AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 3980 times)

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 899
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 01:33:50 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #75 on: December 12, 2017, 01:16:51 PM »

No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).
You are making no sense.

They should have numbered it I-24.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6580
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 57
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 09:58:33 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #76 on: December 12, 2017, 09:02:50 PM »

No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).
You are making no sense.

They should have numbered it I-24.

John Boozman would disagree. After all, he was the one who attached it to the transportation bill.  Gives him bragging rights at reelection time.
Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 918
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: December 16, 2017, 10:33:54 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2017, 08:51:15 PM »

That whole corridor (from I-30 north to I-40 east to Future I-57 north) needs a complete redesign, with a right exit off of I-40 onto I-57 to prevent the “spaghetti effect” that causes so much congestion in that short stretch.

Northbound traffic out of Little Rock shouldn’t need to change lanes to get to Sherwood and points north.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6580
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 57
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 09:58:33 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #78 on: December 13, 2017, 09:33:12 PM »

That whole corridor (from I-30 north to I-40 east to Future I-57 north) needs a complete redesign, with a right exit off of I-40 onto I-57 to prevent the “spaghetti effect” that causes so much congestion in that short stretch.

Northbound traffic out of Little Rock shouldn’t need to change lanes to get to Sherwood and points north.

It's on ARDOT's "to do" list, nowhere close to a priority.
Logged
In search of the road less taken...
and the perfect pizza.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3720
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:06:11 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2017, 09:47:09 AM »

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2821
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:42:02 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2017, 06:21:26 PM »

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4302
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 18
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 10:29:30 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2017, 06:26:20 PM »

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus US 2, 13, 50, and several state routes

Flickr

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1864
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 03:14:38 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2017, 07:21:02 PM »

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

If you were to do that, one of three things could happen that would either truncate I-57 a little bit or eliminate it altogether.  The I-40 junctions with I-30 and Future I-57 are about 2 miles apart, so there would be a short concurrency.  Here are said options:

1. I-30 takes I-40's route to Wilmington, and I-40 takes over I-57 either to Sikeston, or all the way to Chicago.

2. I-40 takes over I-57 to Goreville, IL, then takes over I-24 to Nashville.  When the two cross again in Nashville, I-40 either ends, or resumes its path to Wilmington, NC.  Meanwhile, I-30 either ends, remains on I-40's path to Wilmington, or takes over the rest of I-24 to Nashville.  If neither replaces the Nashville/Chattanooga route, that portion of I-24 could either become a long 3di or an extended I-59, with the stub end from I-59 to to I-75 becoming I-175. 

3. I-40 assumes I-57's route to Mt. Vernon, IL, then takes over the rest of I-64 east to Norfolk, retaining it's (almost) coast to coast interstate status.  Yes, I-40 would end north of future I-42, and I-57 would be an intrastate interstate.  However, I-42 is so short, the violation would barely be noticeable, while I-57 would still be about 260 miles long, which is longer than I-43 and much longer than I-97.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2821
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:42:02 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #83 on: December 15, 2017, 02:14:19 AM »

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

If you were to do that, one of three things could happen that would either truncate I-57 a little bit or eliminate it altogether.  The I-40 junctions with I-30 and Future I-57 are about 2 miles apart, so there would be a short concurrency.  Here are said options:

1. I-30 takes I-40's route to Wilmington, and I-40 takes over I-57 either to Sikeston, or all the way to Chicago.

2. I-40 takes over I-57 to Goreville, IL, then takes over I-24 to Nashville.  When the two cross again in Nashville, I-40 either ends, or resumes its path to Wilmington, NC.  Meanwhile, I-30 either ends, remains on I-40's path to Wilmington, or takes over the rest of I-24 to Nashville.  If neither replaces the Nashville/Chattanooga route, that portion of I-24 could either become a long 3di or an extended I-59, with the stub end from I-59 to to I-75 becoming I-175. 

3. I-40 assumes I-57's route to Mt. Vernon, IL, then takes over the rest of I-64 east to Norfolk, retaining it's (almost) coast to coast interstate status.  Yes, I-40 would end north of future I-42, and I-57 would be an intrastate interstate.  However, I-42 is so short, the violation would barely be noticeable, while I-57 would still be about 260 miles long, which is longer than I-43 and much longer than I-97.

All of which are incredibly convoluted -- and to what end?.............making I-30 longer so it fits the "primacy of the zeroes" theory (which as a PR touchpoint resulted in all those suffixed routes in the late 50's just to make sure cities such as Portland and Philadelphia were on routes divisible by 10!).  As it turned out, it didn't matter; Philly gets along just fine with 76, as does Portland with 84. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 16, 2017, 06:27:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #84 on: December 15, 2017, 06:12:37 PM »

The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 519
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:49 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #85 on: December 15, 2017, 08:30:57 PM »

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.
Is that 2di list long that could be combined? STL with I-64/I-44 (I-50 anyone?) immediately comes to mind, and KC with I-29/I-49 (wouldn’t this be a good I-45 candidate, and the Texas one can kiss my butt?). And now I-30/Future I-57

For Little Rock, I would dump I-30 and make the Dallas to Chicago corridor I-57 entirely, but I’m biased. Heck, I mght even go so far as to give long distance Controls of Dallas and Chicago for the 30/57 corridor, the whole route, even if the designation changes in Little Rock

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.
Lets see, I-74/I-80 “bump” in IL. At least OH is kind enough to give the 76/80 bump a Double Trumpet Interchange. The 74/80 IL bump is a sad Cloverleaf
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 08:52:19 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 16, 2017, 06:27:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #86 on: December 16, 2017, 06:07:56 PM »

I-44 is a diagonal Interstate. I-64 is not. It won't serve any benefit to combine both into one numbered route since there would be a serious angular bend at the mid point of the combined route. And it will be really ridiculous to change it to something like "I-50." Highway number changes carry all kinds of added costs, and not just to the states that have to change all the signs. Businesses have to change of bunch of their marketing and administrative material to update that change.

Some road geeks may not like I-45 being contained entirely within Texas. But that road directly links two of the nation's biggest metropolitan areas. Nothing along the I-29 or I-49 corridors is anywhere near as big as the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metros. I'd personally like to see I-45 extended North from Dallas into Oklahoma to upgrade the US-69 route to Big Cabin. The amount of truck traffic on that route is ridiculous. I prefer I-49 and I-29 keeping their own respective numbers. Both routes have been established a long time. Unfortunately many years will pass before I-49 is finished.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2821
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:42:02 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #87 on: December 16, 2017, 08:39:41 PM »

The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?

Always thought a diagonal from El Paso to Wichita, passing through Roswell, Clovis, and Amarillo, would take care of a lot of needs -- although like most corridors through the Plains, there will be some segments that have low AADT figures.  Probably be a hard sell, however -- most interregional planning efforts still adhere to the short/medium-distance "point-to-point" concept, which long-distance diagonals regularly do not satisfy. 
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 519
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:49 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #88 on: December 16, 2017, 09:13:03 PM »

The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?
Getting a bit Fictional, but I would run I-24 thru more of Southern IL and into Southeast MO, around the far Southern and Western edges of Metro STL, and link it to the Avenue of the Saints. Upgrade the AOTS to Interstate Standard, and then Route number swap I-24 to an Odd (I like I-51) for a Twin Cities to Chattanooga corridor, which would be more N/S than E/W. Keeping I-24 would be ok as well

This would make another Southeast to Northwest Interstate. I-65 is a good SE/NW routing, at least north of Louisville

I-74 wants to be SE/NW from the Quad Cities to the Carolina coast, but I don’t see OH (or KY) nor WV cooperating any time soon
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.