Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kphoger]

disconnected segments of I-69 in Mississippi, Kentucky and Indiana. In North Carolina I-74 signed along 3 different disconnected portions of highway

Isn't this a good argument against signing, though?  A route number only serves a purpose if it actually gets people to a destination.  When a number comes and goes along the way, it isn't helping anyone.

[dvferyance]

Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.

I doubt it will take that long. Portions of US 60 and US 67 have some freeway like sections especially around Popular Bluff. Many of the at grade intersections could just be culd du saced for a minimal cost. My bet is it will happen sometime between 2025 and 2030.

[US71]

Screw waiting; sign this mo-fo right now.
I hate this "future" garbage on perfectly serviceable freeways destined for interstatehood.  This is a 100+ mile freeway that's good-'nuff right now. It'll serve as encouragement to build the rest of it; goad a few legislators into cutting off a little of that sweet bacon to move up some timetables. Rationale for waiting to sign something until X is done are unimpressive, in my opinion.

In theory then, 549 at Barling should be renumbered?

[Bobby5280]

No. The freeway in Barling doesn't attach to any existing Interstate. All of the other little segments of highway signed as Interstates are connected to other existing Interstates. A unique exception was made to the freeways in far South Texas.

[Grzrd]

If I am interpreting this Dec. 8 article correctly, the "Future I-57" signage will not be installed until the 41 mile Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line corridor has been determined:

Although there has been no signage put up along U.S. Highway 67 since it was designated Future I-57 this summer by federal legislation, markings are expected to be placed eventually once the state determines the alignment of the roadway past Walnut Ridge, according to officials.
The interstate-grade section of U.S. 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge is now "Future I-57," but "neither a route nor schedule has been determined at this point" for the remainder of I-57 through the state, according to Danny Straessle, the public information officer for the Arkansas Department of Transportation ....
While "no time frame is established to date for the removal of the 'Future' designation," the process of getting the roadway recognized as a future interstate because in 2016, according to Straessle ....
"New construction to complete the interstate would entail 41 miles in Arkansas and 11 miles in Missouri, which would complete the trade corridor from Dallas to Chicago. Importantly, the new section in Arkansas would relieve traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis and improve access to a vastly underutilized crossing over the Mississippi River in Missouri."

[sparker]

If I am interpreting this Dec. 8 article correctly, the "Future I-57" signage will not be installed until the 41 mile Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line corridor has been determined:

Although there has been no signage put up along U.S. Highway 67 since it was designated Future I-57 this summer by federal legislation, markings are expected to be placed eventually once the state determines the alignment of the roadway past Walnut Ridge, according to officials.
The interstate-grade section of U.S. 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge is now "Future I-57," but "neither a route nor schedule has been determined at this point" for the remainder of I-57 through the state, according to Danny Straessle, the public information officer for the Arkansas Department of Transportation ....
While "no time frame is established to date for the removal of the 'Future' designation," the process of getting the roadway recognized as a future interstate because in 2016, according to Straessle ....
"New construction to complete the interstate would entail 41 miles in Arkansas and 11 miles in Missouri, which would complete the trade corridor from Dallas to Chicago. Importantly, the new section in Arkansas would relieve traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis and improve access to a vastly underutilized crossing over the Mississippi River in Missouri."

Makes complete sense.  As the corridor is presently deployed, it's little more than a spur to, functionally, nowhere; its principal salient feature will be its connectivity to the existing part of I-57.  That will be what attracts the type of roadside businesses and services that provide a large cross-section of employment in smaller towns; the larger towns nearest the route (Searcy, Newport, Walnut Ridge, and potentially Pocahontas) can attempt to attract warehousing and distribution centers once the planning has been done and projects let; it would be pointless to attempt to do so before that happens.

[Bobby5280]

IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.

[US71]

If I am interpreting this Dec. 8 article correctly, the "Future I-57" signage will not be installed until the 41 mile Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line corridor has been determined:

Although there has been no signage put up along U.S. Highway 67 since it was designated Future I-57 this summer by federal legislation, markings are expected to be placed eventually once the state determines the alignment of the roadway past Walnut Ridge, according to officials.
The interstate-grade section of U.S. 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge is now "Future I-57," but "neither a route nor schedule has been determined at this point" for the remainder of I-57 through the state, according to Danny Straessle, the public information officer for the Arkansas Department of Transportation ....
While "no time frame is established to date for the removal of the 'Future' designation," the process of getting the roadway recognized as a future interstate because in 2016, according to Straessle ....
"New construction to complete the interstate would entail 41 miles in Arkansas and 11 miles in Missouri, which would complete the trade corridor from Dallas to Chicago. Importantly, the new section in Arkansas would relieve traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis and improve access to a vastly underutilized crossing over the Mississippi River in Missouri."

Makes complete sense.  As the corridor is presently deployed, it's little more than a spur to, functionally, nowhere; its principal salient feature will be its connectivity to the existing part of I-57.  That will be what attracts the type of roadside businesses and services that provide a large cross-section of employment in smaller towns; the larger towns nearest the route (Searcy, Newport, Walnut Ridge, and potentially Pocahontas) can attempt to attract warehousing and distribution centers once the planning has been done and projects let; it would be pointless to attempt to do so before that happens.

NLR to Walnut Ridge will be receiving "Future I-57" signs
http://www.swtimes.com/news/20170602/arkansas-highway-to-receive-future-i-57-designation

The sign shop is already working on signs

[Revive 755]

^ Since when is an ADT of 10,714 (based on this map) low enough to be "vastly underutilitzed"?  I-57 appears to be the highest volume crossing between St. Louis and Memphis - although the Cape Girardeau one is not far behind.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

So, are they redesignating US 67 from its interchange (US 167) with I-40 in NLR to Walnut Ridge or a predetermined point?

[I-39]

So, are they redesignating US 67 from its interchange (US 167) with I-40 in NLR to Walnut Ridge or a predetermined point?

They are designating US 67 between I-40 and US 412 in Walnut Ridge as "Future I-57". It will not become I-57 until the rest of the road is finished between Walnut Ridge and I-55 in Sikeston.

[US71]

So, are they redesignating US 67 from its interchange (US 167) with I-40 in NLR to Walnut Ridge or a predetermined point?

For now, US 67 from I-40 to US 412 at Walnut Ridge.

[sparker]

IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.

My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.       
 

[US71]

IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.

My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.       
 

With a little cooperation, I'm sure Dr Boozeman could arrange some earmarks.

[sparker]

IMHO, it's better for AR DOT to start signing their portion of I-57 ASAP. Why wait? Getting I-57 onto Arkansas highway maps will do more to add pressure to MO DOT and the federal government to fill in the gap between the two disconnected I-57 segments. Even casual map users, not road geeks like us, would see that there is a gap in that corridor. I think that waiting around, possibly for many years, for an approved alignment to be selected before putting up I-57 signs is really pretty stupid. It's almost like asking for this new section of I-57 to never be finished at all.

My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.       
 

With a little cooperation, I'm sure Dr Boozeman could arrange some earmarks.

Appropriately disguised as amendments, reconciliations, or other backhanded methodology.  Since the first section was designated via the tried-and-true "additional HPC" route, it's likely the remainder could find itself added to that legislative section down the line (MO took care of their mileage, at least in that regard, back in 2005 with the HPC 61 corridor cluster). 

[US71]

Appropriately disguised as amendments, reconciliations, or other backhanded methodology.  Since the first section was designated via the tried-and-true "additional HPC" route, it's likely the remainder could find itself added to that legislative section down the line (MO took care of their mileage, at least in that regard, back in 2005 with the HPC 61 corridor cluster). 

Pork!

[bugo]

The thing is, "I-57" isn't nearly as important strategically as I-49 is. There is an alternate all-freeway route between I-40 in North Little Rock to I-57 in Sikeston but there are no all-freeway routes between Texarkana and Alma unless you want to go all the way west to I-35 or all the way east to I-55, both which would be hundreds of miles out of the way.

[sparker]

Appropriately disguised as amendments, reconciliations, or other backhanded methodology.  Since the first section was designated via the tried-and-true "additional HPC" route, it's likely the remainder could find itself added to that legislative section down the line (MO took care of their mileage, at least in that regard, back in 2005 with the HPC 61 corridor cluster). 

Pork!

yum............pork!  Pour some Stubb's over it and it's palatable.  But seriously, that's, for better or worse, how things get done today.  It's not as if a bipartisan Congress will consider a periodic repetition of the 1968 addition legislation, to be vetted on a nationwide basis (although some "private" projects made it past the gate even then!); there's just too much enmity and distrust for that to happen (and less willingness to fund projects of that size).  One of these days when I've got a little time to kill, I might schlep over to Fictional and do an every-ten-year ('78, '88, '98, '08, '18) retro-analysis of what might have happened if the 1500-mile batch of chargeable '68 additions were to be repeated every ten years -- and how the system would look each time that happened.  Maybe early next year............

The thing is, "I-57" isn't nearly as important strategically as I-49 is. There is an alternate all-freeway route between I-40 in North Little Rock to I-57 in Sikeston but there are no all-freeway routes between Texarkana and Alma unless you want to go all the way west to I-35 or all the way east to I-55, both which would be hundreds of miles out of the way.

Essentially the I-57 project is there to take advantage of a relatively lengthy in-state freeway and to see if "Interstateization" might somehow jumpstart economic activity along that corridor (at least near the more sizeable towns along the route).  Also, it cuts off a few miles on the Dallas-to-Chicago commercial route while providing relief for the perennially packed I-40 between Little Rock and I-55.  To the Poplar Bluff/Sikeston area of MO, it's an opportunity for a bit of tax revenues from roadside businesses (plus any other commercial activities that might come their way).  But the fact that AR completed the southernmost 110 or so miles is the driving force here; without it this would just be another U.S. highway corridor serving as an occasional alternate to the existing I-40 and I-55.   

[Bobby5280]

My guess is that it all comes down to digging out some funding for I-57; since it's the "new kid" in the compendium of Arkansas Interstates, one wouldn't anticipate that the extension from Walnut Ridge to the state line would be somewhere in the queue -- well behind I-49 and the planned eastern extremities of I-69 (Monticello-McGehee).  But the plain facts are that I-57 -- coming into the picture with 110+ miles of existing freeway has the advantage of being further along than either the central portion of I-49 or just about anything on I-69 except the 530 spur.   IMO, putting up I-57 signage -- particularly the "future" type that has been mentioned, won't do much to evoke public sentiment toward finishing the corridor (I don't think this project could be "crowdfunded"!); it will all come down to available funding and how the state reps from that region can scrape enough of that together for this project.

IMHO, future-Interstate signage should only be installed when a corridor is going to become an Interstate, but does not yet meet Interstate standards. Otherwise sign it or don't sign it. I don't think it's going to hurt anything to sign the existing US-67 freeway as I-57 without some "future" thing, especially considering there are other full fledged Interstates with multiple significant gaps. In the first couple decades of the Interstate highway system there were big gaps all over the system.

I-57 may be the "new kid" in Arkansas Interstates, but it has some big advantages over both I-49 and I-69. It would cost a lot less time and money to finish I-57. There's a lot less new terrain highway to build and fewer upgrades along parts of US-67 and US-60 needed to fill the gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston. I-49 between Fort Smith & Texarkana covers a lot of difficult territory. And there's an expensive river crossing next to Fort Smith to fund before any of the mountainous segments of it get tackled. Southern Arkansas has less hilly terrain standing in the way of I-69, but The Great River Bridge is a hell of an expensive funding obstacle, especially with Mississippi offering no real time table on when it would be able to pay for its part. A completed I-57 might actually make the I-49 and I-69 projects less urgent (especially I-69 with its very crooked, indirect route).

The thing is, "I-57" isn't nearly as important strategically as I-49 is. There is an alternate all-freeway route between I-40 in North Little Rock to I-57 in Sikeston but there are no all-freeway routes between Texarkana and Alma unless you want to go all the way west to I-35 or all the way east to I-55, both which would be hundreds of miles out of the way.

The "alternative" all-freeway route between North Little Rock to Sikeston is a backward L-shape. I think a completed I-57 would be just as important a link as I-49, if not moreso. It would provide the most direct link between the Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago metro areas, both of which have far more people than all the cities along the I-49 and I-29 corridors. Plus it would pick up a lot of NAFTA traffic. Right now traffic moving between Dallas-Fort Worth and points like Chicago are best served taking US-69 thru Oklahoma to Big Cabin then getting on I-44 to St Louis.

[O Tamandua]

The "alternative" all-freeway route between North Little Rock to Sikeston is a backward L-shape. I think a completed I-57 would be just as important a link as I-49, if not moreso. It would provide the most direct link between the Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago metro areas, both of which have far more people than all the cities along the I-49 and I-29 corridors. Plus it would pick up a lot of NAFTA traffic. Right now traffic moving between Dallas-Fort Worth and points like Chicago are best served taking US-69 thru Oklahoma to Big Cabin then getting on I-44 to St Louis.

Actually, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Iowa combined in the I-49 "watershed" have more people than Illinois (minus the IN, WI, MI Chicagoland suburbs and exurbs).  Missouri is split, with Kansas City getting the bigger boost from I-49 as St Louis does from I-57.  When you add Winnipeg and Manitoba, I think it puts the I-49 corridor on an equal footing of importance with I-57.  Hope they both get built, especially with Texas I-69 looming ever closer, section by section.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

What about US 176 and I-40s possible interchange improvemnts to handle AADT projections? Man, there are some projects within this state that no make me dislike the Arkansas River, due to it being an obsticle...

[sparker]

What about US 176 and I-40s possible interchange improvemnts to handle AADT projections? Man, there are some projects within this state that no make me dislike the Arkansas River, due to it being an obsticle...

WTF?  US 176 is nowhere near Arkansas, and it doesn't intersect I-40!  Please let us know exactly to what you're referring about the above project (!?) -- such as if there's some sort of AR 176 project near I-40 that's affected by the proximity of the Arkansas river.   

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

What about US 176 and I-40s possible interchange improvemnts to handle AADT projections? Man, there are some projects within this state that no make me dislike the Arkansas River, due to it being an obsticle...

WTF?  US 176 is nowhere near Arkansas, and it doesn't intersect I-40!  Please let us know exactly to what you're referring about the above project (!?) -- such as if there's some sort of AR 176 project near I-40 that's affected by the proximity of the Arkansas river.   

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).

[Avalanchez71]

They should have numbered it I-24 by swinging I-24 back around in Illinois.

[NE2]

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.