I-57 Approved

[I-39]

Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It's more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

[mvak36]

Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It's more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

I couldn't find a site for the project. Maybe they don't have one yet as it won't start construction till next year. They got the funding through the Governor's Cost Share Program. Here's a list of all the projects selected under that program.

[edwaleni]

Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It's more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.

[sparker]

Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It's more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.

Regarding the Poplar Bluff-to-I-55 segment, that's likely to see upgrades via a series of spot improvements (an interchange here, a frontage road closing off access there, etc.) on the extant ROW, since these can be shoehorned in one at a time while the more extensive programs such as the US 67 segment are in process.  It's similar to the AOS along US 61, with a combination of expressway interspersed with short freeway sections and a few short stretches of conventional 4-lane with some private access -- but the geometry (once shoulders are dealt with) is adequate for I-standards.  At least there are no RR grade crossings remaining. 

[I-39]

Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It's more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.

So is it going to be four lanes all the way down to state line road? And are they going to do some improvements on the existing four lane section between Route 160 and the end of the frontage road system that they completed in 2014? It seems that section is not fully up to interstate standards.

[edwaleni]

Did anyone see this?

https://www.kait8.com/2020/03/04/gov-parson-visits-transportation-cost-share-project-poplar-bluff-mo/

If I'm reading/watching this right, it looks like MoDOT is moving forward to four lane the remaining US 67 portion between Route 160 and the state line. I can't find any information online about it though.

From reading this, it appears that they will be bringing this up to freeway standards so that it can be part of I-57.  This doesn't take care of the stretches of US 60 that need to be upgraded, but completes a four lane  route to the Arkansas border.  I'm guessing that ADOT might need to go ahead with the plans for the last 30 or so miles.

Upgrading the existing four lane sections of US 60/67 should be the last thing done IMO. It's more pressing to do the new terrain sections since that takes longer.

Does anyone have any maps of the proposed improvements? How did MoDOT get the funding for this?

According to the local press, the effort is being funded as a combo deal with local, county and state contributions to the project coffers with a federal match.

As for a project map, I have never seen one for the Missouri side.  As for the Arkansas side, the new route has been discussed in public hearings, specifically the one in Pocahontas, Arkansas because ARDOT was getting feedback on the Walnut Ridge to State Line ROW.

So is it going to be four lanes all the way down to state line road? And are they going to do some improvements on the existing four lane section between Route 160 and the end of the frontage road system that they completed in 2014? It seems that section is not fully up to interstate standards.

Existing US-67 will require some rework, specifically at:

- Outer Road
- County C (old US-67)
- A new bridge/alignment is required at MO-159. MoDOT only built 3 lanes for this exit. A new bridge for northbound traffic will be required to meet I-standards. You can see they prepared for this by already building in the landscaping for a future overpass.

Everything else south of that will be all new road to the state line.

[mvak36]

https://www.modot.org/node/18505

MoDOT, City of Poplar Bluff Begin Planning for Future I-57
Reevaluation of U.S. 67 Environmental Impact Statement Underway

SIKESTON-As part of the planning stages for the conversion of U.S. Route 67 to Interstate 57, the Missouri Department of Transportation and City of Poplar Bluff are currently reevaluating the Route 67 Environmental Impact Statement completed in 2005.

The Future I-57 project would include upgrading 10 miles of Route 67 to four lanes on a new alignment from the Route 160 interchange to two miles north of the Arkansas state line near County Road 274 in Butler County.

Interested persons may review the EIS and share their thoughts at https://www.modot.org/us-67-future-i-57-butler-county. Comments will be accepted through Monday, May 18 as part of the reevaluation of the EIS.

The EIS examines environmental impacts, such as socioeconomic, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, natural resources, and cultural resources.

MoDOT expects the reevaluation of the EIS to be completed in July 2020. The reevaluation will assist MoDOT in avoiding, minimizing or mitigating project impacts to the natural and human environment.

For more information, please visit https://www.modot.org/us-67-future-i-57-butler-county or contact MoDOT Project Manager Tim Pickett at (573) 472-9003 or Area Engineer David Wyman at (573) 472-9021.

###


Online Comment Form: https://www.modot.org/form/share-your-thoughts-us-67-future

As mentioned in the news release, the project's site: https://www.modot.org/us-67-future-i-57-butler-county

[edwaleni]

Just a refresher on the planned corridors in Arkansas.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

Just a refresher on the planned corridors in Arkansas.

I Honetly would pick B to save Funding as it wouldnt take as many turns and it would be pretty straight,

[ilpt4u]

B is essentially the Union Pacific Railroad route...Railroads built their routes where they did for reasons

Local interests tend to favor C, apparently

Earlier in the thread there is quite a discussion on the UPRR route (B) vs the Pocahontas route (C)

I didn't realize A was even in the running

[AcE_Wolf_287]

I didn't realize A was even in the running

I DIdnt think that either due to it running so far East of US 67

[Bobby5280]

Since the "A" route alternative is so crooked that not only puts in the running but also makes it a leading candidate since the US currently loves really crooked freeway routes.


Obviously I prefer the "B" alternative.

[US71]

Alternate C appears to run very close to current 67. FWIW that routing appears to cover old 67, so I wonder about the subdivisions along there.

[Bobby5280]

I think the Pocahontas plan would have I-57 bypass the town to the SE, going around the airport and industrial park on that side of the town.

A few things are already on the side of the "B" alternative. It's the most direct, straight route. But not only that, the existing US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge (where the current freeway ends) was already built with that "B" alternative route in mind. The existing bridges and grading for ghost ramps is pointing the future highway toward the rail line and AR-34. It's going to be considerably cheaper just completing that existing interchange rather than having to rebuild much of it to send the highway up to Pocahontas.

[sprjus4]

A few things are already on the side of the "B" alternative. It's the most direct, straight route. But not only that, the existing US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge (where the current freeway ends) was already built with that "B" alternative route in mind. The existing bridges and grading for ghost ramps is pointing the future highway toward the rail line and AR-34. It's going to be considerably cheaper just completing that existing interchange rather than having to rebuild much of it to send the highway up to Pocahontas.

Look at the map again. The interchange accommodates all alternatives. All alternatives go straight following the ghost ramps toward SH-34, then split off in their perspective directions north of there.

Alternative C is only a few miles longer than Alternative B, and actually serves a population center (Pocahontas - Population 6,600) as opposed to a few small villages with only a couple hundred people each.

It would be worthwhile for Arkansas to choose Alternative B, and likely will.

It would bypass the town on the southeastern side, likely with one or two interchanges on the outskirts to serve access. There's greater potential for some sort of economic activity and connectivity there as opposed to an interchange at a village of 200 people, just to save a couple miles and serve nobody besides solely long distance traffic.

You might not like that interstates don't follow the most direct paths (37 miles vs. 40 miles), but keep in mind its the states that are funding them largely, not the federal government. They are going to chose routes that accomplish the needs of long distance while also adding a few miles here and there to also serve their own localities.

[Bobby5280]

It would be worthwhile for Arkansas to choose Alternative B, and likely will.

You probably meant that "worthwhile" judgment on the "C" Alternative, the one going up by Pocahontas.

The exact alignments of I-57 Northeast of Walnut Ridge have not been decided. The blobs representing the "A," "B" and "C" alternatives don't mean all that much. Nevertheless it is very obvious the original intention in that US-67/US-412 interchange design was having the freeway main lanes merge parallel with AR-34 and the rail line. The bends in those concept routes are all after the fact.

Along the "B" Alternative route there is very little in the way of homes or other buildings to acquire and clear to make room for the highway. I-57 would still have to bypass College City to the East and the industrial park in Pocahontas well to the East to avoid running into existing properties. Upgrading along the existing US-67 route is a no-go. Crossing the Black River to the East of Pocahontas is more complicated and expensive than where the rail line crosses the river farther Northeast. The town of Pocahontas is a place, but is a town of 6000 people really enough to justify bending an Interstate out of a straight path? There is a lot of larger towns than that which have been bypassed by near and relatively far by Interstate corridors.

[MikieTimT]

Since the "A" route alternative is so crooked that not only puts in the running but also makes it a leading candidate since the US currently loves really crooked freeway routes.


Obviously I prefer the "B" alternative.

Those who prefer the B route, I completely get it and wish that it would win out.  However, the other two alternatives are not to be dismissed.  Obviously it's the most direct route, but everyone has heard of Pocahontas' big push for Alternative C.  Pocahontas has a couple of large, well-connected families, which in a state as small as Arkansas, unfortunately means more than it rightly should.  It also more closely matches the current US-67 routing, so it does have that going for it, but puts an Interstate highway right at the confluence of 3 rivers, all of which are flood-prone, so it's got that as well as a few extra miles of highly raised road going against it.  And before anyone dismisses Alternative A, they'd better consider what it has going for it.  Running I-57 along US-412 (which is already in the process of improvements) obviously saves some money for a small stretch.  One of the rivers (Fourche River) around the Pocahontas area is bypassed completely with that alternative, and crosses the Cache and Black Rivers in less flood prone areas (and both are seemingly always in flood this time of year), negating a tiny bit of the need for elevation compared to the other 2 alternatives.  And thirdly, it puts I-57 closer to Paragould, which is actually a much larger city than Pocahontas, so it would actually serve more Arkansans, which when dealing with funding coming greatly from Arkansas to begin with, has some appeal to those who control the routing.  US-412 is already being upgraded between Walnut Ridge and Paragould, so that addresses what little connectivity increases would be needed for Paragould to be well connected for Alternative A.  US-67 both to Walnut Ridge and Corning from Pocahontas would almost certainly get similar improvements if alternatives A or B are selected, so Pocahontas will be thrown a bone regardless of the alternative selected.  I'd love for more people outside the state to kick in on more of the funding to make the most efficient route for bypassing Memphis and connecting Texas to all parts northeast, but if left to Arkansas to fund the lion's share, I pretty well know how my state is going to choose.  And it's likely NOT B.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
If the political atmosphere in & around Pocahontas is as described above, then some version of "C" will be the likely choice, regardless of floodplain issues and the corresponding alignment and structural expenses that'll be incurred as a result.  Obviously, for the purpose of providing a throughput routing "B" is the obvious choice; even though "A" might completely avoid the floodplain to the east, the UP (former MP) main line is placed where it is because it doesn't display recurring flooding problems; it's a major main line, and RR management would have moved it long ago if that were the case.  Nevertheless, if politics continues to drive the alignment process, and Pocahontas interests are able to prevail in this instance, then some semblance of "C", with as much use of the present US 67 roadway as is feasible, will likely be the choice.  They want their businesses to directly benefit from the presence of I-57, and placing a river between the corridor and the town doesn't accomplish that.     

[edwaleni]

The stub at Walnut Ridge favors no corridor.

The Pocahontas Route would turn north and pass east of the old airbase. An exit would be installed at AR-304 to service the business park. There are plans to expand that biz park with a logistics center.

The estimates for the the bridges over the Black River were almost the same regardless if it crossed at Pocahontas or south of Corning. 

A business route exit would be built northeast of Pocahontas where US-67 makes its turn to the NE.

There are are no subdivisions or adjoining property creep all the way from Pochahontas to just west of Corning at Grassylead.

From Grassylead to Corning, there is property creep and it really comes down to when ARDOT starts the Corning Bypass, at the Corning Airport (3 miles), or at the State Hatchery (3.5 miles).

While I relate to direct routing of freeways in planning, I have also seen many a town die due to the far away bypass of a new interstate.

With a difference of only a couple of miles, I think the Pocahontas Route is the best of both worlds.

[I-39]

Building C would be much more expensive due to the floodplain. B is the only one that makes sense.

Regardless, it's almost certain the Corning bypass will go on the west side of town, so ARDOT should go ahead and plan/construct the Corning-MO state line first since it is more straightforward.

Why isn't the MoDOT segment going all the way to the border? Is there still uncertainty as to where it will meet?

[AcE_Wolf_287]

Building C would be much more expensive due to the floodplain. B is the only one that makes sense.

Regardless, it's almost certain the Corning bypass will go on the west side of town, so ARDOT should go ahead and plan/construct the Corning-MO state line first since it is more straightforward.

The B doesn't run into any houses, C Would be favored by the 2 Towns nearby but the exit onto the highway is only c a couple of miles and impretty sure ARDOT and afford Millions of more money being wasted in a little turn that wont matter

[edwaleni]

Building C would be much more expensive due to the floodplain. B is the only one that makes sense.

Regardless, it's almost certain the Corning bypass will go on the west side of town, so ARDOT should go ahead and plan/construct the Corning-MO state line first since it is more straightforward.

Why isn't the MoDOT segment going all the way to the border? Is there still uncertainty as to where it will meet?

As for the floodplain, I checked FEMA's flood maps for the area.

The "C" route would be in floodplain from the Black River along US-67 until it crosses the Current River, then it would be high & dry to the Corning Bypass.

The "B" route would hit floodplain south of the Black River and be in it all the way to Corning. (In fact the UP railroad shows up as a long line that is above the floodplain)

Both routes would be in floodplain if the Corning Bypass goes east of town.  If it goes west, the "C" route would miss it completely.

If the "B" route goes west for the bypass then it will hit the Cypress Creek floodplain.

So with regards to the cost of passing through the local floodplains, it is nearly the same distance for each corridor that will have to be elevated. (4.9 miles for "C", 4.7 miles for "B")

As for where they will meet at the state line, the two DOT's don't have a MOU yet.

[I-39]

I do wonder how MoDOT will fix the issues with the most recent US 67 upgrades completed in 2013. The MO 158 interchange will have to be upgraded to meet interstate standards, they should convert it to a standard diamond interchange. Additionally, the pavement north of there with the concrete barrier has narrower shoulders than current interstate standards.

And that EIS document is not completely specific as to where the interchange at MO 142 in Neelyville will go. Will it impact the Corkwood conservation area? If so, that could be an issue.

[Roadgeekteen]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

[US71]

Is there any reason why Arkansas isn't signing it's US 67 freeway as I-57 like they signed I-540 as I-49? Is it not up to standards?

Maybe because it's not complete?