I-57 Approved

[PColumbus73]

Comparing that map to the existing north end of the US 67 bypass of Walnut Ridge, I did notice some of the ramp grading and mainline grading for future I-57 is in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walnut+Ridge,+AR/@36.0738498,-90.9328097,1115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87d6a339a52c8d07:0x20bc426755d9f32c!8m2!3d36.0683675!4d-90.9559411!16zL20vMHF2N20!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Nice. I seriously don't think it's possible to overstate how much the visual appeal of this interchange will be improved when this is complete, considering it looks like hot unsynchronized garbage in its half-completed state.

It's also good that the grading and ramp alignments are already in place so that the high-speed connection to existing US 67 can be maintained. I could see some states trying to cheap out with a simple diamond there and forcing 67 traffic through Walnut Ridge, but fortunately I think US 67 is built out enough as a Walnut Ridge bypass in its own right to prevent that from happening. The only missing ramp movement appears to be US 67 SB > future I-57 NB. That movement will probably end up being made by U-turning using the US 412 ramps, but a direct ramp or at least a Texas U-turn there would be ideal.

My initial reaction is that it looks somewhat overbuilt. I don't know what traffic volumes are like, but looking at it from Google Maps, I think that a standard cloverleaf might have worked here, or even a parclo connecting US 67 going north and US 412 going east and Business 412 meeting US 412 on the east side of the interchange. Maybe a set of ramps with C/D lanes with the main 67/412 interchange.

Aside from the Corning bypass is the unbuilt section of I-57 going to use existing US 60 and US 67 or be built on new alignment (or a mix of both)?

They're planning to use as much of the existing 67/60 alignment in Missouri as they can. The work east of Poplar Bluff will mainly involve a few new interchanges and closing off all the at-grade intersections.

Here's a link to MODOT's study of the 11-mile portion from CR 593 to I-55 at Sikeston.

I would be interested to see how they would accommodate the businesses between I-55 and US 62, several trucking related facilities that would likely have to move when they get cut off from the existing highway.

I think the easiest option would be to build a compressed diamond at Keystone Drive, and extend Keystone around to meet AA Hwy, then extending Lyunal St to the new Keystone Drive interchange.

Maybe build a new interchange off of I-55? Either at the AA Hwy overpass, or between the overpass and the existing I-57 interchange? Depending on the location, it could require rebuilding the 55/57 interchange, although I'm of the opinion that rebuilding that interchange as a cloverstack or a clover-bine with flyovers going toward Memphis and St. Louis would be good for current/future movement.

[jnewkirk77]

I would be interested to see how they would accommodate the businesses between I-55 and US 62, several trucking related facilities that would likely have to move when they get cut off from the existing highway.

I think the easiest option would be to build a compressed diamond at Keystone Drive, and extend Keystone around to meet AA Hwy, then extending Lyunal St to the new Keystone Drive interchange.

Maybe build a new interchange off of I-55? Either at the AA Hwy overpass, or between the overpass and the existing I-57 interchange? Depending on the location, it could require rebuilding the 55/57 interchange, although I'm of the opinion that rebuilding that interchange as a cloverstack or a clover-bine with flyovers going toward Memphis and St. Louis would be good for current/future movement.

There's actually a lot of work already in progress in the Sikeston area.  Here's more from the Sikeston Standard-Democrat last December.

[ilpt4u]

I would be interested to see how they would accommodate the businesses between I-55 and US 62, several trucking related facilities that would likely have to move when they get cut off from the existing highway.

I think the easiest option would be to build a compressed diamond at Keystone Drive, and extend Keystone around to meet AA Hwy, then extending Lyunal St to the new Keystone Drive interchange.

Maybe build a new interchange off of I-55? Either at the AA Hwy overpass, or between the overpass and the existing I-57 interchange? Depending on the location, it could require rebuilding the 55/57 interchange, although I'm of the opinion that rebuilding that interchange as a cloverstack or a clover-bine with flyovers going toward Memphis and St. Louis would be good for current/future movement.

Since a new interchange is going in at Ingram Rd already (most likely), I doubt one will be at Keystone. Whether extended Outer/Frontage Rds or other local road connectivity improvements are made, I think access will be kept to the trucking/logistics businesses south of 60/57 at Harlene Dr and Lynual St

I dont see an interchange at AA - too close to the 55/57 interchange

[CtrlAltDel]

Comparing that map to the existing north end of the US 67 bypass of Walnut Ridge, I did notice some of the ramp grading and mainline grading for future I-57 is in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walnut+Ridge,+AR/@36.0738498,-90.9328097,1115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87d6a339a52c8d07:0x20bc426755d9f32c!8m2!3d36.0683675!4d-90.9559411!16zL20vMHF2N20!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D[/url

Nice. I seriously don't think it's possible to overstate how much the visual appeal of this interchange will be improved when this is complete, considering it looks like hot unsynchronized garbage in its half-completed state.

It's also good that the grading and ramp alignments are already in place so that the high-speed connection to existing US 67 can be maintained. I could see some states trying to cheap out with a simple diamond there and forcing 67 traffic through Walnut Ridge, but fortunately I think US 67 is built out enough as a Walnut Ridge bypass in its own right to prevent that from happening. The only missing ramp movement appears to be US 67 SB > future I-57 NB. That movement will probably end up being made by U-turning using the US 412 ramps, but a direct ramp or at least a Texas U-turn there would be ideal.

My initial reaction is that it looks somewhat overbuilt. I don't know what traffic volumes are like, but looking at it from Google Maps, I think that a standard cloverleaf might have worked here, or even a parclo connecting US 67 going north and US 412 going east and Business 412 meeting US 412 on the east side of the interchange. Maybe a set of ramps with C/D lanes with the main 67/412 interchange.

I'm having trouble envisioning this. How would a cloverleaf or C/D lanes be less involved than what seems to be planned?

[edwaleni]

The biggest issue on the Poplar Bluff to Sikeston segment is the many variations of highway standards and budgets the road was built to over the years from the mid 1960's to the late 1980's.

Older parts have bridges, new parts have box culverts.  Older bridges have no shoulders, new ones do.

Several ground level intersections in places, with some additional frontage roads required.

It will be interesting to see how MoDOT works with it over the next few years.

There is a thread covering it already in the section covering Missouri.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14706.0

[PColumbus73]

Comparing that map to the existing north end of the US 67 bypass of Walnut Ridge, I did notice some of the ramp grading and mainline grading for future I-57 is in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walnut+Ridge,+AR/@36.0738498,-90.9328097,1115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87d6a339a52c8d07:0x20bc426755d9f32c!8m2!3d36.0683675!4d-90.9559411!16zL20vMHF2N20!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D[/url

Nice. I seriously don't think it's possible to overstate how much the visual appeal of this interchange will be improved when this is complete, considering it looks like hot unsynchronized garbage in its half-completed state.

It's also good that the grading and ramp alignments are already in place so that the high-speed connection to existing US 67 can be maintained. I could see some states trying to cheap out with a simple diamond there and forcing 67 traffic through Walnut Ridge, but fortunately I think US 67 is built out enough as a Walnut Ridge bypass in its own right to prevent that from happening. The only missing ramp movement appears to be US 67 SB > future I-57 NB. That movement will probably end up being made by U-turning using the US 412 ramps, but a direct ramp or at least a Texas U-turn there would be ideal.

My initial reaction is that it looks somewhat overbuilt. I don't know what traffic volumes are like, but looking at it from Google Maps, I think that a standard cloverleaf might have worked here, or even a parclo connecting US 67 going north and US 412 going east and Business 412 meeting US 412 on the east side of the interchange. Maybe a set of ramps with C/D lanes with the main 67/412 interchange.

I'm having trouble envisioning this. How would a cloverleaf or C/D lanes be less involved than what seems to be planned?

Comparing that map to the existing north end of the US 67 bypass of Walnut Ridge, I did notice some of the ramp grading and mainline grading for future I-57 is in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walnut+Ridge,+AR/@36.0738498,-90.9328097,1115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87d6a339a52c8d07:0x20bc426755d9f32c!8m2!3d36.0683675!4d-90.9559411!16zL20vMHF2N20!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D[/url

Nice. I seriously don't think it's possible to overstate how much the visual appeal of this interchange will be improved when this is complete, considering it looks like hot unsynchronized garbage in its half-completed state.

It's also good that the grading and ramp alignments are already in place so that the high-speed connection to existing US 67 can be maintained. I could see some states trying to cheap out with a simple diamond there and forcing 67 traffic through Walnut Ridge, but fortunately I think US 67 is built out enough as a Walnut Ridge bypass in its own right to prevent that from happening. The only missing ramp movement appears to be US 67 SB > future I-57 NB. That movement will probably end up being made by U-turning using the US 412 ramps, but a direct ramp or at least a Texas U-turn there would be ideal.

My initial reaction is that it looks somewhat overbuilt. I don't know what traffic volumes are like, but looking at it from Google Maps, I think that a standard cloverleaf might have worked here, or even a parclo connecting US 67 going north and US 412 going east and Business 412 meeting US 412 on the east side of the interchange. Maybe a set of ramps with C/D lanes with the main 67/412 interchange.

I'm having trouble envisioning this. How would a cloverleaf or C/D lanes be less involved than what seems to be planned?

Scaling might be off, but this is what I had in mind.

[vdeane]

I'm aware of where 590 ends and actually had a hunch that this would come up, I just don't think it's a freeway north of Exit 11. And not just because of the RIRO's, it's very residential and more like a boulevard in character. There's also the 45 mph limit and the single lane southbound.
...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  I consider freeways to end at the first break in access control and no sooner.

We're veering OT now, but I guess it then becomes a question of what counts as a break in access control, because I don't see how Orland Rd and especially Sunrise Cres wouldn't qualify as such, considering they're residential side streets, and the latter doesn't even have a traditional turn island associated with a freeway RIRO. I see those two as being just as much if not more of a break in access control as the roundabouts, so from that perspective you could say there's nothing stopping the entirety of Sea Breeze Dr from being considered controlled access - and in a certain sense, I'm open to the idea that it is, considering the lack of access points relative to the parallel section of Culver Rd.

No traffic crosses the road.  They're an edge case, but if you want to argue that the freeway ends at them, that's still north of Ridge Road (see also: this sign).  Functionally it's not much different from a lot of stuff on substandard freeways/parkways downstate.

Since you mentioned the single lane... would you argue that A-50 isn't a freeway?

[CtrlAltDel]

Scaling might be off, but this is what I had in mind.

Ah, I see now, thanks.

[edwaleni]

In all the drawing, not sure if you caught that there is a ramp graded (and bridged) for the future I-57SB to exit and reach BUSN US 412 allowing travelers to reach downtown Walnut Ridge. Also graded but not paved is a I-57SB ramp to a future AR-367 NB to reach AR-34.

It also looks like that BUSN US-412 exit will also be used for access to US-412 EB. With all the money ARDOT has put into US-412 to and from Paragould (the Light bypass is finally done now) I would think they might put in a flyover instead of using a signaled left turn.

[jnewkirk77]

The biggest issue on the Poplar Bluff to Sikeston segment is the many variations of highway standards and budgets the road was built to over the years from the mid 1960's to the late 1980's.

Older parts have bridges, new parts have box culverts.  Older bridges have no shoulders, new ones do.

Several ground level intersections in places, with some additional frontage roads required.

It will be interesting to see how MoDOT works with it over the next few years.

There is a thread covering it already in the section covering Missouri.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14706.0

I would use the conversion of US 71 to I-49 from Joplin to KC as a guide. Once they got going on that, things moved quickly. I anticipate the same here, as long as funding is available.

[JREwing78]

I'm having trouble envisioning this. How would a cloverleaf or C/D lanes be less involved than what seems to be planned?

Scaling might be off, but this is what I had in mind.

This looked fairly intentional by ARDOT. It's a fairly decent way to put together a 3-way interchange that allows the future I-57 build to proceed without interrupting traffic on the existing US-67. When they initially designed the bypass, it wasn't clear how long it would take for funding to continue the US-67 freeway northward. Better to assume it would take awhile and not introduce unnecessary stops for through traffic on US-67 in the meantime.

With the Walnut Ridge Regional Airport and surrounding business park just north of the interchange, and the industrial areas along the existing US-67 to Pocahontas, having the free-flowing movements to and from the south make sense. If they ever rebuild the interchange, they could omit the NBD US-67 movement. Although, in 40-50 years, they'll probably opt to just rebuild that movement as-is.

[Bobby5280]

There is no need to build a brand new cloverleaf interchange at the future I-57/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge. A cloverleaf would be a lot of extra expense without offering any real improvement.

The existing modified diamond interchange already has ROW and even some grading done for the ghost ramps that have not been built out yet. The ghost ramps are clearly visible in Google Earth overhead imagery. Those ramps are going to be just fine for the future Interstate. They won't have any weaving issues, unlike cloverleaf interchanges.

[PColumbus73]

There is no need to build a brand new cloverleaf interchange at the future I-57/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge. A cloverleaf would be a lot of extra expense without offering any real improvement.

The existing modified diamond interchange already has ROW and even some grading done for the ghost ramps that have not been built out yet. The ghost ramps are clearly visible in Google Earth overhead imagery. Those ramps are going to be just fine for the future Interstate. They won't have any weaving issues, unlike cloverleaf interchanges.

I didn't mean they should demolish what they already have, but that a cloverleaf or a parclo may have been simpler (and cheaper) to build until the I-57 extension came around. Something like the I-64 / US 35 interchange in WV might have worked too.

[webny99]

There is no need to build a brand new cloverleaf interchange at the future I-57/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge. A cloverleaf would be a lot of extra expense without offering any real improvement.

The existing modified diamond interchange already has ROW and even some grading done for the ghost ramps that have not been built out yet. The ghost ramps are clearly visible in Google Earth overhead imagery. Those ramps are going to be just fine for the future Interstate. They won't have any weaving issues, unlike cloverleaf interchanges.

I didn't mean they should demolish what they already have, but that a cloverleaf or a parclo may have been simpler (and cheaper) to build until the I-57 extension came around. Something like the I-64 / US 35 interchange in WV might have worked too.

I don't know, I feel like the existing setup is a rare case where what they did was actually pretty effective and probably cheaper too since it maintains US 67 as the through movement while requiring relatively little of the future interchange to be built out. A cloverleaf would have required two of the loops to be used in the interim, one of which would have to be used by all northbound through traffic, and also if you'd be removing the existing diamond interchange it becomes quite a bit more complicated to get between Walnut Ridge and I-57.

Unless I'm missing something, Eastbound Bus 412 would have a sharp curve where it terminates at US 412, a left turn onto US 412 WB, a weave with oncoming NB thru traffic through the cloverleaf, and then exit onto the loop ramp to get to I-57 South, instead of a simple right turn as it is now.

[PColumbus73]

That's true. I'm also not from there and don't know what they were intending. I can see why they built it the way they did.

[Bobby5280]

If it was going to be a freeway to freeway interchange then a cloverleaf would have been acceptable (somewhat acceptable). The highway crossing the interchange (US-412) is 2-lane and then undivided 4-lane, all with at-grade intersections. So it's okay for it to continue having on/off ramps from I-57 intersecting with it at-grade. US-67 leaves the Interstate alignment with something akin to a Y interchange, but immediately turns into an undivided 4-lane road with at-grade intersections.

AR DOT just needs to finish the ramps they started fleshing out nearly 25 years ago (active construction on some of the interchange and grading work on all ramps is visible in 2/2000 Google Earth imagery).

[MikieTimT]

I emailed the ARDOT engineer I've been getting I-57 info from over the past month and got this response to my inquiry:

Me:
Out of curiosity, and I don't know if you would be involved in this at all, but I was wondering if AR-440 would be redesignated I-440 at the conclusion of CA0604 as it would be connected on both ends to an Interstate at that point.  Thanks again for keeping the public in the loop!!

ARDOT Engineer:
Yes, you are right. AR-440 will be eventually redesignated I-440. Currently, we are working on the AASHTO US Route Numbering Change application for this route.

So, it's in the works.

Looking at Google Maps, the change has already been made.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/8tDSQNZP7KZ3LgQp9

[NE2]

Why the fuck do you trust Google Maps?

[MikieTimT]

On my work trip this week, I drove to Jonesboro.  I left late this morning and drove to Little Rock for the next leg of work.  Did the newly redesignated portion of US-78 from I-555 to US-67 and took a time lapse (60x) of the trip.  I'll get it posted in my YouTube account once I get back home and cross-link it here.  Noticed that today as Google Maps was navigating me there that US-67 as of today is also I-57, most particularly at certain lower zoom levels or further up the road in the navigation portion.  The section from Bald Knob to Beebe was quite busy with differing shields as it now has 4 designations officially, although they haven't installed the I-57 shields yet or pulled down the Future I-57 signs.  I also drove AR-440 as it only added a couple of miles to my journey and noted the same dual designation in the navigation.  Neither road has the new shields up yet, but this is almost certainly the last time I drive the roads with US-67 and AR-440 being the predominant designations.

[edwaleni]

Why the fuck do you trust Google Maps?

You will be happy to know that OSM has not violated your sensibilities on mapping (yet).

[TBKS1]

On my work trip this week, I drove to Jonesboro.  I left late this morning and drove to Little Rock for the next leg of work.  Did the newly redesignated portion of US-78 from I-555 to US-67 and took a time lapse (60x) of the trip.  I'll get it posted in my YouTube account once I get back home and cross-link it here.  Noticed that today as Google Maps was navigating me there that US-67 as of today is also I-57, most particularly at certain lower zoom levels or further up the road in the navigation portion.  The section from Bald Knob to Beebe was quite busy with differing shields as it now has 4 designations officially, although they haven't installed the I-57 shields yet or pulled down the Future I-57 signs.  I also drove AR-440 as it only added a couple of miles to my journey and noted the same dual designation in the navigation.  Neither road has the new shields up yet, but this is almost certainly the last time I drive the roads with US-67 and AR-440 being the predominant designations.

I was basically going to say the same thing, I just got back home from Fayetteville earlier today and there haven't been any shields put up, at least not yet. The "Future I-57" banner shields are still up and likely will remain up for a little bit longer. I'm still not sure when they're going to replace them, but I literally live right off of I-57 and will probably be one of the first to know when they start installing the new shields.

[Henry]

Why the fuck do you trust Google Maps?

Why not? FritzOwl does.

[The Ghostbuster]

Although Google Maps is notorious, and jumps the gun on new roadway designations, it remains my favorite online maps service (due to its Street View mode). I don't think they screwed up too badly in this case; the Interstate 57 designation on US 67, and AR 440 becoming Interstate 440 will soon become reality.

[I-55]

Although Google Maps is notorious, and jumps the gun on new roadway designations, it remains my favorite online maps service (due to its Street View mode). I don't think they screwed up too badly in this case; the Interstate 57 designation on US 67, and AR 440 becoming Interstate 440 will soon become reality.

Ironic since I-169 was displayed in Kentucky for something like 5 years, then they finally took it down, and now I-169 is posted but Google Maps doesn't show it.

[MikieTimT]

Arkansas won't have that problem.  Both of these roads serve Little Rock, and they'll move heaven and high water to get the marketing benefits of the status upgrade ASAP.