I-49 Coming to Missouri

[sparker]

29 should end at the 35 split, there's no reason for it to go to the downtown loop.  the entire northern leg needs to be redesigned, realign main st, make every cross street cross, and tie 169 directly into the NW corner of the loop, remove that bs 70 does in kansas completely, and sign it on 670, kill 670.  also redesign that mess at sr 9.

It should be. I thought the duplex was there becasue it was planned to be extended farther south. But since US 71 became I-49 and not I-29 there is no reason for it to be there. MM1 is at the spit with I-35 anyways so no exits would have have to be changed to reflect the new mileage.

I-29's duplexed strictly for informative purposes -- to let drivers know that that particular alignment north from downtown leads to I-29 as well as I-35.  The same thing could be accomplished by "TO I-29" signage on the approaches to NB I-35, with a reassurance shield/sign or two scattered along NB I-35. 

And -- at the risk of verging on fictional here -- killing I-670 and replacing it with the I-70 main line would free up that number for use on MO 370 in metro St. Louis -- just a thought!

[GreenLanternCorps]

AHTD (soon to be ARDOT) apparently announced to the Arkansas Highway Commission that it will submit a joint application with MoDOT to finally complete the Bella Vista Bypass during the next round of FASTLANE and/or TIGER grant applications (p. 22/148 of pdf):

In ARDOT's July 26, 2017 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission, they informed the Commission that they will submit the joint application for the Bella Vista Bypass as an INFRA grant application by the November 2 deadline (pp. 25-26/85 of pdf):



Also, for the November 15 letting, ARDOT is tentatively planning to add the other two lanes to the majority of the Bella Vista Bypass:




Slowly, but surely ...............

On the next page of the PDF, it also States the final 7.1 miles of the Bella Vista Bypass is up for letting as a combination project.

LGL64VL

Per the above on the I-49 Arkansas thread, it looks Like Arkansas is going to push to finish I-49 (Bella Vista Bypass) to the state line.  Has there been any movement on this in Missouri?

[Anthony_JK]

[...]

Per the above on the I-49 Arkansas thread, it looks Like Arkansas is going to push to finish I-49 (Bella Vista Bypass) to the state line.  Has there been any movement on this in Missouri?

Considering that Missouri is a joint applicant in the INFRA grant application for the BVB, I'd say that they are as committed to doing this as Arkansas is.

[GreenLanternCorps]

DOH! I missed that...

Still deserves a mention on this thread, though.

[mvak36]

29 should end at the 35 split, there's no reason for it to go to the downtown loop.  the entire northern leg needs to be redesigned, realign main st, make every cross street cross, and tie 169 directly into the NW corner of the loop, remove that bs 70 does in kansas completely, and sign it on 670, kill 670.  also redesign that mess at sr 9.

It should be. I thought the duplex was there becasue it was planned to be extended farther south. But since US 71 became I-49 and not I-29 there is no reason for it to be there. MM1 is at the spit with I-35 anyways so no exits would have have to be changed to reflect the new mileage.

I-29's duplexed strictly for informative purposes -- to let drivers know that that particular alignment north from downtown leads to I-29 as well as I-35.  The same thing could be accomplished by "TO I-29" signage on the approaches to NB I-35, with a reassurance shield/sign or two scattered along NB I-35. 

And -- at the risk of verging on fictional here -- killing I-670 and replacing it with the I-70 main line would free up that number for use on MO 370 in metro St. Louis -- just a thought!

I still think that should be I-370. If they reapplied with that number to AASHTO they should get it. But the state has too many other roads issues to worry about right now.

[mvak36]

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2017/sep/09/missouri-money-woes-to-delay-bella-vist/?news-arkansas-nwa

Basically, nothing new. Won't get it till at least 2021. Only hope is that INFRA grant.

[Grzrd]

So if the voters approve the gas tax hike in MO this fall, could we FINALLY see the Bella Vista Bypass finished?

(above quote from I-49 in Arkansas thread)

As I-39 mentioned, Missouri voters will vote on a proposed ten-cent gas increase in November:

Missouri voters will have the opportunity in November to vote on a tax increase that would fund road and bridge projects across the state.
Lawmakers during the week of May 14 sent a proposed 10-cent gas tax hike to the Nov. 6 ballot for voters to consider. Legislative researchers project it could raise as much as $293 million by fiscal year 2027 to go toward maintenance and repair of roads and bridges, as well as the Missouri State Highway Patrol.
The gas tax is a flat, per-gallon amount collected on fuel sold within the state; it does not change with the fluctuating prices of the fuel itself. The proposal now before voters very nearly aligns with a recommendation made earlier this year by a 23-member state task force that suggested an increase of 10 cents for gasoline and 12 cents for diesel fuel ....
Priority projects
Joplin-area leaders have a wish list of projects they say are needed in the metropolitan area: the widening of Interstate 44 to six lanes from the state line to Springfield, construction of a west bypass to connect Missouri Highway 171 to I-44, the widening of Highway 171 to accommodate traffic from Carl Junction to Carthage, a bypass around Bella Vista, Ark., that connects with I-49 in McDonald County.

I think that so many projects are screaming for money that even if the measure passes it is unlikely that anything will happen on the Bella Vista Bypass quickly. The current best hope is an INFRA grant.

[Bobby5280]

If I had to bet on the outcome of the Missouri gas tax vote I'd bet on it failing in resounding fashion. Most voters think you can fund new highway projects and existing road maintenance with pocket change for chewing gum. They're not interested in getting a clue of how much the stuff costs.

[US71]

If I had to bet on the outcome of the Missouri gas tax vote I'd bet on it failing in resounding fashion. Most voters think you can fund new highway projects and existing road maintenance with pocket change for chewing gum. They're not interested in getting a clue of how much the stuff costs.

It's more complicated than that, but that's all I have to say in public.

[I-39]

If I had to bet on the outcome of the Missouri gas tax vote I'd bet on it failing in resounding fashion. Most voters think you can fund new highway projects and existing road maintenance with pocket change for chewing gum. They're not interested in getting a clue of how much the stuff costs.

Actually, I think this measure has a better chance of passing than the sales tax a few years ago. From what I've read, there appears to be more support this time around. I think people are finally realizing that something has to be done here soon, and this tax hike is more fair as it is only paid for by people who use the roads.

I'm not 100% sold it will pass, but I am cautiously optimistic.

[I-39]

I think that so many projects are screaming for money that even if the measure passes it is unlikely that anything will happen on the Bella Vista Bypass quickly. The current best hope is an INFRA grant.

They don't have much to build in Missouri, and they know how important it is to finish it, so I think they will expedite the Bella Vista Bypass if the gas tax increase passes.

But if they did get the INFRA grant, then the money could be used elsewhere, like upgrading the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line to I-57.

[J N Winkler]

Actually, I think this measure has a better chance of passing than the sales tax a few years ago. From what I've read, there appears to be more support this time around. I think people are finally realizing that something has to be done here soon, and this tax hike is more fair as it is only paid for by people who use the roads.

I agree with this analysis.  My recollection is that Governor Nixon scheduled the sales tax increment for the August primary (which typically attracts more conservative voters) rather than the November general election because he considered it regressive and wanted to kill it.  Of course the gas tax itself is regressive, but even in states with a long history of underinvesting in highways, I think there is a growing awareness that it is better to devise other methods to offset the impact of a fuel tax increase on the poor (such as a state-level earned income tax credit) than to postpone highway investment further.

[Henry]

I think that so many projects are screaming for money that even if the measure passes it is unlikely that anything will happen on the Bella Vista Bypass quickly. The current best hope is an INFRA grant.

They don't have much to build in Missouri, and they know how important it is to finish it, so I think they will expedite the Bella Vista Bypass if the gas tax increase passes.

But if they did get the INFRA grant, then the money could be used elsewhere, like upgrading the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line to I-57.

As they say, time will tell.

The Bella Vista Bypass is a more immediate need right now; I-57 can wait.

[skluth]

I think that so many projects are screaming for money that even if the measure passes it is unlikely that anything will happen on the Bella Vista Bypass quickly. The current best hope is an INFRA grant.

They don't have much to build in Missouri, and they know how important it is to finish it, so I think they will expedite the Bella Vista Bypass if the gas tax increase passes.

But if they did get the INFRA grant, then the money could be used elsewhere, like upgrading the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line to I-57.

As they say, time will tell.

The Bella Vista Bypass is a more immediate need right now; I-57 can wait.

There are a lot of more immediate needs in Missouri than I-57. Making I-70 six lanes across the state. Selectively upgrading I-44 to six lanes. Making US 50 four lanes across Missouri. Upgrading US 61 between Wentzville and Troy to freeway. Fixing the complete cluster at I-70/US 63. Probably four-laning US 63 south of Jeff City to Thayer. Upgrading the remaining little bit of US 67 south of Poplar Bluff would be fine - it's only about a dozen miles - but the expense of making it a full interstate is overkill. There's not enough traffic to justify it. Missouri should consider buying the right-of-way to do it. But that would require Missouri to think even a little bit ahead and I have yet to see MODOT or the state legislature do that.

[Bobby5280]

Upgrading the remaining little bit of US 67 south of Poplar Bluff would be fine - it's only about a dozen miles - but the expense of making it a full interstate is overkill. There's not enough traffic to justify it. Missouri should consider buying the right-of-way to do it. But that would require Missouri to think even a little bit ahead and I have yet to see MODOT or the state legislature do that.

MODOT at the very least needs to identify a corridor for I-57 from the US-67/MO-158 exit South of Poplar Bluff down to the AR state line and start acquiring ROW. They need to at least start planning for it before the corridor gets boxed in with development. They may be able to expand a good bit of US-67, but new terrain alignments (such as a bypass of Neelyville) will probably be necessary.

Finishing I-49 should be the top priority. Once the Belle Vista bypass is completed further development of I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana will be able to be far more focused.

Current traffic levels on US-67 between Poplar Bluff and the Arkansas state line aren't enough to justify an Interstate class upgrade. However that will change in a very big way once I-57 is completed between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff. I-57 would become the primary corridor between the gigantic Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth metro areas. Right now most of the traffic going between DFW and Chicago is using I-35 up to Oklahoma City, I-44 to St Louis and then I-55 the rest of the way. I-30 to I-57 is potentially a more direct route. But that depends on how the current I-57 gap is filled.

[ftballfan]

Has MODOT ever thought about making their section of the Bella Vista bypass a toll road?

[US71]

Has MODOT ever thought about making their section of the Bella Vista bypass a toll road?

Not to my knowledge.

[I-39]

Upgrading the remaining little bit of US 67 south of Poplar Bluff would be fine - it's only about a dozen miles - but the expense of making it a full interstate is overkill. There's not enough traffic to justify it. Missouri should consider buying the right-of-way to do it. But that would require Missouri to think even a little bit ahead and I have yet to see MODOT or the state legislature do that.

MODOT at the very least needs to identify a corridor for I-57 from the US-67/MO-158 exit South of Poplar Bluff down to the AR state line and start acquiring ROW. They need to at least start planning for it before the corridor gets boxed in with development. They may be able to expand a good bit of US-67, but new terrain alignments (such as a bypass of Neelyville) will probably be necessary.

Finishing I-49 should be the top priority. Once the Belle Vista bypass is completed further development of I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana will be able to be far more focused.

Current traffic levels on US-67 between Poplar Bluff and the Arkansas state line aren't enough to justify an Interstate class upgrade. However that will change in a very big way once I-57 is completed between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff. I-57 would become the primary corridor between the gigantic Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth metro areas. Right now most of the traffic going between DFW and Chicago is using I-35 up to Oklahoma City, I-44 to St Louis and then I-55 the rest of the way. I-30 to I-57 is potentially a more direct route. But that depends on how the current I-57 gap is filled.

While I agree I-49 is more of a priority, I-57 would be much easier to complete, as it is less miles on less rough terrain.

Missouri should go ahead (if the gas tax hike passes) and finish the four lane US 67 between MO 158 and the state line, even if it is only built to expressway standards to begin with. To avoid another Bella Vista bypass like situation, ArDOT and MoDOT should focus on building the Corning to Poplar Bluff section of US 67/Future I-57 as it is probably the easiest of the remaining sections and it requires cross border cooperation.

[Bobby5280]

I think the federal government has a greater responsibility to fund the completion of the I-57 gap than leaving it up to state or even local resources. Completion of the I-57 corridor provides greater benefits to regions well outside of that immediate area. I already mentioned the direct DFW to Chicago link. Filling in that gap also would help shorten the driving distance for other Southwest to Northeast region trips.

Completing I-57 might also pull some traffic off other really busy routes, such as the US-69 corridor in Oklahoma between Dallas and Big Cabin (not to mention I-35 up to OKC). The idiots in Atoka, Stringtown and other po-dunk areas along that way that have been blocking Interstate quality upgrades for many years will have their obstructionist strategy come back and bite them square in the ass. They'll see traffic levels and local business activity take a serious hit.

The existing US-67 facility is sufficient for local needs. Taxpayers in Arkansas and Missouri won't see as much benefit from completing that corridor as interests elsewhere in the nation. On the other hand, both Arkansas and Missouri stand to benefit more directly from the completion of I-49. The Northwest part of Arkansas is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The Kansas City metro is a major cross-roads of the Interstate highway system. Completing the Belle Vista Bypass and the gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana would give these areas direct, high speed access to the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention the I-29 corridor up into Canada.

[sparker]

I think the federal government has a greater responsibility to fund the completion of the I-57 gap than leaving it up to state or even local resources. Completion of the I-57 corridor provides greater benefits to regions well outside of that immediate area. I already mentioned the direct DFW to Chicago link. Filling in that gap also would help shorten the driving distance for other Southwest to Northeast region trips.

Completing I-57 might also pull some traffic off other really busy routes, such as the US-69 corridor in Oklahoma between Dallas and Big Cabin (not to mention I-35 up to OKC). The idiots in Atoka, Stringtown and other po-dunk areas along that way that have been blocking Interstate quality upgrades for many years will have their obstructionist strategy come back and bite them square in the ass. They'll see traffic levels and local business activity take a serious hit.

The existing US-67 facility is sufficient for local needs. Taxpayers in Arkansas and Missouri won't see as much benefit from completing that corridor as interests elsewhere in the nation. On the other hand, both Arkansas and Missouri stand to benefit more directly from the completion of I-49. The Northwest part of Arkansas is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The Kansas City metro is a major cross-roads of the Interstate highway system. Completing the Belle Vista Bypass and the gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana would give these areas direct, high speed access to the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention the I-29 corridor up into Canada.

It's hardly surprising that there's developmental activity in the LA/AR/MO region regarding new (although the extended I-49 concept has been active for 27 years), since the area between I-35 and I-55 was largely avoided, at least for N-S-oriented corridors, in the network's original 1956-58 iteration and ignored in the 1968 additions.  Avoidance of the Ozark/Ouachita highlands -- except for I-40 and I-44, exceptions which were necessary for national connectivity, seemed to be on the minds of national planners; punching what's now I-49 through the heart of all that probably was considered not to be a cost-effective prospect during the first couple of decades of Interstate development.  But now that wall has been partially breached; the two newer corridors through and flanking the uplands may be the first of several -- although if & when 49 & 57 are done, it wouldn't surprise me if all parties involved took a long break before taking on any other similar projects (such as something across US 60 from Springfield to Poplar Bluff).  With all the current and planned activity, at least the region can't complain that it's being ignored!       

[skluth]

The existing US-67 facility is sufficient for local needs. Taxpayers in Arkansas and Missouri won't see as much benefit from completing that corridor as interests elsewhere in the nation. On the other hand, both Arkansas and Missouri stand to benefit more directly from the completion of I-49.

I don't think completing I-57 to Little Rock does anything for DFW-CHI traffic. The I-57 extension shaves 10 miles on the corridor from Little Rock to Sikeston. The remaining I-30/57 corridor is identical. I doubt that's enough to divert any current traffic between Dallas and Chicago from whatever companies currently use.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4940893,-88.3096141,14z?hl=en

[sparker]

The existing US-67 facility is sufficient for local needs. Taxpayers in Arkansas and Missouri won't see as much benefit from completing that corridor as interests elsewhere in the nation. On the other hand, both Arkansas and Missouri stand to benefit more directly from the completion of I-49.

I don't think completing I-57 to Little Rock does anything for DFW-CHI traffic. The I-57 extension shaves 10 miles on the corridor from Little Rock to Sikeston. The remaining I-30/57 corridor is identical. I doubt that's enough to divert any current traffic between Dallas and Chicago from whatever companies currently use.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4940893,-88.3096141,14z?hl=en

One of the principal factors regarding the I-57 extension is the extremely high level of truck traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55; not only does that increase the instances of congestion as well as the chances for incidents along that stretch, but results in very high wear & tear to the roadway itself as well as the multitude of bridges there.  I-57 is a relief route, not necessarily a godsend in terms of overall miles traversed.  Removing much of the traffic destined for the upper Midwest from I-40 to the planned alternative has the potential to enhance the efficiency -- not to mention basic safety -- of the regional network.

[skluth]

The existing US-67 facility is sufficient for local needs. Taxpayers in Arkansas and Missouri won't see as much benefit from completing that corridor as interests elsewhere in the nation. On the other hand, both Arkansas and Missouri stand to benefit more directly from the completion of I-49.

I don't think completing I-57 to Little Rock does anything for DFW-CHI traffic. The I-57 extension shaves 10 miles on the corridor from Little Rock to Sikeston. The remaining I-30/57 corridor is identical. I doubt that's enough to divert any current traffic between Dallas and Chicago from whatever companies currently use.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4940893,-88.3096141,14z?hl=en

One of the principal factors regarding the I-57 extension is the extremely high level of truck traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55; not only does that increase the instances of congestion as well as the chances for incidents along that stretch, but results in very high wear & tear to the roadway itself as well as the multitude of bridges there.  I-57 is a relief route, not necessarily a godsend in terms of overall miles traversed.  Removing much of the traffic destined for the upper Midwest from I-40 to the planned alternative has the potential to enhance the efficiency -- not to mention basic safety -- of the regional network.

And what's in this for Missouri other than spending tight highway dollars on a road the state doesn't need? This makes sense if highway spending was done from a national perspective. But it's not something people in Missouri want, at least not many. I live here and haven't heard anyone say US 67 needs to be four lanes to Little Rock, though plenty wanted it upgraded to four lanes between Fredericktown and Poplar Bluff.

There's just not a huge demand for this to be built. People said the same about I-39 in Illinois. But I drove US 51 several times before I-39 was built and it was already very busy, especially once the bridge across the Illinois River was built. OTOH, I drove US 67 from St Louis to Little Rock on my way to Texas about 18 months ago and saw almost no traffic between Poplar Bluff and Pocahontas. This was in contrast to the steady traffic between Festus and Poplar Bluff and also  south of Pocahontas.

If Arkansas wants to get traffic off I-40, they can finish upgrading the AR 18/226 corridor between US 67 and Blytheville and make it a full freeway. It's already being four-laned to support Jonesboro and other NE Arkansas business interests. This would be about the same mileage-wise and also serves traffic wanting to use I-255 across the Mississippi to Tennessee and the Western Kentucky Parkway while avoiding Memphis which doesn't have an effective bypass.

Missouri has more important needs. The biggest quick fix need is Bella Vista. The other big local need is also on the west side of the state, US 71 in KC which is locked in political limbo. Southern Missouri would also prefer upgrading US 63 to Thayer. Too many other priorities come before this. It's a good thing to have on the drawing board. But Missouri doesn't need this until Arkansas figures out how it's going to freeway US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Corning. I'm not sure if Missouri needs this at all.

[bugo]

Avoidance of the Ozark/Ouachita highlands -- except for I-40 and I-44       

I-40 doesn't really go through the Ozarks or the Ouachitas. It runs through the Arkansas River Valley from near North Little Rock to near Webbers Falls. The Ozark foothills begin just north of the Arkansas River but I-40 mostly stays in the valley. There are some hilly areas between Van Buren and Conway but it doesn't go through any really rugged terrain.

[Bobby5280]

I don't think completing I-57 to Little Rock does anything for DFW-CHI traffic. The I-57 extension shaves 10 miles on the corridor from Little Rock to Sikeston.

That would only be the case if the I-57 corridor were literally routed up through Pocahontas on the exising US-67 alignment. With point A being the junction of I-40 and US-67 in North Little Rock and point B being the junction of I-55 and I-57, I see about a 19 mile saving of distance between Dallas and Chicago if I-57 is run parallel to the Union Pacific line between Walnut Ridge and Corning. My method is using the path measuring tool in Google Earth.

Sparker makes a good point about I-57 potentially functioning as a good relief route for I-40.

Nevertheless, completing I-57 does little for Missouri itself in the grand scheme of things. The corridor is really only beneficial to longer distance commerce outside of Missouri.

Now, it still makes sense for Missouri to bring US-60 up to Interstate standards between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston, but that only fits into Missouri's longer term goal of bringing US-60 up to Interstate standards across the southern part of the state from Springfield to Sikeston. Again, that's a project that's of interest to just that specific region rather than the grander national view of the entire Interstate highway system.

As long as the federal government increasingly leaves it up to states to do more of the planning and funding of highway projects we'll such super highway projects take ever longer amounts of time to complete. We'll see states have to choose projects that benefit them more directly rather than those that benefit the larger system. And the end results of the projects will look like something only designed for a specific region rather than something that makes sense for the larger system (which is one reason why I-69 looks so bad for its entire route).