I-57 Approved

[MikieTimT]

I agree. Allocate money to finishing 49 first. Its way I advocated a toll over 10 years ago. A toll would get 57 built faster. Even at only a 50 cent charge and a dollar for out of snowbirds...

If memory serves correct, Arkansas law forbids tolls on public roadways.

If that is indeed the case, then talks of a tolled I-49 Arkansas River bridge is merely speculation about something that won't happen without legislative action -- but that aspect of the conversation seems to dominate discussion about the crossing.  Maybe the bridge and approaches would be some sort of PPP, with the private parties technically holding title to the facility (i.e., not a public roadway), which would smell a little funny but might squeak through the process.  If any of you AR-based posters know of any negotiations about the bridge and/or potential tolling, please chime in!

The toll bridge idea has been discarded, I believe. Too much to build, not enough potential return on the investment.

It's my understanding that the Highway Commission would have to petition the legislature to change the law.

As of a few years ago, ARDOT has tolling authority.  However, the studies have indicated that tolls wouldn't cover costs in all the cases they've looked at, including this one, so they're looking at other means.

[MikieTimT]

I found a document from AHTD(ARDOT) about some of the tolling considerations, and it also had a map of the portion of the North Belt Freeway (completion of northern loop connecting AR-440 to I-430).  It looks like the initial route they chose for that does indeed bisect Camp Robinson.  Anyway, it's all moot until funding is figured out.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiwg5zOm-HgAhURVK0KHSWmC18QFjABegQIBBAC&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ahtd.state.ar.us%2FOutgoing%2FI-49%2FTolling%2520Information%2520Compendium-2014-09-10.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3fBx5YGZYucYSml0zUGArj

Edit: corrected URL to PDF file from AHTD(ARDOT)

[MikieTimT]

There's a lot of other interesting information in that document, like the consideration of a toll bridge realignment of US-79 into north Mississippi that would function as a southern bypass of Memphis quite a few decades ago.

[bassoon1986]

Personally, I would have preferred I-53 for what is ostensibly now the I-57 corridor -- at least the portion from NLR to Poplar Bluff; with an extension up US 67 to Festus, MO.  Then it could have been extended south to subsume I-/AR 530 and potentially farther south to Alexandria and/or Lake Charles.  Fits perfectly in the grid and makes use of existing well-utilized corridors.   But the folks who actually get to decide such things chose I-57, likely because it (a) could be considered a connector to the far larger Chicago area (vis-à-vis St. Louis) and thus more attractive as a long-distance commercial corridor, and (b) would require less in the way of involvement by MO, which, frankly, has a pretty dismal record regarding such things.  But the recent MODOT announcement that they're actually planning their part of this route is at least somewhat encouraging.

While it's technically possible to upgrade US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus (JCT I-55) 20 miles South of St Louis, Missouri already has its hands full with other corridors. The Belle Vista Bypass has been long delayed. MO DOT has been very slowly upgrading US-60 across Southern Missouri up to Interstate/freeway standards. They still have a long way to go with that effort. I don't know the traffic counts for US-60 from Springfield to Poplar Bluff versus those of US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus. Both are pretty much 4-laned the whole way with freeway style exits scattered here and there. It seems like US-60 has more of them. I think Missouri should concentrate on finishing one corridor and then upgrade the next if it is justified.

As for I-530, and the 2-lane AR-530 segment of it South of Pine Bluff, I don't expect that route to ever get re-numbered. There's hardly any justification to expand the 2-lane portion into 4-lanes. If I-69 can be completed thru Arkansas then the route might be worth finishing down to that point. Giving the route a 2-digit designation and extending it down thru Monroe, Alexandria and to Lake Charles would be a tough sell. Is there really enough traffic on that corridor to justify a new Interstate? Louisiana already has I-49 on its hands to finish. That's a much bigger priority, even bigger than I-69 and even bigger still than I-14.

To me as a Louisianian, I don't think we need another north-south Interstate. The Monroe-Alexandria-Lake Charles corridor is well-served by US 165 since it's been 4-laned. I don't see that much more of an improvement or time savings by adding an interstate alongside it. If westbound traffic from Mississippi on I-20 is going to Houston, the I-20 to the future I-69 south route to Houston should serve traffic fine.

I don't foresee I-530 expanding further south from Monticello once the PineBluff-Monticello portion upgrades to interstate standards and I don't think there is a need.


iPhone

[jbnv]

Sorry, but any freeway extension of I-530/AR 530 south along the US 425/US 165 corridor to east of Lake Charles needs to be designated I-51.

US 51 says come to Hammond more often.

As for I-530, and the 2-lane AR-530 segment of it South of Pine Bluff, I don't expect that route to ever get re-numbered. There's hardly any justification to expand the 2-lane portion into 4-lanes. If I-69 can be completed thru Arkansas then the route might be worth finishing down to that point. Giving the route a 2-digit designation and extending it down thru Monroe, Alexandria and to Lake Charles would be a tough sell. Is there really enough traffic on that corridor to justify a new Interstate? Louisiana already has I-49 on its hands to finish. That's a much bigger priority, even bigger than I-69 and even bigger still than I-14.

You clearly don't live in Louisiana. Unless you happen to know something about Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe that this almost-lifelong resident of Louisiana doesn't know. The only reason we're not already upgrading US 165 to an I-Whatever is because very few Louisiana politicians hang out on AARoads. Once someone starts talking about it, it will gain traction just like I-14, no matter how unlikely building it is.

[Anthony_JK]

Sorry, but any freeway extension of I-530/AR 530 south along the US 425/US 165 corridor to east of Lake Charles needs to be designated I-51.

US 51 says come to Hammond more often.

LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.

As for I-530, and the 2-lane AR-530 segment of it South of Pine Bluff, I don't expect that route to ever get re-numbered. There's hardly any justification to expand the 2-lane portion into 4-lanes. If I-69 can be completed thru Arkansas then the route might be worth finishing down to that point. Giving the route a 2-digit designation and extending it down thru Monroe, Alexandria and to Lake Charles would be a tough sell. Is there really enough traffic on that corridor to justify a new Interstate? Louisiana already has I-49 on its hands to finish. That's a much bigger priority, even bigger than I-69 and even bigger still than I-14.

You clearly don't live in Louisiana. Unless you happen to know something about Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe that this almost-lifelong resident of Louisiana doesn't know. The only reason we're not already upgrading US 165 to an I-Whatever is because very few Louisiana politicians hang out on AARoads. Once someone starts talking about it, it will gain traction just like I-14, no matter how unlikely building it is.

Freewayizing the US 165/US 425 corridor has been a long term goal of LADOTD for quite some time; even with the completion of the 4-laning as part of the TIMED program. The 4-laning only pushes the timetable for ultimate upgrade back a bit.

If by some chance I-69 through NW LA does get pulled in favor of an US 59/I-30/I-40 corridor via Texarkana/Little Rock, then the need for a diagonal SW-NE corridor in Louisiana that can connect with any I-530 extension increases exponentially. It is possible even to run such a corridor through Alexandria either through upgrading MacArthur Drive (US 165) or through a bypass that can also run any possible I-14 corridor through as well.

Again, though, that is very long term, and right now only speculation. I-49 South/Lafayette Connector/Shreveport ICC, I-10 through Baton Rouge, and possibly I-10 through Lake Charles is the bigger priority right now, and will be for the next 10-20 years.

[jbnv]

LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.

Your examples are state highways and interstates. There's no precedent for duplicating US and Interstate numbers in Louisiana either.

[ilpt4u]

LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.

Your examples are state highways and interstates. There's no precedent for duplicating US and Interstate numbers in Louisiana either.

Most states don't have US and Interstate duplications...

For a long while, IL stood alone on that one

Since then, TX, NC, and WI have joined the club

Depending on what is defined as I-41's official southern terminus, IL might be the only state with two, tho

[Anthony_JK]

LA 10 coexists just a few miles north of I-10, and LA 59 is actually closer to I-59. Also, no rule in LA against US and Interstate number duplication.

Your examples are state highways and interstates. There's no precedent for duplicating US and Interstate numbers in Louisiana either.

US 69 in Texas coexisting and intersecting with Future I-69 in Lufkin isn't an example? Also, precedent isn't the same as legality.

[MikieTimT]

US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

[abqtraveler]

US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.

[ilpt4u]

US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.

The original, I-24 and US 24 in Illinois, says Hello

[sprjus4]

US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.

The original, I-24 and US 24 in Illinois, says Hello

I-74 / US 74 in North Carolina also says Hello.

[hbelkins]

I-74 / US 74 in North Carolina also says Hello.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.

The whole thing could have been solved if I-41 and I-74 had been given more sensical sensible numbers -- a 3di in the case of 41, and a 40-series number for 74. (I don't know where I got "sensical." I guess I was thinking "non-nonsensical" and "sensical" popped out of my fingers. I'm not sure that's even a word.)

[Bobby5280]

I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

[hbelkins]

I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

[sparker]

I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

If common sense prevails and a different designation is eventually applied to NC's I-74, such action would likely be part of NC's seemingly endless quest for more 2di's -- specifically, one that would functionally follow all of US 74 from I-26 to Wilmington (that could be anything from 28 to 38 -- likely "36", as it's currently unused in the state); this would leave the N-S section from Rockingham to Greensboro solely as I-73.  The diagonal portion of I-74 from I-73 through High Point and around Winston-Salem could conceivably receive another even 2di from 38 through 48 (something tells me they're not going to ask for I-50 for such a corridor).  NC, at that point, would be further along in its seeming goal of applying I-designations to as much of its statewide freeway "master plan" as possible (look out, US 17 -- their eyes are on you as well!).

[MikieTimT]

US-49 and I-49 both exist in Arkansas, but on opposite sides of the state.

AASHTO frowns upon having an interstate route and a US route with the same number in the same state, let alone assigned to the same road.  In all of the cases where an interstate and US route with the same number in the same state, they have resulted from the interstate designation being written into law by Congress, as I-41, I-69, and I-74 are all congressionally-designated interstate corridors.  Since Congress enacted laws mandating the use of specific interstate route numbers for specific corridors, AASHTO had no option but to assign the congressionally-established interstate numbers when the routes were brought up to interstate standards and ready to be designated as interstates.

It's pretty much a nonfactor around the coasts and northern and southern borders.  Only in the middle of the country do the opposing standard numbering systems really even have to be considered.  And let's not pretend that the coasts really even care about the middle of the country on most subjects.  We're just struggling to patch together contiguous freeways as it is to care much about the numbers attached to them.

[sprjus4]

I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

If common sense prevails and a different designation is eventually applied to NC's I-74, such action would likely be part of NC's seemingly endless quest for more 2di's -- specifically, one that would functionally follow all of US 74 from I-26 to Wilmington (that could be anything from 28 to 38 -- likely "36", as it's currently unused in the state); this would leave the N-S section from Rockingham to Greensboro solely as I-73.  The diagonal portion of I-74 from I-73 through High Point and around Winston-Salem could conceivably receive another even 2di from 38 through 48 (something tells me they're not going to ask for I-50 for such a corridor).  NC, at that point, would be further along in its seeming goal of applying I-designations to as much of its statewide freeway "master plan" as possible (look out, US 17 -- their eyes are on you as well!).

Here's my sort of concept -

• I-38 or similar along 286 miles of U.S. 74 between I-26 and Downtown Wilmington. Would require an upgrade to the existing 70 MPH freeway between I-26 and Charlotte with new bridges likely on the 70s section, shoulders on all of it, etc., a full overlap with I-85 and I-485, then following the interstate-grade tolled US 74 bypass of Monroe, then upgrading the rest of the divided highway to Wilmington to interstate standards.
• I-X73 or I-X77 or similar along the portion of I-74 between I-73 north of Asheboro and I-77. This is only 80 miles long, and would not warrant a new primary interstate designation. The longest spur route I believe is I-476 in Pennsylvania at 130 miles long. Also, I-587 will be 60 miles long between I-87 at Zebulon and Greenville, NC.
• I-73 between Asheboro and Rockingham will be solely I-73, no other designations. U.S. Route 220 needs to be routed back onto the old route as well, including where it serves as a frontage road to I-73 (like I-95 north of Emporia, VA, US 301 follows the frontage road / original roadway, solely I-95 on the mainline), not this alternative / business stuff. I-73 / US 74 (or conceptual I-38) would overlap about 10 miles in Rockingham.
• I-74 is fully deleted in North Carolina, and remains as one interstate in the mid-west.

[wdcrft63]

I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

The best choice for this designation is I-36. It fits the grid and there is no NC 36.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

[abqtraveler]

I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

The best choice for this designation is I-36. It fits the grid and there is no NC 36.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

I highly doubt we'll ever see I-73 or I-74 completed outside of North Carolina. Technically speaking, the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-74 to be designated along I-77 in Virginia from the NC state line to I-81, but Virginia has elected not to sign this section. Makes some sort of sense, since no other portion of I-74 will ever be built. While it's still very much a longshot, there is still hope that I-73 may one day be completed to Roanoke, but I don't anticipate anything being built north of there.

[MikieTimT]

I think I-74 in North Carolina ought to be re-named. Chances are very next to none, if completely non-existent, that I-74 in North Carolina will ever connect to the I-74 in Ohio. Even if the federal government starts taking a far more active role in Interstate planning and construction like it did 30-40 years ago completing I-74 would be a long shot.

I don't know what other designation could be given to I-74 (maybe I-46?). It might be just as good to have it signed as a US route. NC has been going totally nuts with the Interstate designations while some other states have been largely ignoring them. It makes for a very weird looking map.

The best choice for this designation is I-36. It fits the grid and there is no NC 36.

Any 40-series even number would work. Or a 30-series, 50-series (other than US 52) or even I-28 would work.

I highly doubt we'll ever see I-73 or I-74 completed outside of North Carolina. Technically speaking, the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-74 to be designated along I-77 in Virginia from the NC state line to I-81, but Virginia has elected not to sign this section. Makes some sort of sense, since no other portion of I-74 will ever be built. While it's still very much a longshot, there is still hope that I-73 may one day be completed to Roanoke, but I don't anticipate anything being built north of there.

To get back to the midsouth region, and I-57 in particular.  Now that I-49 is essentially funded for Missouri's remaining portion and should be completed by Summer 2022, how long until we restart that process from Poplar Bluff, MO to Walnut Ridge, AR?

[ilpt4u]

Missouri does have other road projects to do

I-70 across the state
Avenue of the Saints Hannibal Bypass

To name a couple

[Bobby5280]

There's also the US-60 project in Southern Missouri. At one point a couple decades ago that route was proposed to be part of an extension of I-66.

[sparker]

There's also the US-60 project in Southern Missouri. At one point a couple decades ago that route was proposed to be part of an extension of I-66.

If built, that route would have multiplexed with the proposed I-57 corridor from Poplar Bluff to somewhere near Charleston, east of Sikeston, where a Mississippi River bridge would have directly connected with KY.  However, any I-66 proposal was "detoured" by interests in the Cape Girardeau area, who wanted the E-W corridor to pass through their area and cross southern IL before joining I-24 back into KY.  AFAIK, no further action has been taken to further either corridor concept -- and although there are still "Future I-66" signs along the Cumberland Parkway, any routing west of I-65 is still up in the air -- particularly since the Natcher Parkway, considered one of the more likely route alternatives, is now being signed as I-165.  With all the inaction (and seemingly increasing disinterest) regarding I-66, it's increasingly likely that the only US 60 segment to be the beneficiary of an Interstate upgrade is the I-57 extension east of Poplar Bluff -- if, of course, MO identifies the necessary funding.