I-57 Approved

[rte66man]

Missouri does have other road projects to do

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

To name a couple

I didn't know the Hannibal bypass was on their radar.  What stage are they at (planning, etc)?

[hbelkins]

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.

If this project ever goes anywhere, I think Kentucky will fight hard for a direct Mississippi River crossing from Kentucky into Missouri. Those bridges at Cairo aren't going to last forever, and US 51 frequently has long-term closures for flooding between Wickliffe and the Ohio River.

Cape Girardeau is too far north to really be on a through, east-west corridor between Missouri and Kentucky. Plus, they have a fairly new bridge there, although it's not on an interstate.

[Bobby5280]

US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.

[edwaleni]

US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.

I have used this route and I agree that sometime in the future they will get it to full I standards from Springfield to Poplar Bluff.

If I go SE, I will skip down to I-155 to Dyersburg at Poplar Bluff and take that over to Jackson, TN and avoid Memphis.

[US71]

US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.

Didn't I read a few months back that 60/125 near Rogersville is getting an upgrade?

[mvak36]

US-60 in Southern Missouri is still getting little upgrades scattered here in there. Just about all of the route is divided four lane quality now. Mountain View is the only spot remaining where the 4-lane route is not divided. The stretch between Springfield and Willow Springs is flanked much of the way by frontage roads. All the ROW needed for freeway upgrades is available. A few new freeway exits have been built just East of Springfield in the past couple or so years. There's no big headline-making program involving the corridor, but they're still working on it.

Didn't I read a few months back that 60/125 near Rogersville is getting an upgrade?

Yes. https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/rogersville-intersection-to-expect-new-interchange/1560998331
Project site: https://www.modot.org/route-60-route-125-interchange

[Rick Powell]

Those bridges at Cairo aren't going to last forever, and US 51 frequently has long-term closures for flooding between Wickliffe and the Ohio River.

The Mississippi river crossing is made somewhat redundant by the newer I-57 bridge, although the locals would like to keep it, I'm sure. And the US 51 Ohio River bridge replacement is being funded by KY and IL. IDOT has $8 million programmed this year for Phase I engineering, and has over $100 million programmed for its share of Phase II engineering, approach roadway, land acquisition, and the actual bridge.

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/transportation-management/transportation-improvement-programs-/multi-modal-transportation-improvement-program/index

[I-39]

Now that Arkansas enacted a gas tax increase, any word on progress on US 67/future I-57 north of Walnut Ridge? When could we hear something?

[Bobby5280]

I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

[US71]

I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

They are rebuilding AR 5 at Cabot and I believe building another interchange

[MikieTimT]

Now that Arkansas enacted a gas tax increase, any word on progress on US 67/future I-57 north of Walnut Ridge? When could we hear something?

Right now, as it stands, the gas tax which starts collection in October is really only enough of an increase for maintenance items and bridge rehabilitation.  They are wanting to put an extension of the 2023 sunsetting 1/2¢ sales tax without another sunset and are holding that project along with I-49 Super-2 between I-40 and AR-22 in addition to some of the uncompleted parts south of US-71 south of Ft. Smith (to DeQueen at least as I recall), various US-412 passing lane segments, 6-laning I-40 east of L.R., and US-82 upgrades across south Arkansas (I guess I-69 just isn't much of a priority without another bridge) as projects for funding with that money.  Of course, I would personally vote for an extension for another decade or so, but can't get on board with a perpetual tax increase.  Removes accountability when they don't have to rejustify every 10 years or so.  Gives them incentive to make sure they have some project completions to tout before bringing it back before the voters again.

[Road Hog]

I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

Best as I can tell, the Jacksonville segment is the only part of the freeway that isn't up to standard already. The frontage roads between exits 11 and 16 may eventually need to be converted to one way also, and that will mean building at least 4 crossovers where there are none.

[edwaleni]

I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.

[The Ghostbuster]

We may have to wait quite a while for the US 67 (future Interstate 57) freeway to be extended beyond Walnut Ridge.

[I-39]

We may have to wait quite a while for the US 67 (future Interstate 57) freeway to be extended beyond Walnut Ridge.

Probably will be finished before either I-49 or I-69 though, since it is a much shorter distance that needs to be constructed.

[I-39]

I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

[I-39]

Now that Arkansas enacted a gas tax increase, any word on progress on US 67/future I-57 north of Walnut Ridge? When could we hear something?

Right now, as it stands, the gas tax which starts collection in October is really only enough of an increase for maintenance items and bridge rehabilitation.  They are wanting to put an extension of the 2023 sunsetting 1/2¢ sales tax without another sunset and are holding that project along with I-49 Super-2 between I-40 and AR-22 in addition to some of the uncompleted parts south of US-71 south of Ft. Smith (to DeQueen at least as I recall), various US-412 passing lane segments, 6-laning I-40 east of L.R., and US-82 upgrades across south Arkansas (I guess I-69 just isn't much of a priority without another bridge) as projects for funding with that money.  Of course, I would personally vote for an extension for another decade or so, but can't get on board with a perpetual tax increase.  Removes accountability when they don't have to rejustify every 10 years or so.  Gives them incentive to make sure they have some project completions to tout before bringing it back before the voters again.

So if the tax passes next year, we will see work on the US 67/Future I-57 corridor next decade?

[MikieTimT]

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

[MikieTimT]

So if the tax passes next year, we will see work on the US 67/Future I-57 corridor next decade?

http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2019/20190612%20AHC%20Meeting%20Slides.pdf

There are 3 different options if the tax passes.  Option 2 provides the most money for capital improvements, which is what new terrain construction would fall under.  See page 45 of the linked PDF above for the project wish list.  Doesn't necessarily mean they will pick Option 2, or that it would be completed or started in 10 years in any case.  Since there wouldn't be a sunset on that tax, there's no urgency on any particular project as the tax wouldn't have to be rejustified as it's permanent at that point anyway.  That's why I'm against it in it's current form.

[MikieTimT]

I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.

They may have to build a Black River bridge regardless, but the area east of Pocahontas has to contend with floodplains of both the Black and Current Rivers.  It's lower than the area along AR-90, which is why the railroad (which most major US highways originally paralleled, except this particular jag of US-67) runs that way, not up to Pocahontas.  If they are really that important an area to serve with an Interstate, then a spur X57 3DI makes far more sense than a lower terrain and longer mileage jag over to the outskirts.

[I-39]

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.

[abqtraveler]

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.

Unless they build a really long viaduct over the flood plain.  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have mastered this approach in building sections of I-10, I-55 and I-65 through the bayous along the Gulf Coast.  I'm sure it can be done here also.

[sparker]

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.

Unless they build a really long viaduct over the flood plain.  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have mastered this approach in building sections of I-10, I-55 and I-65 through the bayous along the Gulf Coast.  I'm sure it can be done here also.

Nah -- they'll just put it up on a berm with periodic bridges for drainage.  As far a getting through Pocahontas itself, IIRC the plans discussed previously snake I-57 along the top of the bluff east of US 67 until northeast of town, where it's supposed to trace the present facility closely out toward Corning.  While a path following the UP main line (and 34/90) would have been the most efficient and cost-effective regarding bridging, it seems Pocahontas (and their state representative) wanted to maintain a route as close as possible to US 67 to enhance the potential for on-road business revenue.   We'll just have to see when finalized plans are published.   

[I-39]

The problem is, isn't the area east of Pocahontas a flood plain? I thought the concern was routing the US 67 freeway by Pocahontas would result in flooded roadways in certain circumstances.

This is what there is to look forward to if the road is taken up to Pocahontas:

Yeah, that's not gonna work........

Sorry to Pocahontas residents, but I-57 will have to go where originally planned.

Unless they build a really long viaduct over the flood plain.  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have mastered this approach in building sections of I-10, I-55 and I-65 through the bayous along the Gulf Coast.  I'm sure it can be done here also.

Nah -- they'll just put it up on a berm with periodic bridges for drainage.  As far a getting through Pocahontas itself, IIRC the plans discussed previously snake I-57 along the top of the bluff east of US 67 until northeast of town, where it's supposed to trace the present facility closely out toward Corning.  While a path following the UP main line (and 34/90) would have been the most efficient and cost-effective regarding bridging, it seems Pocahontas (and their state representative) wanted to maintain a route as close as possible to US 67 to enhance the potential for on-road business revenue.   We'll just have to see when finalized plans are published.   

I don't think the Pocahontas routing is a done deal yet, especially considering the presentation above appears to show the corridor going the original way.

[capt.ron]

I don't have any idea, but I'm not privy to all of AR DOT's planning time lines. Right now they don't even have an alignment between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri border clearly identified. Some people want to bend I-57 up to Pocahontas rather than extend the freeway in the direction it is currently pointing: the AR-34/AR-90 alignment. Walnut Ridge to Corning going parallel to the rail line is about 31.5 miles. Sticking with US-67 thru Pocahontas, the trip to Corning is about 8 miles longer. I-57 would have to take some variation on either route due to the big wetlands area fed by the Black River between both routes.

My guess is AR DOT is going to concentrate on bringing the existing US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge up to full/current Interstate standards so that segment can be signed as I-57 (rather than "Future I-57"). In the meantime they'll probably just continue studying route possibilities while all the budgetary and political issues get sorted.

After public hearings in Pocahontas, it was made clear to ARDOT that they want the future I-57 to turn north and go by them.  The new ROW will go along the east side of the Walnut Ridge airport, up to a new bridge over the Black River east of Pocahontas and will join the old US 62-67 where it takes a southern bend NE of Pocahontas, and then will follow the old ROW until just west of Corning, where it will turn north to meet the Missouri border.

There was strong support for this route from the Pocahontas political delegation and citizenry. Corning didn't really care because it was going to go by them regardless.

An exit at AR-304 would be built south of town for access to their industrial park and another exit built NE of town where US-62/67 leave town.  Biggers and Reyno would also get rural style exits.  A bridge expansion would have to be built at the Current River crossing.

I have not seen an updated map of the routing probably because the environmental studies on the new route haven't been completed yet.

I would imagine that ARDOT likes this as they already own a majority of the ROW from Pocahontas to Corning, as opposed to all new ROW if they followed the UP rail route.

They would have to build a Black River bridge regardless of location so that is a wash.

Looks like history is repeating itself. What I'm getting at is when I-40 was going to bypass San Jon in New Mexico back in the 1960's. San Jon was probably the last town in New Mexico to be bypassed fully by I-40. The original alignment was to feature I-40 more or less going from a straight line from Glenrio to Tucumcari. Of course, the townspeople of San Jon threw a fit so I-40 had to be realigned to follow US 66 down to San Jon.  And the San Jon alignment didn't really add that much mileage.
However in I-57's case, the "Pocahontas" alignment doesn't make any sense at all. In addition, just looking at the pic above, that area is prone to flooding. I don't know if the people that live in Pocahontas understand that but they really need to get over themselves if they insist that I-57 pass close by or through their town.
As others have pointed out, the existing US 67 four lane going into Pocahontas could be made into a spur route (I-157?) so that could be possibly used as a loophole so the townspeople can get a freeway. Of course the "I-157" loses its interstate standards once it enters into Pocahontas and becomes an "Arkansas 5 lane freeway".