News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Future I-57/US 67

Started by bugo, June 14, 2012, 08:34:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

intelati49

Quote from: Revive 755 on May 09, 2017, 09:04:21 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 09, 2017, 10:03:26 AM
It is unlikely US 60 will be upgraded to full interstate standards across Missouri. Same with US 67 north of Poplar Bluff. So there is no need to preserve numbers for those corridors.

Sure, let's not consider future developments that appear unlikely at the moment so we can repeat the mistakes made elsewhere in the country with interstate designations.  Especially when Missouri has previously wanted to build or upgrade parts of US 67 between I-55 and Poplar Bluff to a freeway.

I was going to say something like that. I say it's likely, just not in less than 30 years. There's no purpose right now to plan that project right now.


Bobby5280

At the very least Missouri DOT and various towns along the US-60 corridor need to preserve ROW set-backs so a freeway upgrade can happen at some point in the future. Far too often regulators will have a backbone only as strong as wet spaghetti and let developers build all over a future freeway right of way just to be "pro business."

Quote from: bugoDon't forget that damn Ten Commandments monument that the Oklahoma legislature has a hard-on for.

Yeah, they'll waste plenty of taxpayer money fighting that one in the courts, along with wasting more time and money on other steps to dismantle the separation of church and state. But the guys in charge of our state government don't seem to be scared of losing their jobs. There's enough gullible idiots in this state re-electing those clowns. They just keep telling themselves this state's problems are all to do with black and brown people on welfare and drugs.

wdcrft63

A thought on the I-53 vs. I-57 question. If the road is ever going to be extended to Missouri, then I-57 is the right choice. If not, then I agree I-53 would be better. But if you want the road to be extended, then I-57 is the right choice, because it highlights the gap and encourages people to think about doing the extension. It may take a while, sometimes a long while, but gaps in the system tend to be closed eventually.

sparker

Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 11, 2017, 07:23:50 PM
A thought on the I-53 vs. I-57 question. If the road is ever going to be extended to Missouri, then I-57 is the right choice. If not, then I agree I-53 would be better. But if you want the road to be extended, then I-57 is the right choice, because it highlights the gap and encourages people to think about doing the extension. It may take a while, sometimes a long while, but gaps in the system tend to be closed eventually.

This is actually one of the better points made regarding this or similar gap issues.  Selecting a number that corresponds to an existing route -- and is reasonably close in terms of mileage and/or trajectory will inevitably raise questions in both official and regional public circles regarding why the sections are not joined -- and speculation as to the advantages of having an Interstate corridor through the area adjoining the pathway.  When the US 67 freeway is indeed signed as I-57, look for pressure from towns, local politicos, and other interests in both states to fill the gap sooner than later.  The process is simple -- if you want to get something done, first create a squeaky wheel! 

txstateends

Quote from: sparker on May 11, 2017, 08:36:00 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 11, 2017, 07:23:50 PM
A thought on the I-53 vs. I-57 question. If the road is ever going to be extended to Missouri, then I-57 is the right choice. If not, then I agree I-53 would be better. But if you want the road to be extended, then I-57 is the right choice, because it highlights the gap and encourages people to think about doing the extension. It may take a while, sometimes a long while, but gaps in the system tend to be closed eventually.

This is actually one of the better points made regarding this or similar gap issues.  Selecting a number that corresponds to an existing route -- and is reasonably close in terms of mileage and/or trajectory will inevitably raise questions in both official and regional public circles regarding why the sections are not joined -- and speculation as to the advantages of having an Interstate corridor through the area adjoining the pathway.  When the US 67 freeway is indeed signed as I-57, look for pressure from towns, local politicos, and other interests in both states to fill the gap sooner than later.  The process is simple -- if you want to get something done, first create a squeaky wheel! 

That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

Road Hog

Texas could take steps to extend I-45 to Denison today if it wanted to. The precedent has been set where you can terminate at a US highway. US 69 qualifies. The stretch through Sherman is substandard and frankly dangerous, but TxDOT has future plans to fix that.

bugo

Quote from: txstateends on May 12, 2017, 01:41:58 AM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).

sparker

Quote from: bugo on May 12, 2017, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: txstateends on May 12, 2017, 01:41:58 AM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).
Quote from: Road Hog on May 12, 2017, 03:35:48 AM
Texas could take steps to extend I-45 to Denison today if it wanted to. The precedent has been set where you can terminate at a US highway. US 69 qualifies. The stretch through Sherman is substandard and frankly dangerous, but TxDOT has future plans to fix that.

At this time, it would be pointless to designate a I-45 extension over US 75 strictly within Texas; without OK cooperation, such designation would have to end at the state line; the only advantage to such an in-state designation would be to effectively put an end to the freeway removal efforts aimed at I-345 in Dallas.  While OK has the OK (pun deliberate!) to designate an Interstate along US 69 north as far as I-40 (ISTEA section 1174) once up to standards, there's no indication, despite the upgrade of the Durant bypass, that there is any intention to do so in the foreseeable future (internecine state politics, including the desire of certain en route communities to maintain speed traps along existing US 69, mitigate against such an upgrade).  If anything, OK's attitude toward improving anything requiring public sector activity, transportation-related or not, seems to be tending toward the retrograde!  Any new Interstate corridors within the state will likely have to wait until the inmates cease to run the asylum!

Bobby5280

Quote from: bugoUS 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).

US-69 sure needs to be upgraded in Oklahoma, from the Red River all the way to I-44 in Big Cabin. The amount of heavy truck traffic on this road is crazy. IMHO this is one of the most badly needed Interstate highway upgrades in the nation. It's asinine that a few towns along the way would want to block an Interstate highway upgrade. So maybe what needs to happen is the US-69 main streets in those towns need to get pulverized to gravel and leave it 100% to those towns to fix it with their own tax dollars. Even if the towns were begging for I-45 to be brought up through there there's no money to do that now.

We have a bunch of ignoramus jerks running the state government, militantly following troglodyte ideology, whoring themselves to voters with tax cuts and wrecking the budget. They still think more tax cuts will help the state will "grow" its way out of this mess. Um, no. As things increasingly go to hell in the Sooner state, it's going to repel any potential new businesses and residents from moving here and it will entice people who live here already to leave. Our elected leaders know what's happening yet only want to double-down on their "purist" ideology.

News flash to these partisan ass-hats: it costs MONEY, taxpayer provided MONEY, to have things like good public schools staffed by good quality teachers, police, highway patrol, running water, sewage treatment plants, trash removal, jails, prisons, etc. None of this stuff is free. You can never pay for any of that crap with prayer and flag waving.

I have little faith we'll get better leadership in the state capitol any time soon since a giant tide of knuckle-dragging doofus voters keep electing the same militantly partisan ass-hats to office. Too much of Oklahoma's general public loves a candidate who wraps himself in the American flag, uses the Holy Bible as a prop and subliminally or overtly demonizes minorities and immigrants. It's not important for the candidate to have an actual, work-able game plan to improve the state. All he needs is a scapegoat where voters can direct their fury while the candidate accomplishes not a damned thing.

Henry

They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

US71

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 12, 2017, 11:18:44 AM


I have little faith we'll get better leadership in the state capitol any time soon since a giant tide of knuckle-dragging doofus voters keep electing the same militantly partisan ass-hats to office. Too much of Oklahoma's general public loves a candidate who wraps himself in the American flag, uses the Holy Bible as a prop and subliminally or overtly demonizes minorities and immigrants. It's not important for the candidate to have an actual, work-able game plan to improve the state. All he needs is a scapegoat where voters can direct their fury while the candidate accomplishes not a damned thing.

When did Asa Hutchinson move to Oklahoma?  </s>
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

I-39

Alright, enough with the politics........

Anyway, getting back on track, to my point earlier about US 60 not being upgraded to interstate standards, there are a lot more important things for Missouri to do, so any upgrade to interstate standards is decades away (even though I don't think it really needs it, the four lane expressway is more than adequate). As for US 67 north of Poplar Bluff, an upgrade to interstate standards is not really needed with I-55 just east of there. The current four lane expressway serves more local traffic than through. Just upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line would be adequate (even though I am fully aware that is years away as well).

sparker

Quote from: I-39 on May 12, 2017, 01:39:04 PM
Alright, enough with the politics........

Anyway, getting back on track, to my point earlier about US 60 not being upgraded to interstate standards, there are a lot more important things for Missouri to do, so any upgrade to interstate standards is decades away (even though I don't think it really needs it, the four lane expressway is more than adequate). As for US 67 north of Poplar Bluff, an upgrade to interstate standards is not really needed with I-55 just east of there. The current four lane expressway serves more local traffic than through. Just upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line would be adequate (even though I am fully aware that is years away as well).

It'll probably be relatively simple to upgrade US 60 to Interstate standards between Poplar Bluff and I-55; a good job of ROW preservation has been done (no private access and wide spacing between at-grade crossings, as well as enough easement for frontage roads).  South of Poplar Bluff is a different story; while spot upgrades have been undertaken on the current alignment, it's likely that a new-terrain facility will be needed to replace US 67 -- but it likely will not venture too far from the present route.

I-39

Quote from: sparker on May 12, 2017, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 12, 2017, 01:39:04 PM
Alright, enough with the politics........

Anyway, getting back on track, to my point earlier about US 60 not being upgraded to interstate standards, there are a lot more important things for Missouri to do, so any upgrade to interstate standards is decades away (even though I don't think it really needs it, the four lane expressway is more than adequate). As for US 67 north of Poplar Bluff, an upgrade to interstate standards is not really needed with I-55 just east of there. The current four lane expressway serves more local traffic than through. Just upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line would be adequate (even though I am fully aware that is years away as well).

It'll probably be relatively simple to upgrade US 60 to Interstate standards between Poplar Bluff and I-55; a good job of ROW preservation has been done (no private access and wide spacing between at-grade crossings, as well as enough easement for frontage roads).  South of Poplar Bluff is a different story; while spot upgrades have been undertaken on the current alignment, it's likely that a new-terrain facility will be needed to replace US 67 -- but it likely will not venture too far from the present route.

Exactly. It will cost more for Arkansas to build a new Interstate-grade US 67 from Walnut Ridge to the state line as compared to Missouri upgrading the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line. The Missouri section from SR 158 south to the state line is only about 12 miles, and even though it will likely have to be built on a new alignment to the west, that's not terribly far and the terrain is relatively flat (however, there will have to be a few modifications at the SR 158 interchange, as I believe the second lane drops off at the ramp to SR 158).

I know a a few years ago (2014), the failed transportation sales tax in Missouri was to fund the remaining US 67 four lane segment from SR 158 to the state line. Does anyone know if that was going to be on a new alignment or simply upgrade the existing alignment?

sparker

Quote from: I-39 on May 12, 2017, 05:11:03 PM
I know a a few years ago (2014), the failed transportation sales tax in Missouri was to fund the remaining US 67 four lane segment from SR 158 to the state line. Does anyone know if that was going to be on a new alignment or simply upgrade the existing alignment?

IIRC, the former Missouri project was to 5-lane US 67 as a surface facility (probably a sop to roadside businesses).  The Arkansas portion north of Walnut Ridge will indeed be more expensive due to the need to either squeeze up against the eastern flank of the Ozarks in the Pocahontas area or cross the Black River floodplain if a more easterly alignment is selected; either option entails at least some major expenses.

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: bugo on May 12, 2017, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: txstateends on May 12, 2017, 01:41:58 AM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).

All the more reason for Arkansas to pull a rabbit out of it's ass on I-49. 

sparker

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on May 12, 2017, 10:26:54 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 12, 2017, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: txstateends on May 12, 2017, 01:41:58 AM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).

All the more reason for Arkansas to pull a rabbit out of it's ass on I-49. 

If by that you mean get I-30 to I-40 done within most of our lifetimes; then yeah -- grab that furry little thing and yank -- and hope to hell some money comes flying out afterward!

GreenLanternCorps

How long is it going to take to get I-57 in Arkansas signed?

cjk374

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on May 14, 2017, 08:06:42 AM
How long is it going to take to get I-57 in Arkansas signed?

If AR signs I-57, won't that obligate MO to sign TEMP I-57 on a route toward Sikeston?
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

sparker

Quote from: cjk374 on May 14, 2017, 11:25:29 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on May 14, 2017, 08:06:42 AM
How long is it going to take to get I-57 in Arkansas signed?

If AR signs I-57, won't that obligate MO to sign TEMP I-57 on a route toward Sikeston?

Best guess on AR signage is within a year or two from I-40 to Walnut Ridge -- provided the few substandard sections are upgraded by then.  Since nothing within MO is included in the authorizing legislation, they're under no obligation to post anything referring to I-57, future signage included.  Whether they do so somewhere down the line would have to be based on a "gentlemen's agreement" between the states' DOT's and would be voluntary on MO's part.  If they choose to legislate a corridor of their own over US 67 and US 60, then once the legislation was signed they could at least sign the Poplar Bluff bypass as I-57 -- but that's merely speculation at this time.  Both US 67 and US 60 are already high-priority corridors (the former as a segment of the statewide HPC 61 cluster and the latter as part of the "transcontinental" HPC 3); while it's possible that those segments could conceivably be used as the basis for a designation, it's highly unlikely -- the present legislation germane to those two corridors would have to be parsed out to make that possible.  I'ts likely that AR will have to come up with a concrete plan to extend their freeway north to the state line before MO takes any action on the matter.

DJStephens

Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2017, 11:38:53 AM
They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.

Such a scenario should use the "US 169" corridor, (Tulsa - KC) as much of it is already up to grade - freeway, expressway, or super two.  Just need to either bisect or bypass the Coffeyville area. 

Revive 755

Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2017, 11:38:53 AM
They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.

It wouldn't be any worse than Chicagoland, which has four north-south routes ending in the same (albeit larger) metropolitan area with I-55, I-57, I-65, and now I-41.

sparker

Quote from: DJStephens on May 14, 2017, 05:38:41 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2017, 11:38:53 AM
They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.

Such a scenario should use the "US 169" corridor, (Tulsa - KC) as much of it is already up to grade - freeway, expressway, or super two.  Just need to either bisect or bypass the Coffeyville area. 

Since we're flirting with fictional here -- a more likely scenario would be for a I-45 extension alignment, were it to actually occur, would head straight up through OK and KS along US 69 -- with a slight "jog" on I-44/Will Rogers Turnpike; there's more completed facility on that option, particularly in KS.  A 3di Tulsa branch over the INT and US 75 from I-45/US 69 near McAlester could be a possibility as well. 

Wouldn't count on any of it, though -- at least until there's a sea change in OK! 

longhorn

It looks like 67 north of Popular Bluff is close to interstate level, well close. Why not finish it out to I-55 and have a relief valve for all the traffic taking I-44 to hwy 69 to get the Dallas? Or is this the mythical I-53 that's being talked about?

Regards Hwy 75/69 route, its interstate grade mostly up to Muskogee except for McAlester and Atoka. If not I-45 then I-39

sparker

While mostly divided, US 67 from Poplar Bluff to Festus still has quite a bit of private driveway/farm road access that will need to be addressed with structures and/or frontage roads to raise it to Interstate standards.  And, yes, this segment has been mentioned in Fictional as a potential I-53, along with the Avenue of the Saints north of St. Louis.  The issue with the Oklahoma route is Oklahoma itself; except for the Durant bypass (which could be considered a local SIU), little has been done since the freeway north of McAlester was completed in the '80's.  The politics and internecine quarrels responsible for the lack of progress on this corridor have been discussed at length in this and other threads.  It's unlikely that we'll see any additional Interstates in Oklahoma within a decade or two -- it'll take that long for any state administration with some vision to even clear the backlog accumulated by years of neglect.  Put it this way -- the OK state government badly needs the services of a competent craneoproctologist!



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.