-digit Interstate highways have at least one of their ends landing at not so major points (I-2, I-26, I-27, I-39, I-44, I-72, I-96). I-49 and I-69 are being extended, slowly. I-73 and I-74 are being extended even more slowly. I-30 would wind up in either one of those groups.

Wayward Memphian

Arkansas needs not fall back on doing things halfass like it has so many times before and build this to interstate standard to the line. I-555 should eventually connect to this. They'll have to upgrade ARK 226 to US49 to interstate standard but they'll let curb cuts along it till then drive up the costs in the future and then build a southern connector from US49 to I-555 around Bay. My reasoning for this isn't just only a Dallas/LR/St. Louis interstate but to offer a relief route around the Boothill in case of a major Seismic event and lots of damage to I-55. It also ties into my fantasy of seeing I-22 extended to I-35 in OK by using I-555 to Walnut Ridge and parts of existing US 412 and new alignments of US412 across Northern Arkansas and Oklahoma. Along with a new northern and southern bridge for the Memphis area that completes an entire loop of the city using TN358/I-269.

froggie

Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2016, 12:04:49 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
Walnut Ridge/Hoxie would due to US 63 and US 412 on the criteria you state.

NE2

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2016, 12:04:49 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
AR 226 is on the NHS per federal law: "The following are high priority corridors on the National Highway System: [...] 52. The route in Arkansas running south of and parallel to Arkansas State Highway 226 from the relocation of United States Route 67 to the vicinity of United States Route 49 and United States Route 63." It's also in as a principal arterial.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

wdcrft63

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2016, 12:04:49 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
I can see that FHWA wouldn't be happy with AR 226 as the end of an interstate designation. But they'd be OK with Walnut Ridge, wouldn't they?

froggie

Probably would be okay with Walnut Ridge.  But the freeway isn't completed to Walnut Ridge yet.  Of course, given the time the process takes, it might be completed by the time FHWA would reach a decision.

US71

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2016, 06:50:43 PM
Probably would be okay with Walnut Ridge.  But the freeway isn't completed to Walnut Ridge yet.  Of course, given the time the process takes, it might be completed by the time FHWA would reach a decision.


I'm guessing 67 to Hoxie will be ready by this Fall, next Spring at the latest. From what I saw last week, all that is left to finish are the ramps connecting the highway with US 63.

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

KamKam

Regardless U.S. 67 Between AR 226 and U.S. 63 is almost done and I can't wait to bypass through those towns between AR 226 and Hoxie!  :clap:

US71

Quote from: KamKam on March 31, 2016, 06:29:48 PM
Regardless U.S. 67 Between AR 226 and U.S. 63 is almost done and I can't wait to bypass through those towns between AR 226 and Hoxie!  :clap:
But you'll miss the cool stuff like abandoned pavement and old bridges :(
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

capt.ron

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2016, 12:04:49 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
Only area where 67/167 isn't up to (modern) interstate standards is in Jacksonville with its incredibly short on-off ramps (think I-5 in Los Angeles County) and narrow shoulders from Exit 11 to the Main St. overpass.
Of course, once the widening project from north of AR (I) 440 to Exit 16 is completed, it will be fully interstate quality.


Road Hog

I humbly submit I-140 as a proposal for the temp designation.

Don't understand the recent phobia against 1xx spur designations. Anything 100+ miles is worthy of a lower number. (It's 102 miles from McCain Mall to AR 226 at the moment and will be obviously longer once the extension is complete.)

Also, it kicks the can of I-57 vs. I-30 down the road for a couple of decades.

US71

Quote from: Road Hog on April 02, 2016, 02:56:31 AM
I humbly submit I-140 as a proposal for the temp designation.

Don't understand the recent phobia against 1xx spur designations. Anything 100+ miles is worthy of a lower number. (It's 102 miles from McCain Mall to AR 226 at the moment and will be obviously longer once the extension is complete.)

Also, it kicks the can of I-57 vs. I-30 down the road for a couple of decades.

740 would be better, given there's AR 140 at Marked Tree.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

The Ghostbuster

740 was proposed in the mid 80's according to kurumi.com, but it was not approved. If I had to pick a number, I would make it Interstate 30, although they would have to renumber the exits, of course.

mvak36

If they name it I-57 instead of I-30, they wouldn't have to renumber the exits.  :awesomeface: :poke:
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

codyg1985

Maybe if it was designated as I-57 then it would put pressure on officials to do what needs to be done to finish it between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

wdcrft63

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2016, 02:37:36 PM
740 was proposed in the mid 80's according to kurumi.com, but it was not approved. If I had to pick a number, I would make it Interstate 30, although they would have to renumber the exits, of course.
Actually, kurumi.com says that "a proposal circulated to designate US 67 from Little Rock to Bald Knob as Interstate 740. This never came to fruition." It's not clear from this note whether a formal proposal was rejected.

I-39

I think they should wait until they figure out what the heck to do north of Walnut Ridge before deciding on an Interstate number. At the rate it is going, it will be another decade before they even figure out an alignment and whether or not to continue building to Interstate-standards.

Besides, I thought they were leaning towards improving the existing US 67 north of Walnut Ridge. Is that still true?

US71

Quote from: I-39 on April 02, 2016, 06:46:02 PM
I think they should wait until they figure out what the heck to do north of Walnut Ridge before deciding on an Interstate number. At the rate it is going, it will be another decade before they even figure out an alignment and whether or not to continue building to Interstate-standards.

Besides, I thought they were leaning towards improving the existing US 67 north of Walnut Ridge. Is that still true?

I'm not sure they've decided what to do.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

KamKam

There's no telling what they'll do North of Walnut Ridge, but based on the North end of the little Bypass North of U.S. 412 leads to a clue of them possibly had plans of continuing the freeway Northeast skipping through Pocahontas. But that was in the past



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.