News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Future I-57/US 67

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

Previous topic - Next topic

SteveG1988

Quote from: RBBrittain on July 11, 2016, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 11, 2016, 08:45:35 AM
3: Black River Truss Bridge on US67 at Pocahontas is closed. All traffic diverted to the 1986 girder span. 40 ton weight limit both directions now.
I believe AHTD is replacing the truss bridge. Still only tangential to this discussion; even if Future I-30/57 is routed thru the Pocahontas area it definitely won't be over these bridges. They might be used for an upgraded, non-freeway US 67, but if bypassed completely Pocahontas will still need that replacement bridge to maintain four-lane access to Walnut Ridge.

IMO, environmental considerations will likely force any new-location replacement for US 67 (freeway or not) to bypass Pocahontas, unless its political pull overwhelms both that and Corning's preference for the other route. Any new route near Pocahontas would require either a separate crossing of the Current River (and possibly other streams) as well as the Black River, or else a Black River crossing much closer to Dave Donaldson/Black River WMA than Pocahontas itself; any one of those crossings could raise serious wetlands and/or floodplain issues. A route paralleling the railroad thru Knobel to Corning would only have to cross the Black River, most likely close to the existing railroad bridge with minimal wetlands or floodplain issues. (Those issues likely influenced the routing of US 67 from Bald Knob to Newport, which crosses the White River in southern Jackson County to avoid the huge floodplain west of Newport that AR 367 still crosses.)

I know it was Tangental to the discussion, but it felt like a good place to put this, showing that the old 67 corridor will be getting some upgrades.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,


I-39

Quote from: RBBrittain on July 11, 2016, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 11, 2016, 08:45:35 AM
3: Black River Truss Bridge on US67 at Pocahontas is closed. All traffic diverted to the 1986 girder span. 40 ton weight limit both directions now.
I believe AHTD is replacing the truss bridge. Still only tangential to this discussion; even if Future I-30/57 is routed thru the Pocahontas area it definitely won't be over these bridges. They might be used for an upgraded, non-freeway US 67, but if bypassed completely Pocahontas will still need that replacement bridge to maintain four-lane access to Walnut Ridge.

IMO, environmental considerations will likely force any new-location replacement for US 67 (freeway or not) to bypass Pocahontas, unless its political pull overwhelms both that and Corning's preference for the other route. Any new route near Pocahontas would require either a separate crossing of the Current River (and possibly other streams) as well as the Black River, or else a Black River crossing much closer to Dave Donaldson/Black River WMA than Pocahontas itself; any one of those crossings could raise serious wetlands and/or floodplain issues. A route paralleling the railroad thru Knobel to Corning would only have to cross the Black River, most likely close to the existing railroad bridge with minimal wetlands or floodplain issues. (Those issues likely influenced the routing of US 67 from Bald Knob to Newport, which crosses the White River in southern Jackson County to avoid the huge floodplain west of Newport that AR 367 still crosses.)

I've always thought having the future US 67 freeway north of Walnut Ridge run parallel to AR 34/90 via O'Kean, Delaplaine and Knobel to Corning would make more sense than running it near Pocahontas, which would cause a lot of environmental disruptions. In fact, IIRC, I believe the original plan made in the 1990's was to have the US 67 freeway parallel to AR 34/90 until Pocahontas complained it would bypass them.

Regardless, they just need to figure out a route north of Walnut Ridge! It's taking waaaay to long!

ethanhopkin14

Now that U.S. 67 will officially become Interstate 57 (which I am so happy about) instead of the "northern" extension of Interstate 30, does anyone think that Interstate 530 south of Little Rock to Pine Bluff could get renumbered to an extension of the extension of Interstate 57, so that the extension of the current Interstate 530 south of Pine Bluff, to meet with the future Interstate 69 would be an extension of the extension of the extension of Interstate 57?  Enough of the jokes, but I wonder if there is a possibility to keep the number throughout so that travelers north on Interstate 69 would see the major 2 digit Interstate 57, and know that's a major corridor to St. Louis and Chicago.

The Ghostbuster

I doubt Interstate 530 will become an extension of 57. I have a better (although fictional) number for the corridor: Interstate 53!

sparker

OK - slight fictional detour of thread -- I-53 would be just fine for a 530/67 combination -- but only if extended north of Poplar Bluff to I-55 at Festus -- essentially a direct St. Louis access route from 69 (US 60 between Poplar Bluff & Sikeston could stay I-57 as the Chicago cutoff).  Otherwise, the proposed legislation of the corridor as I-57 is perfectly fine as is, with or without I-530! 

Bobby5280

I don't like I-530 as a possible southern extension of I-57. The US-67 roadway (now future I-57) is running on a Northeast to Southwest diagonal pointing more toward Dallas and the I-30 corridor. I-530 takes a fairly hard turn to the South-Southeast.

If I-530 was ever extended down into Louisiana, perhaps to Monroe and Alexandria, then I would be all for calling it I-53. For now, as a freeway just going to Pine Bluff I think I-530 is good enough. If the road can be fully finished to the I-69 corridor and I-69 itself is finished then perhaps I-530 could be renamed, perhaps to I-630 or I-830. But I don't think very many people care enough to do that.

US71

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 22, 2016, 10:43:30 AM
I don't like I-530 as a possible southern extension of I-57. The US-67 roadway (now future I-57) is running on a Northeast to Southwest diagonal pointing more toward Dallas and the I-30 corridor. I-530 takes a fairly hard turn to the South-Southeast.

If I-530 was ever extended down into Louisiana, perhaps to Monroe and Alexandria, then I would be all for calling it I-53. For now, as a freeway just going to Pine Bluff I think I-530 is good enough. If the road can be fully finished to the I-69 corridor and I-69 itself is finished then perhaps I-530 could be renamed, perhaps to I-630 or I-830. But I don't think very many people care enough to do that.

There is already a 630 at Little Rock

It would make no sense to rename 530 as 630 or 830 as even numbers connote a loop or bypass.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Bobby5280

3-digit Interstates can also be even numbered when they begin at one Interstate, such as I-30, and end at another Interstate, like I-69.

jbnv

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 22, 2016, 01:59:14 PM
3-digit Interstates can also be even numbered when they begin at one Interstate, such as I-30, and end at another Interstate, like I-69.

I-495 on Long Island doesn't end at an interstate.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

sparker

The numbering of I-495 on Long Island was simply for local convenience; the LIE had been NY 495 for years before that, and it was thought that a numerical change would be confusing to regional motorists.  God forbid you ask a Hamptons resident to internalize new information into their routines! 

Bobby5280

I had thought the I-495 numbering might have been put there to tie into a half dozen or more different bridge/tunnel proposals to cross the Long Island Sound from Long Island to either Connecticut or Rhode Island, re-attaching into I-495. Pigs will probably be flying before such a crossing is ever built, thanks in part to both politics and the insane cost inflation going on with road building and other civil engineering projects. At this rate it won't be long before it costs a million dollars just to pave a simple drive way.

I-39

Alrighty, enough with the route number debate. Can we get back to focusing on the US 67 upgrades, such as what the route will be for north of Walnut Ridge?

I-39

Finally!

http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0

Now if only they could figure out a route from Walnut Ridge to the state line........

US71

Quote from: I-39 on August 11, 2016, 09:54:23 PM
Finally!

http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0

Now if only they could figure out a route from Walnut Ridge to the state line........

I thought it opened last month?
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

yakra

QuoteThe former section of U.S. 67 from Newport to south Hoxie will now be designated as U.S. 367
Ell Oh Ell, Troll Face, or something.
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

US71

Quote from: yakra on August 12, 2016, 01:49:48 AM
QuoteThe former section of U.S. 67 from Newport to south Hoxie will now be designated as U.S. 367
Ell Oh Ell, Troll Face, or something.

AR 367
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: I-39 on August 11, 2016, 09:54:23 PM
Finally!

http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0

Now if only they could figure out a route from Walnut Ridge to the state line........

I think it's almost safe to assume it'll be at least interstate specs now with the whole Bozeman/I-57 thing.

The Ghostbuster

It will likely be awhile before we see any Interstate 57 shields along US 67.

mvak36

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on August 12, 2016, 09:43:29 AM
I think it's almost safe to assume it'll be at least interstate specs now with the whole Bozeman/I-57 thing.

Something I have been wondering about with this whole thing. Did MO agree to the extension of the interstate? I'm not sure they have the money to do the upgrades.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

I-39

Did the bill that designated the US 67 corridor as future Interstate 57 even get signed into law?

US71

Quote from: mvak36 on August 12, 2016, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on August 12, 2016, 09:43:29 AM
I think it's almost safe to assume it'll be at least interstate specs now with the whole Bozeman/I-57 thing.

Something I have been wondering about with this whole thing. Did MO agree to the extension of the interstate? I'm not sure they have the money to do the upgrades.
Not to my knowledge. I think it's up for a vote in Arkansas in 2017, but I have heard nothing from Missouri.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

KamKam

Yes SO happy that section is now open! It's a blessing for those living in the far Northeast!

US 41

I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Besides that complaint this route will definitely benefit me in the future whenever I drive to Texas in the future. If I ever go back to the Big Bend region I might see if driving through Arkansas is any better than shunpiking I-44 through Oklahoma. The only downside to driving through Arkansas is that I'll have to drive through Dallas and Fort Worth which will probably slow me down unless I drive through them at night.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

US71

Quote from: US 41 on August 13, 2016, 11:43:03 AM
I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Actually 67 follows its old alignment to Cabot, where the northern section of 367 begins. But to have upgraded 367 to freeway standards would likely have destroyed almost every town along the road.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

US 41

Quote from: US71 on August 14, 2016, 09:49:25 AM
Quote from: US 41 on August 13, 2016, 11:43:03 AM
I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Actually 67 follows its old alignment to Cabot, where the northern section of 367 begins. But to have upgraded 367 to freeway standards would likely have destroyed almost every town along the road.


I think you misunderstood. I meant that I wish the 2 lane highway from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge (SR 367) was still signed as US 67 and that the freeway was signed as something else (like SR 567). I'd rather have US 67 running parallel to I-57 than to have SR 367 running parallel to I-57 and US 67 (a pointless concurrency).
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM



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.