I-57 Approved

[Road Hog]

The presences of both Camp Robinson and Burns Park and the residential buildup between the two will make a northern belt of I-440 highly unfeasible, as much as I'd like to see it.

[MikieTimT]

The presences of both Camp Robinson and Burns Park and the residential buildup between the two will make a northern belt of I-440 highly unfeasible, as much as I'd like to see it.

Well, they are already considering a route through there right now.  It isn't a freeway, unfortunately, but they are going to put a road of some sort through there.

NLR East-West Connector Study

[edwaleni]

The presences of both Camp Robinson and Burns Park and the residential buildup between the two will make a northern belt of I-440 highly unfeasible, as much as I'd like to see it.

Well, they are already considering a route through there right now.  It isn't a freeway, unfortunately, but they are going to put a road of some sort through there.

NLR East-West Connector Study

Connect AR-440 to a new roue to AR-89 along Melo Bayou and connect to I-40 at Bell Slough and call it a day. Removes the E-W trucks out of central Little Rock and increases connectivity to the ANG base at Little Rock AFB.

[SkyPesos]

With I-69, it was never the best route for long distance traffic since day 1. Even in its original section, US 24/I-75/I-94 is a better route between Ft Wayne and Port Huron. Only benefit I can think of staying on I-69 is bypassing Detroit.

[Avalanchez71]

So is I-57 going to put AR on the map?

[sprjus4]

^

I-69 is around the same distance and avoids Detroit entirely. Why would somebody want to drive into the city to go through, when they can avoid it entirely? Plus all the traffic on I-94... I mean that's a very poor decision going that way IMO unless you are specifically wanting to see or go through the city.

[sprjus4]

So is I-57 going to put AR on the map?

What?

[SkyPesos]

^

I-69 is around the same distance and avoids Detroit entirely. Why would somebody want to drive into the city to go through, when they can avoid it entirely? Plus all the traffic on I-94... I mean that's a very poor decision going that way IMO unless you are specifically wanting to see or go through the city.

With little-no traffic between Ft Wayne and Port Huron:
US 24/I-75/I-94: 220 miles, 3 1/2 hours
I-69: 260 miles, 4 hours

So not exactly the same distance, but the higher likelihood of traffic on the Detroit routing can offset the time and distance savings.

[sprjus4]

^

I-69 is around the same distance and avoids Detroit entirely. Why would somebody want to drive into the city to go through, when they can avoid it entirely? Plus all the traffic on I-94... I mean that's a very poor decision going that way IMO unless you are specifically wanting to see or go through the city.

With little-no traffic between Ft Wayne and Port Huron:
US 24/I-75/I-94: 220 miles, 3 1/2 hours
I-69: 260 miles, 4 hours

So not exactly the same distance, but the higher likelihood of traffic on the Detroit routing can offset the time and distance savings.

Oh, I was thinking from the I-94 / I-69 split. Even from Fort Wayne, it may be around 20 minutes shorter going through Detroit and Toledo, but considering the slightly longer route avoids both cities entirely, has higher speed limits throughout (70-75 mph vs. 65-70 mph), and less traffic overall, it still might be more attractive.

[Scott5114]

Why not both? I-57→I-70→I-69?

[sparker]

Why not both? I-57→I-70→I-69?

Actually, that's something that will in reality probably be taken up by drivers, primarily commercial ones, since it avoids major metro areas between TX and Indianapolis (LR and Terre Haute being the largest such areas along that corridor).  That was (and is) one of the salient points regarding the central (Shreveport-Memphis) segment of I-69: no significant metro areas to traverse, major or otherwise -- even the Dean bridge is functionally out in the middle of nowhere!

So is I-57 going to put AR on the map?

What?

What it does is put NE AR -- or at least the portion along the SE side of the Ozark plateau -- on a more direct route from Chicago and/or the Great Lakes area with TX points.  Might have some ancillary effects -- perhaps a bit more local revenue if road-service facilities start locating along the route from both commercial and recreational traffic.  But it will also divert traffic away from the chokepoint that is I-40 from LR to I-55.  The one negative thing that may be attributable to I-57 development is the temptation within ARDOT to procrastinate about upgrades to that same I-40 segment if commercial traffic measurably subsides -- or possibly stretch out those projects over a much longer time frame. 

[mvak36]

Got this email yesterday:

SIKESTON–The Missouri Department of Transportation will hold a virtual public hearing to discuss a proposed project to upgrade U.S. Route 67 in Butler County to four lanes in preparation for Future I-57. 

The virtual public hearing will be held Tuesday, Aug. 3 from 4 to 6 p.m., with formal presentations beginning at 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. The same presentation will be delivered at both 4 and 5 p.m. to provide attendees with multiple opportunities to join the discussion. Throughout the online hearing, there will opportunities for attendees to ask questions or share comments. Attendees can join the virtual public meeting on Aug. 3 by visiting www.modot.org/futureI57.

The proposed project includes upgrading Route 67 to interstate standards from the Route 160/158 interchange south of Poplar Bluff, Missouri to the Missouri/Arkansas state line. The entire project limits are broken down into five phases: Phases 1A and 1B, as well as Phases 2-4.

Phases 1A, 1B and 2 are funded and will be the focus of the public hearing. Phase 1A received funding through Governor Mike Parson's cost share program. Phases 1B and 2 were funded thanks to a cost share between MoDOT and the City of Poplar Bluff. This was made possible after Poplar Bluff voters approved a ballot measure led by the Highway 67 Corporation to help fund the expansion in August 2019.

Improvements will extend from the Route 160/158 interchange to County Road 352 through the currently funded phases. The Route 160/158 interchange will be reconfigured with two roundabouts in place of the current loop ramps in the northwest and southeast quadrants.

Funding is not yet secured for Phases 3 and 4; schedules will be determined as funding becomes available.

Interested persons may review the project in more detail and share their thoughts at www.modot.org/futureI57. Individuals interested in attending the virtual public hearing may visit www.modot.org/futureI57 to join on Aug. 3.

Comments will be accepted through Tuesday, August 24, 2021.

Map showing the phases is located at: https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Overall%20Exhibit.pdf

[edwaleni]

Why not both? I-57→I-70→I-69?

Actually, that's something that will in reality probably be taken up by drivers, primarily commercial ones, since it avoids major metro areas between TX and Indianapolis (LR and Terre Haute being the largest such areas along that corridor).  That was (and is) one of the salient points regarding the central (Shreveport-Memphis) segment of I-69: no significant metro areas to traverse, major or otherwise -- even the Dean bridge is functionally out in the middle of nowhere!

So is I-57 going to put AR on the map?

What?

What it does is put NE AR -- or at least the portion along the SE side of the Ozark plateau -- on a more direct route from Chicago and/or the Great Lakes area with TX points.  Might have some ancillary effects -- perhaps a bit more local revenue if road-service facilities start locating along the route from both commercial and recreational traffic.  But it will also divert traffic away from the chokepoint that is I-40 from LR to I-55.  The one negative thing that may be attributable to I-57 development is the temptation within ARDOT to procrastinate about upgrades to that same I-40 segment if commercial traffic measurably subsides -- or possibly stretch out those projects over a much longer time frame.

From reading the meeting minutes of both Pocahontas and Corning city councils they are most definitely interested but for different reasons.

Pocahontas has invested in a logistics park which will be economically ideal because it can serve several regional interests (Paragould via US-412, Jonesboro via US-63) along with bleed off traffic using US-412/US-62 to the west to Mountain Home.

Usually where large logistics are located, truck stops usually follow. When XPO Logistics set up a transfer center in Salem, IL, tax revenue from diesel sales went up 8% just after. That doesn't include hotel rooms, food sales, etc.

Corning is strictly interested in replacing recently lost retail tax revenue due to a closed WalMart. I would expect to see them solicit either some kind of downtown renewal to make it more tourism friendly and draw off increased passerby traffic, or extend their city limits out to the bypass to capture new retail. People laugh, but even just an exit based TacoBell has impacts for small towns like this. This is what was discussed as late as November 2020. They are waiting for ArDOT to finalize the ROW agreement with MoDOT.

[I-39]

Got this email yesterday:

SIKESTON–The Missouri Department of Transportation will hold a virtual public hearing to discuss a proposed project to upgrade U.S. Route 67 in Butler County to four lanes in preparation for Future I-57. 

The virtual public hearing will be held Tuesday, Aug. 3 from 4 to 6 p.m., with formal presentations beginning at 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. The same presentation will be delivered at both 4 and 5 p.m. to provide attendees with multiple opportunities to join the discussion. Throughout the online hearing, there will opportunities for attendees to ask questions or share comments. Attendees can join the virtual public meeting on Aug. 3 by visiting www.modot.org/futureI57.

The proposed project includes upgrading Route 67 to interstate standards from the Route 160/158 interchange south of Poplar Bluff, Missouri to the Missouri/Arkansas state line. The entire project limits are broken down into five phases: Phases 1A and 1B, as well as Phases 2-4.

Phases 1A, 1B and 2 are funded and will be the focus of the public hearing. Phase 1A received funding through Governor Mike Parson's cost share program. Phases 1B and 2 were funded thanks to a cost share between MoDOT and the City of Poplar Bluff. This was made possible after Poplar Bluff voters approved a ballot measure led by the Highway 67 Corporation to help fund the expansion in August 2019.

Improvements will extend from the Route 160/158 interchange to County Road 352 through the currently funded phases. The Route 160/158 interchange will be reconfigured with two roundabouts in place of the current loop ramps in the northwest and southeast quadrants.

Funding is not yet secured for Phases 3 and 4; schedules will be determined as funding becomes available.

Interested persons may review the project in more detail and share their thoughts at www.modot.org/futureI57. Individuals interested in attending the virtual public hearing may visit www.modot.org/futureI57 to join on Aug. 3.

Comments will be accepted through Tuesday, August 24, 2021.

Map showing the phases is located at: https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Overall%20Exhibit.pdf

Hopefully the rest can be built with the gas tax increase.

I wonder how they are going to redesign the MO 158 interchange.

[The Ghostbuster]

Will US 67 be upgraded on its existing alignment south of MO 158 or on an alignment adjacent to its existing alignment?

[sprjus4]

Will US 67 be upgraded on its existing alignment south of MO 158 or on an alignment adjacent to its existing alignment?

Pretty much so. I'm not sure the exact plans, but the existing road might remain in tact as a "frontage road"  with the mainlines built right alongside the original road, but that's close enough I'd consider it an upgrade vs. new alignment - that'd be something more like US-67 in Arkansas.

[edwaleni]

Will US 67 be upgraded on its existing alignment south of MO 158 or on an alignment adjacent to its existing alignment?

Pretty much so. I'm not sure the exact plans, but the existing road might remain in tact as a "frontage road"  with the mainlines built right alongside the original road, but that's close enough I'd consider it an upgrade vs. new alignment - that'd be something more like US-67 in Arkansas.

In the current updated EIS:

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf

Several routes were looked at but most will follow the current US-67 alignment except at Neelyville Baptist Church. The EIS has a whole chapter just for them.

[I-39]

Will US 67 be upgraded on its existing alignment south of MO 158 or on an alignment adjacent to its existing alignment?

Pretty much so. I'm not sure the exact plans, but the existing road might remain in tact as a "frontage road"  with the mainlines built right alongside the original road, but that's close enough I'd consider it an upgrade vs. new alignment - that'd be something more like US-67 in Arkansas.

In the current updated EIS:

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf

Several routes were looked at but most will follow the current US-67 alignment except at Neelyville Baptist Church. The EIS has a whole chapter just for them.

Other than the interchange, it doesn't appear they plan to fix the segment they built in 2013. That segment has I believe two at grades and a narrow section with small shoulders. That will have to be corrected at some point.

[edwaleni]

Will US 67 be upgraded on its existing alignment south of MO 158 or on an alignment adjacent to its existing alignment?

Pretty much so. I'm not sure the exact plans, but the existing road might remain in tact as a "frontage road"  with the mainlines built right alongside the original road, but that's close enough I'd consider it an upgrade vs. new alignment - that'd be something more like US-67 in Arkansas.

In the current updated EIS:

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Route%2067%20EIS%20Reevaluation.pdf

Several routes were looked at but most will follow the current US-67 alignment except at Neelyville Baptist Church. The EIS has a whole chapter just for them.

Other than the interchange, it doesn't appear they plan to fix the segment they built in 2013. That segment has I believe two at grades and a narrow section with small shoulders. That will have to be corrected at some point.

Yes, the EIS mentions that there is a section from County C to the MO-158/US-160 exit that is not at Interstate specifications and would require an update to do so.

[I-39]

Here is a link to the exhibit of the redesigned Route 158 interchange.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/US%2067%20Future%20I57%20Handout_August%202021.pdf

Basically, they are removing the loops and converting it to a diamond with roundabouts. The existing US 67 which will become a frontage road will be realigned to the east.

[The Ghostbuster]

A diamond interchange with roundabouts at MO 158? Sounds like something I would encounter in my home state. By the way, does Missouri have a lot of roundabout intersections like Wisconsin does?

[SkyPesos]

A diamond interchange with roundabouts at MO 158? Sounds like something I would encounter in my home state. By the way, does Missouri have a lot of roundabout intersections like Wisconsin does?

Not a lot like Indiana and Wisconsin, but I have seen some get constructed in recent years. In the St Louis area, there's MO 364 and Gutermuth Rd, finished last fall, and I-64 and Spoede Rd from a decade ago.

[Tomahawkin]

Any word on what the progress is on the Southern Missouri side of connecting IH-57. I was in the Sikeston area a year ago and didn't see much

[ilpt4u]

Any word on what the progress is on the Southern Missouri side of connecting IH-57. I was in the Sikeston area a year ago and didn't see much

The posts on this last page have been discussing what MoDOT is up to...their first priority to upgrade to I-57 appears to be upgrading the existing 2-lane US 67 south of Poplar Bluff to Interstate Standard, with a portion of it already funded and scheduled

Further upgrades to the existing US 60 Expresssway to get it to Interstate Standards west of I-55 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff are the lower priority and so far unfunded (I think?), but it is ultimately the plan to get the upgrade from the I-55/57/US 60 interchange to the MO/AR state line

[US71]

Any word on what the progress is on the Southern Missouri side of connecting IH-57. I was in the Sikeston area a year ago and didn't see much

The posts on this last page have been discussing what MoDOT is up to...their first priority to upgrade to I-57 appears to be upgrading the existing 2-lane US 67 south of Poplar Bluff to Interstate Standard, with a portion of it already funded and scheduled

Further upgrades to the existing US 60 Expresssway to get it to Interstate Standards west of I-55 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff are the lower priority and so far unfunded (I think?), but it is ultimately the plan to get the upgrade from the I-55/57/US 60 interchange to the MO/AR state line

https://www.modot.org/futureI57