AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 150393 times)

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 11:55:03 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #900 on: December 05, 2022, 10:36:26 AM »

I have a nasty feeling in my Big Boy Gut is that we will still be talking about this at the end of this decade. This should have been started early in the previous decade. This Stalemate on this and IH 49 is FUBAR

You're probably right, although Arkansas is starting to put real money into the gap on I-57 now according to the latest Draft STIP, so I don't think it'll be very deep into the 2030's to completion.  I-57 will be completed long before I-49 gets a Super-2 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana, much less a completed interstate.  I'd be shocked if we see I-49 completed between Alma and Barling before I-57 is complete since there's no navigable rivers to contend with in NEA.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1014
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 04:30:25 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #901 on: December 05, 2022, 01:38:24 PM »

I have a nasty feeling in my Big Boy Gut is that we will still be talking about this at the end of this decade. This should have been started early in the previous decade. This Stalemate on this and IH 49 is FUBAR
And the longer they wait on getting these projects done, the more money they will cost. Infrastructure costs are not like wine...they don't get better with age.
Logged
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, 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

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2069
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:14:46 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #902 on: January 19, 2023, 10:49:07 AM »

Drove through Jacksonville yesterday and not one spade of dirt has been turned yet. Maybe it's been done already but I couldn't tell if any ROW work or utility relocation has been done yet either. Those shields will have to stay in storage a while longer.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1014
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 04:30:25 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #903 on: January 20, 2023, 07:35:22 PM »

Drove through Jacksonville yesterday and not one spade of dirt has been turned yet. Maybe it's been done already but I couldn't tell if any ROW work or utility relocation has been done yet either. Those shields will have to stay in storage a while longer.
They might be waiting until spring to break ground, even though Arkansas' winters are relatively mild compared to states further north, they still do get snow and freezing temperatures from time to time.
Logged
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, 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

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1684
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 02:53:49 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #904 on: January 22, 2023, 08:06:06 PM »

Public comment on the preferred ROW will be closing on January 24, 2023.

Logged

GreenLanternCorps

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 485
  • What's behind me, is not important!

  • Age: 56
  • Location: Ohio
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 06:59:31 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #905 on: January 24, 2023, 01:21:19 PM »

I have a nasty feeling in my Big Boy Gut is that we will still be talking about this at the end of this decade. This should have been started early in the previous decade. This Stalemate on this and IH 49 is FUBAR

You're probably right, although Arkansas is starting to put real money into the gap on I-57 now according to the latest Draft STIP, so I don't think it'll be very deep into the 2030's to completion.  I-57 will be completed long before I-49 gets a Super-2 between Ft. Smith and Texarkana, much less a completed interstate.  I'd be shocked if we see I-49 completed between Alma and Barling before I-57 is complete since there's no navigable rivers to contend with in NEA.

I-57 to the state line is low hanging fruit.  the gap is smaller and represents less of an engineering challenge to finish. 

Ideally Arkansas would work on both at the same time, but that's no in the cards at the moment.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3658
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 09:47:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #906 on: January 24, 2023, 04:43:15 PM »

Yeah, I think I-57 in Arkansas will be completed before any substantial progress on I-49 takes place between Fort Smith and Texarkana. They'll probably get the Alma-Barling segment done before the end of this decade. But any work farther South will probably start out as Super-2 for ROW acquisition with grade separations, exits and the second set of lanes added in later phases.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1477
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 20, 2023, 11:16:10 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #907 on: January 28, 2023, 11:32:03 AM »

I-57 is follows one of the primary legacy routes serving Little Rock: US-67.

Like everyone says that I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans doesn't make sense (It actually does to me), I-57 from Little Rock makes very little sense on a blank sheet.

1) It is less than 10 miles farther from LRA to Marion IL using I-40 / I-55.
2) It is less than 50 miles closer to Saint Louis along US-67 and US-67 from Poplar Bluff Mo to Saint Louis will not be freeway.

There are reasons it is needed.
1) Get the traffic bound to / from Saint Louis or Indianapolis off of I-40.
2)The interstate could go directly from Walnut Ridge to Corning cutting off another dozen miles.

Here are my thoughts on the numbering. It should be interstate 30. That would clearly be no worse than I-24 that goes from Chattanooga to I-57 via Nashville & Paducah. I-30 could go to Saint Louis with I-57 ending in Poplar Bluff. I realize the numbering is a moot point, but... Then again, I-57 could absorb I-530 and be built out to Monroe LA more or less.

 ArDOT has selected their route around Pocahontas. It saves a few miles and allows ArDOT to not have to build as much road. It could have been more direct, but.... as ARDOT said it this way the build 26 miles of road (From just south of Pocahontas) to the Missouri Line as opposed to 57 miles (from south of Walnut Ridge) I assume the routing will miss 3 of the four river crossings the road (US-62 /67) takes now.
https://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning/
I will add one thing. This is not freeway grade road they are planning to build.

Then to I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith. The only reason it has any priority at all is the clout Wal*Mart has. While all highway building is terribly expensive, building through the mountains is a horribly expensive proposition. I can assure you I-49 is needed worse than I-57, I-69, or I-530. If I were to foster a guess, US-412 from Harrison to Springdale leap frogs all of these except I-49. I-65 from Little Rock to Harrison would have to be part of this to ever sell it to Little Rock though.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1684
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 02:53:49 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #908 on: January 28, 2023, 05:48:46 PM »

I-57 is follows one of the primary legacy routes serving Little Rock: US-67.

Like everyone says that I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans doesn't make sense (It actually does to me), I-57 from Little Rock makes very little sense on a blank sheet.

1) It is less than 10 miles farther from LRA to Marion IL using I-40 / I-55.
2) It is less than 50 miles closer to Saint Louis along US-67 and US-67 from Poplar Bluff Mo to Saint Louis will not be freeway.

There are reasons it is needed.
1) Get the traffic bound to / from Saint Louis or Indianapolis off of I-40.
2)The interstate could go directly from Walnut Ridge to Corning cutting off another dozen miles.

Here are my thoughts on the numbering. It should be interstate 30. That would clearly be no worse than I-24 that goes from Chattanooga to I-57 via Nashville & Paducah. I-30 could go to Saint Louis with I-57 ending in Poplar Bluff. I realize the numbering is a moot point, but... Then again, I-57 could absorb I-530 and be built out to Monroe LA more or less.

 ArDOT has selected their route around Pocahontas. It saves a few miles and allows ArDOT to not have to build as much road. It could have been more direct, but.... as ARDOT said it this way the build 26 miles of road (From just south of Pocahontas) to the Missouri Line as opposed to 57 miles (from south of Walnut Ridge) I assume the routing will miss 3 of the four river crossings the road (US-62 /67) takes now.
https://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning/
I will add one thing. This is not freeway grade road they are planning to build.

Then to I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith. The only reason it has any priority at all is the clout Wal*Mart has. While all highway building is terribly expensive, building through the mountains is a horribly expensive proposition. I can assure you I-49 is needed worse than I-57, I-69, or I-530. If I were to foster a guess, US-412 from Harrison to Springdale leap frogs all of these except I-49. I-65 from Little Rock to Harrison would have to be part of this to ever sell it to Little Rock though.

I disagree on a couple of points.

- Definitely will serve as a I-40 reliever from LRA to Memphis for traffic eventually headed NE
- The "direct" route from Walnut Ridge to Corning (east of the Black River) is a rated flood zone. This is why the railroad raised their ROW for several miles south of Corning. Expensive for a 4 lane affair.
- Only a 1.5 mile difference between the Pocahontas route and the Corning Direct route
- Pocahontas is considered a key location for a logistics and transfer center according to the Northeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority

So while ArDOT consider US-412 a key north cross state corridor, I don't see that playing a role in this routing (yet).

However when Texas finishes I-369 to Texarkana, this I-57 connection at Little Rock will probably obsolete or defer much need for I-69 in Mississippi.

Corning, Arkansas which recently lost their WalMart post covid, is currently working on a plan to recreate their downtown into a historic district to recover lost sales tax from the shifting of truck traffic out of the city center. They are also looking at incorporating the land around where the future I-57 will intersect with US-62 and foster retail zoning in the exit area.

Also this will perform as a reliever route for NE bound traffic if/when I-40 is ever rebuilt between LRA and Memphis.

Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1477
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 20, 2023, 11:16:10 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #909 on: January 29, 2023, 08:47:53 AM »

I-57 is follows one of the primary legacy routes serving Little Rock: US-67.

Like everyone says that I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans doesn't make sense (It actually does to me), I-57 from Little Rock makes very little sense on a blank sheet.

1) It is less than 10 miles farther from LRA to Marion IL using I-40 / I-55.
2) It is less than 50 miles closer to Saint Louis along US-67 and US-67 from Poplar Bluff Mo to Saint Louis will not be freeway.

There are reasons it is needed.
1) Get the traffic bound to / from Saint Louis or Indianapolis off of I-40.
2)The interstate could go directly from Walnut Ridge to Corning cutting off another dozen miles.

Here are my thoughts on the numbering. It should be interstate 30. That would clearly be no worse than I-24 that goes from Chattanooga to I-57 via Nashville & Paducah. I-30 could go to Saint Louis with I-57 ending in Poplar Bluff. I realize the numbering is a moot point, but... Then again, I-57 could absorb I-530 and be built out to Monroe LA more or less.

 ArDOT has selected their route around Pocahontas. It saves a few miles and allows ArDOT to not have to build as much road. It could have been more direct, but.... as ARDOT said it this way the build 26 miles of road (From just south of Pocahontas) to the Missouri Line as opposed to 57 miles (from south of Walnut Ridge) I assume the routing will miss 3 of the four river crossings the road (US-62 /67) takes now.
https://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning/
I will add one thing. This is not freeway grade road they are planning to build.

Then to I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith. The only reason it has any priority at all is the clout Wal*Mart has. While all highway building is terribly expensive, building through the mountains is a horribly expensive proposition. I can assure you I-49 is needed worse than I-57, I-69, or I-530. If I were to foster a guess, US-412 from Harrison to Springdale leap frogs all of these except I-49. I-65 from Little Rock to Harrison would have to be part of this to ever sell it to Little Rock though.

I disagree on a couple of points.

- Definitely will serve as a I-40 reliever from LRA to Memphis for traffic eventually headed NE
- The "direct" route from Walnut Ridge to Corning (east of the Black River) is a rated flood zone. This is why the railroad raised their ROW for several miles south of Corning. Expensive for a 4 lane affair.
- Only a 1.5 mile difference between the Pocahontas route and the Corning Direct route
- Pocahontas is considered a key location for a logistics and transfer center according to the Northeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority

So while ArDOT consider US-412 a key north cross state corridor, I don't see that playing a role in this routing (yet).
I believe US-412 may be full Freeway before I-57 is. I think ArDOT will have "four or five lane" highway along US-67 all the way from Little Rock to the Missouri lane or be very close this decade .  (Maybe even to Junction City.) I think the Conway to Springdale route will be Freeway before US-67. Walmart & Tyson will trump it.

Quote
However when Texas finishes I-369 to Texarkana, this I-57 connection at Little Rock will probably obsolete or defer much need for I-69 in Mississippi.

 I think everyone agrees that I-69 in Mississippi outside of Metro Memphis is no priority to Mississippi.

Quote
Corning, Arkansas which recently lost their WalMart post covid, is currently working on a plan to recreate their downtown into a historic district to recover lost sales tax from the shifting of truck traffic out of the city center. They are also looking at incorporating the land around where the future I-57 will intersect with US-62 and foster retail zoning in the exit area.

Ah ha someone agreeing with my beliefs about road construction "creating" commercial real estate...
Quote

Also this will perform as a reliever route for NE bound traffic if/when I-40 is ever rebuilt between LRA and Memphis.

My point as to the primary reason for I-69 to be finished. While I think the large n/s segment of I-69 in Mississippi is the wrong path, I-57 may relieve some of I-40's woes, it certainly does nothing for I-30. I-49 may do SOME of that relief and could so the same for traffic coming out of Oklahoma on I-40.

I just do not see this (I-57 / US-67 in Arkansas) being more than a divided highway with segments that are fully controlled access before 2040 or later. I feel like 2060 is more realistic and who knows what 40 years from now will actually hold.  I think Arkansas making a four lane road that is not divided ("5-lane road") puts it off for at least 20 years from its completion. So 2050 for the next planning phase ABSENT Federal Mandate or dedicated assistance.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2023, 08:00:36 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8121
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #910 on: January 29, 2023, 10:43:48 AM »

^ Isnít Arkansas going to be focused on constructing a new limited access highway, not improving the existing route?

Arkansas already constructed something like 15-20 miles in the last decade.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3658
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 09:47:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #911 on: January 29, 2023, 02:44:36 PM »

I-57 in Arkansas is the easiest project to complete out of all the big road projects on the state's plate.

The I-49 and I-69 projects are longer, more costly and more difficult. I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana would go through some fairly mountainous territory. I think it's very likely AR DOT will be forced to build highway segments in phases, starting out in modest Super-2 form. I-69 goes through easier terrain until it gets close to the Mississippi River. East of Monticello the land becomes increasingly flood prone, which will likely require building the freeway on a combination of berms and bridges. And then there's the massively costly Great River Bridge crossing. I-57 between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border has none of those challenges.

As for US-412 between Springdale and Walnut Ridge: I do not expect that highway segment ever becoming an Interstate-class freeway. First of all, it's about 225 miles from Springdale to Walnut Ridge by way of US-412. That's a long (and winding) path. There are just way too many obstacles along its way across Northern Arkansas. AR DOT would have to buy and clear a tremendous amount of existing properties built close to the road just to upgrade to a standard 4-lane divided highway with at-grade intersections and driveway access. Converting that highway into an Interstate-class facility would be far more challenging. The engineering is one thing. The political challenges would be far worse. There are multiple locations along the way that are tourist or leisure oriented. I think there would be a lot of resistance against a possible Interstate spoiling the scenery.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1477
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 20, 2023, 11:16:10 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #912 on: January 29, 2023, 07:56:00 PM »

I wish I could agree with you guys. I-57 is scheduled to be built as a "4 or 5 lane highway." That doesn't say interstate class to me. Especially 5-lane. That is 2x2 with a center turn lane. Listen to the TV interview I posted.
This will improve the road over what is there, but it is not freeway nor conducive to be easily upgraded. This delays the freeway NOT hastens it. These improvements allow ArDOT to delay more costly upgrades.

I agree fully that the US-67 upgrades will be the first ones finished. The US-67 upgrade may be finished THIS decade. I-57 to LRA on the other hand is a quarter century or more in the future. They are not building interstate. They are building a four or five lane highway.


I didn't say anything about US-412 extending as freeway to Walnut Ridge. I said Harrison. Then follow US-65 to LRA.

I never said I-49 would be easy and as far as that goes, the piecemeal improvements in Sevier and Pike counties lend to putting it off as well. I also believe that I-49 from Waldron (or maybe Mansfield) to Mena will be built as freeway (Fully Controlled Access) from the word go. It may as US71 has suggested initially be a Super 2, but the adjacent lanes will be under construction as soon as or before the first carriageway is opened. Once it is truly started, they will not waste a lot of time.

What I AM suggesting is that Wal_Mart is the driving force in this NOT Little Rock's or national priorities.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8121
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #913 on: January 29, 2023, 08:15:43 PM »

I wish I could agree with you guys. I-57 is scheduled to be built as a "4 or 5 lane highway." That doesn't say interstate class to me. Especially 5-lane. That is 2x2 with a center turn lane. Listen to the TV interview I posted.
This will improve the road over what is there, but it is not freeway nor conducive to be easily upgraded. This delays the freeway NOT hastens it. These improvements allow ArDOT to delay more costly upgrades.

I agree fully that the US-67 upgrades will be the first ones finished. The US-67 upgrade may be finished THIS decade. I-57 to LRA on the other hand is a quarter century or more in the future. They are not building interstate. They are building a four or five lane highway.
The article you cited was published almost a decade ago.

https://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning/ - Published October 29, 2013.

Take a look at some more recent developments.

Walnut Ridge to Missouri State Line (Future I-57)
A preferred alternative was selected and presented at a public hearing in December 2022 that would construct approximately 39 miles of four-lane fully controlled access freeway on new location, between the freeway terminus in Walnut Ridge, extending north to the Missouri state line north of Corning.

The other alternatives proposed, including one to upgrade the existing US-67 corridor, would have also been built to full interstate standards.

Here is a map of the proposed corridor:

The most recent proposal, seen above, is fully separated from the existing US-67 routing.

A similar project is underway to widen / upgrade the US-67 corridor in Missouri to interstate standards, between Popular Bluff and the Arkansas state line.
https://www.modot.org/futureI57
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3658
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 09:47:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #914 on: January 29, 2023, 08:20:55 PM »

Quote from: bwana39
I wish I could agree with you guys. I-57 is scheduled to be built as a "4 or 5 lane highway." That doesn't say interstate class to me.

If all they would do between Walnut Ridge and the MO state line is build a undivided 4-lane or 5-lane highway then why would any of this "Future I-57" hoopla be happening in Arkansas at all? If that's really their plan then AR DOT would have zero business at all ever erecting any "Future I-57" signs. If the ultimate plan is not building something Interstate quality then what's the point of building anything new at all?

AR DOT does have a habit of building interim highway configurations that can be later upgraded to Interstate quality. The Belle Vista bypass was built in phases. Two segments of AR-530 South of Pine Bluff are Super-2 but can be later upgraded to Interstate quality. The Alma to Barling segment of I-49 will be built initially as a 2-lane road.

An undivided 5-lane roadway could be converted into Interstate quality, provided developers are kept away from the edges of the road. That center lane could have a concrete Jersey barrier or cable barrier built down the middle of it.

Quote from: bwana39
I didn't say anything about US-412 extending as freeway to Walnut Ridge. I said Harrison. Then follow US-65 to LRA.

Even that would be a much longer distance project than I-57 from Walnut Ridge to the MO border. If it weren't for the substandard sections of US-67 in Jacksonville they would probably be able to sign much of the existing US-67 freeway from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge as I-57. Work in Jacksonville will be done over the next few years.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1684
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 02:53:49 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #915 on: January 30, 2023, 12:29:55 AM »


Quote
Corning, Arkansas which recently lost their WalMart post covid, is currently working on a plan to recreate their downtown into a historic district to recover lost sales tax from the shifting of truck traffic out of the city center. They are also looking at incorporating the land around where the future I-57 will intersect with US-62 and foster retail zoning in the exit area.

Ah ha someone agreeing with my beliefs about road construction "creating" commercial real estate...


From my reading on the initial planning for the interstate highway sysytem, I don't think local, or intrastate commerce was a big consideration outside fuel. It was about interstate commerce and defense.

As the highways were built out I think business adapted itself to the exit off/exit on model. Before Interstates, getting food via drive throughs were not common. (Drive "in's" is something else)

Most people at the time preferred to sit down.  If you watch the movie "The Founder" about Ray Kroc, he was surprised that no one needed a table to eat once they got their food.

Today, a drive through is required when serving a nearby exit ramp, unless you are sit down by design (Cracker Barrel comes to mind)

So Yes, I agree with you, there are more commercial considerations now when interstate highways are planned today. So many towns lost their mojo when the interstates bypassed them in the 60's and many are barely holding on because of it.

It is no secret that just 1 Taco Bell at a small town exit ramp can be a significant employer and tax provider, add a fueling center with their convenience store and the value goes up by even more.

With logistics being such a studied mechanism when deploying inventory or manufacturing, having a 4 lane highway that supports heavy trucks can make or break whether the school can afford certain things locally.

This is why small town USA is so vocal about these highways when they have a chance.



Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2069
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 03:14:46 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #916 on: January 30, 2023, 02:32:40 AM »

Quote
So many towns lost their mojo when the interstates bypassed them in the 60's and many are barely holding on because of it.

Numerous other towns seized the opportunity and expanded their city limits to the new interstate and took advantage of the development opportunities.

I'll leave it at that, Oklahoma.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 11:55:03 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #917 on: January 30, 2023, 05:03:06 AM »

Quote from: bwana39
I wish I could agree with you guys. I-57 is scheduled to be built as a "4 or 5 lane highway." That doesn't say interstate class to me.

If all they would do between Walnut Ridge and the MO state line is build a undivided 4-lane or 5-lane highway then why would any of this "Future I-57" hoopla be happening in Arkansas at all? If that's really their plan then AR DOT would have zero business at all ever erecting any "Future I-57" signs. If the ultimate plan is not building something Interstate quality then what's the point of building anything new at all?

AR DOT does have a habit of building interim highway configurations that can be later upgraded to Interstate quality. The Belle Vista bypass was built in phases. Two segments of AR-530 South of Pine Bluff are Super-2 but can be later upgraded to Interstate quality. The Alma to Barling segment of I-49 will be built initially as a 2-lane road.

An undivided 5-lane roadway could be converted into Interstate quality, provided developers are kept away from the edges of the road. That center lane could have a concrete Jersey barrier or cable barrier built down the middle of it.

Quote from: bwana39
I didn't say anything about US-412 extending as freeway to Walnut Ridge. I said Harrison. Then follow US-65 to LRA.

Even that would be a much longer distance project than I-57 from Walnut Ridge to the MO border. If it weren't for the substandard sections of US-67 in Jacksonville they would probably be able to sign much of the existing US-67 freeway from I-40 up to Walnut Ridge as I-57. Work in Jacksonville will be done over the next few years.

They aren't going to build anything other than a limited access Interstate as all 5 of the original alternatives state in the DEIS before they actually selected the preferred alternative: 
https://future57vms.blob.core.windows.net/uploads/796bba8f-20e2-4c35-9744-4a4b24f4740c-I57_PH2022_HearingPacket.pdf

The old link to Jonesboro's news channel above is out of date information at this point and should be disregarded.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3658
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 09:47:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #918 on: January 30, 2023, 12:46:42 PM »

Quote from: MikieTimT
The old link to Jonesboro's news channel above is out of date information at this point and should be disregarded.

That's good news. Although, it would not surprise me if substantial parts of I-57 North of Walnut Ridge were made with a single concrete slab 5 lanes wide (plus outboard shoulders). A cable barrier would run down the middle of it. That's opposed to the normal configuration of two separate roadways and a big median in between.

Quote from: edwaleni
So Yes, I agree with you, there are more commercial considerations now when interstate highways are planned today. So many towns lost their mojo when the interstates bypassed them in the 60's and many are barely holding on because of it.

I don't think Interstates should be built where their paths literally zig zag to every possible town along the general way to a major destination or highway network hub point. The Interstate highway system was originally designed with a big picture cross country purpose. It wasn't meant to be tailored to just any local traffic needs.

It does hurt a small town's business prospects by not being connected to or even near an Interstate highway. But small towns across America are being affected by much worse, far harder to solve factors.

Demographic decline has already been damaging small towns for some time. That's certainly true here in Oklahoma. When a town's population is mostly retired age people there isn't much of a tax base for anything (like a police or fire department). Many small towns increasingly rely on county governments for services and even those agencies are stretched thin. Young people born and raised in small declining towns typically leave after high school and pursue careers elsewhere. Fewer of these young adults are buying homes and starting families anywhere, but they're certainly not motivated to do any of that in a small town where there's no good job opportunities or social life. Cheaper housing could be an attraction, but that gets offset by a long and costly commute. Even the elderly people who prefer small town life are having an increasingly difficult time staying put. As people age their health care needs typically increase. Those services are increasingly confined to bigger towns and cities. Very few doctors make house calls these days.

So many small towns are stuck in a type of negative feedback loop. There is a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment going on right now. Unfortunately a lot of the agri-business operations across the middle of our nation depend greatly on undocumented workers. If I could snap my fingers and make the 10 million+ illegal immigrants in the US disappear any future trips to the grocery store would be a nightmare. Not many American born people are lining up to work in a slaughter house or hand pick certain crops. Several other industries in the US are heavily reliant on illegal workers. A tough crack down could be enough to push a lot of small towns reliant on agri-business right over the brink into oblivion.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2023, 12:49:50 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8121
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #919 on: January 30, 2023, 01:54:12 PM »

That's good news. Although, it would not surprise me if substantial parts of I-57 North of Walnut Ridge were made with a single concrete slab 5 lanes wide (plus outboard shoulders). A cable barrier would run down the middle of it. That's opposed to the normal configuration of two separate roadways and a big median in between.
The brochure linked above showed a typical section with a 60 foot grass median dividing the two roadways.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1001
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 09:28:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #920 on: March 01, 2023, 09:38:56 PM »

That's good news. Although, it would not surprise me if substantial parts of I-57 North of Walnut Ridge were made with a single concrete slab 5 lanes wide (plus outboard shoulders). A cable barrier would run down the middle of it. That's opposed to the normal configuration of two separate roadways and a big median in between.
The brochure linked above showed a typical section with a 60 foot grass median dividing the two roadways.

Good.  Going cheap, like the BVB, with a minimal median, would be a regressive outcome.  The BVB, however, used a narrow "urban" cross - section, due to cut requirements.   
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8121
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:59 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #921 on: March 01, 2023, 10:01:01 PM »

The Belle Vista Bypass was reasonable due to the mountainous terrain of the route.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1014
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 04:30:25 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #922 on: March 02, 2023, 09:19:10 AM »

The Belle Vista Bypass was reasonable due to the mountainous terrain of the route.
"Mountainous." Compared to what we have out here in New Mexico, those are hills! :)
Logged
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, 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

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1014
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 04:30:25 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #923 on: March 02, 2023, 10:40:03 AM »

For the reconstruction/widening of Future I-57/US-67 through Jacksonville, it looks like they're currently doing pre-construction activities, with actual construction scheduled to start next month.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/feb/27/us-67167-lanes-to-be-closed-overnight/?news-arkansas
Logged
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, 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

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1280
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 11:55:03 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #924 on: March 02, 2023, 05:53:04 PM »

And preliminary schedule indicates 2027 for completing that segment.  They'll likely be moving dirt on the segment between Walnut Ridge and Corning by then.
Logged

 


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.