News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-57 Approved

Started by US71, October 11, 2017, 09:09:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

edwaleni

#1325
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 25, 2025, 09:45:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 24, 2025, 11:00:31 AMIt is kind of funny. The I-57 thread is the busiest on the mid-south thread.

The irony is that that I-57 is virtually redundant. The distance from Little Rock to Sikeston Mo will be virtually the same on I-57 versus I-40/I-55.


Now that I-49 is fairly quiet with its Bella Vista Bypass making a logical short term completion down to Alma with a little movement of AR-549 northward during the remainder of the 2020's, I-57 is the next 2DI with a snowball's chance of fairly rapid progress, although Alec Farmer is not only not the Chairman of the Highway Commission anymore, he's not on the Commission at all anymore after 12/30/2024.  Philip Taldo from Tontitown in NWA is now the head, so likely more focus is going to be back on NWA for the foreseeable future, especially with 30 Crossing wrapping up.  I'd expect more traction in the next couple of years on a Siloam Springs Bypass of US-412 that should have happened about 17 years ago.

Don't forget that US-278 between Monticello and McGehee (future I-69) is currently under construction in SE Arkansas as well. Dirt is moving currently at Selma.



sprjus4

Quote from: edwaleni on January 25, 2025, 07:41:08 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on January 25, 2025, 06:57:20 PM3. US 160 to Sikeston is a ways away, probably many years into the future, because there isn't a strong need and funding is limited.  It is already 4-lane divided with no stoplights or stop signs.

Several parts between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston are not up to Interstate standard. It will be done in small segments, not unlike how KYDOT updated the Pennyrile to I-69.
The difference with the Pennyrile is that facility was at least a freeway, with modifications coming primarily with interchanges.

US-60 will require the construction of new overpasses and interchanges as it currently has a mix of interchanges and at-grade intersections. More similar to how US-71 was upgraded to I-49 south of Kansas City a decade ago.

Quote from: MikieTimT on January 25, 2025, 09:29:59 PMOnce the portions south of Poplar Bluff are completed, the facility is functionally done from the perspective of the motoring public, with the remaining work on US-60 to get interstate-grade effectively buying a 5MPH boost in speed limit since Missouri is still only 70MPH on interstates.  Maybe that changes before this project gets completed, though, since Missouri has 4 states bordering on the south and west with 75MPH speed limits on rural limited access 4 lane roads.
I'm not sure what's stopping Missouri from simply posting US-60 as-is at 70 mph... there are other divided highways (not freeway) in the state that are 70 mph. They seem selective with where they do it though.

US-60 is relatively flat and very well built, it could easily handle it. Very long sight lines.

MikieTimT

ARDOT selected to receive $24.9M for Corning Bypass.  This should get dirt moving pretty quickly on the first new terrain segment of Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff.

https://ardot.gov/news/25-011/


The Ghostbuster

AR 657, here we come!

abqtraveler

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 04, 2025, 11:32:18 AMAR 657, here we come!
Unless they decide to sign the bypass as US-67, and the old road through Corning becomes Business 67.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Anthony_JK

Most likely? The new section gets US 67 until the entire corridor is upgraded to I-57, and the old US 67 gets a state label (AR 657??).

I-55

Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 07, 2025, 01:29:16 AMMost likely? The new section gets US 67 until the entire corridor is upgraded to I-57, and the old US 67 gets a state label (AR 657??).

The old section would probably be AR 367 as most former US route alignments follow the 3xx convention (349, 365, and 367 all come to mind)
Transportation Engineer
Let's Go Purdue Basketball Whoosh

The Ghostbuster

If AR 367 gets another extension, I don't see it going beyond Pocahontas. A US 62/AR 367 duplex to Corning seems unnecessary to me. Since US 67 only travels about 7 miles between US 62 in Corning and the Arkansas/Missouri border, I don't see a need to make it part of AR 367. Maybe make it a local road named Old US 67, or extend the N. Missouri Ave. name to the border.

MikieTimT

#1333
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 06, 2025, 11:14:48 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 04, 2025, 11:32:18 AMAR 657, here we come!
Unless they decide to sign the bypass as US-67, and the old road through Corning becomes Business 67.

As I stated back in Aug. 2024, the new terrain facility is going to be signed AR-657, at least until it gets fully connected with Missouri at the line and Walnut Ridge.  The links I did back then are now broken as is typical with ARDOT, but here is the current iteration showing the signage the engineers have plotted out:

https://ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/101172_-plans.pdf#page=142

Also, all of the control cities on these schematics seem to be Little Rock and St. Louis, at least for the short term since US-67 seems to be predominant still at this point of I-57's development.

abqtraveler

That seems a bit counterintuitive, since the freeway that will eventually become I-57 is signed as US-67 from I-40 to Walnut Ridge. So now why all of a sudden would they designate new segments of freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line as AR-567 and not as US-67?
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Molandfreak

Quote from: abqtraveler on February 09, 2025, 08:35:58 PMThat seems a bit counterintuitive, since the freeway that will eventually become I-57 is signed as US-67 from I-40 to Walnut Ridge. So now why all of a sudden would they designate new segments of freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line as AR-567 and not as US-67?
Maybe ArDOT would rather let US 67 have independent utility for at least some of the route, rather than have it confined to an overlap with I-57 through half the state.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

sprjus4

Quote from: abqtraveler on February 09, 2025, 08:35:58 PMThat seems a bit counterintuitive, since the freeway that will eventually become I-57 is signed as US-67 from I-40 to Walnut Ridge. So now why all of a sudden would they designate new segments of freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line as AR-567 and not as US-67?
I'm guessing the plan is to remove the US highways from the freeway and revert them back to the original routes, leaving the freeway exclusively as I-57, all the way from Little Rock. No point in trying to gain AASHTO approval to designate the new bypasses as US-67 just to go back in the future and ask for it to be reverted.

Molandfreak

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 10, 2025, 12:16:49 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 09, 2025, 08:35:58 PMThat seems a bit counterintuitive, since the freeway that will eventually become I-57 is signed as US-67 from I-40 to Walnut Ridge. So now why all of a sudden would they designate new segments of freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line as AR-567 and not as US-67?
I'm guessing the plan is to remove the US highways from the freeway and revert them back to the original routes, leaving the freeway exclusively as I-57, all the way from Little Rock. No point in trying to gain AASHTO approval to designate the new bypasses as US-67 just to go back in the future and ask for it to be reverted.
Even worse than that, it can't be reverted; once a US highway is moved to a freeway, it can't be removed from that freeway in the future, with very few exceptions that have generally had very little to do with the highway becoming redundant at that point. So ArDOT can most likely never relocate US 67 onto AR 367 in the future even if they tried submitting an application for it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

sprjus4

Quote from: Molandfreak on February 10, 2025, 12:43:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 10, 2025, 12:16:49 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 09, 2025, 08:35:58 PMThat seems a bit counterintuitive, since the freeway that will eventually become I-57 is signed as US-67 from I-40 to Walnut Ridge. So now why all of a sudden would they designate new segments of freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line as AR-567 and not as US-67?
I'm guessing the plan is to remove the US highways from the freeway and revert them back to the original routes, leaving the freeway exclusively as I-57, all the way from Little Rock. No point in trying to gain AASHTO approval to designate the new bypasses as US-67 just to go back in the future and ask for it to be reverted.
Even worse than that, it can't be reverted; once a US highway is moved to a freeway, it can't be removed from that freeway in the future, with very few exceptions that have generally had very little to do with the highway becoming redundant at that point. So ArDOT can most likely never relocate US 67 onto AR 367 in the future even if they tried submitting an application for it.
NCDOT has moved significantly mileage of US-220 back to its original route once I-73/I-74 was designated through the middle of the state, and most recently in the last couple of years, got AASHTO approval & relocated US-264 off of its freeway alignment and onto the original 2 lane road, to make way for I-587.

I believe a similar move was made for US-117 and I-795.

So there is precedent of it being done in the last couple of decades, and the US-264 example very recent.

Great Lakes Roads

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 10, 2025, 12:45:28 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 10, 2025, 12:43:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 10, 2025, 12:16:49 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 09, 2025, 08:35:58 PMThat seems a bit counterintuitive, since the freeway that will eventually become I-57 is signed as US-67 from I-40 to Walnut Ridge. So now why all of a sudden would they designate new segments of freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line as AR-567 and not as US-67?
I'm guessing the plan is to remove the US highways from the freeway and revert them back to the original routes, leaving the freeway exclusively as I-57, all the way from Little Rock. No point in trying to gain AASHTO approval to designate the new bypasses as US-67 just to go back in the future and ask for it to be reverted.
Even worse than that, it can't be reverted; once a US highway is moved to a freeway, it can't be removed from that freeway in the future, with very few exceptions that have generally had very little to do with the highway becoming redundant at that point. So ArDOT can most likely never relocate US 67 onto AR 367 in the future even if they tried submitting an application for it.
NCDOT has moved significantly mileage of US-220 back to its original route once I-73/I-74 was designated through the middle of the state, and most recently in the last couple of years, got AASHTO approval & relocated US-264 off of its freeway alignment and onto the original 2 lane road, to make way for I-587.

I believe a similar move was made for US-117 and I-795.

So there is precedent of it being done in the last couple of decades, and the US-264 example very recent.
Also in North Carolina, the soon-to-be I-42 near Clayton will move US 70 back to the pre-bypass alignment.
-Jay Seaburg

Road Hog

If ARDOT does restore 67 along the original route, they'll have to make different plans in Cabot since the state relinquished it to the city.

ElishaGOtis

Quote from: Molandfreak on February 10, 2025, 12:43:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 10, 2025, 12:16:49 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 09, 2025, 08:35:58 PMThat seems a bit counterintuitive, since the freeway that will eventually become I-57 is signed as US-67 from I-40 to Walnut Ridge. So now why all of a sudden would they designate new segments of freeway from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line as AR-567 and not as US-67?
I'm guessing the plan is to remove the US highways from the freeway and revert them back to the original routes, leaving the freeway exclusively as I-57, all the way from Little Rock. No point in trying to gain AASHTO approval to designate the new bypasses as US-67 just to go back in the future and ask for it to be reverted.
Even worse than that, it can't be reverted; once a US highway is moved to a freeway, it can't be removed from that freeway in the future, with very few exceptions that have generally had very little to do with the highway becoming redundant at that point. So ArDOT can most likely never relocate US 67 onto AR 367 in the future even if they tried submitting an application for it.

Interesting...
I can drive 55 ONLY when it makes sense.

NOTE: Opinions expressed here on AARoads are solely my own and do not represent or reflect the statements, opinions, or decisions of any agency. Any official information I share will be quoted from another source.

MikieTimT

With US-78 being extended on the routing it covers within Arkansas, US-63 and US-49 reroutes, and given Arkansas' propensity to push more than almost any state in extending US highway mileage, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some very creative routing of US-67 after I-57 is completed.



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.