I-57 Approved

[Avalanchez71]

No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).

You are making no sense.

They should have numbered it I-24.

[US71]

No, no... I meant US 167 (typo)... I also mentoned possbile interchange improvements to US 167 and I-40 regarding the projected AADT. I referenced the river, due to the expence of projects involving it (to abridge it).

You are making no sense.

They should have numbered it I-24.

John Boozman would disagree. After all, he was the one who attached it to the transportation bill.  Gives him bragging rights at reelection time.

[Road Hog]

That whole corridor (from I-30 north to I-40 east to Future I-57 north) needs a complete redesign, with a right exit off of I-40 onto I-57 to prevent the "spaghetti effect"  that causes so much congestion in that short stretch.

Northbound traffic out of Little Rock shouldn't need to change lanes to get to Sherwood and points north.

[US71]

That whole corridor (from I-30 north to I-40 east to Future I-57 north) needs a complete redesign, with a right exit off of I-40 onto I-57 to prevent the "spaghetti effect"  that causes so much congestion in that short stretch.

Northbound traffic out of Little Rock shouldn't need to change lanes to get to Sherwood and points north.

It's on ARDOT's "to do" list, nowhere close to a priority.

[Henry]

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

[sparker]

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

[hotdogPi]

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

[jp the roadgeek]

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

If you were to do that, one of three things could happen that would either truncate I-57 a little bit or eliminate it altogether.  The I-40 junctions with I-30 and Future I-57 are about 2 miles apart, so there would be a short concurrency.  Here are said options:

1. I-30 takes I-40's route to Wilmington, and I-40 takes over I-57 either to Sikeston, or all the way to Chicago.

2. I-40 takes over I-57 to Goreville, IL, then takes over I-24 to Nashville.  When the two cross again in Nashville, I-40 either ends, or resumes its path to Wilmington, NC.  Meanwhile, I-30 either ends, remains on I-40's path to Wilmington, or takes over the rest of I-24 to Nashville.  If neither replaces the Nashville/Chattanooga route, that portion of I-24 could either become a long 3di or an extended I-59, with the stub end from I-59 to to I-75 becoming I-175. 

3. I-40 assumes I-57's route to Mt. Vernon, IL, then takes over the rest of I-64 east to Norfolk, retaining it's (almost) coast to coast interstate status.  Yes, I-40 would end north of future I-42, and I-57 would be an intrastate interstate.  However, I-42 is so short, the violation would barely be noticeable, while I-57 would still be about 260 miles long, which is longer than I-43 and much longer than I-97.

[sparker]

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

I've come to look at grids as more "guidelines" than hard & fast rules, particularly when route numbering has clearly been either arbitrary or politically motivated (such as the plethora of suffixed routes in the first Interstate iteration).  Sometimes to get something done a bit of "coloring outside the lines" is necessary!

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

If you were to do that, one of three things could happen that would either truncate I-57 a little bit or eliminate it altogether.  The I-40 junctions with I-30 and Future I-57 are about 2 miles apart, so there would be a short concurrency.  Here are said options:

1. I-30 takes I-40's route to Wilmington, and I-40 takes over I-57 either to Sikeston, or all the way to Chicago.

2. I-40 takes over I-57 to Goreville, IL, then takes over I-24 to Nashville.  When the two cross again in Nashville, I-40 either ends, or resumes its path to Wilmington, NC.  Meanwhile, I-30 either ends, remains on I-40's path to Wilmington, or takes over the rest of I-24 to Nashville.  If neither replaces the Nashville/Chattanooga route, that portion of I-24 could either become a long 3di or an extended I-59, with the stub end from I-59 to to I-75 becoming I-175. 

3. I-40 assumes I-57's route to Mt. Vernon, IL, then takes over the rest of I-64 east to Norfolk, retaining it's (almost) coast to coast interstate status.  Yes, I-40 would end north of future I-42, and I-57 would be an intrastate interstate.  However, I-42 is so short, the violation would barely be noticeable, while I-57 would still be about 260 miles long, which is longer than I-43 and much longer than I-97.

All of which are incredibly convoluted -- and to what end?.............making I-30 longer so it fits the "primacy of the zeroes" theory (which as a PR touchpoint resulted in all those suffixed routes in the late 50's just to make sure cities such as Portland and Philadelphia were on routes divisible by 10!).  As it turned out, it didn't matter; Philly gets along just fine with 76, as does Portland with 84. 

[Bobby5280]

The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?

[ilpt4u]

Unless ARDOT somehow renumbers I-530 to I-57, Little Rock will be just another metro area where two 2di's end that could easily be combined as one. As much as I once expected I-30 to continue further north, it wouldn't make too much sense because of it being north of I-40, but then again there's been precedent for the grid being busted in places, and the new I-57 will be west of I-55 which may have provided a conundrum for the ages.

Is that 2di list long that could be combined? STL with I-64/I-44 (I-50 anyone?) immediately comes to mind, and KC with I-29/I-49 (wouldn't this be a good I-45 candidate, and the Texas one can kiss my butt?). And now I-30/Future I-57

For Little Rock, I would dump I-30 and make the Dallas to Chicago corridor I-57 entirely, but I'm biased. Heck, I mght even go so far as to give long distance Controls of Dallas and Chicago for the 30/57 corridor, the whole route, even if the designation changes in Little Rock

If two north-south or two east-west Interstates cross, they will have to violate the grid in some way unless you do a "bump" like I-76/I-80 in Ohio.

Lets see, I-74/I-80 "bump"  in IL. At least OH is kind enough to give the 76/80 bump a Double Trumpet Interchange. The 74/80 IL bump is a sad Cloverleaf

[Bobby5280]

I-44 is a diagonal Interstate. I-64 is not. It won't serve any benefit to combine both into one numbered route since there would be a serious angular bend at the mid point of the combined route. And it will be really ridiculous to change it to something like "I-50." Highway number changes carry all kinds of added costs, and not just to the states that have to change all the signs. Businesses have to change of bunch of their marketing and administrative material to update that change.

Some road geeks may not like I-45 being contained entirely within Texas. But that road directly links two of the nation's biggest metropolitan areas. Nothing along the I-29 or I-49 corridors is anywhere near as big as the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metros. I'd personally like to see I-45 extended North from Dallas into Oklahoma to upgrade the US-69 route to Big Cabin. The amount of truck traffic on that route is ridiculous. I prefer I-49 and I-29 keeping their own respective numbers. Both routes have been established a long time. Unfortunately many years will pass before I-49 is finished.

[sparker]

The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?

Always thought a diagonal from El Paso to Wichita, passing through Roswell, Clovis, and Amarillo, would take care of a lot of needs -- although like most corridors through the Plains, there will be some segments that have low AADT figures.  Probably be a hard sell, however -- most interregional planning efforts still adhere to the short/medium-distance "point-to-point" concept, which long-distance diagonals regularly do not satisfy. 

[ilpt4u]

The Interstate highway system needs more diagonal Interstate highways. The highways can't all be strictly running North-South-East-West in a perfect grid. Diagonal Interstate highways are going to violate the grid numbering system if they travel a long enough distance. We already have a decent number of Southwest to Northeast Interstates. I-57 will be yet another one. I don't think we have enough Southeast to Northwest Interstate highways. Of the few that exist ones like I-24 definitely violate the grid numbering system. So what?

Getting a bit Fictional, but I would run I-24 thru more of Southern IL and into Southeast MO, around the far Southern and Western edges of Metro STL, and link it to the Avenue of the Saints. Upgrade the AOTS to Interstate Standard, and then Route number swap I-24 to an Odd (I like I-51) for a Twin Cities to Chattanooga corridor, which would be more N/S than E/W. Keeping I-24 would be ok as well

This would make another Southeast to Northwest Interstate. I-65 is a good SE/NW routing, at least north of Louisville

I-74 wants to be SE/NW from the Quad Cities to the Carolina coast, but I don't see OH (or KY) nor WV cooperating any time soon

[Bobby5280]

Always thought a diagonal from El Paso to Wichita, passing through Roswell, Clovis, and Amarillo, would take care of a lot of needs -- although like most corridors through the Plains, there will be some segments that have low AADT figures.  Probably be a hard sell, however -- most interregional planning efforts still adhere to the short/medium-distance "point-to-point" concept, which long-distance diagonals regularly do not satisfy.

There's a good number of 4-lane divided highways through West Texas and New Mexico. Most of those are good enough as is. I-27 is what I would most like to see improved and extended in that region, ultimately as a Denver to San Antonio route. I think an Oklahoma City to Denver diagonal Interstate highway would be beneficial to the overall Interstate system.

I could perhaps see a diagonal Interstate running from Las Cruces to Amarillo. I'd prefer Las Cruces as the origin point since that's where I-10 takes a hard turn toward El Paso. An Interstate running from Las Cruces up to Alamogordo and beyond would do more to continue that East-West line from I-10. As it is, US-70 is four laned from Las Cruces to Clovis and US-60 is four laned from Clovis to Amarillo. US-70 is a freeway for 10 or so miles from the I-25 interchange in Las Cruces. I think it would be politically difficult to upgrade US-70 to Interstate quality through mountain towns like Mescalero and Ruidoso.

A diagonal Interstate from Amarillo to Wichita would be an even harder sell.

[Revive 755]

A diagonal Interstate from Amarillo to Wichita would be an even harder sell.

Sell it as an alternative freight corridor to I-40/I-44.  https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsmajortrkrts2040.htm

[Life in Paradise]

Just looking at that truck freight map gives a reason why Texas was pushing for three different branches of I-69 in southern Texas.  Sure looks like the biggest truck traffic is on the interstates with a "0", and some with a "5".  I would agree, a few diagonals wouldn't hurt, and might help traffic move in some large cities by reducing thru truck traffic that might be diverted.

[Interstate 69 Fan]

Uh... why is Wikipedia not edited to show I-57's extension?

[seicer]

Because people have other things to do or edit. You should add it.

[NE2]

It is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_57#Future

[I-39]

Is ArDOT truly waiting for MoDOT before constructing any more of the US 67 freeway/Future I-57?

Regardless of Missouri's timeline, they should go ahead and proceed with the planning and construction of the US 67 freeway between Walnut Ridge and Corning to at least bring it within spitting distance of the state line. IMO, the Walnut Ridge to Corning section will be the most difficult remaining section to construct, so the sooner they get going, the better. And as I've said before, I would imagine the future bypass of Corning will have to go on the west side of town, so the freeway could end at a half-completed interchange at the existing US 67 west of corning until Missouri figures out what the heck to do.

[Road Hog]

It's taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it'll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.

[sparker]

Is ArDOT truly waiting for MoDOT before constructing any more of the US 67 freeway/Future I-57?

Regardless of Missouri's timeline, they should go ahead and proceed with the planning and construction of the US 67 freeway between Walnut Ridge and Corning to at least bring it within spitting distance of the state line. IMO, the Walnut Ridge to Corning section will be the most difficult remaining section to construct, so the sooner they get going, the better. And as I've said before, I would imagine the future bypass of Corning will have to go on the west side of town, so the freeway could end at a half-completed interchange at the existing US 67 west of corning until Missouri figures out what the heck to do.

It's taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it'll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.

I think the actual timeframe for that particular development will depend upon whether a US 67/Pocahontas alignment or, alternately, a AR 34/AR 90 alignment following the UP main line via Knobel is selected; the latter would likely involve easier construction and a more favorable crossing of the Black River floodplain.  However, the fact that most of the area population is centered along the US 67 corridor may mitigate for the more westerly routing.  This is something that's most likely to go back and forth for quite some time before some sort of resolution is reached.

[US71]

It's taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it'll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.

And they are STILL "upgrading" the existing roadway

[capt.ron]

It's taken 60 years to build 120 miles, so it'll probably take them another 30 years to build 60 more miles.

And they are STILL "upgrading" the existing roadway

Indeed!
It's finally complete as a 6 lane controlled access highway from I-40 to just south of Redmond Rd. in Jacksonville. ARDOT has the big challenge coming up (Main St to Vandenberg Blvd). From Vandenberg Blvd to exit 16 is coming along nicely.
Now, from exit 16 up to the White County / Lonoke County line, the road needs to be milled down at the very least. The roadway through there is almost 50 years old...and it's starting to feel like it too!
On the other end, I guess the $64,000 question is the alignment they [ARDOT] will choose north[east] of Walnut Ridge to the state line. My proposal would be to put I-57 on its own alignment and keep US 67 going north to Pocahontas. Look how I-30 avoided such towns northeast of Texarkana (Gurdon especially).