I-57 Approved

Started by US71, October 11, 2017, 09:09:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

edwaleni

Quote from: I-39 on January 16, 2021, 01:45:34 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 16, 2021, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 15, 2021, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 15, 2021, 11:59:42 AM
Quote from: sparkerLooks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.

As I noted earlier, the Pocahontas route is the same mileage as the railroad route. The route miles that would cross flood plain is actually slightly more on the railroad side then it is on the Pocahontas side. As for the number of bridges, it would require the same on either route, so the costs would be roughly the same. The hassle of using the railroad route is 2 things. There is industrial/residential east of Corning that would be expensive to acquire. Second there is extensive flood plain south and southeast of Corning, hence the desire to keep the Corning bypass to the west of town.

They aren't even considering an eastern bypass of Corning anymore. And how is it so the number of flood plain miles is more on the railroad side? It passes further away from Black River WLMA than the Pocahontas route does.

As for flood plain being slightly more on the railroad side, south of Corning is a flood plain around Lake Corning that extends around a creek of whose name I cant recall at the moment, all the way to the Black River, and then continues south all the way to just north of Nobel. The railroad raised their ROW years ago to deal with this. In fact it shows up as a nice line in the flood report.

But on the Pocahontas route the flood plain is only where it crosses the Black and the Current. It's high and dry until you get west of Corning. When you measure it out, the railroad route actually has more (not by much). I know its hard to believe, I think the difference is less than a mile overall, I was surprised when I mapped it out myself. It's probably why US-67 was routed this way after WW2. They had better topographic information than the railroad did in 1885.


I-39

The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

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

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

mvak36

What caught my eye was the construction phasing on pages 17 and 18 of that pdf.

Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

I-39

Quote from: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 02:13:55 PM
What caught my eye was the construction phasing on pages 17 and 18 of that pdf.



So there is a real possibility this could become another Bella Vista bypass situation.

edwaleni

Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

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

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

I-39

Quote from: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

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

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.

mvak36

Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:20:16 PM
So there is a real possibility this could become another Bella Vista bypass situation.

I'm hoping that this isn't a repeat of that lol. At least they don't need to blast through rock to build this segment.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

edwaleni

Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

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

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.

When I saw the remark that Clay County, Arkansas doesn't want the highway, I did some research.

Seems that WalMart shut their store in Corning in the past year permanently. Huge loss in sales tax revenue for the local schools.

The Corning City council had a vote on the new highway back in September, but you would be hard pressed to find the results.

The city website has never ever had one agenda or meeting notes posted. I guess Arkansas doesn't have a sunshine law.

The county newspaper editor wrote an editorial expressing total support for the new highway and the new economic benefits it can bring, if the town chooses to embrace it.

Pocahontas passed a resolution supporting Corridor 2 since it will bring the road closer to the town and their business park.

If the people of Corning aren't interested, then it can clearly bypass farther away to suit them. But if they are hog tied by a loss of tax revenue, perhaps they should take a more pragmatic approach like Pocahontas.

Pocahontas is already looking at annexing up to the new road if it comes by so they can extend water and electric for any new services that build out at the 2 planned exits in Corridor 2.

If Corning wants the opposite, that is clearly their choice. But the retail that US-67 supports through the center of town will begin to dry up and people pass them by.


I-39

Quote from: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 05:06:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

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

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.

When I saw the remark that Clay County, Arkansas doesn't want the highway, I did some research.

Seems that WalMart shut their store in Corning in the past year permanently. Huge loss in sales tax revenue for the local schools.

The Corning City council had a vote on the new highway back in September, but you would be hard pressed to find the results.

The city website has never ever had one agenda or meeting notes posted. I guess Arkansas doesn't have a sunshine law.

The county newspaper editor wrote an editorial expressing total support for the new highway and the new economic benefits it can bring, if the town chooses to embrace it.

Pocahontas passed a resolution supporting Corridor 2 since it will bring the road closer to the town and their business park.

If the people of Corning aren't interested, then it can clearly bypass farther away to suit them. But if they are hog tied by a loss of tax revenue, perhaps they should take a more pragmatic approach like Pocahontas.

Pocahontas is already looking at annexing up to the new road if it comes by so they can extend water and electric for any new services that build out at the 2 planned exits in Corridor 2.

If Corning wants the opposite, that is clearly their choice. But the retail that US-67 supports through the center of town will begin to dry up and people pass them by.

Each corridor has an interchange on the west side of town. Wouldn't be surprised if Walmart came back when it goes in.

sparker

Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 05:38:36 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 05:06:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
The EIS re-evaluation is now available to read for the US 67/Future I-57 four lane from Route 158 to just south of Neelyville.

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

They acknowledge that the Route 158 will have be redone in order to meet interstate standards, but no word on eliminating the two at-grade intersections at County C and the frontage road system north of there.

Also, got to love some of those email comments......

Oh those comments are classic. Especially the tweets. The "this is great" mixed in with the "fix my dirt road first" responses.  The one where the husband is passing off to the wife, then back to the husband and then to son, all on Twitter. OMH!

All these people in Missouri making proclamations on what should happen in Corning, Arkansas. I couldn't help but laugh.

Also, all the memorandum's from all of the affiliated or impacted state and federal agencies! Now we know why it takes so long to get a road built.

Right? Though I was looking more at the email ones from the website, especially the one where the guy says putting the Interstate in will increase crime, drug trade, illegal aliens, etc, and how they need to keep Poplar Bluff a small country town........ or the one where the lady in Neelyville is complaining about the trucks at the Highway 142 junction and how the route needs to go elsewhere.

When I saw the remark that Clay County, Arkansas doesn't want the highway, I did some research.

Seems that WalMart shut their store in Corning in the past year permanently. Huge loss in sales tax revenue for the local schools.

The Corning City council had a vote on the new highway back in September, but you would be hard pressed to find the results.

The city website has never ever had one agenda or meeting notes posted. I guess Arkansas doesn't have a sunshine law.

The county newspaper editor wrote an editorial expressing total support for the new highway and the new economic benefits it can bring, if the town chooses to embrace it.

Pocahontas passed a resolution supporting Corridor 2 since it will bring the road closer to the town and their business park.

If the people of Corning aren't interested, then it can clearly bypass farther away to suit them. But if they are hog tied by a loss of tax revenue, perhaps they should take a more pragmatic approach like Pocahontas.

Pocahontas is already looking at annexing up to the new road if it comes by so they can extend water and electric for any new services that build out at the 2 planned exits in Corridor 2.

If Corning wants the opposite, that is clearly their choice. But the retail that US-67 supports through the center of town will begin to dry up and people pass them by.

Each corridor has an interchange on the west side of town. Wouldn't be surprised if Walmart came back when it goes in.

Either that -- or Wal-Mart will build one "superstore" somewhere between Pocahontas & Corning to serve the extended area.  If the eventually selected alignment is within shouting distance of present US 62/67, such a store would likely front on the old highway but have signage that can be seen at a distance on the new freeway.  At least that's what they've done out here, especially in the US 101 corridor from Gilroy to San Jose; Gilroy's facility was enlarged to accommodate folks coming in from Hollister to the south and Morgan Hill to the north (although the latter retained its small "neighborhood" store).  But that company won't do anything until the freeway is practically a reality. 

I-39

Quote from: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 04:11:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:20:16 PM
So there is a real possibility this could become another Bella Vista bypass situation.

I'm hoping that this isn't a repeat of that lol. At least they don't need to blast through rock to build this segment.

I'm thinking upgrading the US 60 section between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff may not be as straightforward as it looks. Not only will a lot of new interchanges, overpasses, cul-de-sac's and frontage roads need to be built, but the pavement itself in some areas may need to be replaced. Some of the mainline bridges are not fully interstate standard (no shoulders).

Bobby5280

US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.

The Ghostbuster

Is there a timeline for upgrading US 60 to freeway standards? I would think they should tackle that first.

I-39

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:47:29 PM
Is there a timeline for upgrading US 60 to freeway standards? I would think they should tackle that first.

No, there is not.

The remaining new terrain segments need to be built first.

I-39

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2021, 08:18:48 PM
US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

mvak36

Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 10:40:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2021, 08:18:48 PM
US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

I-39

Quote from: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 10:40:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2021, 08:18:48 PM
US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston will still be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards and signed as I-57. Hardly any new ROW will need to be purchased. It looks like maybe one or two residential properties would have to be cleared, and that's only if an Interstate exit is built in that spot. Some of the roads that intersect US-60 at-grade will be bridged over the highway without any on/off ramps or connecting frontage roads.

Given that stretch of US-60 is an already existing divided 4-lane highway (with some freeway quality segments) it can be upgraded much faster. There isn't as much red tape to deal with when doing maintenance work on the existing main lanes and existing bridges. I think MO DOT will have an easier time with this upgrade than they did upgrading US-71 to I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City.

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.

Yes, it goes East/West there, but when it becomes I-57 it will be north and south.

The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.

mvak36

Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 11:08:01 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 10:40:17 PM

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.

Yes, it goes East/West there, but when it becomes I-57 it will be north and south.

The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.

Ah ok. Makes more sense now. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

This might be a stupid question, but is there a way to add shoulders to a bridge without having to build a new one altogether?
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

I-39

Quote from: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 11:13:41 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 11:08:01 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on January 27, 2021, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 10:40:17 PM

But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Doesn't that whole stretch between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff go east-west? I am trying to figure out what you mean by the northbound mainline bridges.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that it should be fairly straightforward to do that stretch since it's four lanes already. It will probably be done piecemeal once they get funding for individual sections.

Yes, it goes East/West there, but when it becomes I-57 it will be north and south.

The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.

Ah ok. Makes more sense now. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

This might be a stupid question, but is there a way to add shoulders to a bridge without having to build a new one altogether?

Idk, but those bridges are so old anyway they need to be replaced, especially with increased traffic coming from an interstate.

It appears MoDOT took the cheap way out here and simply made US 60 four lanes by adding two lanes without reconstructing the existing pavement/bridges, eerily similar to what they did with US 36. That's really annoying.

Tomahawkin

Bridges need to be replaced nationwide. I'm not suprised that they would go Cheap. Those antiquated intersections in Jacksonville are dangerous because they are so 1970s. Those should have been replaced in the 90s at the latest. I'm sure the politicians there pocketed the money on road improvements there as well as on IH 30 SW of Little Rock.

capt.ron

Quote from: Tomahawkin on January 28, 2021, 12:13:16 AM
Bridges need to be replaced nationwide. I'm not suprised that they would go Cheap. Those antiquated intersections in Jacksonville are dangerous because they are so 1970s. Those should have been replaced in the 90s at the latest. I'm sure the politicians there pocketed the money on road improvements there as well as on IH 30 SW of Little Rock.
Well you know how they roll in Arkansas. They should have 6 laned US 67 through Jacksonville to the NLR (I-40) interchange since the mid 1990's but it didn't happen. Now with the increased traffic counts, when they do get around to expanding US 67 in Jacksonville to 6 lanes, it's going to be a nightmare. I'm guessing that the stubby right "exit" just after the Main St. exit will go away, along with the short on-ramp just before the James Street overpass will also go away. TP White (from Main St. to Vandenberg Blvd) which sets just feet from the northbound lanes will also have to be relocated as well. All of the bridges, with the exception of the Main St will have to be replaced as well.

sprjus4

Quote from: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 11:08:01 PM
The northbound (eastbound) lanes along Future I-57 (current US 60) between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston has several mainline bridges over creeks that do not meet interstate standards as they have no shoulders. Those may have to be replaced as part of the upgrade.
From a look at aerial imagery, it appears the problematic bridges are all (with the exception of like 3) in the southbound / westbound direction.

And it looks like that MoDOT has replaced a number of them in the past decade looking at Street View, and will likely continue doing so regardless of what happens with I-57. It will likely progress at a steady pace of a bridge here and there, interchange addition here and there, overpass addition here and there, etc. until the entire corridor meets interstate standards.

The biggest priority would seemingly be US-67 south of Popular Bluff to at least provide a 4 lane corridor throughout the entire Future I-57 route in the interim, then of course fill in the pieces, specifically along US-60, and designate the entire system as Interstate 57.

Bobby5280

Quote from: I-39The remaining new terrain segments need to be built first.

Uh, what for? All of the new terrain segments have to go through years of Draft EIS, EIS, public meetings, lawsuits and other crap to finally get to a ROD (record of decision) and then get shovels in motion. Existing US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff can proceed in the meantime since most of that red tape is not necessary to proceed with upgrades.

It's better to build the stuff that can be built up NOW all while dealing with the red tape surrounding the new terrain alignments.

Quote from: I-39But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Bridge upgrades and replacements on existing 4-lane highways is very routine. Traffic gets shifted to one line for upgrades to an existing bridge, or traffic gets routed to the opposing roadway for bridges to be replaced one at a time. It's really no big deal. If an existing bridge is in good enough shape it can be refurbished and widened to accommodate bigger shoulders. If not, it can be replaced. There isn't very many main lanes bridges along US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

Not only would I suggest MO DOT get on the ball upgrading that segment of US-60 to I-57, but I would also have them sign I-57 to Poplar Bluff as soon as the work was done. That would put ever more visual pressure on getting the rest of the I-57 segments built.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2021, 12:30:08 PM
Uh, what for? All of the new terrain segments have to go through years of Draft EIS, EIS, public meetings, lawsuits and other crap to finally get to a ROD (record of decision) and then get shovels in motion. Existing US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff can proceed in the meantime since most of that red tape is not necessary to proceed with upgrades.
The new location segment already has an EIS... and an EIS Re-evaluation, it's linked below. That exhaustive process is largely complete. Outlined in the EIS Re-evaluation, construction on all new location segments (with the exception of 2 miles north of the Arkansas line not included) is to begin between 2022 and 2025 in 3 phases.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2021, 12:30:08 PM
Bridge upgrades and replacements on existing 4-lane highways is very routine. Traffic gets shifted to one line for upgrades to an existing bridge, or traffic gets routed to the opposing roadway for bridges to be replaced one at a time. It's really no big deal. If an existing bridge is in good enough shape it can be refurbished and widened to accommodate bigger shoulders. If not, it can be replaced. There isn't very many main lanes bridges along US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.
At least 12 bridges need to be replaced, mostly in the southbound / westbound direction. A number of private driveways need to be addressed through the construction of miles of frontage roads, plus at least a dozen or more overpass bridges and interchanges constructed.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2021, 12:30:08 PM
Not only would I suggest MO DOT get on the ball upgrading that segment of US-60 to I-57, but I would also have them sign I-57 to Poplar Bluff as soon as the work was done. That would put ever more visual pressure on getting the rest of the I-57 segments built.
It seems, and the current plan suggests the same, the best route to go is completing 4 lanes to the 2 miles north of the Arkansas state line, leaving that stretch of US-60 the last to be improved as its already more adequate today than US-67 south of Popular Bluff is.

MikieTimT

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2021, 12:30:08 PM
Quote from: I-39The remaining new terrain segments need to be built first.

Uh, what for? All of the new terrain segments have to go through years of Draft EIS, EIS, public meetings, lawsuits and other crap to finally get to a ROD (record of decision) and then get shovels in motion. Existing US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff can proceed in the meantime since most of that red tape is not necessary to proceed with upgrades.

It's better to build the stuff that can be built up NOW all while dealing with the red tape surrounding the new terrain alignments.

Quote from: I-39But the thing is their are mainline bridges (particularly going northbound) along that segment that are not up to standards as they have no shoulders. Do they correct that as well?

Bridge upgrades and replacements on existing 4-lane highways is very routine. Traffic gets shifted to one line for upgrades to an existing bridge, or traffic gets routed to the opposing roadway for bridges to be replaced one at a time. It's really no big deal. If an existing bridge is in good enough shape it can be refurbished and widened to accommodate bigger shoulders. If not, it can be replaced. There isn't very many main lanes bridges along US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

Not only would I suggest MO DOT get on the ball upgrading that segment of US-60 to I-57, but I would also have them sign I-57 to Poplar Bluff as soon as the work was done. That would put ever more visual pressure on getting the rest of the I-57 segments built.


My guess is that MDoT's goal isn't necessarily to get the low hanging fruit done while doing what is needed to get the new terrain portions done, but their goal is likely to do as little as possible until they can get as many federal dollars as possible on any or all of the remaining work; so in their minds, it's more prudent to wait on as much as possible until the money fairy drops as much funding as possible for the US-60 upgrade as well as the new terrain portions of US-67.



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.