AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: bugo on June 14, 2012, 08:34:49 PM

Title: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 14, 2012, 08:34:49 PM
While all the attention has been on the I-49 and 69 corridors, Arkansas is quietly upgrading the US 67/Future I-30 corridor into a freeway.  The freeway now extends to AR 226, and the segment from 226 to Hoxie is shown as under construction on the 2012 AHTD highway map (A short section bypassing Hoxie and Walnut Ridge has been open for several years.)  This will leave a gap between the US 67 freeway in Arkansas to the US 67 freeway in Missouri, a distance of about 60 miles.  I believe we will see I-30 completed before I-49 or 69 will be.

=====

Admin note: H.R. 244 signed into law 05/05/17 officially designates US 67 as I-57 (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf) (p. 663/708 of pdf).  Thus reason for thread rename.
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6930.msg2224261#msg2224261

-rmf67
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bassoon1986 on June 14, 2012, 10:25:09 PM
So is that project actually going to be a continued I-30, or is that just roadgeeking wishful thinking?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on June 14, 2012, 11:19:06 PM
So is that project actually going to be a continued I-30, or is that just roadgeeking wishful thinking?

One recent article reports that it will be finished in four to six years:

This article (http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/210471/119/THV-Extra-Ark-transportation-projects) indicates that Arkansas plans to finish the project all the way to the Missouri state line in "four to six years":
Quote
And when it comes to roads .... And diagonally across the state along Highway 67. The goal is to extend the renovations to the Missouri line. The department is hoping to complete construction in the next four to six years
(above quote from US 67 Extension (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg148227#msg148227) thread)

Another article indicates that Arkansas Governor Beebe favors the I-30 designation, but that he is also open to the possibility of an interim expressway construction from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:

I recently came across this January 27, 2012 article (http://dar.rustcom.net/story/1809428.html) in which Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe is reported to favor an Interstate 30 designation for the US 67 extension, but that he is also open to a "divided four lane" design that could later be converted to interstate grade:
Quote
The governor wants to see Highway 67 designated as Interstate 30, but is open to building a "divided four-lane" that could be expanded to interstate standards in the future ... Beebe also said he would support designating Highway 67 as a high priority corridor.
AHTD Director Scott Bennett was reported to have stressed the need for a feasibility study on the US 67 extension options from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:
Quote
Several options are being studied on the route Highway 67 will take from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line. It is not known when an option will be selected. The Missouri Department of Transportation is awaiting a decision by Arkansas officials before extending the four lanes to the state line .... He stated the need to move forward with a preliminary feasibility study on all the Highway 67 options north of Walnut Ridge ... Bennett does not think the existing five-lane section between Walnut Ridge and Pocahontas could be converted to meet interstate standards.
(above quote from US 67 Extension (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg150184#msg150184) thread)

It's more than wishful thinking, but money problems may delay it for quite a while.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: dariusb on June 15, 2012, 01:54:42 AM
Will this eventually be built all the way to St. Louis?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: NE2 on June 15, 2012, 02:12:36 AM
Yes, as a second deck on top of I-55.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 15, 2012, 09:57:06 AM
So is that project actually going to be a continued I-30, or is that just wishful thinking?

AHTD refers it as "Future I-30" in some of their documents.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 15, 2012, 09:59:08 AM
Will this eventually be built all the way to St. Louis?

It will probably end at the US 60/I-55/I-57 interchange.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mgk920 on June 15, 2012, 10:38:14 AM
So is that project actually going to be a continued I-30, or is that just roadgeeking wishful thinking?

I would number it as 'I-57'.

Mike
Title: Future I-730 From Little Rock to Jonesboro?
Post by: Grzrd on June 15, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
Article on ABC station Kait 8 in Jonesboro about US 67
http://www.kait8.com/story/18574000/construction-surges-ahead-on-hwy-67-hwy-226 (http://www.kait8.com/story/18574000/construction-surges-ahead-on-hwy-67-hwy-226)
... Highway 226 is being expanded to a 4-lane to eventually tie with 49 by Gibson Switch. Crews from Dumey Construction had tractors with scoops working today to clear a barrow pit and begin the preliminary earthwork where the overpass will go over the tracks and the existing county highway.
Smithee said it's off to a good start. "That project was let in December of last year and has begun with the good weather that we've had and I think our estimated completion date for it is late 2013."
(above quote from US 67 Extension (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg150249#msg150249) thread)

In the past, I have read speculation about the AR 226 corridor from Jonesboro to US 67 becoming I-730 (with US 67 presumably becoming I-30).  After reading the above article about AR 226 construction, I emailed AHTD with a few questions:

Quote
Q: With Missouri backing off of interstate-grade construction on US 67 up to St. Louis, is AHTD still planning to build US 67 to interstate-grade specifications from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line?

A: We are unsure at this time if we will continue with Interstate-grade or not.

Q: I have read in the past that Jonesboro political figures would like the AR 226 connection between US 67 and US 49 to be designated as Future I-730 (with US 67 north of  I-40 being designated as I-30).

A:  I-30 north of I-40 will likely never happen because of your question about MO – since they have backed off it will keep the roadway from being I-30 – which has been part of the plan for many many years.

Q: Is the AR 226 project that was let in December, 2011 being built to interstate-grade specifications?  If so, is there an intent for there to be an interstate-grade connection between Future I-555 and US 67?

A: The intent has always been to provide a four-lane interstate-grade from LR to 226 and over to Jonesboro as well as from Jonesboro to Marion and I-55. There are some issue with signing I-555 even though to the public it appears to be an Interstate.

With MoDOT's money woes apparently killing an extended I-30, I wonder if AHTD will now think in terms of an I-30 spur from Little Rock to Jonesboro, i.e. an extended I-730 that would be similar to the I-540 "I-40 spur" from Alma/I-40 northward. Or, would Walnut Ridge get I-730 and Jonesboro to I-730 would become I-930?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on June 15, 2012, 11:37:39 PM
I emailed AHTD with a few questions:
Quote
Q: With Missouri backing off of interstate-grade construction on US 67 up to St. Louis, is AHTD still planning to build US 67 to interstate-grade specifications from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line?
A: We are unsure at this time if we will continue with Interstate-grade or not.
Q: I have read in the past that Jonesboro political figures would like the AR 226 connection between US 67 and US 49 to be designated as Future I-730 (with US 67 north of  I-40 being designated as I-30).
A:  I-30 north of I-40 will likely never happen because of your question about MO – since they have backed off it will keep the roadway from being I-30 – which has been part of the plan for many many years.

This May 30, 2012 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2012-05-30/news/story2.php) indicates that the Northeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority (NEARIFA) understands the political and financial reality of MoDOT's decision to back off of a freeway connection by focusing its efforts on a five-lane expressway extension from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:

Quote
Northeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority (NEARIFA) board members ... were also encouraged to work diligently to ensure Highway 67 becomes a four-lane expressway from Walnut Ridge into Missouri .... US Highway 67, which is a two-lane road from north of Pocahontas to the Missouri state line. The Authority would like to see Highway 67 become a five-lane (expressway) from Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff, Mo. However, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department has no plans to build one anytime in the near future. It is not on their list of priorities.

If the regional authority is only pushing for an expressway, I'm sure AHTD could find plenty of other places to spend the savings from not pursuing interstate-grade construction.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: msunat97 on July 21, 2012, 05:57:08 PM
I wish Arkansas DOT would spend some $$ on the maintenance of 67 in Jacksonville.  It sucks leaving the smooth ride of 67 in Sherwood & then going into Jacksonville section that is full of patches & bumps.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 23, 2012, 03:45:12 PM
I wish Arkansas DOT would spend some $$ on the maintenance of 67 in Jacksonville.  It sucks leaving the smooth ride of 67 in Sherwood & then going into Jacksonville section that is full of patches & bumps.

Wasn't 67 just improved a couple years ago?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: msunat97 on July 24, 2012, 12:48:39 PM
67 was improved in the NLR & Sherwood areas.  It is nice going north of Cabot into Searcy & Bald Knob.  The area in Jacksonville is congested & tight.  The ride through those other sections is pretty smooth.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Chris on September 02, 2012, 11:18:16 AM
Is there an ETA on the US 67 freeway between AR-226 and Hoxie? Construction commenced around 2009 according to Google Earth historical imagery. Considering 2.5 - 3 years is about average for a rural freeway, they could (should) be finished by now.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on September 02, 2012, 11:41:02 AM
The last time I checked (US 67 Extension thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg144481#msg144481)), the grading and structures contracts are scheduled to be completed in December, and at least one of the two paving contracts has already been awarded.  2015 seems like a good guess as to when it may be open to traffic.
Title: Re: Future I-730 From Little Rock to Jonesboro?
Post by: Road Hog on September 07, 2012, 12:30:19 AM
Article on ABC station Kait 8 in Jonesboro about US 67
http://www.kait8.com/story/18574000/construction-surges-ahead-on-hwy-67-hwy-226 (http://www.kait8.com/story/18574000/construction-surges-ahead-on-hwy-67-hwy-226)
... Highway 226 is being expanded to a 4-lane to eventually tie with 49 by Gibson Switch. Crews from Dumey Construction had tractors with scoops working today to clear a barrow pit and begin the preliminary earthwork where the overpass will go over the tracks and the existing county highway.
Smithee said it's off to a good start. "That project was let in December of last year and has begun with the good weather that we've had and I think our estimated completion date for it is late 2013."
(above quote from US 67 Extension (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg150249#msg150249) thread)

In the past, I have read speculation about the AR 226 corridor from Jonesboro to US 67 becoming I-730 (with US 67 presumably becoming I-30).  After reading the above article about AR 226 construction, I emailed AHTD with a few questions:

Quote
Q: With Missouri backing off of interstate-grade construction on US 67 up to St. Louis, is AHTD still planning to build US 67 to interstate-grade specifications from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line?

A: We are unsure at this time if we will continue with Interstate-grade or not.

Q: I have read in the past that Jonesboro political figures would like the AR 226 connection between US 67 and US 49 to be designated as Future I-730 (with US 67 north of  I-40 being designated as I-30).

A:  I-30 north of I-40 will likely never happen because of your question about MO – since they have backed off it will keep the roadway from being I-30 – which has been part of the plan for many many years.

Q: Is the AR 226 project that was let in December, 2011 being built to interstate-grade specifications?  If so, is there an intent for there to be an interstate-grade connection between Future I-555 and US 67?

A: The intent has always been to provide a four-lane interstate-grade from LR to 226 and over to Jonesboro as well as from Jonesboro to Marion and I-55. There are some issue with signing I-555 even though to the public it appears to be an Interstate.

With MoDOT's money woes apparently killing an extended I-30, I wonder if AHTD will now think in terms of an I-30 spur from Little Rock to Jonesboro, i.e. an extended I-730 that would be similar to the I-540 "I-40 spur" from Alma/I-40 northward. Or, would Walnut Ridge get I-730 and Jonesboro to I-730 would become I-930?

It would have to be an x40 spur, not an x30 spur, because the 67-167 interchange is at I-40 and the North Belt Freeway will also be I-440.

I don't favor calling it I-30 at all because it's more north-south than east-west. Especially if they ever build the thing to St. Louis, which I doubt they will. Never mind the fact that it would be crossing I-40. Since it duplicates US 67 in Arkansas, I-57 is fine.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on September 07, 2012, 01:09:26 AM
Maybe Missouri will change its mind and build it as a full freeway as far north as Poplar Bluff.

And the current I-30 in AR is SW-NE, just like US 67 is north of NLR.  Signing it east-west would be no problem.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on September 26, 2012, 11:27:37 AM
In the past, I have read speculation about the AR 226 corridor from Jonesboro to US 67 becoming I-730 (with US 67 presumably becoming I-30).  After reading ... about AR 226 construction, I emailed AHTD with a few questions:
Quote
Q: Is the AR 226 project that was let in December, 2011 being built to interstate-grade specifications?  If so, is there an intent for there to be an interstate-grade connection between Future I-555 and US 67?
A: The intent has always been to provide a four-lane interstate-grade from LR to 226 and over to Jonesboro as well as from Jonesboro to Marion and I-55.
With MoDOT's money woes apparently killing an extended I-30, I wonder if AHTD will now think in terms of an I-30 spur from Little Rock to Jonesboro, i.e. an extended I-730 that would be similar to the I-540 "I-40 spur" from Alma/I-40 northward. Or, would Walnut Ridge get I-730 and Jonesboro to I-730 would become I-930?
It would have to be an x40 spur, not an x30 spur, because the 67-167 interchange is at I-40 and the North Belt Freeway will also be I-440.

This article (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/9/13/ArkansasHighwayCommissionapprovesLittleRock-to-Jonesboroproject.aspx) reports that one AR 226 project was awarded on Sept.12 and another project should be let later this year:

Quote
The Arkansas Highway Commission has awarded a $37.8 million contract to widen a highway that will provide a direct, four-lane route between Little Rock and Jonesboro, in the northeastern part of the state.
The commission on Sept. 12 approved a contract for Arkansas 226, which will link U.S. 49 near Jonesboro to U.S. 67 near Newport. The project involves the construction of two more lanes for about 3 miles on Arkansas 226 from its new connector to U.S. 49 at Gibson, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported (http://is.gd/hRygZX ) ....
Another contract will be awarded later this year to widen 1.85 miles of Arkansas 226 west to the future Cash bypass.

I am not sure if the AR 226 "widening" is an upgrade to interstate-grade; my suspicion is it is not.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on September 26, 2012, 05:55:41 PM

This article (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/9/13/ArkansasHighwayCommissionapprovesLittleRock-to-Jonesboroproject.aspx) reports that one AR 226 project was awarded on Sept.12 and another project should be let later this year:

Quote
The Arkansas Highway Commission has awarded a $37.8 million contract to widen a highway that will provide a direct, four-lane route between Little Rock and Jonesboro, in the northeastern part of the state.
The commission on Sept. 12 approved a contract for Arkansas 226, which will link U.S. 49 near Jonesboro to U.S. 67 near Newport. The project involves the construction of two more lanes for about 3 miles on Arkansas 226 from its new connector to U.S. 49 at Gibson, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported (http://is.gd/hRygZX ) ....
Another contract will be awarded later this year to widen 1.85 miles of Arkansas 226 west to the future Cash bypass.

I am not sure if the AR 226 "widening" is an upgrade to interstate-grade; my suspicion is it is not.

$37.8 million for 3 miles of EXTREMEMLY flat road better be more than 2 more lanes.

rte66man
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on September 27, 2012, 12:52:54 PM

This article (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/9/13/ArkansasHighwayCommissionapprovesLittleRock-to-Jonesboroproject.aspx) reports that one AR 226 project was awarded on Sept.12 and another project should be let later this year:

Quote
The Arkansas Highway Commission has awarded a $37.8 million contract to widen a highway that will provide a direct, four-lane route between Little Rock and Jonesboro, in the northeastern part of the state.
The commission on Sept. 12 approved a contract for Arkansas 226, which will link U.S. 49 near Jonesboro to U.S. 67 near Newport. The project involves the construction of two more lanes for about 3 miles on Arkansas 226 from its new connector to U.S. 49 at Gibson, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported (http://is.gd/hRygZX ) ....
Another contract will be awarded later this year to widen 1.85 miles of Arkansas 226 west to the future Cash bypass.

I am not sure if the AR 226 "widening" is an upgrade to interstate-grade; my suspicion is it is not.

$37.8 million for 3 miles of EXTREMEMLY flat road better be more than 2 more lanes.

rte66man

Needs to be 12 miles longer, too.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on September 27, 2012, 01:59:29 PM
I am not sure if the AR 226 "widening" is an upgrade to interstate-grade; my suspicion is it is not.
$37.8 million for 3 miles of EXTREMEMLY flat road better be more than 2 more lanes.
rte66man

I briefly looked for the project plans on the AHTD website, but, to date, I don't think they have transferred them from the Preletting section to the Postletting section.  However, I did find the Plans for the section from the December, 2011 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/PREVIOUS%20LETTING%20PLANS/2011/DEC%202011/100677.pdf), which basically provides a new terrain connection from the current AR 226 to US 49.  Those plans describe that section as a "partially controlled access facility" and have schematics for intersections, which smells like an expressway to me.  That said, maybe the widened section of AR 226 let in September will be a "fully controlled access facility."  I suppose the website will be updated in a month or so.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on September 27, 2012, 06:22:34 PM
I am not sure if the AR 226 "widening" is an upgrade to interstate-grade; my suspicion is it is not.
$37.8 million for 3 miles of EXTREMEMLY flat road better be more than 2 more lanes.
rte66man

I briefly looked for the project plans on the AHTD website, but, to date, I don't think they have transferred them from the Preletting section to the Postletting section.  However, I did find the Plans for the section from the December, 2011 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/PREVIOUS%20LETTING%20PLANS/2011/DEC%202011/100677.pdf), which basically provides a new terrain connection from the current AR 226 to US 49.  Those plans describe that section as a "partially controlled access facility" and have schematics for intersections, which smells like an expressway to me.

Sounds like the Vilonia US 64 Bypass.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on October 03, 2012, 11:05:23 AM
I emailed AHTD with a few questions:
Quote
Q: With Missouri backing off of interstate-grade construction on US 67 up to St. Louis, is AHTD still planning to build US 67 to interstate-grade specifications from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line?
A: We are unsure at this time if we will continue with Interstate-grade or not.
This May 30, 2012 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2012-05-30/news/story2.php) indicates that the Northeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority (NEARIFA) understands the political and financial reality of MoDOT's decision to back off of a freeway connection by focusing its efforts on a five-lane expressway extension from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:
Quote
Northeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority (NEARIFA) board members ... were also encouraged to work diligently to ensure Highway 67 becomes a four-lane expressway from Walnut Ridge into Missouri .... US Highway 67, which is a two-lane road from north of Pocahontas to the Missouri state line. The Authority would like to see Highway 67 become a five-lane (expressway) from Walnut Ridge to Poplar Bluff, Mo. However, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department has no plans to build one anytime in the near future. It is not on their list of priorities.

On September 26 and 27, AHTD held public meetings regarding US 67 Proposed Corridors (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100512/11x17_Highway_67_PublicInvolvement.PDF) from US 63 in Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:

(http://i.imgur.com/Y74a9.jpg)

edit - added above map

The Comment Form (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100512/Final%20Comment%20Form.pdf) indicates that interstate-grade construction (Future I-30?) is still on the table:

Quote
What type of facility do you think should be built?
A four-lane “Interstate” or “Freeway” type facility on new location with access only at interchanges

A four-lane divided facility on new location with “at-grade” intersections at other public roads (no driveways)
A four-lane facility with a paved median or two-way left turn lane following the existing highway the entire length
A four-lane facility with a paved median or two-way left turn lane following the existing highway, with bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning
No changes should be made
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on October 03, 2012, 12:30:57 PM
This article (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/9/13/ArkansasHighwayCommissionapprovesLittleRock-to-Jonesboroproject.aspx) reports that one AR 226 project was awarded on Sept.12
I am not sure if the AR 226 "widening" is an upgrade to interstate-grade; my suspicion is it is not.
$37.8 million for 3 miles of EXTREMEMLY flat road better be more than 2 more lanes.
rte66man
I briefly looked for the project plans on the AHTD website, but, to date, I don't think they have transferred them from the Preletting section to the Postletting section.  However, I did find the Plans for the section from the December, 2011 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/PREVIOUS%20LETTING%20PLANS/2011/DEC%202011/100677.pdf), which basically provides a new terrain connection from the current AR 226 to US 49.  Those plans describe that section as a "partially controlled access facility" and have schematics for intersections, which smells like an expressway to me.  That said, maybe the widened section of AR 226 let in September will be a "fully controlled access facility."  I suppose the website will be updated in a month or so.

The Plans for the AR 226 project from the Sept. 12 letting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/PREVIOUS%20LETTING%20PLANS/2012/Sep%202012/100679.pdf) have been posted and they also describe that section as a "partially controlled access facility".
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on May 13, 2013, 03:26:20 PM
On September 26 and 27, AHTD held public meetings regarding US 67 Proposed Corridors (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100512/11x17_Highway_67_PublicInvolvement.PDF) from US 63 in Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:
(http://i.imgur.com/Y74a9.jpg)
edit - added above map
The Comment Form (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100512/Final%20Comment%20Form.pdf) indicates that interstate-grade construction (Future I-30?) is still on the table


This May 8, 2013 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-05-08/news/story1.php) reports that the study is anticipated to be completed this Fall and that interstate-grade construction to the state line is estimated to cost $500 million and that a five-lane highway is estimated to cost $300 million:

Quote
Walter McMillan, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department district engineer, updated those at Tuesday's Rotary Club meeting on progress with highway projects in the Lawrence County area ....
McMillan also addressed the future of Highway 67, north from Highway 63, reporting that the department anticipated the study regarding the route for the highway to be completed this fall.
He said that 50 percent of the people who selected a route chose the one that would follow the existing highway.

"If the commission decides to go with a five-lane highway, there is more of a chance to follow the existing route," he said. "If it is interstate standard, it would be somewhere else possibly."
Five-laning would also be less expensive, though both options will be costly.
The last estimate I heard it was $500 million to do interstate and $300 million to do five-lane highway," McMillan said.
He said in both Paragould and Portia response from the public swayed the decision on how the highways would be constructed.
"It all comes into play," he said. "They will look at the most economical option and take public opinion into account. When the study is complete, the commission will select a route."

It seems like the five-lane highway option may be the pick.



Contract for the Highway 230 to US 63 section awarded on December 3 (http://www.arkansashighways.com/ProgCon/letting/Nov%20'12%20Award%20List.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/wKShH.jpg) (http://imgur.com/wKShH)
(above quote from US-67 Extension  (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg188672#msg188672) thread)

In the above-linked article, Walter McMillan also provided an update on the interstate-grade projects south of Walnut Ridge and noted that the entire sixteen miles will be opened to traffic at the same time:

Quote
Work is underway on Highway 67 from the interchange with Highway 226 (between Swifton and Cash), northward to the Highway 63 interchange at Hoxie. McMillan said there are four different construction projects underway on the six-mile stretch from Highway 226 north to Highway 230.
Work has also begun on the 10-mile stretch from Highway 230 to Highway 63.
Much of the grading and structure work is completed and the paving contract will be let in December.
"If things go really well, in another two to two-and-a-half years we will probably be done with that section of 67," McMillan said. "It's coming; it's just a matter of finishing up."
He did report that none of the final 16 miles will be opened until it is all complete, stating that Highway 230 would not be able to withstand the traffic if the first six miles were opened.
"So, when the two open it will be all the way up to 63,"
he said.

I assume the reporter meant to write that the paving contract for AR 230 to US 63 was awarded this past December. At any rate, it looks like the sixteen miles will be open to traffic at some point in 2015.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on May 13, 2013, 08:42:41 PM
If AHTD does go for the five lane option, how much more will it cost in the end if the corridor ends up being upgraded to interstate standards later, or ends up requiring other improvements due to safety issues and/or development issues?  Though I haven't been though Arkansas in years, nor recall having been on a longer distance, rural five-lane highway in Arkansas, I would expect such a facility to run into issues a surplus of driveways and left turning crashes.

IMHO, AHTD should at least go for a four lane divided option, so if further upgrades are required they won't be as costly.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: 3467 on May 13, 2013, 09:16:39 PM
The story doesn't say what the 5 lane highway is .....
Is it a 4 lane undivided with a center turn lane?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jerryarkansas on May 13, 2013, 09:57:47 PM
The story doesn't say what the 5 lane highway is .....
Is it a 4 lane undivided with a center turn lane?
Yeah, that's what they mean when they say 5 lane.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: 3467 on May 13, 2013, 10:34:09 PM
Thanks
I just looked at streetview. It looks to me like it should cost less than half the cost of an interstate. There is already a good road there  and not having the cost of over passes, interchanges .land and so on should save a lot. It really doesn't look like they even need a continuous turn lane . It looks like intersections would be fine .
In all honesty a MO 3 lane looks like it would work OK here
How many vpd is this road?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2013, 06:39:50 PM
They may upgrade 67 to 5 lanes for now, but I-30 will eventually be built on a new location as a full freeway.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: 3467 on May 14, 2013, 08:45:29 PM
I know it borders on fiction but id like to see it 37 so it could be used all along 67 Little Rock to St Louis to Quad Cities
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jerryarkansas on May 25, 2013, 06:21:09 PM
I know that this may be a little off topic, but on 226, they are now building a bridge that is about 10 feet above the ground parallel to the road, two lane right now, but other two should be built when others are done.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on July 18, 2013, 08:56:08 PM
This article (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/9/13/ArkansasHighwayCommissionapprovesLittleRock-to-Jonesboroproject.aspx) reports that one AR 226 project was awarded on Sept.12 and another project should be let later this year
$37.8 million for 3 miles of EXTREMEMLY flat road better be more than 2 more lanes.
rte66man
Needs to be 12 miles longer, too.

This July 15 AHTD PowerPoint presentation (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/071513_SEB_JonesboroChamber.pdf) provides an update and scheduled lettings for the completion of AR 226 from US 67 to US 49 near Jonesboro (page 21/41 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/vAqt4if.jpg)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on October 10, 2013, 02:28:34 PM
On September 26 and 27, AHTD held public meetings regarding US 67 Proposed Corridors (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100512/11x17_Highway_67_PublicInvolvement.PDF) from US 63 in Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:
(http://i.imgur.com/Y74a9.jpg)
edit - added above map
The Comment Form (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100512/Final%20Comment%20Form.pdf) indicates that interstate-grade construction (Future I-30?) is still on the table
This May 8, 2013 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-05-08/news/story1.php) reports that the study is anticipated to be completed this Fall and that interstate-grade construction to the state line is estimated to cost $500 million and that a five-lane highway is estimated to cost $300 million
I-30 will eventually be built on a new location as a full freeway.

This article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-09/news/story1.php) reports that the Highway 67 Coalition is endorsing the westernmost four-lane alignment (Corridor C?) to be built as an expressway that can later be upgraded to interstate-grade:

Quote
Corning Mayor Dewayne Phelan and NEARIFA board member Dalton Sullivan discussed a recent planning meeting of several members of the Hwy. 67 Coalition. At that meeting it was agreed the coalition, as a whole, would endorse: a) a four-lane facility from the end of the four-lane in Missouri to the end of the four-lane in Arkansas; b) the westernmost four-lane alignment and c) an expressway facility that could be converted to interstate standards.
This resolution, which will be discussed and voted on when the complete Hwy. 67 Coalition meets in Walnut Ridge on Friday, Oct. 25, is significant because it reflects a compromise between leaders in Clay and Randolph Counties. Officials in Clay County have in the past preferred that the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) continue with Highway 67 north from Walnut Ridge to the state line and be built to interstate standards and follow Arkansas highways 34 and 90. Randolph County and Pocahontas leaders opposed this idea because if built, Highway 67 would then bypass Pocahontas completely.
With the proposed resolution, the Hwy. 67 Coalition is endorsing the western-most route, which will bring the highway much closer to Pocahontas. They also hope the AHTD will see the unity between the three counties and communities, and react favorably to expediting work on Highway 67 north.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: M86 on October 12, 2013, 02:37:25 AM
The story doesn't say what the 5 lane highway is .....
Is it a 4 lane undivided with a center turn lane?
The AHTD standard and the cheap way out... Lay out a big bed for asphalt... then let development pop up.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on October 21, 2013, 03:23:40 PM
The story doesn't say what the 5 lane highway is .....
Is it a 4 lane undivided with a center turn lane?
The AHTD standard and the cheap way out... Lay out a big bed for asphalt... then let development pop up.

Like Bella Vista?  :banghead:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on October 22, 2013, 09:27:17 AM
This article (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/9/13/ArkansasHighwayCommissionapprovesLittleRock-to-Jonesboroproject.aspx) reports that one AR 226 project was awarded on Sept.12 and another project should be let later this year
$37.8 million for 3 miles of EXTREMEMLY flat road better be more than 2 more lanes.
rte66man
Needs to be 12 miles longer, too.

This July 15 AHTD PowerPoint presentation (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/071513_SEB_JonesboroChamber.pdf) provides an update and scheduled lettings for the completion of AR 226 from US 67 to US 49 near Jonesboro (page 21/41 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/vAqt4if.jpg)

Now I see why 3 miles costs $38 million:
   http://goo.gl/maps/70XLH
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Chris on October 22, 2013, 03:12:50 PM
Apparently this area floods frequently.

Some older news mentioning flooding on Highway 226.

http://www.kait8.com/story/14591852/numerous-roads-remain-closed-due-to-flooding

http://www.kfin.com/view/974

http://craigheadcounty.kait8.com/news/news/157393-portion-hwy-226-re-opens-after-yesterdays-high-flooding

I've seen this kind of construction in Poland as well, where they have some low-lying areas that flood every spring.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on November 12, 2013, 01:24:22 PM
On September 26 and 27, AHTD held public meetings regarding US 67 Proposed Corridors (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2012/100512/11x17_Highway_67_PublicInvolvement.PDF) from US 63 in Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:
(http://i.imgur.com/Y74a9.jpg)
This article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-09/news/story1.php) reports that the Highway 67 Coalition is endorsing the westernmost four-lane alignment (Corridor C?) to be built as an expressway that can later be upgraded to interstate-grade:
Quote
it was agreed the coalition, as a whole, would endorse: a) a four-lane facility from the end of the four-lane in Missouri to the end of the four-lane in Arkansas; b) the westernmost four-lane alignment and c) an expressway facility that could be converted to interstate standards.
This resolution, which will be discussed and voted on when the complete Hwy. 67 Coalition meets in Walnut Ridge on Friday, Oct. 25 ....

As previously discussed in the US-67 Extension thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg256585#msg256585), the Highway 67 Coalition has endorsed a route from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line.  This October 30 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-30/news/story2.php) clarifies that the "westernmost route" mentioned in the above quote is not  Corridor C, but is instead the "Improve Existing Highway 67" red line in the above map:

Quote
The proposal, which will be sent to Gov. Mike Beebe and the Arkansas Highway Commission, calls for a multi-lane highway (four or five lanes) to follow the existing two-lane route with bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning ....
The proposal acknowledged that the highway improvements north of the Missouri state line would not be to interstate standards and suggested making the same decision on the Arkansas side to be able to connect at the Missouri line quicker.

I'm not sure if the "or five lanes" language is consistent with the desire to have "an expressway facility that could be converted to interstate standards"; nevertheless, AHTD intends to make the final decision in the Spring:

Quote
Representatives of both the Arkansas and Missouri transportation departments also spoke briefly to those gathered.
Jessie Jones with the AHTD Planning Division reported that they are hoping for a decision on the route in the spring.
"I really appreciate this," she said, referring to the proposal. "This comes in handy to be incorporated in the study."

It will be interesting to see if AHTD will abandon the notion of a future upgrade to interstate grade as part of the planning process.  Will Future I-30 end at Walnut Ridge and have some sort of tie-in with I-555 in Jonesboro (AR 226/Future I-730 (http://www.lordsutch.com/roads/i-555/))?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on November 13, 2013, 08:19:33 AM
With this new development, I don't see an interstate designation coming anytime soon for the US 67 corridor. I am afraid that once the new "expressway" is built that it will become a commercial strip and any future freeway upgrades will require a bypass of the improved segments. I certainly hope that it isn't built as a five lane facility.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 13, 2013, 01:08:59 PM
The five lane configuration definitely brings up some doubts about what will happen to the US-67 corridor in the long term. However, it would still be possible to convert a road into an Interstate facility if the road and its surroundings are designed and zoned properly.

A five lane road made of concrete wouldn't necessarily be any different in width than narrow Interstate highways like much of I-44 in Oklahoma or parts of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. With an Interstate conversion the middle left turn lane would have a Jersey barrier or cable barrier installed down the middle of it separating both directions of traffic. That middle lane would turn into a pair of interior left shoulders on the highway.

The right of way is the real deal maker or breaker in regard to future upgrades to Interstate standards. The highway would need enough right of way and zoning enforcement to keep any new businesses from being built too close to the road. With a far enough set-back enforced there might be enough room to built future on/off ramps, service roads, etc. in commercially developed areas.

IMHO, AHTD should take a Texas style approach. Build a divided four lane facility with enough room in the median for a future superhighway. Then they wouldn't have to worry about new homes and businesses encroaching the space reserved for a highway upgrade.

An Interstate designation could be a long shot in any scenario with the upgrades Missouri DOT has to make to US-67 up to Poplar Bluff and US-60 over to Sikeston at the interchange of US-60, I-55 & I-57.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on November 13, 2013, 07:29:43 PM
They're talking about widening US 67 into 5 lanes, not building a 5 lane highway on new location (which would be stupid).  I still say that I-30 gets completed one day, but perhaps not in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Mr. Hughes on November 14, 2013, 01:32:17 PM
Let me get this straight, After all these years of slowly extending 67 with interstate standards from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge and from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff, both states now decide to stop? Right when they are about to finish it?

The last segments are all that's left. Why would they not just go ahead and finish the job?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on November 16, 2013, 08:40:43 PM
Let me get this straight, After all these years of slowly extending 67 with interstate standards from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge and from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff, both states now decide to stop? Right when they are about to finish it?

The last segments are all that's left. Why would they not just go ahead and finish the job?
The usual excuse: money

LG-P505 2

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 11:05:11 AM
Let me get this straight, After all these years of slowly extending 67 with interstate standards from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge and from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff, both states now decide to stop? Right when they are about to finish it?
The last segments are all that's left. Why would they not just go ahead and finish the job?
The usual excuse: money

Related to the lack of money, I think local residents have grown impatient with the slow interstate-grade progress and wish to focus on more pressing local needs, as this Nov. 7 article (http://www.waynecojournalbanner.com/reynolds_county/news/article_56703a2e-47d1-11e3-b2b1-001a4bcf6878.html) reports is the case with a bridge near Ellington, MO (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ellington,+MO&hl=en&ll=37.240758,-90.996567&spn=0.00079,0.001635&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.840799,13.392334&oq=ellington+&t=h&hnear=Ellington,+Reynolds,+Missouri&z=20):

Quote
Dickens Valley residents who live along F Highway northwest of Ellington will likely be overjoyed to hear the results of the most recent program priority selections of the Ozark Foothills Regional Planning Commission’s (OFRPC) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).
At the top of that list is the one-lane, low-water crossing of Logan Creek by F Highway on the northern edge of the Ellington city limits ....
School buses, mail carriers, and a growing number of persons living in the valley are regularly forced to make a detour of as much as 25 miles in order to reach a destination as near as 100 yards from where they would normally cross the stream ....
The second priority chosen by the committee was the four-laning of U.S. Highway 67 from just south of Poplar Bluff to the Arkansas state line.

Maybe MoDOT and AHTD will design their expressways to accommodate relatively efficient future conversion to an interstate-grade facility (if AHTD can resist the temptation to go the five-lane route on their last section).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on January 15, 2014, 08:01:14 PM
This article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-09/news/story1.php) reports that the Highway 67 Coalition is endorsing the westernmost four-lane alignment (Corridor C?) to be built as an expressway that can later be upgraded to interstate-grade:
Quote
it was agreed the coalition, as a whole, would endorse: a) a four-lane facility from the end of the four-lane in Missouri to the end of the four-lane in Arkansas; b) the westernmost four-lane alignment and c) an expressway facility that could be converted to interstate standards.
As previously discussed in the US-67 Extension thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg256585#msg256585), the Highway 67 Coalition has endorsed a route from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line.  This October 30 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-30/news/story2.php) clarifies that the "westernmost route" mentioned in the above quote is not  Corridor C, but is instead the "Improve Existing Highway 67" red line in the above map:
Quote
The proposal, which will be sent to Gov. Mike Beebe and the Arkansas Highway Commission, calls for a multi-lane highway (four or five lanes) to follow the existing two-lane route with bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning

AHTD, would you be able to post a link to a copy of the proposal that the Highway 67 Coalition sent to AHTD and Gov. Beebe?  I'm particularly interested as to whether the initial preference for "an expressway facility that could be converted to interstate standards" survived as part of the proposal.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on January 16, 2014, 01:41:07 PM
Will be glad to look into that for you!
 
Can you be more specific about the report in which you are seeking? Is it the "Close the Gap" report?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on January 16, 2014, 01:53:56 PM
Will be glad to look into that for you!
Can you be more specific about the report in which you are seeking? Is it the "Close the Gap" report?

Thank you.  I do not know the name of the report, but I am looking for the proposal referenced in this article:

http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-30/news/story2.php

Quote
"We are here to make an announcement of an agreement among the key players in the three counties," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House, who led the meeting.
The proposal, which will be sent to Gov. Mike Beebe and the Arkansas Highway Commission, calls for a multi-lane highway (four or five lanes) to follow the existing two-lane route with bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning ....
Jessie Jones with the AHTD Planning Division reported that they are hoping for a decision on the route in the spring.
"I really appreciate this," she said, referring to the proposal. "This comes in handy to be incorporated in the study."

Above said, if the "Close the Gap" report is different than the proposal, then I would also like to see that report.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on January 18, 2014, 11:06:50 PM
This May 8, 2013 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-05-08/news/story1.php) .... Walter McMillan, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department district engineer ....
In the above-linked article, Walter McMillan also provided an update on the interstate-grade projects south of Walnut Ridge and noted that the entire sixteen miles will be opened to traffic at the same time:
Quote
Work is underway on Highway 67 from the interchange with Highway 226 (between Swifton and Cash), northward to the Highway 63 interchange at Hoxie. McMillan said there are four different construction projects underway on the six-mile stretch from Highway 226 north to Highway 230.
Work has also begun on the 10-mile stretch from Highway 230 to Highway 63.
Much of the grading and structure work is completed and the paving contract will be let in December.
"If things go really well, in another two to two-and-a-half years we will probably be done with that section of 67," McMillan said. "It's coming; it's just a matter of finishing up."
He did report that none of the final 16 miles will be opened until it is all complete, stating that Highway 230 would not be able to withstand the traffic if the first six miles were opened.
"So, when the two open it will be all the way up to 63,"
he said.

AHTD, assuming US 67 from I-40 to US 63 will be interstate-grade once the above projects are completed, does AHTD have any current plans to seek an interstate designation for that section upon completion of the projects, whether as an extension of I-30 or as an I-x40 spur?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on January 22, 2014, 11:08:56 AM
Will be glad to look into that for you!
Can you be more specific about the report in which you are seeking? Is it the "Close the Gap" report?

Thank you.  I do not know the name of the report, but I am looking for the proposal referenced in this article:

http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-30/news/story2.php (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-10-30/news/story2.php)

Quote
"We are here to make an announcement of an agreement among the key players in the three counties," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House, who led the meeting.
The proposal, which will be sent to Gov. Mike Beebe and the Arkansas Highway Commission, calls for a multi-lane highway (four or five lanes) to follow the existing two-lane route with bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning ....
Jessie Jones with the AHTD Planning Division reported that they are hoping for a decision on the route in the spring.
"I really appreciate this," she said, referring to the proposal. "This comes in handy to be incorporated in the study."

Above said, if the "Close the Gap" report is different than the proposal, then I would also like to see that report.

See this link to read what is referenced in the article: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/US_67_Coalition_Resolution.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/US_67_Coalition_Resolution.pdf)
 
Have not been able to find anything related to the "Close the Gap" report but will post anything that comes along.
 
Additionally, this minute order: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/Minute_Order_2012-025.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/Minute_Order_2012-025.pdf)   authorizes a study to re-evaluate long term improvement needs for the U.S. Highway 67 Corridor from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line.
 
This is a planning study and we anticipate completing it this spring. The final product will discuss feasible alternatives but will not identify a preferred alternative. The latter will be carried out through the NEPA process.
 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on February 11, 2014, 01:01:18 PM
this minute order: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/Minute_Order_2012-025.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/Minute_Order_2012-025.pdf)   authorizes a study to re-evaluate long term improvement needs for the U.S. Highway 67 Corridor from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line. This is a planning study and we anticipate completing it this spring. The final product will discuss feasible alternatives but will not identify a preferred alternative. The latter will be carried out through the NEPA process.

This Feb. 5 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2014-02-05/news/story2.php) is short on details, but it does suggest MoDOT cooperation with the AHTD study:'

Quote
The Northeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facilities Authority (NEARIFA) .... At their meeting in Pocahontas, the NEARIFA board members ....
In other business, Corning Mayor Dewayne Phelan added the Missouri Department of Transportation met and one of the items they talked about was extending Highway 67 to the Arkansas state line.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on March 19, 2014, 02:55:38 PM
This July 15 AHTD PowerPoint presentation (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/071513_SEB_JonesboroChamber.pdf) provides an update and scheduled lettings for the completion of AR 226 from US 67 to US 49 near Jonesboro (page 21/41 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/vAqt4if.jpg)

This article (http://www.couriernews.com/view/full_story/24772909/article-Highway-Trust-Fund-must-be-fixed) reports that the previously scheduled April letting for the Cash bypass has been put on hold because of a concern that Highway Trust Fund checks might start bouncing:

Quote
Jonesboro Mayor Harold Perrin ....
U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx ....
For the past few years state and federal highway dollars have been converting Arkansas 226 into a 4-lane highway connecting U.S. 67 with Jonesboro — the last link for a long-awaited 4-lane corridor from Northeast Arkansas to Little Rock. The project is down to the last few miles. But Perrin, who usually attends meetings of the Arkansas Highway Commission, had not heard state Highway Director Scott Bennett’s announcement that bids for the Cash bypass segment, scheduled for April, will not be advertised. That project was one of 10 put on hold.
Therefore, for at least a while longer Jonesboro will remain Arkansas’ largest city not connected to the rest of the state with a 4-lane highway. U.S. 63 is four lanes from Jonesboro to Interstate 55 and from there on to Memphis. It’s also known as the “future I-555” because funding to complete it to interstate standards also remains on hold.
Highway officials have been promising a 4-lane highway to Jonesboro since at least the early 1990s, but for many years a major share of new highway funding was channeled to Northwest Arkansas to complete Interstate 540.
Gov. Mike Beebe, an Arkansas State University graduate, pledged to work toward completing the 226 project before he left office. That wasn’t going to happen, even if the Cash bypass segment had been contracted in April. When it comes to highway monies, especially on the federal level, a governor has limited clout even on the state level, where the Highway Commission is independent ....
Foxx has warned that the Highway Trust Fund will be “bouncing checks” starting this summer unless Congress passes a funding solution. That’s why Arkansas highway officials decided to delay the April bidding process. Perrin told a reporter that if the projects were bid and the Federal Highway Administration didn’t provide reimbursement, the state department could be down to $6 million to operate statewide for the rest of the year.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: NE2 on March 19, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
Foxx has warned that the Highway Trust Fund will be “bouncing checks” starting this summer unless Congress passes a funding solution.
That's what AHTD gets for bypassing Cash.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on March 19, 2014, 06:15:36 PM
That's right!
 
We pulled 10 federally-funded projects totaling $60 million from our April bid letting. You can read about it here:
 
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2014/NR%2014-062.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2014/NR%2014-062.pdf)
 
 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on March 29, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Foxx has warned that the Highway Trust Fund will be “bouncing checks” starting this summer unless Congress passes a funding solution.
That's what AHTD gets for bypassing Cash.

<pulls out figurative gun and SHOOTS holes in that groaner>
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Brandon on March 31, 2014, 11:48:23 AM
Foxx has warned that the Highway Trust Fund will be “bouncing checks” starting this summer unless Congress passes a funding solution.
That's what AHTD gets for bypassing Cash.

I guess they should've used the plastic instead?  :spin:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on June 16, 2014, 03:53:31 PM
this minute order: http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/Minute_Order_2012-025.pdf (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/Minute_Order_2012-025.pdf)   authorizes a study to re-evaluate long term improvement needs for the U.S. Highway 67 Corridor from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line. This is a planning study and we anticipate completing it this spring. The final product will discuss feasible alternatives but will not identify a preferred alternative. The latter will be carried out through the NEPA process.
This Feb. 5 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2014-02-05/news/story2.php) is short on details, but it does suggest MoDOT cooperation with the AHTD study:'
Quote
Corning Mayor Dewayne Phelan added the Missouri Department of Transportation met and one of the items they talked about was extending Highway 67 to the Arkansas state line.

This June 12 article (http://www.waynecojournalbanner.com/reynolds_county/news/article_0dd0a552-f270-11e3-a584-0017a43b2370.html) reports that four-laning US 67 from Poplar Bluff to the Arkansas state line is one of the Missouri transportation sales tax projects on the recently released draft list:

Quote
“Over the past several years, the regional planning commission has partnered with MODOT, to determine what Ozark Foothills residents would like to see in their transportation system,” said Felicity Brady of the Ozark Foothills Regional Planning Commission. “Consistently, we have heard improving safety by upgrading one lane bridges and promoting connectivity by adding four-lanes to the last section of Route 67 in Poplar Bluff to the Arkansas state line. These are two of the regionally significant projects we have worked to incorporate into the draft list.”
The most recent list of Missouri projects compiled by the OFRPC Transportation Advisory Committee at an April 17, 2014, meeting were: ....
3. [f]our lane Highway 67 South to state line in Butler County

MoDOT's Southeast Region Draft List (http://www.modot.org/MovingForward/Regions/documents/MovingForward_ProjectList_SEDistrictJune132014.pdf) speaks in terms of "adding lanes":

Quote
Add lanes on Rte 67 from Rte 160 to Missouri state line

I'm guessing that MoDOT means a four-lane upgrade instead of merely adding passing lanes.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on June 17, 2014, 10:38:19 PM
Word from the MoDOT District Engineer is that it will be a four-lane expressway similar to the rest of the corridor to the north.
 
That stated, we are in the process of completing the "new" U.S. 67 study that will present several alternatives to meet them at the state line. The draft of this study is being circulated internally for review and in the coming months will be finalized. Public meetings will be held to present those findings.
 
We used the term "new" U.S. 67 study because when Missouri indicated they couldn't meet us at the line with a four-lane facility, we went back to the drawing board.
 
Pretty exciting stuff!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: robbones on June 20, 2014, 10:52:38 AM
When is the swifton - hoxie section planned to be completed?

BLU STAR4.0

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on June 20, 2014, 04:44:57 PM
Word from the MoDOT District Engineer is that it will be a four-lane expressway similar to the rest of the corridor to the north.
 
That stated, we are in the process of completing the "new" U.S. 67 study that will present several alternatives to meet them at the state line. The draft of this study is being circulated internally for review and in the coming months will be finalized. Public meetings will be held to present those findings.
 
We used the term "new" U.S. 67 study because when Missouri indicated they couldn't meet us at the line with a four-lane facility, we went back to the drawing board.
 
Pretty exciting stuff!

Is this an in house evaluation or is a consultant doing it?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on June 20, 2014, 11:23:34 PM
So how is the future I-57 coming along these days? :poke:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: amroad17 on June 22, 2014, 04:13:16 AM
Somebody's poking the bear!  :nod:

Seriously, I also believe that if this corridor receives an interstate designation, it should be I-57 since the freeway would go more north-south than east-west.  However, it would be fine just as US 67.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 22, 2014, 12:56:37 PM
It has been referred to as Future I-30 for years by AHTD and I would be willing to bet that is what the final number will be.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 22, 2014, 09:53:22 PM
Considering that the present plans are for merely a 5-lane arterial rather than a full freeway, it may not be Future anything for quite a long time. Personally, if you ask me, if it is upgraded to freeway, it should be I-53, extended to the Avenue of the Saints corridor.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 22, 2014, 10:07:23 PM
It would be silly for it to be a freeway all the way from North Little Rock to Sikeston with a gap between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff.  Even if they build the "Arkansas freeway" I expect a new terrain freeway to be eventually built.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: MSU John on June 23, 2014, 01:58:14 PM
Somebody's poking the bear!  :nod:

Seriously, I also believe that if this corridor receives an interstate designation, it should be I-57 since the freeway would go more north-south than east-west.  However, it would be fine just as US 67.

I agree. Plus, it would be strange to have I-30 cross north of I-40 and continue north(east).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Somebody's poking the bear!  :nod:

Seriously, I also believe that if this corridor receives an interstate designation, it should be I-57 since the freeway would go more north-south than east-west.  However, it would be fine just as US 67.

I agree. Plus, it would be strange to have I-30 cross north of I-40 and continue north(east).
You have I-75 and I-85 at Atlanta where I-75 is WEST of I-75 and then terminating at I-65.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on June 23, 2014, 02:24:16 PM
Somebody's poking the bear!  :nod:

Seriously, I also believe that if this corridor receives an interstate designation, it should be I-57 since the freeway would go more north-south than east-west.  However, it would be fine just as US 67.

I don't think Missouri is going to make their part interstate quality. Missouri is going to most likely just multilane US 67. I-30 will most likely be the designation. Arkansas should just sign it as I-30 now. What are they waiting on?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: MSU John on June 23, 2014, 05:01:43 PM
Somebody's poking the bear!  :nod:

Seriously, I also believe that if this corridor receives an interstate designation, it should be I-57 since the freeway would go more north-south than east-west.  However, it would be fine just as US 67.

I agree. Plus, it would be strange to have I-30 cross north of I-40 and continue north(east).
You have I-75 and I-85 at Atlanta where I-75 is WEST of I-75 and then terminating at I-65.

That's very true. And now that I think about it, I-57 would be west of I-55.   :hmmm:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: amroad17 on June 23, 2014, 07:02:12 PM
Somebody's poking the bear!  :nod:

Seriously, I also believe that if this corridor receives an interstate designation, it should be I-57 since the freeway would go more north-south than east-west.  However, it would be fine just as US 67.

I agree. Plus, it would be strange to have I-30 cross north of I-40 and continue north(east).
You have I-75 and I-85 at Atlanta where I-85 is WEST of I-75 and then terminating at I-65.
FIFY.

Because of the current way the interstate system is set up, there are going to be instances where numbers will "cross over."
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on June 23, 2014, 09:25:40 PM
^ But there's an easy fix here:  Number it as I-53 instead, with the intent to extend the designation further north up US 67 in Missouri as the corridor is upgraded, and maybe up the Avenue of the Saints Corridor in the far future.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: hbelkins on June 23, 2014, 10:35:29 PM
It would be silly for it to be a freeway all the way from North Little Rock to Sikeston with a gap between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff.  Even if they build the "Arkansas freeway" I expect a new terrain freeway to be eventually built.

US 60 isn't full freeway between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on June 24, 2014, 07:45:06 AM
It would be silly for it to be a freeway all the way from North Little Rock to Sikeston with a gap between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff.  Even if they build the "Arkansas freeway" I expect a new terrain freeway to be eventually built.

US 60 isn't full freeway between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

It probably wouldn't take much for MoDOT to upgrade it to a full freeway through there, though. The big question is what will be built between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff. It sounds more and more like either an expressway or a five-lane "Arkansas Freeway." IMO if they are going to spend the money to build an interstate-quality road all the way from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, AHTD should at least finish the job up to Missouri.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: english si on June 24, 2014, 09:28:09 AM
Surely US412 is so numbered because it is planned to upgrade it?

Going on 412 across the Bootheel of Missouri is the same distance between Cairo and Little Rock as going via Poplar Bluff, but the route makes more sense from a national perspective, and from an AR perspective, given it would link to I-69.

With this sort of routing, AR could take I-30 via Jonesboro, rather than Walnut Ridge.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Henry on June 25, 2014, 02:25:29 PM
Somebody's poking the bear!  :nod:

Seriously, I also believe that if this corridor receives an interstate designation, it should be I-57 since the freeway would go more north-south than east-west.  However, it would be fine just as US 67.

I agree. Plus, it would be strange to have I-30 cross north of I-40 and continue north(east).
You have I-75 and I-85 at Atlanta where I-75 is WEST of I-75 and then terminating at I-65.

That's very true. And now that I think about it, I-57 would be west of I-55.   :hmmm:
Don't forget that north of Cincinnati, I-71 is east of I-75. Why that didn't get I-73 instead is beyond me, but I guess it was better off reserved for future use somewhere else (NC for one).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 26, 2014, 03:45:09 PM
Quote from: codyg1985
It probably wouldn't take much for MoDOT to upgrade it to a full freeway through there, though. The big question is what will be built between Walnut Ridge and Poplar Bluff. It sounds more and more like either an expressway or a five-lane "Arkansas Freeway." IMO if they are going to spend the money to build an interstate-quality road all the way from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, AHTD should at least finish the job up to Missouri.

I think I said it a few pages earlier in this thread, but just to repeat, if AHTD builds the segment North of Walnut Ridge as a five lane facility they should build in some strict legislation regarding businesses and residences that try to build perpendicular at-grade entrances into the road.

If the five lane facility is build at Interstate grade, has a wide enough ROW and/or mandated set-backs for new businesses and residences along the alignment a future upgrade to a fully limited access freeway would be a lot more feasible. Space would be available to add frontage roads wherever they were needed. The fifth, center lane could be replaced with a concrete Jersey barrier or cable barrier like some of the turnpikes here in Oklahoma. Without such controls over development adjacent to this alignment it would be difficult or impossible to upgrade that road into an Interstate level facility without creating yet another new alignment.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 27, 2014, 12:30:30 AM
They're not going to convert current US 67 into a freeway.  Too many driveways and intersections.  If the I-30 gap is ever filled, it will be on new location.  Even AHTD isn't dumb enough to try to turn what is now US 67 into a five laner then into a freeway.  The ROW costs would be higher than the construction costs.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 27, 2014, 10:55:07 AM
I was under the impression they were going to build the 5-lane thing on a new alignment. If all they're going to do is widen the existing US-67 road then, yes, there's no way that's ever going to be upgraded to a freeway. The only chance is building a 5-lane facility on a completely new alignment and strictly controlling the development along it.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 27, 2014, 04:14:37 PM
It would be stupid to build a 5 lane on a new alignment.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on June 30, 2014, 08:20:53 PM
Something to think about....
 
When Missouri backed off its commitment to four-lane U.S. 67 to the Arkansas state line, we had to re-boot our process and look at other feasible alternatives on how to get from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line.
 
That study is almost complete and will be presented to the Arkansas Highway Commission during its July meeting. We will post it here once the Commission signs off on it.
 
KEEP YOUR FINGERS CROSSED! The good folks in Missouri are voting on their 3/4-cent tax in August.
 
If they pass it and Big MO runs U.S. 67 to the state line.....
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 30, 2014, 08:30:31 PM
I would not vote to increase my taxes.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on June 30, 2014, 10:27:07 PM
I would not vote to increase my taxes.

Neither would I. If it's an important enough issue they will find the money for it.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 01, 2014, 12:49:48 AM
I think taxes should be raised.  The roads in Arkansas (and many other states) are in awful shape or need to be completely relocated for safety reasons.  I don't mind paying a couple dollars more for a tank of gas if it means that I'm not in danger of being killed on a deadly road.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on July 01, 2014, 09:08:27 AM
I think taxes should be raised.  The roads in Arkansas (and many other states) are in awful shape or need to be completely relocated for safety reasons.  I don't mind paying a couple dollars more for a tank of gas if it means that I'm not in danger of being killed on a deadly road.

The tax raise would be in Missouri, not Arkansas.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2014, 09:48:39 AM
It's amazing to me just how giant a struggle it is for states and even the federal government to build new highways or upgrade existing ones today. Much of the Interstate highway system was built for far less money, even adjusting the dollars for inflation. I can't help but wonder just what the hell has been going on during the last 10-20 years to make something like a highway project so costly anymore.

I'm sorry if that sounds like ignorance, but there is some really steep cost inflation taking place in these projects. Steel and concrete prices have shot up quite a lot during the last 15 years, due in large part to globalization and "nation building" elsewhere. But I don't think steel and concrete prices alone account for some of these giant sized price hikes.

On a fundamental level, if the United States had only started to build the Interstate highway system at today's prices there's absolutely no hope it would ever get built.

As to the "raising taxes" thing, our way of life in this country is not free. Infrastructure costs money (roads, water lines, sewage lines, reservoirs, treatment plants, landfills, power stations, etc., etc.). Too many Americans take that stuff for granted, almost as if somebody is waving a magic wand and it appears out of nowhere for free. A big reason why the third world undercuts this country in terms of labor prices and many other things is they don't have an infrastructure like ours to maintain. A lot of Americans have never been outside this country to see just how it is in other places.

I'm not sure how it is in other states, but here in Oklahoma the gas tax has been pretty much the same for the 20 years I've lived here. It's pretty easy to tell that tax ain't coming close to covering the building cost for new roads, much less the maintenance on existing ones. I have a strong feeling if the taxes aren't hiked at the pump they're going to be hiked elsewhere. We may end up with RFID tags on all our windshields and getting them popped for toll money at every street corner we pass.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: okc1 on July 01, 2014, 10:51:28 AM
Oklahoma soundly defeated a gas tax hike in 2005.  My guess is that if voters think tax money is being wasted elsewhere, they will not vote for new taxes.

http://newsok.com/elections-record-87-defeat-for-hike-br-gas-tax-crashes/article/2911716 (http://newsok.com/elections-record-87-defeat-for-hike-br-gas-tax-crashes/article/2911716)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on July 01, 2014, 11:11:30 AM
Someone answer me this cause I really an a bit ignorant on the whole US 67 thing. Is there going to be some kind of 4 lane interstate quality connector to Jonesboro off of it. I would have thought US 63/Future I 555 made perfect sense but they just widened it.  Lots of things this State does makes no sense like how us 412 connects with us 65 north of Harrison. There's no ramp 5 go north, you have to stop and cross south bound traffic. It's just stupid stupid stupid. I'm still wondering why they didn't build a four lane divided bypass around Siloam instead of what they did in town.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 01, 2014, 11:49:52 AM
I'm still wondering why they didn't build a four lane divided bypass around Siloam instead of what they did in town.

Money. It was cheaper to go through town, most likely.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: HandsomeRob on July 01, 2014, 11:53:14 AM
Someone answer me this cause I really an a bit ignorant on the whole US 67 thing. Is there going to be some kind of 4 lane interstate quality connector to Jonesboro off of it.
I believe that highway 226 is being converted to a divided four-lane expressway between US 67 and Jonesboro.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on July 01, 2014, 02:08:04 PM
Will that have an exchange with US 63 to tie the 4 lane divideds together?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on July 01, 2014, 02:48:48 PM
It's amazing to me just how giant a struggle it is for states and even the federal government to build new highways or upgrade existing ones today. Much of the Interstate highway system was built for far less money, even adjusting the dollars for inflation. I can't help but wonder just what the hell has been going on during the last 10-20 years to make something like a highway project so costly anymore.

I'm sorry if that sounds like ignorance, but there is some really steep cost inflation taking place in these projects. Steel and concrete prices have shot up quite a lot during the last 15 years, due in large part to globalization and "nation building" elsewhere. But I don't think steel and concrete prices alone account for some of these giant sized price hikes.

On a fundamental level, if the United States had only started to build the Interstate highway system at today's prices there's absolutely no hope it would ever get built.

As to the "raising taxes" thing, our way of life in this country is not free. Infrastructure costs money (roads, water lines, sewage lines, reservoirs, treatment plants, landfills, power stations, etc., etc.). Too many Americans take that stuff for granted, almost as if somebody is waving a magic wand and it appears out of nowhere for free. A big reason why the third world undercuts this country in terms of labor prices and many other things is they don't have an infrastructure like ours to maintain. A lot of Americans have never been outside this country to see just how it is in other places.

I'm not sure how it is in other states, but here in Oklahoma the gas tax has been pretty much the same for the 20 years I've lived here. It's pretty easy to tell that tax ain't coming close to covering the building cost for new roads, much less the maintenance on existing ones. I have a strong feeling if the taxes aren't hiked at the pump they're going to be hiked elsewhere. We may end up with RFID tags on all our windshields and getting them popped for toll money at every street corner we pass.

The problem is that the government now days spends so much money on stupid things. When the interstates were first built they were built wherever the engineers wanted. There weren't any environmental studies or moving the route. If it was coming, it was coming. People also didn't get paid as much money working on the highways. Most governments in the US (including the US Federal Gov.) are in so much debt that they can't afford to invest in better infrastructure. Most of our debt issues is the politicians trying to buy votes. No one seems to care about our money spending problems in the US. I don't think our situation will get better either. Not to go on a political rampage, but our government cannot just keep printing more and more money. It is causing rapid inflation. In 2000 the dollar was worth more than the Euro. Now 1 dollar will get you 75 cents of Euros. We're heading don a dangerous path. China is catching up to us fast. Now many of the Chinese have cars. This has caused an increase in gas prices. China now has some of the tallest buildings in the world. Their tallest is taller than our tallest. China has also invested money into building freeways. China's downfall may be their spending problems (5 trillion in debt). It's not just us, governments around the world need to spend their money wiser. We by far have the worst spending problem though.  And what improvements have been made with all the money we've spent the last 7 years?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 01, 2014, 02:57:11 PM
It's amazing to me just how giant a struggle it is for states and even the federal government to build new highways or upgrade existing ones today. Much of the Interstate highway system was built for far less money, even adjusting the dollars for inflation. I can't help but wonder just what the hell has been going on during the last 10-20 years to make something like a highway project so costly anymore.

I'm sorry if that sounds like ignorance, but there is some really steep cost inflation taking place in these projects. Steel and concrete prices have shot up quite a lot during the last 15 years, due in large part to globalization and "nation building" elsewhere. But I don't think steel and concrete prices alone account for some of these giant sized price hikes.

On a fundamental level, if the United States had only started to build the Interstate highway system at today's prices there's absolutely no hope it would ever get built.

As to the "raising taxes" thing, our way of life in this country is not free. Infrastructure costs money (roads, water lines, sewage lines, reservoirs, treatment plants, landfills, power stations, etc., etc.). Too many Americans take that stuff for granted, almost as if somebody is waving a magic wand and it appears out of nowhere for free. A big reason why the third world undercuts this country in terms of labor prices and many other things is they don't have an infrastructure like ours to maintain. A lot of Americans have never been outside this country to see just how it is in other places.

I'm not sure how it is in other states, but here in Oklahoma the gas tax has been pretty much the same for the 20 years I've lived here. It's pretty easy to tell that tax ain't coming close to covering the building cost for new roads, much less the maintenance on existing ones. I have a strong feeling if the taxes aren't hiked at the pump they're going to be hiked elsewhere. We may end up with RFID tags on all our windshields and getting them popped for toll money at every street corner we pass.

The price of a barrell of oil is what is raising prices on everything.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on July 01, 2014, 03:25:04 PM
I'm still wondering why they didn't build a four lane divided bypass around Siloam instead of what they did in town.

Money. It was cheaper to go through town, most likely.

I dont know about the economics, but the city chose that alternative so their town was not bypassed
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on July 01, 2014, 06:21:13 PM
Will that have an exchange with US 63 to tie the 4 lane divideds together?

State Highway 226 is being built as a connector but it is NOT a controlled access facility.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on July 01, 2014, 06:50:15 PM
Will that have an exchange with US 63 to tie the 4 lane divideds together?

State Highway 226 is being built as a connector but it is NOT a controlled access facility.


so US 67 has been built as controlled access to this point and US 63 has been upgraded to controlled access over the years and yet the connector to the two will not. Yep, same outfit that forgot a northbound connector to the Fayetteville bypass from 71B that is just now is being corrected.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 01, 2014, 09:06:06 PM
Someone answer me this cause I really an a bit ignorant on the whole US 67 thing. Is there going to be some kind of 4 lane interstate quality connector to Jonesboro off of it. I would have thought US 63/Future I 555 made perfect sense but they just widened it.  Lots of things this State does makes no sense like how us 412 connects with us 65 north of Harrison. There's no ramp 5 go north, you have to stop and cross south bound traffic. It's just stupid stupid stupid. I'm still wondering why they didn't build a four lane divided bypass around Siloam instead of what they did in town.

The US 70/70B/Future AR 7 interchange at the east end of the Hot Springs bypass is the same way.  To go from EB US 70 to WB US 70B, you must come to a stop and make a left turn.  Other than this ramp, both roads are full freeways.  I wonder how many fatalities are going to occur here before the state builds a proper ramp?

They didn't build a proper Siloam Springs/West Siloam Springs bypass because of 1) the notorious cheapness of Arkanasas and 2) the businesses in Siloam Springs complained the loss of business that a bypass would cause.  I imagine in 30 years or so a proper bypass will be constructed.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 01, 2014, 09:28:51 PM
Will that have an exchange with US 63 to tie the 4 lane divideds together?

I'm sure there won't be.  226 will tie into 49 southwest of Jonesboro.  I doubt there will even be an interchange with 49.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on July 01, 2014, 10:07:12 PM
Someone answer me this cause I really an a bit ignorant on the whole US 67 thing. Is there going to be some kind of 4 lane interstate quality connector to Jonesboro off of it. I would have thought US 63/Future I 555 made perfect sense but they just widened it.  Lots of things this State does makes no sense like how us 412 connects with us 65 north of Harrison. There's no ramp 5 go north, you have to stop and cross south bound traffic. It's just stupid stupid stupid. I'm still wondering why they didn't build a four lane divided bypass around Siloam instead of what they did in town.

The US 70/70B/Future AR 7 interchange at the east end of the Hot Springs bypass is the same way.  To go from EB US 70 to WB US 70B, you must come to a stop and make a left turn.  Other than this ramp, both roads are full freeways.  I wonder how many fatalities are going to occur here before the state builds a proper ramp?

They didn't build a proper Siloam Springs/West Siloam Springs bypass because of 1) the notorious cheapness of Arkanasas and 2) the businesses in Siloam Springs complained the loss of business that a bypass would cause.  I imagine in 30 years or so a proper bypass will be constructed.

AHTD is supposed to serve the public. If the public didn't want a bypass and there was a sound engineering alternative, it is their duty to build such a facility
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on July 01, 2014, 11:11:15 PM
Someone answer me this cause I really an a bit ignorant on the whole US 67 thing. Is there going to be some kind of 4 lane interstate quality connector to Jonesboro off of it. I would have thought US 63/Future I 555 made perfect sense but they just widened it.  Lots of things this State does makes no sense like how us 412 connects with us 65 north of Harrison. There's no ramp 5 go north, you have to stop and cross south bound traffic. It's just stupid stupid stupid. I'm still wondering why they didn't build a four lane divided bypass around Siloam instead of what they did in town.


The US 70/70B/Future AR 7 interchange at the east end of the Hot Springs bypass is the same way.  To go from EB US 70 to WB US 70B, you must come to a stop and make a left turn.  Other than this ramp, both roads are full freeways.  I wonder how many fatalities are going to occur here before the state builds a proper ramp?

They didn't build a proper Siloam Springs/West Siloam Springs bypass because of 1) the notorious cheapness of Arkanasas and 2) the businesses in Siloam Springs complained the loss of business that a bypass would cause.  I imagine in 30 years or so a proper bypass will be constructed.

AHTD is supposed to serve the public. If the public didn't want a bypass and there was a sound engineering alternative, it is their duty to build such a facility
Nearly everyone in NWA wants a complete 4 lane divided to reach Tulsa, it's all there  except for Siloam when the Springdale bypass is built. They make that three lanes and no turn lane which means many folks uturning at lights and we still have West Siloam as a speed trap.

A bypass would have been near the new business area of Siloam, no one going through there cares about what else is in town unless they are going there to begin with. And when did businesses in town decide that issue, cause I can list all kinds of towns that the state didn't listen to. Have we learned nothing from the Harrison bypass years ago :banghead:

Oh these businesses:

The Highway 412 lane expansion project from Washington Avenue to State Line Road in Siloam Springs expanded the road from four to six lanes. But now there is a median that some say is preventing drivers from turning left directly into businesses.

City officials and business owners say the median prevents drivers from having direct access to businesses on the opposite side so, drivers have to make a U-turn to get where they need to go.

“There are approximately 117 businesses in that area that are affected immediately by this median,” said Holland Hayden, City of Siloam Springs Director of Communications.

Some businesses say they’re seeing fewer customers because getting there isn’t convenient for drivers.

“Usually people can turn in this way but they can`t turn in that way because they have to go all the way to the stoplight and turn around so it`s hard for business,” said A.J Yoeum, Shipley Donuts.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on July 02, 2014, 12:04:39 AM
Traffic u-turning to get to your business is better than traffic having to exit and go 3 miles down city streets to your business

AHTD has public input meetings. If people don't go and make their voice heard, what else can they do?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 02, 2014, 12:12:49 AM
Who is "the public"?  Business owners along the old hwy 68?  Drivers who live in Siloam Springs?  Drivers who commute to or from, say, Springdale to Chouteau or Tulsa?  They sure didn't consult me, and I drive that way from time to time.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on July 02, 2014, 03:35:39 AM
At least it's not like Texas and their one way frontage roads. Or Fayetteville with Futral and Shiloh


iPhone
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on July 02, 2014, 07:47:08 AM
Who is "the public"?  Business owners along the old hwy 68?  Drivers who live in Siloam Springs?  Drivers who commute to or from, say, Springdale to Chouteau or Tulsa?  They sure didn't consult me, and I drive that way from time to time.

Stakeholders and people who attended public input sessions. Did you attend any sessions?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on July 10, 2014, 11:04:51 AM
This June 12 article (http://www.waynecojournalbanner.com/reynolds_county/news/article_0dd0a552-f270-11e3-a584-0017a43b2370.html) reports that four-laning US 67 from Poplar Bluff to the Arkansas state line is one of the Missouri transportation sales tax projects on the recently released draft list ....
MoDOT's Southeast Region Draft List (http://www.modot.org/MovingForward/Regions/documents/MovingForward_ProjectList_SEDistrictJune132014.pdf) speaks in terms of "adding lanes"
Word from the MoDOT District Engineer is that it will be a four-lane expressway similar to the rest of the corridor to the north.

The Final Commission-Approved Southeast Region Project List (http://www.modot.org/MovingForward/Lists/MoDOT%20Statewide%20Project%20List%20FINAL%207-9-14%20Southeast.pdf) includes the US 67 project and has an estimated cost of $43.42 million:

Quote
Add lanes on Rte 67 from Rte 160 to Arkansas
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: RBBrittain on July 12, 2014, 02:36:21 AM
Someone answer me this cause I really an a bit ignorant on the whole US 67 thing. Is there going to be some kind of 4 lane interstate quality connector to Jonesboro off of it. I would have thought US 63/Future I 555 made perfect sense but they just widened it.  Lots of things this State does makes no sense like how us 412 connects with us 65 north of Harrison. There's no ramp 5 go north, you have to stop and cross south bound traffic. It's just stupid stupid stupid. I'm still wondering why they didn't build a four lane divided bypass around Siloam instead of what they did in town.

The US 70/70B/Future AR 7 interchange at the east end of the Hot Springs bypass is the same way.  To go from EB US 70 to WB US 70B, you must come to a stop and make a left turn.  Other than this ramp, both roads are full freeways.  I wonder how many fatalities are going to occur here before the state builds a proper ramp?

They didn't build a proper Siloam Springs/West Siloam Springs bypass because of 1) the notorious cheapness of Arkanasas and 2) the businesses in Siloam Springs complained the loss of business that a bypass would cause.  I imagine in 30 years or so a proper bypass will be constructed.
Ah, reminds me of Pine Bluff.  Wonder if Siloam will see tumbleweeds rolling down its "Martha Mitchell" (yeah, 6 lanes with stoplights looks like another fake "expressway" to me) while everyone else speeds past on its "Wiley Branton" bypass?  :-P
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 12, 2014, 09:08:01 AM
Ah, reminds me of Pine Bluff.  Wonder if Siloam will see tumbleweeds rolling down its "Martha Mitchell" (yeah, 6 lanes with stoplights looks like another fake "expressway" to me) while everyone else speeds past on its "Wiley Branton" bypass?  :-P

I know for a fact that a Mena bypass would have been built at least 35 years ago if not for the local businessmen pooh poohing the idea.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on July 13, 2014, 09:51:47 AM
Ah, reminds me of Pine Bluff.  Wonder if Siloam will see tumbleweeds rolling down its "Martha Mitchell" (yeah, 6 lanes with stoplights looks like another fake "expressway" to me) while everyone else speeds past on its "Wiley Branton" bypass?  :-P

I know for a fact that a Mena bypass would have been built at least 35 years ago if not for the local businessmen pooh poohing the idea.

But would it have been built to interstate standards or would it have been an "Arkansas Freeway"?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 13, 2014, 10:32:01 AM
Ah, reminds me of Pine Bluff.  Wonder if Siloam will see tumbleweeds rolling down its "Martha Mitchell" (yeah, 6 lanes with stoplights looks like another fake "expressway" to me) while everyone else speeds past on its "Wiley Branton" bypass?  :-P

I know for a fact that a Mena bypass would have been built at least 35 years ago if not for the local businessmen pooh poohing the idea.

But would it have been built to interstate standards or would it have been an "Arkansas Freeway"?

Probably two lanes, much like the Waldron or DeQueen or Glenwood bypasses.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 13, 2014, 01:04:50 PM
Ah, reminds me of Pine Bluff.  Wonder if Siloam will see tumbleweeds rolling down its "Martha Mitchell" (yeah, 6 lanes with stoplights looks like another fake "expressway" to me) while everyone else speeds past on its "Wiley Branton" bypass?  :-P

I know for a fact that a Mena bypass would have been built at least 35 years ago if not for the local businessmen pooh poohing the idea.

But would it have been built to interstate standards or would it have been an "Arkansas Freeway"?

Probably two lanes, much like the Waldron or DeQueen or Glenwood bypasses.

Or the original Fayetteville bypass
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on July 18, 2014, 04:07:22 PM
Will that have an exchange with US 63 to tie the 4 lane divideds together?
State Highway 226 is being built as a connector but it is NOT a controlled access facility.

AHTD, the AR 226 High Priority Corridor 52 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l52) is statutorily designated as follows:

Quote
The route in Arkansas running south of and parallel to Arkansas State Highway 226 from the relocation of United States Route 67 to the vicinity of United States Route 49 and United States Route 63.

The statute does not seem to require a connection to US 63/ Future I-555.  Does the Department have any future plans to connect AR 226 to US 63, and, if so, do you have any plans that you can share with the Forum?



This May 8, 2013 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2013-05-08/news/story1.php)
Quote
Walter McMillan, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department district engineer
In the above-linked article, Walter McMillan also provided an update on the interstate-grade projects south of Walnut Ridge and noted that the entire sixteen miles will be opened to traffic at the same time:
Quote
Work is underway on Highway 67 from the interchange with Highway 226 (between Swifton and Cash), northward to the Highway 63 interchange at Hoxie. McMillan said there are four different construction projects underway on the six-mile stretch from Highway 226 north to Highway 230.
Work has also begun on the 10-mile stretch from Highway 230 to Highway 63.
Much of the grading and structure work is completed and the paving contract will be let in December.
"If things go really well, in another two to two-and-a-half years we will probably be done with that section of 67," McMillan said. "It's coming; it's just a matter of finishing up."
He did report that none of the final 16 miles will be opened until it is all complete, stating that Highway 230 would not be able to withstand the traffic if the first six miles were opened.
"So, when the two open it will be all the way up to 63,"
he said.
When is the swifton - hoxie section planned to be completed?

IDriveArkansas (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) is currently estimating Mid 2014 for Hwy 226 to Hwy 230 and Late 2015 for Hwy 230 to Hwy 63.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on July 24, 2014, 09:07:07 AM
When Missouri backed off its commitment to four-lane U.S. 67 to the Arkansas state line, we had to re-boot our process and look at other feasible alternatives on how to get from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line.
That study is almost complete and will be presented to the Arkansas Highway Commission during its July meeting. We will post it here once the Commission signs off on it.

AHTD, this article (http://swtimes.com/news/state-news/arkansas-highway-commission-wants-hear-congressional-candidates) about the July 23 Arkansas State Highway Commission meeting mentions the I-40 toll lane study, but it does not mention the US 67 study.  Was the US 67 study presented at the July 23 meeting, or did the Department decide to wait until after the Missouri sales tax vote?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on July 24, 2014, 10:27:42 AM
The study is still in progress, however it was mentioned in the Commission meeting as such.
 
We will post the complete I-40 study in the appropriate thread when it's available. The Commission's action on it was simply to "accept" it because it was completed by a consultant.
 
 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on July 24, 2014, 03:40:00 PM
Which consultant?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: robbones on July 24, 2014, 07:24:30 PM
Missouri is almost complete with 4 laning  about 5 miles of US 67 south of poplar bluff. They are building jersey barriers to separate the north and south bound lanes.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: AHTD on July 28, 2014, 11:35:07 AM
Which consultant?

I-40 toll study was completed by JACOBS
 
 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on October 02, 2014, 08:22:44 PM
This July 15 AHTD PowerPoint presentation (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2013/071513_SEB_JonesboroChamber.pdf) provides an update and scheduled lettings for the completion of AR 226 from US 67 to US 49 near Jonesboro (page 21/41 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/vAqt4if.jpg)
This article (http://www.couriernews.com/view/full_story/24772909/article-Highway-Trust-Fund-must-be-fixed) reports that the previously scheduled April letting for the Cash bypass has been put on hold because of a concern that Highway Trust Fund checks might start bouncing

AHTD's Sept. 30 presentation to the Blytheville Lions Club (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/093014_BlythevilleLionsClub.pdf) includes a slide providing a Feb 2015 completion date for the Cash Bypass (page 13/41 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/x39AQeh.jpg)

Several photos of AR 226 construction are included in the presentation.

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on November 05, 2014, 07:59:44 PM
This Oct. 31 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2014/NR%2014-311.pdf) states that public involvement meetings will be held on November 12 and November 13 regarding the four-lane extension of US 67 to the Missouri state line.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on November 18, 2014, 03:53:26 PM
This Oct. 31 AHTD Information Release (http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2014/NR%2014-311.pdf) states that public involvement meetings will be held on November 12 and November 13 regarding the four-lane extension of US 67 to the Missouri state line.

AHTD has posted the materials from the meetings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2014/100512/100512_Nov1314.aspx).  Here is the map of the alternatives (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2014/100512/New%20folder/100512_Alternatives_Display_11_12_2014.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/kedWNGD.png)

Here is a Summary Table (http://www.arkansashighways.com/public_meetings/2014/100512/New%20folder/2014%2011%2006%20Summary%20Table.pdf) of the alternatives:

(http://i.imgur.com/4I7G56q.png)

It's interesting that AHTD is continuing to present freeway alternatives.

Also, here is a Nov. 12 TV video (http://www.kait8.com/story/27371487/ahtd-presents-options-for-highway-67-expansion-to-missouri) reporting on the first meeting and how AHTD had to go back to the drawing board in order to develop these alternatives.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on November 18, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
I'm glad that at least the idea of a freeway is at least still being considered by AHTD. If the money has been sunk into building an freeway corridor to Walnut Ridge, then to me it would only make sense to continue the freeway to the Missouri State Line.

I am hoping that Alternative 2 is eliminated since it seems that would end up being an Arkansas Freeway type facility.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on November 29, 2014, 10:49:27 AM
Alt. 4 and 4E to me makes the most sense out of all of the alternatives. Alt. 2 looks to be the "cheap way out".
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SteveG1988 on November 29, 2014, 11:11:05 AM
Who is "the public"?  Business owners along the old hwy 68?  Drivers who live in Siloam Springs?  Drivers who commute to or from, say, Springdale to Chouteau or Tulsa?  They sure didn't consult me, and I drive that way from time to time.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bugo on November 29, 2014, 11:50:57 AM
Steve Gum: Huh?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on December 11, 2014, 08:48:58 PM
When is the section between SR 226 and US 63 supposed to open up? (Sorry if there was an answer to this already.)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on December 12, 2014, 02:38:59 PM
IDriveArkansas (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) is currently estimating Mid 2014 for Hwy 226 to Hwy 230 and Late 2015 for Hwy 230 to Hwy 63.
When is the section between SR 226 and US 63 supposed to open up? (Sorry if there was an answer to this already.)

IDriveArkansas (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) is now estimating Early 2016 for the entire Hwy 226 to Hwy 63 stretch.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on December 15, 2014, 05:50:22 PM
Either Alternative 4W or 5 built as an interstate-grade freeway (or at least an expressway with the option to upgrade to interstate-standards) is the best option.

It makes absolutely no sense for the remainder of the highway to be built along the existing road with lots of cross traffic. No one is going to like driving on a freeway and then having to slow down big time after Hoxie/Walnut Ridge.

It would not be difficult for Missouri to upgrade the U.S 60/67 corridor between the state line and I-57 to interstate-standards, so I don't see what the debate is. An Interstate highway corridor would be MUCH better for the regional economy than a four-lane undivided roadway.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 04:14:20 AM
(reply to deleted post)

Do we need to add a disclaimer like on railfan sites that we don't have employee records? :bigass:

Nothing against you, but you'd want to check with AHTD.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Stratuscaster on February 22, 2015, 12:19:06 AM
As someone that's made the drive from Chicagoland to Hoxie more than a few times over the last 30 years, just 4-laning the section between Poplar Bluff and Pocahontas (along with a well-placed Pocahontas bypass) would improve things greatly.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on February 22, 2015, 06:22:30 PM
As someone that's made the drive from Chicagoland to Hoxie more than a few times over the last 30 years, just 4-laning the section between Poplar Bluff and Pocahontas (along with a well-placed Pocahontas bypass) would improve things greatly.

I agree to a certain extent, but since they have already built the freeway to Hoxie/Walnut Ridge, I would build an expressway with the option to later convert to freeway/interstate. They wouldn't need to put in the interchanges and grade separations right away, only later if traffic warranted it. Upgrading the corridor into an extension of either I-30 or I-57 should still be the long term goal, but an interim expressway would be fine (considering funding restraints by both Arkansas and Missouri). It would cost a little less then building a full blown freeway. 

Although personally, I think Arkansas should focus on finishing I-49 before finishing this.
Title: US 67 construction in Arkansas
Post by: cbalducc on March 25, 2015, 10:50:04 AM
Is the new US 67 complete to Walnut Ridge yet?
Title: Re: US 67 construction in Arkansas
Post by: Grzrd on March 25, 2015, 11:59:14 AM
IDriveArkansas (http://www.idrivearkansas.com/) is currently projecting a Mid-2016 completion date.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on May 27, 2015, 06:50:14 PM
Is the new US 67 complete to Walnut Ridge yet?

This May 8 TV video (http://www.kait8.com/story/29019405/highway-67-interchange-to-be-completed-by-next-year) includes some construction footage, reports that 2.5 miles of the project remain to be paved and also reports that everything should be completed by Fall 2016:

Quote
Looking toward the project for the Highway 67 at Hoxie it doesn't look like there has been much improvement.
However, Resident Engineer of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Shannon Luke said a lot of work has been done.
Luke said the reason people in the area may start seeing more equipment near the Hoxie area is because the project is actually making it's way closer there.
He said they have been working from south to north for the project and over the past year alone they have covered around 5 miles.
"The first 7 miles of the job have been paved, and the remaining two and a half miles there is what you're seeing the activity on," Luke said.
While two and a half miles remain, Luke said the remaining work will take some time and with weather permitting the project should be done by Fall 2016.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 27, 2015, 11:52:14 PM
Quote
I agree to a certain extent, but since they have already built the freeway to Hoxie/Walnut Ridge, I would build an expressway with the option to later convert to freeway/interstate. They wouldn't need to put in the interchanges and grade separations right away, only later if traffic warranted it.

They can do that if they just secure enough right of way and mandate set-backs for new businesses and residences be far enough off the road to provide room any future upgrades. If they don't manage the corridor properly it will just get boxed in with development right up to the edge of the highway. Then any future freeway would have to be built on an entirely new alignment.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 28, 2015, 10:44:48 AM
Quote
I agree to a certain extent, but since they have already built the freeway to Hoxie/Walnut Ridge, I would build an expressway with the option to later convert to freeway/interstate. They wouldn't need to put in the interchanges and grade separations right away, only later if traffic warranted it.

They can do that if they just secure enough right of way and mandate set-backs for new businesses and residences be far enough off the road to provide room any future upgrades. If they don't manage the corridor properly it will just get boxed in with development right up to the edge of the highway. Then any future freeway would have to be built on an entirely new alignment.

That's where mapping and corridor protection comes in
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on July 23, 2015, 04:18:02 PM
AHTD's Sept. 30 presentation to the Blytheville Lions Club (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/093014_BlythevilleLionsClub.pdf) includes a slide providing a Feb 2015 completion date for the Cash Bypass (page 13/41 of pdf)

This July 24 AHTD presentation to the Jonesboro Exchange Club (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/072415JonesboroExchange.pdf) indicates that the four remaining sections of AR 226 under construction between US 67 and US 49 are estimated to be completed in December, 2015 (p. 46/57 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/UCUMTKU.png)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: KamKam on July 28, 2015, 04:25:42 PM
The 2015-2016 Map shows HWY 226 between U.S. 67 and 49 be completed as a divided highway
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2015, 07:31:46 PM
Somehow, I think the likelihood of the US 67 freeway getting an Interstate designation anytime soon is slim to none.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on July 29, 2015, 07:30:52 AM
Somehow, I think the likelihood of the US 67 freeway getting an Interstate designation anytime soon is slim to none.

At least not until it connects with Poplar Bluff.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 29, 2015, 12:44:57 PM
Somehow, I think the likelihood of the US 67 freeway getting an Interstate designation anytime soon is slim to none.

At least not until it connects with Poplar Bluff.

Worry about the road, not the designation, like US 71, AR 540 , I-540, I-49
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on July 29, 2015, 08:42:59 PM
The 2015-2016 Map shows HWY 226 between U.S. 67 and 49 be completed as a divided highway

They did jump the gun, but the map does include 2016, by when 226 will be complete.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on August 01, 2015, 11:45:02 PM
If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on August 02, 2015, 08:43:11 AM
If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 02, 2015, 11:11:43 AM
If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 02, 2015, 12:45:57 PM
If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Rothman on August 02, 2015, 01:58:23 PM
If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?

As has been mentioned multiple times on here, there is no additional federal funds for interstates any longer and hasn't been since MAP-21 was signed.  The only major division of federal fund eligibility is between funds to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) and those that can be used on all federal-aid highways.  There are no major federal fund sources specifically tied to interstate highways.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 02, 2015, 04:20:13 PM
If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?

As has been mentioned multiple times on here, there is no additional federal funds for interstates any longer and hasn't been since MAP-21 was signed.  The only major division of federal fund eligibility is between funds to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) and those that can be used on all federal-aid highways.  There are no major federal fund sources specifically tied to interstate highways.

Then an Interstate designation would serve no useful purpose (like I-49 north of Carthage ;) )
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Rothman on August 02, 2015, 06:37:32 PM
If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?

As has been mentioned multiple times on here, there is no additional federal funds for interstates any longer and hasn't been since MAP-21 was signed.  The only major division of federal fund eligibility is between funds to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) and those that can be used on all federal-aid highways.  There are no major federal fund sources specifically tied to interstate highways.

Then an Interstate designation would serve no useful purpose (like I-49 north of Carthage ;) )


We're only talking funding-wise.  FHWA now only blesses highways adhering to certain engineering specifications and standards with the holy interstate shield.

Also donned on me over the weekend that this is another opportunity to point out another reason why the NY 17/I-86 conversion has come to a standstill.  Although there are politicians out there convinced that interstates stimulate economy -- I mean, just look at Binghamton, NY!  Three interstate highways has made it the economic engine of the State! </mega sarcasm> -- the weaker incentives can be a factor in such capital program decision-making.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on August 02, 2015, 06:38:29 PM
If they ever label US 67 as an interstate, you can kiss those US 167 & US 64 overlap signs good bye.   :no:  :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 02, 2015, 09:53:38 PM
If they ever label US 67 as an interstate, you can kiss those US 167 & US 64 overlap signs good bye.   :no:  :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Good point!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 04, 2015, 02:53:13 PM
Maybe the subject headline should just say US 67, since there is no guarantee that the corridor will become Interstate 30, nor whether it will become an Interstate at all.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on August 04, 2015, 03:12:01 PM
I think AHTD has referred to the corridor in the past as a future extension of I-30, hence the thread title. I would prefer it to be I-57, but for now that is fantasy land until the freeway is completed.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 04, 2015, 03:56:15 PM
Call it I-140 or I-157

Or split the difference and call it 43 1/2 ;)  :spin:

cjk374 has a point though: if the road does get promoted to Interstate status,  the 64/64/167 multiplex signs would disappear.

Also: would 67B disappear as well in favor of BL 30 ?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on August 04, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on August 04, 2015, 06:11:29 PM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)

I have noticed that too. Plus, the freeway has its own mileposts and exits starting in LR at the I-40 interchange.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on August 04, 2015, 07:26:06 PM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)

I have noticed that too. Plus, the freeway has its own mileposts and exits starting in LR at the I-40 interchange.

I forgot about the exit numbers starting at I-40 interchange. Definitely supports my theory about AHTD's thoughts on the future of the US 67 corridor.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 04, 2015, 09:46:48 PM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)

I have noticed that too. Plus, the freeway has its own mileposts and exits starting in LR at the I-40 interchange.

Who can forget when Exit 2 was EXIT 2 ? ;)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on August 05, 2015, 01:40:17 AM
If and when a continuous freeway is built from Sikeston to Little Rock, it will be given an odd number for the simple fact it runs more of a north-south vector than an east-west one. Since the existing US 60 freeway continues directly from I-57, the entire freeway should continue that number. The impetus behind naming it I-30, Mike Beebe, is out of office and I doubt Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, cares either way.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on August 05, 2015, 06:04:57 AM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)

I have noticed that too. Plus, the freeway has its own mileposts and exits starting in LR at the I-40 interchange.

Who can forget when Exit 2 was EXIT 2 ? ;)

I remember that. Has something happened to exit 2 since I last drove through there?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 05, 2015, 10:00:57 AM
If US 67 is ever labeled as an interstate I think it should be I-57 based on an idea I just thought of. I-57 could be routed on the existing I-530 to Pine Bluff. Maybe eventually it could run all the way south to I-69 and maybe even Louisiana.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on August 05, 2015, 03:34:51 PM
If and when a continuous freeway is built from Sikeston to Little Rock, it will be given an odd number for the simple fact it runs more of a north-south vector than an east-west one. Since the existing US 60 freeway continues directly from I-57, the entire freeway should continue that number. The impetus behind naming it I-30, Mike Beebe, is out of office and I doubt Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, cares either way.

NWA has pretty much taking over state wide offices, even on the Washington DC level. Oh, and Akansas has turned burning red.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 06, 2015, 11:36:20 AM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)

I have noticed that too. Plus, the freeway has its own mileposts and exits starting in LR at the I-40 interchange.

Who can forget when Exit 2 was EXIT 2 ? ;)

I remember that. Has something happened to exit 2 since I last drove through there?

It's now Trammel Rd
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on August 07, 2015, 01:15:30 PM
If US 67 is ever labeled as an interstate I think it should be I-57 based on an idea I just thought of. I-57 could be routed on the existing I-530 to Pine Bluff. Maybe eventually it could run all the way south to I-69 and maybe even Louisiana.
I'm definitely in favor of it being called I-57 and there is a short 2 lane section of AR 530 that is south of I-530 that could be 4 laned which I think it's supposed to tie in with future I-69, if / when the AR portion gets built. And then have future I-57 parallel US 425 to Monroe, LA.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on August 07, 2015, 03:09:32 PM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)

I have noticed that too. Plus, the freeway has its own mileposts and exits starting in LR at the I-40 interchange.

Who can forget when Exit 2 was EXIT 2 ? ;)

I remember that. Has something happened to exit 2 since I last drove through there?

It's now Trammel Rd

I guess they just had to put a label on it.   :-D
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 07, 2015, 06:39:20 PM
There are several milage signs on the way north out of LR that list St. Louis as the 3rd destination. I think the first ones show St. Louis as over 300 miles away. Just my useless 2 cents worth of opinion:  that shows me that AHTD has been planning to make this an interstate for many years. They could have chosen a more local (read "in Arkansas") 3rd destination for US 67. "Big city" destinations have always seemed more befitting of interstates.

That's just me... I can be crazy sometimes.  :)

I have noticed that too. Plus, the freeway has its own mileposts and exits starting in LR at the I-40 interchange.

Who can forget when Exit 2 was EXIT 2 ? ;)

I remember that. Has something happened to exit 2 since I last drove through there?

It's now Trammel Rd

I guess they just had to put a label on it.   :-D

I-90 in South Dakota has several Exit Exits ;)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on August 08, 2015, 07:40:59 AM
I-40 in New Mexico does also. They seem to be locations of former businesses that were located along what was then US 66.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2015, 03:07:19 PM
This May 8 TV video (http://www.kait8.com/story/29019405/highway-67-interchange-to-be-completed-by-next-year) includes some construction footage, reports that 2.5 miles of the project remain to be paved and also reports that everything should be completed by Fall 2016

This August 27 article (http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/29889321/highway-67-construction-nears-lawrence-county) reports that the AR 226 to Walnut Ridge section should be open to traffic in spring or summer 2016, and that AHTD is still studying alternatives for the Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line section:

Quote
If you look close enough, construction crews are visible along the second to last section of Highway 67 needed to connect Little Rock to St. Louis ....
The plan for the highway was created decades ago. Once this latest section is finished, there's only about 40 miles left of highway to construct before a Little Rock to St. Louis corridor is complete.
Though construction crews are visible, it will still be awhile before Hwy 67 from Hwy 226 to Walnut Ridge opens ....
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department anticipates the road to be open sometime next spring or summer. Originally, AHTD expected the road to be open this fall.
Even though there's only about 3 miles left to pave, the base of the road must be constructed first.
As for the remainder of the Highway 67 route, it's still being decided on. Multiple routes have been proposed to connect Walnut Ridge to the Missouri line but AHTD is still looking into which will work best.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2015, 04:43:37 PM
If and when a continuous freeway is built from Sikeston to Little Rock, it will be given an odd number for the simple fact it runs more of a north-south vector than an east-west one. Since the existing US 60 freeway continues directly from I-57, the entire freeway should continue that number. The impetus behind naming it I-30, Mike Beebe, is out of office and I doubt Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, cares either way.

But...I-57 west of I-55???

If anything, make it I-53 and possibly extend it to meet I-55 at Festus, MO...then around St. Louis to the US 61/US 218/Avenue of The Saints corridor.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Stratuscaster on August 29, 2015, 02:11:27 PM
If anything, make it I-53 and possibly extend it to meet I-55 at Festus, MO...then around St. Louis to the US 61/US 218/Avenue of The Saints corridor.
We'll survive if I-57 goes a bit west of I-55. The world won't end. Remember, I-55 falls east of I-57 towards the north end.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on August 29, 2015, 07:34:23 PM
This May 8 TV video (http://www.kait8.com/story/29019405/highway-67-interchange-to-be-completed-by-next-year) includes some construction footage, reports that 2.5 miles of the project remain to be paved and also reports that everything should be completed by Fall 2016

This August 27 article (http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/29889321/highway-67-construction-nears-lawrence-county) reports that the AR 226 to Walnut Ridge section should be open to traffic in spring or summer 2016, and that AHTD is still studying alternatives for the Walnut Ridge to Missouri state line section:

Quote
If you look close enough, construction crews are visible along the second to last section of Highway 67 needed to connect Little Rock to St. Louis ....
The plan for the highway was created decades ago. Once this latest section is finished, there's only about 40 miles left of highway to construct before a Little Rock to St. Louis corridor is complete.
Though construction crews are visible, it will still be awhile before Hwy 67 from Hwy 226 to Walnut Ridge opens ....
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department anticipates the road to be open sometime next spring or summer. Originally, AHTD expected the road to be open this fall.
Even though there's only about 3 miles left to pave, the base of the road must be constructed first.
As for the remainder of the Highway 67 route, it's still being decided on. Multiple routes have been proposed to connect Walnut Ridge to the Missouri line but AHTD is still looking into which will work best.

Wow, this is taking forever to get done. The AR 226 to Walnut Ridge portion has been under construction for the last 6 years, that's insane! It should not take that long.

And they STILL haven't figured out what the heck to do north of Walnut Ridge to the state line? Are they going Interstate (or upgradable expressway) or not? At this rate, this isn't getting done for 20-30 years (conservatively).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 31, 2015, 06:25:05 PM
If and when a continuous freeway is built from Sikeston to Little Rock, it will be given an odd number for the simple fact it runs more of a north-south vector than an east-west one. Since the existing US 60 freeway continues directly from I-57, the entire freeway should continue that number. The impetus behind naming it I-30, Mike Beebe, is out of office and I doubt Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, cares either way.

But...I-57 west of I-55???

If anything, make it I-53 and possibly extend it to meet I-55 at Festus, MO...then around St. Louis to the US 61/US 218/Avenue of The Saints corridor.

Split the difference:  :bigass:
(http://www.kendrick.org/ShieldsUp/ProcessShield?requestingIP=141.0.8.155&country=1&slugType=1&state=4&RouteNum=43.5&banner=0&slugWidth=0&fontName=1&fontScale=4)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2015, 05:14:20 PM
There was once a proposal to make US 67 Interstate 740, according to http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i740.html. If that number had been implemented, it would have been a rather long road for an odd-numbered 3 digit Interstate Highway.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on September 02, 2015, 09:23:37 PM
If and when a continuous freeway is built from Sikeston to Little Rock, it will be given an odd number for the simple fact it runs more of a north-south vector than an east-west one. Since the existing US 60 freeway continues directly from I-57, the entire freeway should continue that number. The impetus behind naming it I-30, Mike Beebe, is out of office and I doubt Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, cares either way.

But...I-57 west of I-55???

If anything, make it I-53 and possibly extend it to meet I-55 at Festus, MO...then around St. Louis to the US 61/US 218/Avenue of The Saints corridor.

Split the difference:  :bigass:
(http://www.kendrick.org/ShieldsUp/ProcessShield?requestingIP=141.0.8.155&country=1&slugType=1&state=4&RouteNum=43.5&banner=0&slugWidth=0&fontName=1&fontScale=4)

 :pan:  :pan:  :pan:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 09:30:52 PM
If and when a continuous freeway is built from Sikeston to Little Rock, it will be given an odd number for the simple fact it runs more of a north-south vector than an east-west one. Since the existing US 60 freeway continues directly from I-57, the entire freeway should continue that number. The impetus behind naming it I-30, Mike Beebe, is out of office and I doubt Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, cares either way.

But...I-57 west of I-55???

If anything, make it I-53 and possibly extend it to meet I-55 at Festus, MO...then around St. Louis to the US 61/US 218/Avenue of The Saints corridor.

Split the difference:  :bigass:
(http://www.kendrick.org/ShieldsUp/ProcessShield?requestingIP=141.0.8.155&country=1&slugType=1&state=4&RouteNum=43.5&banner=0&slugWidth=0&fontName=1&fontScale=4)
I-38 anyone?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2015, 05:18:44 PM
Maybe we should wait until after the US 67 freeway connects Interstate 40 with Interstate 55/57 before discussing giving it an Interstate designation. When/if that will happen is unknown at this time.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SteveG1988 on September 04, 2015, 10:32:59 AM
57 and 30 are both out of the grid, but I give non 0 and 5 routes a pass if they're diagonal ones, since they're connecting bits that are missed by other interstates. 57 serves places not served by 65 or 55. 30 to me should be extended not to the north, but to the north west. Have it meet the end of 44, or 27.

57 to me makes more sense as it is a more of a north/south routing once you get into AR.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on September 04, 2015, 03:58:27 PM
Maybe we should wait until after the US 67 freeway connects Interstate 40 with Interstate 55/57 before discussing giving it an Interstate designation. When/if that will happen is unknown at this time.

Exactly. Even if Arkansas continues Interstate-grade construction north of Walnut Ridge (which they should, but it is not a guarantee at this point, does anyone know what's going on there?), it's unlikely Missouri would upgrade the US 60/67 corridor to full freeway between the state line and Sikeston anytime soon given their budget woes. So any Interstate designation is years (decades) away if ever.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on September 04, 2015, 10:20:49 PM
Maybe we should wait until after the US 67 freeway connects Interstate 40 with Interstate 55/57 before discussing giving it an Interstate designation. When/if that will happen is unknown at this time.
I concur :)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on January 06, 2016, 10:18:10 PM
Anything new on routes north of Walnut Ridge?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 07, 2016, 07:52:56 PM
I was hoping you could tell me. Then again, I'm from Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on January 07, 2016, 07:57:17 PM
I was hoping you could tell me. Then again, I'm from Wisconsin.

I have seen no updates, unless AHTD has info?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SteveG1988 on January 07, 2016, 09:39:31 PM
I was through there not too long ago, still the same exit at the north end serving as the end of the freeway, couldn't see any advancement
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on January 08, 2016, 02:23:42 PM
I may be out on a limb for saying which alignment that AHTD could use but I would say, why not use part of AR 34 which runs northeast out of Walnut Ridge. Do what was done years ago with I-40 / US 66 in Texas (and other states): just plant another set of lanes about 120 feet or so on one side of AR 34... it will initially be a divided highway with a very wide median. Run that up to just south of O'kean and veer north to the existing US 67 alignment and once again have the wide median divided highway on existing 67 until reaching the towns (towns bypassed by the new 4 lane). And when traffic warrants, put down another set of lanes closer to the new ones and make it controlled access... and the old road becomes a frontage road (just like what Texas did with the US 66 alignment on I-40 east of Amarillo).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on January 08, 2016, 03:17:45 PM
That would be the most direct thing to do, but the folks in Pocahontas don't want the new road (whether it is a freeway or an expressway) to completely bypass them.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on January 15, 2016, 02:10:50 PM
I was through there not too long ago, still the same exit at the north end serving as the end of the freeway, couldn't see any advancement

I meant for planning on an alignment north of Walnut Ridge to the state line, and what type of road it will be.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on January 15, 2016, 09:32:47 PM
I was through there not too long ago, still the same exit at the north end serving as the end of the freeway, couldn't see any advancement

I meant for planning on an alignment north of Walnut Ridge to the state line, and what type of road it will be.

I'm not sure that decision has been made yet
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on January 22, 2016, 10:34:35 PM
The 2015-2016 Map shows HWY 226 between U.S. 67 and 49 be completed as a divided highway
They did jump the gun, but the map does include 2016, by when 226 will be complete.

This article (http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/109333/arkansas-226-expansion-to-improve-travel-in-northeast-arkansas) reports that the remaining work on AR 226 should be completed by mid-July:

Quote
... Arkansas 226, the main highway that links Jonesboro with Little Rock and other parts of eastern Arkansas. The curvy road has two lanes in many spots that slow drivers, and it can be treacherous.
That will change this summer.
The Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department has spent at least $83 million to expand the highway. The road was divided into seven separate expansion projects and four of them are completed, AHTD District 10 Engineer Walter McMillan told Arkansas Business.
"We should have those last three sections done by mid-July," McMillan said. "Once the whole project is complete, it should reduce the drive time from Jonesboro to Little Rock by 20 to 30 minutes."

After it’s done, Arkansas 226 will have four lanes from the U.S. 49 turnoff in Jonesboro to U.S. 67 in Jackson County. Work on the project began in spring 2010.



This August 27 article (http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/29889321/highway-67-construction-nears-lawrence-county) reports that the AR 226 to Walnut Ridge section should be open to traffic in spring or summer 2016

The above article reporting on AR 226 also reports that the new terrain section of US 67 from AR 226 to Walnut Ridge should be finished "by this fall":

Quote
Another major highway project linking northeast Arkansas to Little Rock should also be completed this year. McMillan said workers should finish a 16-mile stretch of the new U.S. 67 from rural Jackson County to U.S. 63 by this fall.
For many years the former U.S. 67 has been part of a major transportation route linking St. Louis to other parts of the South, including Little Rock. But large trucks often bog down as they meander through small towns with speed limits. And from Walnut Ridge to Newport, the route has only two lanes.
"When we get 67 finished it should significantly help with those drive times," McMillan said.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2016, 03:00:46 PM
Can someone remove the Future I-30 from the subject heading? There is no guarantee that the corridor will become Interstate 30, or even become an Interstate at all.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on January 23, 2016, 09:16:57 PM
Can someone remove the Future I-30 from the subject heading? There is no guarantee that the corridor will become Interstate 30, or even become an Interstate at all.

This thread has been fine with that heading for years
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Buck87 on January 23, 2016, 09:48:57 PM
Can someone remove the Future I-30 from the subject heading?

Or maybe change it to "Future I-57"

 :)

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on January 23, 2016, 09:57:02 PM
Can someone remove the Future I-30 from the subject heading?

Or maybe change it to "Future I-57"

 :)

LIKE!

No offense intended to St. Louis, but a more direct route between Chicago and Dallas is much more of a benefit to the nation's economy than some little-used pork project so a governor can go watch the Cardinals play.
Title: Re: Future US 30/I-67
Post by: noelbotevera on January 23, 2016, 10:05:50 PM
Why not this subject?


...I'll show myself the door.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on January 24, 2016, 01:22:47 PM
If Arkansas keeps it 4 lane divided to the standards they have used so far to the Missouri Line, It'll be an interstate, at least the 3 n umber kind inside the state, numbering is the conjecture. It will be up to Missouri to make it for sure a two digit one. This is I-540 part deux.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on January 24, 2016, 08:55:16 PM
No offense intended to St. Louis, but a more direct route between Chicago and Dallas is much more of a benefit to the nation's economy than some little-used pork project so a governor can go watch the Cardinals play.

Using existing mileage, per Google:

* Chicago to Dallas via I-57, US 60, US 67, I-30:  964 miles
* Chicago to Dallas via I-55, US 67, I-30:  958 miles (961 if I-255 is used around St. Louis)
* Chicago to Dallas via I-55, I-44, US 69, and US 75:  927 miles
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on January 24, 2016, 09:13:56 PM
If Arkansas keeps it 4 lane divided to the standards they have used so far to the Missouri Line, It'll be an interstate, at least the 3 n umber kind inside the state, numbering is the conjecture. It will be up to Missouri to make it for sure a two digit one. This is I-540 part deux.

I'd support 140, 340, or 740, but not another 540
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on January 25, 2016, 07:52:39 AM
No offense intended to St. Louis, but a more direct route between Chicago and Dallas is much more of a benefit to the nation's economy than some little-used pork project so a governor can go watch the Cardinals play.

Using existing mileage, per Google:

* Chicago to Dallas via I-57, US 60, US 67, I-30:  964 miles
* Chicago to Dallas via I-55, US 67, I-30:  958 miles (961 if I-255 is used around St. Louis)
* Chicago to Dallas via I-55, I-44, US 69, and US 75:  927 miles

Also,
* Chicago to Dallas via I-57, I-55, I-40, and I-30: 969 miles
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on January 25, 2016, 10:37:03 AM
No offense intended to St. Louis, but a more direct route between Chicago and Dallas is much more of a benefit to the nation's economy than some little-used pork project so a governor can go watch the Cardinals play.

Using existing mileage, per Google:

* Chicago to Dallas via I-57, US 60, US 67, I-30:  964 miles
* Chicago to Dallas via I-55, US 67, I-30:  958 miles (961 if I-255 is used around St. Louis)
* Chicago to Dallas via I-55, I-44, US 69, and US 75:  927 miles

The thing about all of these is that you have choices in the event of major construction, localized traffic volumes and weather events while keeping a predictable timetable.

I'd also point out that you could add the  I-55, I-44, I-49/US 71 and I-30 on that list. My major complaints with US 69 is the lack of getting around towns like McAlister.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Greybear on January 25, 2016, 04:48:13 PM
Don't ya think you should worry about towns like Muskogee as well as other small towns along US 69 that have reduced speed limits?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 25, 2016, 05:29:08 PM
Quote from: Revive 755
Chicago to Dallas via I-55, I-44, US 69, and US 75:  927 miles

Yep. That's the shortest route. It also explains the ridiculous amount of truck traffic along US-69 between Big Cabin, OK down to Durant, OK. That really should be an extension of Interstate 45.

About 1/3 of the route is already limited access (from the N. side of McAlester to the S. side of Muskogee). The rest is 4 lane divided with at-grade intersections. US-69 could be upgraded in McAlester without too many problems since it is already flanked by frontage roads. Muskogee would need a new Interstate quality bypass on its West side.

It's fun to imagine the possibilities. But the sad reality is Oklahoma's road funding mechanism is broke and has no signs of being fixed under the current political environment. They'll watch the oil bust continue, taking state revenue streams right down the toilet but refuse to consider any alternatives. Just keep selling more tax cuts and funding cuts to the voters. If this keeps up they'll have to start furloughing prisoners and closing down public schools outright.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on January 29, 2016, 09:50:38 PM
I can fill volumes on US 69 in Oklahoma, but that's on another thread.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on February 04, 2016, 05:58:23 PM
This article (http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/109333/arkansas-226-expansion-to-improve-travel-in-northeast-arkansas) .... reports that the new terrain section of US 67 from AR 226 to Walnut Ridge should be finished "by this fall"

This February 3, 2016 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2016-02-03/news/story1.php) reports that the expected opening date is now "by the end of August or first part of September":

Quote
Work continues on the completion of the four lanes of U.S. Hwy. 67, from Hwy. 226 (between Swifton and Cash) to the Hwy. 63 interchange at Hoxie. This segment of the highway is expected to open around Labor Day.
Once this 16-mile span of highway is opened, travelers on U.S. Hwy. 67 will have a four-lane highway from Hoxie to Little Rock.
District 10 Engineer Walter McMillan of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department shared the latest updates on the project with The TD.
The completion date and opening of this stretch of highway has changed several times due to various factors, McMillan said. At this time, he expects the new four-lane highway will be open by the end of August or first part of September.
Paving is complete on the main lanes of the new highway
, he said.
Work is now being done on the two ramps at the Hwy. 230 interchange, near Alicia. Workers are in the process of trimming the subgrade of soil and placing a cement-treated base on the ramps.
The two ramps that will connect Hwy. 67 to Hwy. 63 still have to be built, McMillan added.
Workers are also in the process of hauling base rock for the shoulders of the new stretch of highway, from Hwy. 230 (near Alicia) to Hwy. 63, which is a 10-mile stretch. Some 30,000 tons of base rock are needed to complete this job, and when the base rock is in place, the shoulders will be covered in asphalt.

Lastly, the new segment of highway will need to be striped, and then it will be ready for traffic.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 04, 2016, 06:47:01 PM
And how long before they decide what to do from there northward?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on March 11, 2016, 12:47:00 PM
Can someone remove the Future I-30 from the subject heading?
Or maybe change it to "Future I-57"
:)
LIKE!
No offense intended to St. Louis, but a more direct route between Chicago and Dallas is much more of a benefit to the nation's economy than some little-used pork project so a governor can go watch the Cardinals play.
I-555  (http://kasu.org/post/i-555-be-dedicated-friday-jonesboro#stream/0)dedication Friday 11-1 in Jonesboro.
(bottom quote from AR: Future I-555 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1869.msg2131831#msg2131831) thread)

The article linked by US71 includes an audio clip of an interview with U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, who was instrumental in facilitating the I-555 designation from I-55 to Jonesboro, about the possibility of designating the interstate-grade section of US 67/167 as an interstate.  The reporter first notes as follows:

Quote
While the dedication of I-555 takes place Friday, another stretch of highway that is interstate quality that is not an interstate is Highway 67/167.  I asked Congressman Crawford what is preventing that highway from being an interstate

In his audio response, Rep. Crawford notes that the current 43 mile non-interstate grade stretch from AR 226 to the Missouri state line is the "encumbrance" to an interstate designation.  He then notes that, at least in his mind, the desire is to have an interstate route from Dallas to St. Louis (I interpret his mention of Dallas instead of Little Rock as a preference for an I-30 (not I-57) designation).

He continues his comments by stating that they "could take that same approach" (presumably designate all currently existing interstate-grade sections on US 67/167 now). He then concludes by stating that doing so could make a "huge difference" and that the communities from "Little Rock to Corning" would benefit.

It may well be possible that there will be a push for an I-x30 (or I-x40?) designation from I-40 to Walnut Ridge later this year after the AR 226 to Walnut Ridge section is opened to traffic.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on March 11, 2016, 01:56:25 PM
But have they decided on a route yet? They can't do a Interstate designation if they upgrade the existing route, which I thought that is what they were leaning towards.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on March 11, 2016, 02:29:00 PM
But have they decided on a route yet? They can't do a Interstate designation if they upgrade the existing route, which I thought that is what they were leaning towards.

To my knowledge, AHTD has neither selected a route nor decided what type of facility will be built. I believe Rep. Crawford was simply commenting on the current I-40 to AR 226 interstate-grade section (as well as the soon to be completed AR 226 to Walnut Ridge interstate-grade section). I think those sections could be designated as an I-x30 (or I-x40?), regardless of whether the remainder to the Missouri state line is ever built as an interstate-grade facility.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 11, 2016, 05:02:41 PM
I think the US 67 freeway is too long to be a 3-digit Interstate. Give it a 2-digit Interstate designation, or leave it US 67.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 11, 2016, 06:32:30 PM
I think the US 67 freeway is too long to be a 3-digit Interstate. Give it a 2-digit Interstate designation, or leave it US 67.
It can simply be I-30. There are several examples of 2di's that simply end, at not a coast. A good precedent is I-26: Tennessee asked for and got permission to add the former I-181 to I-26, so I-26 now ends at Kingsport.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2016, 01:05:26 AM
I-30 is a major Interstate designation (a 2di route ending in a "0" or "5"), even though it's not an especially long Interstate. But its end points are similar to how other major Interstate routes end.

Terminus points of major Interstates land in three types of places: 1.: at an interchange with another Interstate highway (usually another major Interstate), 2: on/near an international border, 3: near an ocean or large body of water (such as Lake Superior).

If the US-67 freeway between North Little Rock and Walnut Ridge was to be designated as I-30 then at least some kind of long term plan would need to be in place to ultimately extend I-30 farther Northeast into Missouri and likely to the I-55 and I-57 interchange near Sikeston. Simply ending I-30 at Walnut Ridge would be strange.

Several 2-digit Interstate highways have at least one of their ends landing at not so major points (I-2, I-26, I-27, I-39, I-44, I-72, I-96). I-49 and I-69 are being extended, slowly. I-73 and I-74 are being extended even more slowly. I-30 would wind up in either one of those groups.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on March 12, 2016, 09:41:47 AM
Arkansas needs not fall back on doing things halfass like it has so many times before and build this to interstate standard to the line. I-555 should eventually connect to this. They'll have to upgrade ARK 226 to US49 to interstate standard but they'll let curb cuts along it till then drive up the costs in the future and then build a southern connector from US49 to I-555 around Bay. My reasoning for this isn't just only a Dallas/LR/St. Louis interstate but to offer a relief route around the Boothill in case of a major Seismic event and lots of damage to I-55. It also ties into my fantasy of seeing I-22 extended to I-35 in OK by using I-555 to Walnut Ridge and parts of existing US 412 and new alignments of US412 across Northern Arkansas and Oklahoma. Along with a new northern and southern bridge for the Memphis area that completes an entire loop of the city using TN358/I-269.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: froggie on March 12, 2016, 12:04:49 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on March 12, 2016, 02:22:04 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
Walnut Ridge/Hoxie would due to US 63 and US 412 on the criteria you state.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: NE2 on March 12, 2016, 04:52:35 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
AR 226 is on the NHS per federal law: "The following are high priority corridors on the National Highway System: [...] 52. The route in Arkansas running south of and parallel to Arkansas State Highway 226 from the relocation of United States Route 67 to the vicinity of United States Route 49 and United States Route 63." It's also in as a principal arterial.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 12, 2016, 06:03:35 PM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
I can see that FHWA wouldn't be happy with AR 226 as the end of an interstate designation. But they'd be OK with Walnut Ridge, wouldn't they?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: froggie on March 12, 2016, 06:50:43 PM
Probably would be okay with Walnut Ridge.  But the freeway isn't completed to Walnut Ridge yet.  Of course, given the time the process takes, it might be completed by the time FHWA would reach a decision.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on March 30, 2016, 09:46:40 AM
Probably would be okay with Walnut Ridge.  But the freeway isn't completed to Walnut Ridge yet.  Of course, given the time the process takes, it might be completed by the time FHWA would reach a decision.


I'm guessing 67 to Hoxie will be ready by this Fall, next Spring at the latest. From what I saw last week, all that is left to finish are the ramps connecting the highway with US 63.

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: KamKam on March 31, 2016, 06:29:48 PM
Regardless U.S. 67 Between AR 226 and U.S. 63 is almost done and I can't wait to bypass through those towns between AR 226 and Hoxie!  :clap:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on March 31, 2016, 07:14:20 PM
Regardless U.S. 67 Between AR 226 and U.S. 63 is almost done and I can't wait to bypass through those towns between AR 226 and Hoxie!  :clap:
But you'll miss the cool stuff like abandoned pavement and old bridges :(
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on April 02, 2016, 12:38:16 AM
Assuming 67/167 is up to Interstate standard (and if it isn't, it's likely because of shoulders and/or ramp tapers), and absent Federal legislation, AHTD could request Interstate designation from North Little Rock to Bald Knob today and could reasonably expect FHWA to approve it.  All the way to AR 226 would be problematic because AR 226 doesn't meet FHWA's criteria for a logical termini.  Sure it's a 4-lane highway, but it's not on the NHS, whereas US 167 is.
Only area where 67/167 isn't up to (modern) interstate standards is in Jacksonville with its incredibly short on-off ramps (think I-5 in Los Angeles County) and narrow shoulders from Exit 11 to the Main St. overpass.
Of course, once the widening project from north of AR (I) 440 to Exit 16 is completed, it will be fully interstate quality.

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on April 02, 2016, 02:56:31 AM
I humbly submit I-140 as a proposal for the temp designation.

Don't understand the recent phobia against 1xx spur designations. Anything 100+ miles is worthy of a lower number. (It's 102 miles from McCain Mall to AR 226 at the moment and will be obviously longer once the extension is complete.)

Also, it kicks the can of I-57 vs. I-30 down the road for a couple of decades.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on April 02, 2016, 11:11:06 AM
I humbly submit I-140 as a proposal for the temp designation.

Don't understand the recent phobia against 1xx spur designations. Anything 100+ miles is worthy of a lower number. (It's 102 miles from McCain Mall to AR 226 at the moment and will be obviously longer once the extension is complete.)

Also, it kicks the can of I-57 vs. I-30 down the road for a couple of decades.

740 would be better, given there's AR 140 at Marked Tree.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2016, 02:37:36 PM
740 was proposed in the mid 80's according to kurumi.com, but it was not approved. If I had to pick a number, I would make it Interstate 30, although they would have to renumber the exits, of course.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mvak36 on April 02, 2016, 02:49:19 PM
If they name it I-57 instead of I-30, they wouldn't have to renumber the exits.  :awesomeface: :poke:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on April 02, 2016, 03:26:17 PM
Maybe if it was designated as I-57 then it would put pressure on officials to do what needs to be done to finish it between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 02, 2016, 03:38:47 PM
740 was proposed in the mid 80's according to kurumi.com, but it was not approved. If I had to pick a number, I would make it Interstate 30, although they would have to renumber the exits, of course.
Actually, kurumi.com says that "a proposal circulated to designate US 67 from Little Rock to Bald Knob as Interstate 740. This never came to fruition." It's not clear from this note whether a formal proposal was rejected.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on April 02, 2016, 06:46:02 PM
I think they should wait until they figure out what the heck to do north of Walnut Ridge before deciding on an Interstate number. At the rate it is going, it will be another decade before they even figure out an alignment and whether or not to continue building to Interstate-standards.

Besides, I thought they were leaning towards improving the existing US 67 north of Walnut Ridge. Is that still true?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on April 02, 2016, 10:28:09 PM
I think they should wait until they figure out what the heck to do north of Walnut Ridge before deciding on an Interstate number. At the rate it is going, it will be another decade before they even figure out an alignment and whether or not to continue building to Interstate-standards.

Besides, I thought they were leaning towards improving the existing US 67 north of Walnut Ridge. Is that still true?

I'm not sure they've decided what to do.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: KamKam on April 03, 2016, 12:54:30 AM
There's no telling what they'll do North of Walnut Ridge, but based on the North end of the little Bypass North of U.S. 412 leads to a clue of them possibly had plans of continuing the freeway Northeast skipping through Pocahontas. But that was in the past
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: captkirk_4 on April 09, 2016, 12:47:01 PM
Went from Illinois down 57 to South West Arkansas last week. Looked like a shortcut to head straight from the end of I 57 to Poplar Bluff then down US 67 to Little Rock. I have a Rand McNalley road atlas a couple years old. Saw the dashed blue line for expressway under construction and assumed it was already finished and some more segments might be done as well. That dashed blue segment up to Walnut Ridge is still not finished. From where the four lane highway ended south of Poplar Bluff to where it began again in Arkansas was unGodly slow. You have to go way out of your way 5 or 6 miles east from the old, slow 2 lane road to the start of the highway. I55 to I40 is still a lot faster.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on April 10, 2016, 02:15:22 PM
The sad part of it is, is that the 67 freeway has been under construction in phases since 1962-3! From Historic Aerials and other sources like the archived maps from the Arkansashighways website:
1962 or so...: New US 67 freeway opened up to Jacksonville, ending roughly around exit 11 (AFB exit)
1965: extended to just north of Jacksonville; once had an at-grade intersection at Coffelt Rd (until the frontage roads opened up on each side), then became controlled access; terminated at the Lonoke County line.
1971: completed to Beebe, AR (exit 28) as per the archived 1971 map.
1974: completed to Searcy, AR (exit 42) as per the archived 1974 map.
1978: completed to Bald Knob... interestingly enough, this section of 67 is the worst in build quality and from mile marker 50 to 55, both sets of lanes were recently re done with all new concrete.
1983: completed to just north of Russell
1990: completed to just south of Newport
1995: completed to east of Newport (Newport officially bypassed)
mid 2000's: completed to AR 226; Tuckerman officially bypassed)
Late 2016: awaiting completion to Walnut Ridge.
I'm guessing by 2030 it should be complete to the Missouri state line, with the section northeast of Walnut Ridge mainly as a 4 lane expressway.
My Predictions... :)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on April 10, 2016, 07:15:09 PM
The sad part of it is, is that the 67 freeway has been under construction in phases since 1962-3! From Historic Aerials and other sources like the archived maps from the Arkansashighways website:
1962 or so...: New US 67 freeway opened up to Jacksonville, ending roughly around exit 11 (AFB exit)
1965: extended to just north of Jacksonville; once had an at-grade intersection at Coffelt Rd (until the frontage roads opened up on each side), then became controlled access; terminated at the Lonoke County line.
1971: completed to Beebe, AR (exit 28) as per the archived 1971 map.
1974: completed to Searcy, AR (exit 42) as per the archived 1974 map.
1978: completed to Bald Knob... interestingly enough, this section of 67 is the worst in build quality and from mile marker 50 to 55, both sets of lanes were recently re done with all new concrete.
1983: completed to just north of Russell
1990: completed to just south of Newport
1995: completed to east of Newport (Newport officially bypassed)
mid 2000's: completed to AR 226; Tuckerman officially bypassed)
Late 2016: awaiting completion to Walnut Ridge.
I'm guessing by 2030 it should be complete to the Missouri state line, with the section northeast of Walnut Ridge mainly as a 4 lane expressway.
My Predictions... :)

67 has also been rebuilt in the Jacksonville area. So while the new road is being built to the north, parts of the older road are being rebuilt/refurbished. 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on April 11, 2016, 01:05:53 AM
Yep. It's about to be 6 laned in Jacksonville. The new 3 lane southbound side is getting close to completion. Once that side opens up, I'm guessing the old southbound along with the Jersey barrier - median area will get demolished.
At least from just north of the Main St. bridge to the current 6 lane section southwest of Jacksonville. The fun part is when they 6 lane the section from James St to exit 16. That's going to be one h#ll of a mess! At least the part that is from the Air Force Base exit southward...
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on April 23, 2016, 10:40:04 AM
This February 3, 2016 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2016-02-03/news/story1.php) reports that the expected opening date is now "by the end of August or first part of September"
Quote
District 10 Engineer Walter McMillan of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department shared the latest updates on the project with The TD.
The completion date and opening of this stretch of highway has changed several times due to various factors, McMillan said. At this time, he expects the new four-lane highway will be open by the end of August or first part of September.

This April 20 article (http://www.thetd.com/freepages/2016-04-20/news/story5.php) reports that, because of the mild winter, Highway 67 from Highway 226 to Hoxie could possibly open by July 4:

Quote
Transportation was the focus of the Lawrence County Chamber of Commerce quarterly meeting on Thursday at the Lawrence County Meeting Room in Walnut Ridge.
Brad Smithee, a Hoxie High School graduate and maintenance engineer for District 10 of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, spoke about funding, construction and maintenance for highways in the area ....
He also updated attendees on the status of several projects, including Highway 67 from Highway 226 to Hoxie. Originally expected to open around Thanksgiving, Smithee said with the mild winter, the opening could now happen as early as the 4th of July.
"We should see an open Highway 67 very soon," he said. "I'm very optimistic that is an achievable goal."
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on April 25, 2016, 01:59:05 PM
I humbly submit I-140 as a proposal for the temp designation ....
... it kicks the can of I-57 vs. I-30 down the road for a couple of decades.

Maybe not (and maybe time to change the name of this thread). This April 25 Press Release (https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=F06B1DF1-91E3-4D75-B452-90AE49E2E3FF) announces that Arkansas Senator John Boozman has introduced a bill to designate US 67 as Future I-57 and that any current sections of US 67 that are currently interstate standard could be officially designated as I-57:

Quote
U.S. Senator John Boozman, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, included a provision in the Fiscal Year 2017 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development funding bill that would put Arkansas on path to add another highway to our nation’s interstate system. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill on Thursday containing Boozman’s language designating Highway 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as “Future I-57.” The bill would also give Arkansas the ability to request that any segment of the road that is built to interstate standards be officially added to the federal interstate system as “I-57.”
“Arkansas has worked for decades to build this road. The time has come to start calling it what it is — an interstate-quality highway that connects Arkansas farms, factories and travelers, to the rest of our country,” Boozman said. “New interstates take many years and support from the federal, state and local level to complete. As we work over the coming years to build future interstates in Arkansas, such as I-49, I-69 and a completed I-57, we will make Arkansas a better-connected state that is open for business."
After years of work and investment, Arkansas has built an interstate-quality road from Little Rock to northeast Arkansas. This road is naturally oriented to eventually connect with the existing I-57 in southeast Missouri. Currently I-57 extends from Chicago, Illinois to Sikeston, Missouri. The designation of Highway 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as “Future I-57” establishes in federal law that the region is on-track to officially add a direct interstate connection from the Little Rock region to Chicago as “Interstate 57.” While completing the interstate will take a number of years, this is a very important step in that direction ....
Resolutions of support for the I-57 Designation have been passed by the Newport Economic Development Commission as well as Chambers of Commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, Sherwood and Searcy.  Other expressions of support have been received from communities throughout the central Arkansas and northeast Arkansas regions.

I didn't see this one coming.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2016, 02:13:43 PM
Well, if the roadway becomes an extension of Interstate 57, they will not have to renumber the existing exit numbers on US 67. Of course that would change if they (fictionally) decided to make 530 part of 57 as well.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2016, 02:59:32 PM
I humbly submit I-140 as a proposal for the temp designation ....
... it kicks the can of I-57 vs. I-30 down the road for a couple of decades.

Maybe not (and maybe time to change the name of this thread). This April 25 Press Release (https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=F06B1DF1-91E3-4D75-B452-90AE49E2E3FF) announces that Arkansas Senator John Boozman has introduced a bill to designate US 67 as Future I-57 and that any current sections of US 67 that are currently interstate standard could be officially designated as I-57:

Quote
U.S. Senator John Boozman, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, included a provision in the Fiscal Year 2017 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development funding bill that would put Arkansas on path to add another highway to our nation’s interstate system. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill on Thursday containing Boozman’s language designating Highway 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as “Future I-57.” The bill would also give Arkansas the ability to request that any segment of the road that is built to interstate standards be officially added to the federal interstate system as “I-57.”
“Arkansas has worked for decades to build this road. The time has come to start calling it what it is — an interstate-quality highway that connects Arkansas farms, factories and travelers, to the rest of our country,” Boozman said. “New interstates take many years and support from the federal, state and local level to complete. As we work over the coming years to build future interstates in Arkansas, such as I-49, I-69 and a completed I-57, we will make Arkansas a better-connected state that is open for business."
After years of work and investment, Arkansas has built an interstate-quality road from Little Rock to northeast Arkansas. This road is naturally oriented to eventually connect with the existing I-57 in southeast Missouri. Currently I-57 extends from Chicago, Illinois to Sikeston, Missouri. The designation of Highway 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as “Future I-57” establishes in federal law that the region is on-track to officially add a direct interstate connection from the Little Rock region to Chicago as “Interstate 57.” While completing the interstate will take a number of years, this is a very important step in that direction ....
Resolutions of support for the I-57 Designation have been passed by the Newport Economic Development Commission as well as Chambers of Commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, Sherwood and Searcy.  Other expressions of support have been received from communities throughout the central Arkansas and northeast Arkansas regions.

I didn't see this one coming.

Thanks for posting that Grzrd!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mvak36 on April 25, 2016, 03:03:28 PM
I guess my question would be is Missouri any closer to building their section of this interstate (regardless of its designation)? And wouldn't they have to agree to this bill before it passes?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on April 25, 2016, 08:53:04 PM
IMO, Senator Boozman is just trying to copy Rick Crawford's efforts to designate US 63 as I-555.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on April 25, 2016, 09:29:53 PM
I guess my question would be is Missouri any closer to building their section of this interstate (regardless of its designation)?

Considering that Missouri is not currently finishing their small portion of I-49 . . .

And wouldn't they have to agree to this bill before it passes?

You are thinking of interstate numbering via AASHTO and/or FHWA.  A lone congressman can designate the route as whatever interstate number they want, no matter what the adjoining states think, barring active opposition from congressman of the adjacent states.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on April 25, 2016, 09:41:37 PM
I guess my question would be is Missouri any closer to building their section of this interstate (regardless of its designation)?

Considering that Missouri is not currently finishing their small portion of I-49 . . .

And wouldn't they have to agree to this bill before it passes?

You are thinking of interstate numbering via AASHTO and/or FHWA.  A lone congressman can designate the route as whatever interstate number they want, no matter what the adjoining states think, barring active opposition from congressman of the adjacent states.
Like I-99? ;)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on April 25, 2016, 10:47:46 PM
This should be the big clue on what future work will look like, interstate standard to the Missouri line.



Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mvak36 on April 25, 2016, 10:49:11 PM

Like I-99? ;)

I guess if he manages to get it passed, we'll be seeing a disjointed I-57 in Arkansas soon.  :bigass: :poke:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 25, 2016, 11:21:00 PM
Am I the only one thinking that this trend of interstate route numbering by Congress is a bit out of control?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on April 25, 2016, 11:28:05 PM
Am I the only one thinking that this trend of interstate route numbering by Congress is a bit out of control?
Because it's easier than doing their real jobs?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on April 25, 2016, 11:39:13 PM
Missouri has about 15 miles of flat earth to connect the end of the 4 lane segments of US 67/US 60 if Arkansas runs 67 all interstate to the line. Given the terrain, it should be much cheaper than the Missouri portion of I-49 that's left. So much of the big work is done on Missouri's part with most all major interchanges in place.

Arkansas will have about 45 miles more from Walnut Ridge.

So, by this summer, you'll have 60 miles left to 4 lane.

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2016, 12:42:10 AM
While the land from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston is pretty flat, Missouri still has a lot of frontage road segments to build, some property to remove and at grade intersections to either eliminate or convert into freeway exits. There's more mileage of that to cover than there is of the Southernmost segment of I-49 in Missouri. Given Missouri's current state of affairs I would not be surprised if Arkansas managed to build all of their segment of Future I-57 up to the Missouri state line before Missouri finished their part of it. And this is assuming I-57 would be routed up by way of Poplar Bluff. A much more direct connection to I-57 in Illinois would be routing from Walnut Ridge up to a point East of Dexter. Going by way of Poplar Bluff doesn't save much mileage and time versus taking I-55 down to West Memphis and picking up I-40.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on April 26, 2016, 08:31:48 AM
While the land from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston is pretty flat, Missouri still has a lot of frontage road segments to build, some property to remove and at grade intersections to either eliminate or convert into freeway exits. There's more mileage of that to cover than there is of the Southernmost segment of I-49 in Missouri. Given Missouri's current state of affairs I would not be surprised if Arkansas managed to build all of their segment of Future I-57 up to the Missouri state line before Missouri finished their part of it. And this is assuming I-57 would be routed up by way of Poplar Bluff. A much more direct connection to I-57 in Illinois would be routing from Walnut Ridge up to a point East of Dexter. Going by way of Poplar Bluff doesn't save much mileage and time versus taking I-55 down to West Memphis and picking up I-40.

There are large parts of US 60 already with frontage roads even with at grade crossings, lots of crossing would be no access over passes. Most of all of those fields already have two ways to access them and frontage roads not needed for the part. You use what's there instead of trying to shave a handful of miles off.and use the existing routing. I could care less about it being six one way and a half dozen the other, redundancy in case of a major seismic even along the New Madrid is more important. It would also help with clearing congestion which contributes to Ozone issues around West Memphis. In turn, that effects economic development particularly major industrial super projects.

Missouri and Arkansas should also work together of 4 laning 412 from Walnut Ridge and Hoxie to Kennett and shoot for an extention of I-155.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 05:51:30 PM
Is there an actual proposal to extend Interstate 155 westward along US 412? If not, put it in Fictional Highways. By the way, I personally don't care which Interstate number the US 67 corridor gets, as long as it isn't a 3-digit Interstate.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on April 26, 2016, 07:08:51 PM
Well, that settles that.

It looks like the remainder of the US 67 corridor between Walnut Ridge and the Missouri state line will be finished to Interstate-standards and the number will be I-57.

Honestly, upgrading US 60 from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston and US 67 from Poplar Bluff to the Arkansas state line would not be terribly difficult, most of it is already four lane expressway grade. But with Missouri funding woes, it won't happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on April 27, 2016, 08:57:33 PM
I humbly submit I-140 as a proposal for the temp designation ....
... it kicks the can of I-57 vs. I-30 down the road for a couple of decades.

Maybe not (and maybe time to change the name of this thread). This April 25 Press Release (https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=F06B1DF1-91E3-4D75-B452-90AE49E2E3FF) announces that Arkansas Senator John Boozman has introduced a bill to designate US 67 as Future I-57 and that any current sections of US 67 that are currently interstate standard could be officially designated as I-57:

Quote
U.S. Senator John Boozman, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, included a provision in the Fiscal Year 2017 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development funding bill that would put Arkansas on path to add another highway to our nation’s interstate system. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill on Thursday containing Boozman’s language designating Highway 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as “Future I-57.” The bill would also give Arkansas the ability to request that any segment of the road that is built to interstate standards be officially added to the federal interstate system as “I-57.”
“Arkansas has worked for decades to build this road. The time has come to start calling it what it is — an interstate-quality highway that connects Arkansas farms, factories and travelers, to the rest of our country,” Boozman said. “New interstates take many years and support from the federal, state and local level to complete. As we work over the coming years to build future interstates in Arkansas, such as I-49, I-69 and a completed I-57, we will make Arkansas a better-connected state that is open for business."
After years of work and investment, Arkansas has built an interstate-quality road from Little Rock to northeast Arkansas. This road is naturally oriented to eventually connect with the existing I-57 in southeast Missouri. Currently I-57 extends from Chicago, Illinois to Sikeston, Missouri. The designation of Highway 67 from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as “Future I-57” establishes in federal law that the region is on-track to officially add a direct interstate connection from the Little Rock region to Chicago as “Interstate 57.” While completing the interstate will take a number of years, this is a very important step in that direction ....
Resolutions of support for the I-57 Designation have been passed by the Newport Economic Development Commission as well as Chambers of Commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, Sherwood and Searcy.  Other expressions of support have been received from communities throughout the central Arkansas and northeast Arkansas regions.

I didn't see this one coming.

Late to the party, but ...
 :clap:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: TXtoNJ on April 28, 2016, 09:00:36 AM
Am I the only one thinking that this trend of interstate route numbering by Congress is a bit out of control?

It makes rural yahoos very happy, and other folks in Congress aren't enough of roadgeeks to care about it one way or the other. We're just going to have to accept this as the new norm.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on April 28, 2016, 11:03:39 AM
I guess my question would be is Missouri any closer to building their section of this interstate (regardless of its designation)?

This article (http://www.semissourian.com/story/2299706.html) reports on the reaction to Senator Boozman's Future I-57 announcement from the Missouri side of the state line; complications arising from access for agricultural vehicles comprise part of the predictable funding challenges:

Quote
U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, has introduced legislation that someday could lead to an extension of Interstate 57 from Sikeston, Missouri, to Little Rock, Arkansas, passing through Dexter and Poplar Bluff in Missouri and Corning, Arkansas, along the way ....
We are thrilled Sen. Boozman has introduced this legislation,” Halter said. “Completing a four-lane highway between Poplar Bluff and Little Rock will have a tremendous economic impact for our entire region.”
The Highway 67 Corp., an organization that led the completion of a four-lane route from Poplar Bluff to Fredericktown, Missouri, also applauded the senator’s announcement.
“We of the Highway 67 corporate board are very interested in seeing some real important ‘fruit’ for our area. Because ever since we finished the job of four-laning 67 from Fredericktown to Poplar Bluff, we have tried to get Arkansas to be more interested in bringing Highway 67 to the state line,” said corporation chairman Tom Lawson.
Lawson said while the corporation had been in talks with Arkansas transportation officials since the completion of the Poplar Bluff/Fredericktown project in August 2011, the senator’s announcement came as a surprise.
Poplar Bluff Greater Area Chamber of Commerce president Steve Halter cited a potentially “tremendous” economic effect to Poplar Bluff and surrounding areas.
“I didn’t know there was that much interest coming out of his office. I talked with him in Washington about four years ago, and he was interested, but said there just wasn’t any money,” Lawson said.
Arkansas residents in 2012 approved a half-cent sales tax to fund surface transportation projects and specifically, according to the ballot language, to focus on four-lane highway improvements. That tax also contains a 10-year expiration clause, and funds raised could not exceed $1.3 billion.
“Since that time, they have been interested in looking at major corridors and, thank goodness, they have realized Highway 67 is very important and they want to make that an interstate highway. We are certainly not opposed to that,” Lawson said.
Efforts by the Missouri Department of Transportation to gain funding through ballot and legislative means recently have met with failure. The I-57 project in Missouri, while no exact figure was available, certainly would cost millions the department doesn’t have at this time, according to local MoDOT officials.
“The big thing we are facing at the Missouri Department of Transportation is that right now we feel that we have a budget capable of taking care of what we have, but we do not have a budget to expand what we have. That, of course, is a challenge,” said MoDOT Southeast District engineer David Wyman.
Wyman said for the designation to take place, all unregulated access roads along the corridor from Sikeston to the state line would need to be removed. That would not only cost a considerable sum, but create headaches for the local agriculture industry.
“Basically, the definition of an interstate means that you have no at-grade crossings. All of the crossovers that we have through there — there are several with all the little towns — would have to be brought up to provide access to an interchange or access to an outer road, both of which are expensive,” Wyman said.

In light of the various challenges, Wyman said MoDOT remains hopeful funding for the project can be acquired.
“That being said, we definitely want to be a partner. We want to take part in the conversations the north Arkansas folks are having. We want to take part in the conversation the Arkansas highway department is having. We want to be a good partner — this stuff doesn’t happen overnight.
“We are hopeful the legislature and the people of Missouri will see the need for some more funding to allow for that expansion,” Wyman said.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: NE2 on April 28, 2016, 11:37:09 AM
What happened to agricultural traffic when US 71 became I-49? If I'm not mistaken, large portions were upgraded on the spot with no old alignment or frontage road. Except for a bit just west of Dexter, old US 60 is all intact. The main obstacle is getting rid of the at-grades, of which I count about 25 plus some driveways. Many of the driveways can probably be closed with access provided from existing backage roads.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 28, 2016, 01:44:06 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
It makes rural yahoos very happy, and other folks in Congress aren't enough of roadgeeks to care about it one way or the other. We're just going to have to accept this as the new norm.

The nonsensical, political, ego-driven crap will eventually create a mess for drivers. I can imagine some drivers getting lost due to it.

At least the choice of using I-57 makes some logical sense. Meanwhile we have other politicians assigning 2di designations elsewhere to far shorter, little stubby routes while hoping (delusions of grandeur) the porky effort generates a far longer distance corridor in an area where the population and traffic counts will never justify it.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:20:52 PM
Meanwhile we have other politicians assigning 2di designations elsewhere to far shorter, little stubby routes while hoping (delusions of grandeur) the porky effort generates a far longer distance corridor in an area where the population and traffic counts will never justify it.

Dude, we already get that you hate I-14. Got anything constructive to add to these discussions?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on April 28, 2016, 03:21:57 PM
What happened to agricultural traffic when US 71 became I-49? If I'm not mistaken, large portions were upgraded on the spot with no old alignment or frontage road. Except for a bit just west of Dexter, old US 60 is all intact. The main obstacle is getting rid of the at-grades, of which I count about 25 plus some driveways. Many of the driveways can probably be closed with access provided from existing backage roads.

I don't think that is going to be an issue. US 60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff is easily upgradable.

The main thing Missouri is going to have to figure out is how to build the remaining four lane part of US 67 between the US 160/MO 158 interchange and the state line. I'm not sure what the existing plans are, but now that I-57 is in the official plans, it most likely will have to be built on a new alignment to the west of the existing one. I know a few years back US 67 widening to the state line was in the failed transportation tax referendum, does anyone know what the plans are here?

Then of course, Arkansas is still figuring out what alignment they want to do between Walnut Ridge and the state line. Any news on this front?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on April 28, 2016, 03:27:41 PM
. Many of the driveways can probably be closed with access provided from existing backage roads.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Quote
Then of course, Arkansas is still figuring out what alignment they want to do between Walnut Ridge and the state line. Any news on this front?

I think this may be the big driver of this, to get it finalized and on the same page.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on April 29, 2016, 03:15:14 PM
I've duck hunted with this man, he's a hoot.
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/110907/walnut-ridge-others-see-development-boost-from-i-57-designation
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 02, 2016, 08:21:16 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
It makes rural yahoos very happy, and other folks in Congress aren't enough of roadgeeks to care about it one way or the other. We're just going to have to accept this as the new norm.

The nonsensical, political, ego-driven crap will eventually create a mess for drivers. I can imagine some drivers getting lost due to it.

Well, it IS an election year and Dr Boozman is up for re-election. If he can make a fuss about upgrading US 67, maybe people will forget everything else.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 03, 2016, 12:33:02 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
It makes rural yahoos very happy, and other folks in Congress aren't enough of roadgeeks to care about it one way or the other. We're just going to have to accept this as the new norm.

The nonsensical, political, ego-driven crap will eventually create a mess for drivers. I can imagine some drivers getting lost due to it.

Well, it IS an election year and Dr Boozman is up for re-election. If he can make a fuss about upgrading US 67, maybe people will forget everything else.

His seat is in very little danger as this is Arkansas but yeah, it helps a bit in NEA.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2016, 04:20:40 PM
When might Interstate 57 shields be added to the US 67 freeway? Will it be before or after it (hopefully eventually) connects with existing Interstate 57?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on May 03, 2016, 05:22:08 PM
I would imagine that if there is enough of a push then AHTD would submit an application to AASHTO at the next SCOH meeting for shields to go up along its freeway portion of US 67.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: froggie on May 04, 2016, 09:55:21 AM
Would require FHWA approval as well.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 12:26:38 PM
Shouldn't the thread title be changed? I-30 it isn't going to be.

Also, does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.

(Warning, Ghostbuster triggering alert)

If it does get signed all the down to Monticello, why not just push for I-57 to carry on to Monroe and Alexanderia.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 04, 2016, 12:48:04 PM
Shouldn't the thread title be changed? I-30 it isn't going to be.

Also, does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.

I think it would be correct to include I-530 in here. Title it "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps I-530)".
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on May 04, 2016, 01:46:43 PM
does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.
I think it would be correct to include I-530 in here. Title it "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps I-530)".

As far as I know, the idea of redesignating I-530 as I-57, although meritorious, is still in the Fictional realm.  On the other hand, Future I-530 from Pine Bluff to Monticello is SIU 28 of the Congressionally designated I-69 Corridor.  AHTD also conducted a Feasibility Study in 2009 for an I-69 Connector Extension (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-69_Extender.pdf) to I-20, which has previously been discussed in the I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg274106#msg274106) thread (note the I-53 vs. I-57 speculation about the corridor in that thread). I would suggest keeping discussion about AR 530/ Future I-530 and AHTD's I-69 Connector Extension study in the I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread until if and when a firm plan to redesignate I-530 as I-57 is presented.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2016, 04:26:14 PM
I personally don't see 530 becoming part of 57, but stranger things have happened in the world of highways.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 04, 2016, 04:35:50 PM
does this also include I-530 all the way Pine Bluff and eventually Monticello? If no, why not.
I think it would be correct to include I-530 in here. Title it "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps I-530)".

As far as I know, the idea of redesignating I-530 as I-57, although meritorious, is still in the Fictional realm.  ...  I would suggest keeping discussion about AR 530/ Future I-530 and AHTD's I-69 Connector Extension study in the I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) thread until if and when a firm plan to redesignate I-530 as I-57 is presented.

Change my proposed title to "Future I-57 in Arkansas/Missouri (US 67, US 60 and perhaps more)". Are discussions about proposed highways completely banned from the regional boards? If not, then I think it is fair to talk about proposals for existing or planned routes, even if these ideas are of our own creation. Someone has to talk about it to get the board rolling.

Extending I-57 to Arkansas opens points of discussion for Louisiana. Surely Louisiana would be interested in connecting Monroe to Little Rock. From there, we can take the interstate down US 165, improving the connections to Alexandria and Lake Charles. This is more likely to happen on Louisiana's thin budget than Interstate 69, or Interstate 14 for that matter.

But if discussing such ideas is verboten in this forum, then so be it.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 04, 2016, 04:43:55 PM
I personally don't see 530 becoming part of 57, but stranger things have happened in the world of highways.

If US-67 is designated I-57 from Little Rock north, it makes perfect sense all the way down to Alexandria.

But you get touchy about open dicussions.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 04, 2016, 04:45:08 PM
Also, considering the title of this thread is still "Future I-30/US 67," it's rich to criticize me for putting speculation into the title.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on May 05, 2016, 01:49:28 AM
I changed the thread title for this post!   :spin:

Once the extension to US 63 in Walnut Ridge is complete and open, then Arkansas is more likely to get the I-57 designation since it'll terminate at a major NHS highway.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that an Interstate tag will obligate the state to finish the rest of it as a full freeway, and not as an expressway or five-laner.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: froggie on May 05, 2016, 07:37:00 AM
Pretty sure I've seen Arkansas interests (aside from this latest Walnut Ridge article) pushing the I-30 designation, not I-57.

Regardless of whether it's I-30 or I-57, it'll be a moot point for decades, as nobody in politics is willing to raise the level of capital that would be needed to finish an Interstate-grade roadway.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 05, 2016, 07:43:15 AM
I changed the thread title for this post!   :spin:

Once the extension to US 63 in Walnut Ridge is complete and open, then Arkansas is more likely to get the I-57 designation since it'll terminate at a major NHS highway.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that an Interstate tag will obligate the state to finish the rest of it as a full freeway, and not as an expressway or five-laner.

Couldn't AR and MO slap "Future I-57" shields on the expressway segments from Walnut Ridge to Popular Bluff/Sikeston and delay full freeway upgrades?

I'm still not so sold on I-57, though, as the designation. I-30 made even less sense to me, but, unless we're declaring I-57 a diagonal; I'd still prefer I-53 for US 67 and I-51 (or even an I-51/I-53 concurrence) for I-530. But, as long as they make it an Interstate, I'm willing to hold my nose.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 05, 2016, 08:57:43 AM
Pretty sure I've seen Arkansas interests (aside from this latest Walnut Ridge article) pushing the I-30 designation, not I-57.

Regardless of whether it's I-30 or I-57, it'll be a moot point for decades, as nobody in politics is willing to raise the level of capital that would be needed to finish an Interstate-grade roadway.

Most Arkansans could care less if it's 30, 57 or any other number, it's the interstate shield that matters. The CoCs of towns like Cabot, Searcy, Bald Knob, and Newport certainly don't care what a bunch of road enthusiasts on a message board think.

I like the future possibility of an Interstate that could stretch from Chicago to Alexandria maybe even Lake Charles LA. It's all fog and mist right now , but could happen.




As a Cubs fan, I'll call it my Wrigley Expressway or  Trail of Shattered Dreams
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 05, 2016, 09:40:32 AM
Pretty sure I've seen Arkansas interests (aside from this latest Walnut Ridge article) pushing the I-30 designation, not I-57.

Regardless of whether it's I-30 or I-57, it'll be a moot point for decades, as nobody in politics is willing to raise the level of capital that would be needed to finish an Interstate-grade roadway.

It will be a lot easier to finish than I-49 though. They only have a grand total of a little over 50 miles of new Interstate-grade freeway that needs to be built (between Walnut Ridge, AR and the US 160/MO 158 interchange south of Poplar Bluff, MO). Then it's just a matter of Missouri converting the remaining expressway segments between Sikeston and the US 160/MO 158 interchange to freeway, which I don't think that will be as hard as some people are saying. Yes, I know funding will be an issue (particularly on the Missouri side).

Arkansas just needs to figure out what to do north of Walnut Ridge (i.e. what alignment to build), then everything else should fall into place.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 05, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
And FYI, there are NO plans to continue I-57 down the I-530 corridor. That's just speculation and should be discussed in the fictional highways section. I-530 won't be finished for decades anyway (if ever) because I-69 is still decades away from being finished (if it ever is, at the rate it is going, it will be a century before it is).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 05, 2016, 10:05:32 AM
Everyone KNOWS how business exploded in Jonesboro after US 63 became I-555. Same road, same worn pavement, but a new name. </sarcasm>
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 10:35:55 AM
And FYI, there are NO plans to continue I-57 down the I-530 corridor. That's just speculation and should be discussed in the fictional highways section.

Then this topic needs to be renamed to "US 67 between Little Rock and Poplar Bluff," because there are no plans to assign either I-30 or I-57 to this highway. That's just speculation inspired by chatter from a Senator and local businesspeople.

Nobody said that there are any plans to continue I-57 down I-530.

I'd appreciate clarification from the admins on what degree of speculation is tolerated in the regional boards.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 05, 2016, 12:03:43 PM
And FYI, there are NO plans to continue I-57 down the I-530 corridor. That's just speculation and should be discussed in the fictional highways section.

Then this topic needs to be renamed to "US 67 between Little Rock and Poplar Bluff," because there are no plans to assign either I-30 or I-57 to this highway. That's just speculation inspired by chatter from a Senator and local businesspeople.

Wrong. It is in the 2017 Fiscal Year Transportation bill, the corridor is designated as "Future I-57" and the bill allows for the existing freeway segment from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge to be designated I-57.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: lordsutch on May 05, 2016, 12:17:41 PM
Wrong. It is in the 2017 Fiscal Year Transportation bill, the corridor is designated as "Future I-57" and the bill allows for the existing freeway segment from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge to be designated I-57.

Well, until the FY2017 bill passes - which likely will stretch into FY2017 itself - there's always the chance the provision gets pulled out in conference committee or amended along the way, particularly if someone else wants to designate it I-30 instead or it becomes the target of an anti-pork crusade by some group. So it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics). Certainly it's more credible than someone from the Hoxie Chamber of Commerce sending out a press release though.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 12:53:41 PM
In other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.

So calling it Future I-58 or Future I-30 at this point is just as speculative as suggesting that I-530 may eventually become part of it.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on May 05, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Well, until the FY2017 bill passes - which likely will stretch into FY2017 itself - there's always the chance the provision gets pulled out in conference committee or amended along the way, particularly if someone else wants to designate it I-30 instead or it becomes the target of an anti-pork crusade by some group. So it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics).

Here is a link to the draft bill S.2844 if anyone is interested in following its progress:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2844/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Fiscal+Year+2017+Transportation+Housing+and+Urban+Development+funding+bill%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1

Here is the current language relevant to this thread:

Quote
Sec. 126. (a) Identification Of High Priority Corridors On National Highway System.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(89) United State Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.”.
(b) Inclusion Of Certain Route Segments On Interstate System.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence by striking “and subsection (c)(83)” and inserting “subsection (c)(83), and subsection (c)(89)”.
(c) Designation.—Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
“The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57”.



Certainly it's more credible than someone from the Hoxie Chamber of Commerce sending out a press release though.

Also, only bugo can speak as to why he included "Future I-30" in the title of this thread (he is currently not posting in this Forum). That said, this January 27, 2012 article (http://dar.rustcom.net/story/1809428.html) reported that then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe wanted an I-30 designation for U.S. 67:

Quote
Tom Lawson chairman of the Highway 67 Corporation and the Highway 67 Coalition ...
The governor wants to see Highway 67 designated as Interstate 30, but is open to building a "divided four-lane" that could be expanded to interstate standards in the future, according to Lawson. Beebe also said he would support designating Highway 67 as a high priority corridor.

Roughly five months after the article was published and roughly one month after discussion of the article in a predecessor thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg150184#msg150184), bugo started this thread. Again, not idle roadgeek speculation by bugo, but also not a legally done deal.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: english si on May 05, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
So it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics).
Indeed, but done deal =/= plan. While your post was entirely true, it wasn't addressing the direct disagreement at hand. And unsurprisingly it has been treated as such and so we have this nonsense:
In other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
In other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).

You have the authority to schedule yourself for walking in Essex on Tuesday. Nobody in this forum has the authority to designate highways as part of the Interstate Highway System or develop plans for doing so.

The question at hand is what degree of speculation is allowed in this forum. Indicating that a route is "Future X-XX" is speculation unless such designation has been rendered by a proper authority. Saying that "perhaps route Y-YYY could become part of route X-XX" is also speculation. But the difference is that one has the backing of public leaders, and the other is the fancy of yeomen on an Internet forum. The admins should clarify which of these forms of speculation is allowed here.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on May 05, 2016, 01:56:48 PM
The question at hand is what degree of speculation is allowed in this forum. Indicating that a route is "Future X-XX" is speculation unless such designation has been rendered by a proper authority. Saying that "perhaps route Y-YYY could become part of route X-XX" is also speculation. But the difference is that one has the backing of public leaders, and the other is the fancy of yeomen on an Internet forum. The admins should clarify which of these forms of speculation is allowed here.

Here is a link to the posted guidance:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1809.msg40545#msg40545

It may help the admins if you ask for clarification about specific points in the guidance.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 02:12:54 PM
Here is a link to the posted guidance:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1809.msg40545#msg40545

It may help the admins if you ask for clarification about specific points in the guidance.

Thank you. I-530 fantasies are verboten. I-57 can stay because it in pending legislation.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: english si on May 05, 2016, 03:33:36 PM
Nobody in this forum has the authority to designate highways as part of the Interstate Highway System or develop plans for doing so.
But we're not talking about us, we're talking about Congress. At the moment Congress plans to designate US67 as I-57, and it has the authority to do so. Therefore nonsense like "it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed" is nonsense.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 04:01:37 PM
Nobody in this forum has the authority to designate highways as part of the Interstate Highway System or develop plans for doing so.
But we're not talking about us, we're talking about Congress. At the moment Congress plans to designate US67 as I-57, and it has the authority to do so. Therefore nonsense like "it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed" is nonsense.

Members of Congress put all kinds of crap in bills all the time. All bills have to pass both houses and then be signed by the President. Not all bills become law. So yes, it is fair to say that Congress is not actually "planning" to do something until they put it in a bill and pass it. How many Congressmembers besides the one particular one from Arkansas are pushing to designate US 67 as I-57?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: lordsutch on May 05, 2016, 06:35:43 PM
Members of Congress put all kinds of crap in bills all the time. All bills have to pass both houses and then be signed by the President. Not all bills become law. So yes, it is fair to say that Congress is not actually "planning" to do something until they put it in a bill and pass it. How many Congressmembers besides the one particular one from Arkansas are pushing to designate US 67 as I-57?

Today's lesson on Congress...

There are bills and there are bills. The annual appropriations bills are, by and large, "must pass" bills that typically make it through the process eventually. If the senator in question had just introduced a bill saying "US 67 and US 60 between Little Rock and Sikeston shall be designated I-57," the odds of it passing on its own would be pretty slim (probably about zero). However, having the amendment already in a "must pass" bill essentially means at least it's getting to the conference committee stage, and by and large unless someone from the other chamber objects (since the conferees are typically the same people on the subcommittee who marked up the bill in their chamber) provisions introduced in one chamber will make it through. The sorts of things that get haggled over in appropriations bills are funding levels for programs, big policy questions, and earmarks, not adding a new interstate corridor without any designated funding for it.

The closest analogy here is probably to putting something in the Speech from the Throne in the UK. Will it happen? Most likely. Is it law yet? No, it probably requires a bill to get through Parliament first.* To me that would be enough to say "the Government plans to do X."

In this case I'd say "the Senate plans to designate I-57; the House may ultimately disagree but it's likely they'll go along with it, since designating interstates isn't a zero-sum game, and the additional odds of the president vetoing the bill if it has I-57 in it versus not having I-57 in it are about zero, since he doesn't really care either way." So at present it's about as much of a sure thing as you can get in Congress-world until it's on the president's desk.

This will be on the test. ;)

* Or following the procedure for an order-in-council or a statutory instrument (by-and-large the equivalents of an executive order or an agency rule-making action in the U.S.).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on May 05, 2016, 09:26:56 PM
You must also think Donald Trump is the Republican Party's nominee for President. (Spoiler alert: He needs 1237 delegates to vote for him. They haven't cast the votes yet.)

There's nothing more to discuss on this matter.

Keep the politics out, please.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on May 06, 2016, 12:52:38 AM
Also, only bugo can speak as to why he included "Future I-30" in the title of this thread (he is currently not posting in this Forum). That said, this January 27, 2012 article (http://dar.rustcom.net/story/1809428.html) reported that then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe wanted an I-30 designation for U.S. 67:

Quote
Tom Lawson chairman of the Highway 67 Corporation and the Highway 67 Coalition ...
The governor wants to see Highway 67 designated as Interstate 30, but is open to building a "divided four-lane" that could be expanded to interstate standards in the future, according to Lawson. Beebe also said he would support designating Highway 67 as a high priority corridor.

Roughly five months after the article was published and roughly one month after discussion of the article in a predecessor thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3103.msg150184#msg150184), bugo started this thread. Again, not idle roadgeek speculation by bugo, but also not a legally done deal.

Mike Beebe's hometown is Searcy, which is along the highway in question. He had a self-interest in advocating a highway number that was familiar to him as well as one that ended in a zero, even if it violated numerous numbering conventions.

But Beebe left office in January 2015. I'm not aware if the current governor, Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, has a preference. At any rate, there's no longer a push from on high to call it I-30 (thankfully).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 06, 2016, 11:56:46 AM

Mike Beebe's hometown is Searcy, which is along the highway in question. He had a self-interest in advocating a highway number that was familiar to him as well as one that ended in a zero, even if it violated numerous numbering conventions.

But Beebe left office in January 2015. I'm not aware if the current governor, Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, has a preference. At any rate, there's no longer a push from on high to call it I-30 (thankfully).

Asa has mentioned no preference other than fixing the roads in general.

My 2 pfennigs is improve 67, THEN worry about an upgraded designation.

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2016, 06:30:27 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 06, 2016, 07:22:25 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 06, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.

226 was an epic $!#@ up. How Jonesboro isn't connected to US 67 via an interstate quality road is beyond me. If Beebe was intent on getting a interstate from Little Rock to his beloved Jonesboro why did he allow AHTD to settle on 226 the way it's being done, mind-boggling. 226 could be upgraded at major cost but to ever connect it to I-555 would require a southern bypass of Jonesboro from US 49 to just North of Bay.

I suppose we could sign up for the ASU sports message board and ask AmagonMB, since that's Mike.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 06, 2016, 09:11:35 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.

226 was an epic $!#@ up. How Jonesboro isn't connected to US 67 via an interstate quality road is beyond me. If Beebe was intent on getting a interstate from Little Rock to his beloved Jonesboro why did he allow AHTD to settle on 226 the way it's being done, mind-boggling. 226 could be upgraded at major cost but to ever connect it to I-555 would require a southern bypass of Jonesboro from US 49 to just North of Bay.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but Arkansas doesn't have buckets of money. PLUS their priorities , IMO, are misplaced.  At least 226 will be expressway grade to from 67 to 49 when it's complete. though I'm still not sure how it will tie in with 49.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 06, 2016, 09:19:27 PM
Well, so much for state highway 226 possibly becoming Interstate 730, although I believe that proposal was as far-fetched as some of the stuff posted in Fictional Highways. By the way, who made that proposal anyway?
226 has too many at-grade crossings, plus is still not complete.

226 was an epic $!#@ up. How Jonesboro isn't connected to US 67 via an interstate quality road is beyond me. If Beebe was intent on getting a interstate from Little Rock to his beloved Jonesboro why did he allow AHTD to settle on 226 the way it's being done, mind-boggling. 226 could be upgraded at major cost but to ever connect it to I-555 would require a southern bypass of Jonesboro from US 49 to just North of Bay.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but Arkansas doesn't have buckets of money. PLUS their priorities , IMO, are misplaced.  At least 226 will be expressway grade to from 67 to 49 when it's complete. though I'm still not sure how it will tie in with 49.

Knowing Arkansas, a stop sign.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: KamKam on May 10, 2016, 09:54:20 AM
At AR 226 expressway will have a speed limit of 65
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: english si on May 10, 2016, 06:17:47 PM
In other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).

You have the authority to schedule yourself for walking in Essex on Tuesday.
Sadly I don't have the authority to make it not rain. My walk didn't happen as it was raining and I therefore changed my mind about spending several hours walking in dreary drizzle. Still was a plan, just as I-57 is! Plans do not have to come into fruition to be plans.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on May 20, 2016, 08:32:49 AM
So it's not exactly idle speculation at this point but it's not legally a done deal either until it's signed into law (or otherwise becomes law per high school civics).
Indeed, but done deal =/= plan. While your post was entirely true, it wasn't addressing the direct disagreement at hand. And unsurprisingly it has been treated as such and so we have this nonsense:
In other words, it's not a plan until the bill passes and is signed.
I plan on going walking in Essex on Tuesday - it may not happen due to weather, the amount of time I have, whether something else comes up, etc - but it's still a plan (despite, unlike I-57, not having a route).

@english_si, where in Bucks do you live?  I lived in Chalfont St. Peter for 5 years, then in Beaconsfield for another 2.  The M25 went about a mile from our home.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: english si on May 20, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
@english_si, where in Bucks do you live?  I lived in Chalfont St. Peter for 5 years, then in Beaconsfield for another 2.
Just up from both, in Amersham.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on May 20, 2016, 11:10:27 AM
@english_si, where in Bucks do you live?  I lived in Chalfont St. Peter for 5 years, then in Beaconsfield for another 2.
Just up from both, in Amersham.

Went to the American high school in High Wycombe (closed in 2006).  Caught many a Metropolitan Line train at Chalfont and Latimer.  Loved the new (for the 1970's) indoor pool at Amersham.  Still have my "driving license" s0mewhere as it is good until 2029 :)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on May 20, 2016, 01:32:15 PM

Mike Beebe's hometown is Searcy, which is along the highway in question. He had a self-interest in advocating a highway number that was familiar to him as well as one that ended in a zero, even if it violated numerous numbering conventions.

But Beebe left office in January 2015. I'm not aware if the current governor, Asa Hutchinson, who is from NWA, has a preference. At any rate, there's no longer a push from on high to call it I-30 (thankfully).

Asa has mentioned no preference other than fixing the roads in general.

My 2 pfennigs is improve 67, THEN worry about an upgraded designation.


As far as improvements to 67 goes, I'll compile a short list starting at the Lonoke / Pulaski County line
I'm not mentioning the widening to exit 16 since it's on the drawing board already.
Beginning with exit 16 and extending to Lonoke / White County, the road needs to be milled down like the portion from Lonoke / White County to just northeast of exit 31. Mill down and patch the concrete from exit 16 to the Lonoke / White county line and also from mile marker 32 (roughly where the milling stops) to all the way up north of exit 48, stopping at the new concrete.
Extend the acceleration / merge lane on northbound 67 at exit 19. It needs to extend to the crest of the hill, northeast of the interchange.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on May 22, 2016, 10:51:45 PM
Mill down concrete??
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on May 25, 2016, 11:12:00 PM
Grind it down w/ diamond grinders. I read from somewhere the term is called "milling"
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on May 26, 2016, 02:00:29 AM
Before Huckabee's big bond issue, milling was a big program on the old, (I presume) original concrete sections of the interstates. It made a huge difference in the smoothness of the ride before and after, especially on I-40 in and around Morrilton where every joint made a huge bump.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 14, 2016, 09:07:57 PM
Does anyone know the status on the transportation bill that US 67 becoming I-57 was added to? I can't find anything online.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on June 14, 2016, 09:47:27 PM
Grind it down w/ diamond grinders. I read from somewhere the term is called "milling"

You are correct.  It is usually combined with a process called a "dowel bar retrofit".  Slots are cut at a 90 degree angle to the seam, titanium rods are inserted into the slots, then the slots are covered with concrete.  This is supposed to keep the slabs from "floating" which is the thump-thump sound you hear on older concrete surfaces.  Once the surface is milled, you are left with a smooth surface.

(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7375/27679429375_515e9fdb3d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JaWj1X)

(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7596/27679429405_44747d95bf.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JaWj2t)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7392/27644222936_a07b08bcfd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7PSno)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mgk920 on June 15, 2016, 04:44:04 PM
Grind it down w/ diamond grinders. I read from somewhere the term is called "milling"

You are correct.  It is usually combined with a process called a "dowel bar retrofit".  Slots are cut at a 90 degree angle to the seam, titanium rods are inserted into the slots, then the slots are covered with concrete.  This is supposed to keep the slabs from "floating" which is the thump-thump sound you hear on older concrete surfaces.  Once the surface is milled, you are left with a smooth surface.

(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7375/27679429375_515e9fdb3d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JaWj1X)

(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7596/27679429405_44747d95bf.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JaWj2t)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7392/27644222936_a07b08bcfd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7PSno)

Titanium?  I thought that they were just typical rebar steel.

Mike
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: qguy on June 20, 2016, 09:31:48 AM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7392/27644222936_a07b08bcfd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7PSno)

This is supposed to keep the slabs from "floating" which is the thump-thump sound you hear on older concrete surfaces. 

It also keeps the ends of the slabs from warping, which is extremely annoying and potentially dangerous (especially for tractor-trailers). The PA Turnpike has chronically had problems with this on the 1940-vintage portions of the highway.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SteveG1988 on June 20, 2016, 10:08:05 AM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7392/27644222936_a07b08bcfd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7PSno)

This is supposed to keep the slabs from "floating" which is the thump-thump sound you hear on older concrete surfaces. 

It also keeps the ends of the slabs from warping, which is extremely annoying and potentially dangerous (especially for tractor-trailers). The PA Turnpike has chronically had problems with this on the 1940-vintage portions of the highway.


That section has a different length of the concrete slabs. That is what makes it that bad
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 20, 2016, 11:03:04 PM
Before Huckabee's big bond issue, milling was a big program on the old, (I presume) original concrete sections of the interstates. It made a huge difference in the smoothness of the ride before and after, especially on I-40 in and around Morrilton where every joint made a huge bump.
But they ran out of money when they got to Clarksville on I40

SGH-I337

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 20, 2016, 11:16:58 PM
Getting back on track, any status on the following?

1. The opening of the new US 67 freeway segment between AR 226 and Hoxie?

2. The status of the new route from Walnut Ridge to the state line?

3. The status of the bill that designated this route I-57?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 21, 2016, 06:07:03 PM
I hope there are updates to these questions in the near future. These can't happen soon enough for my liking.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 21, 2016, 06:21:05 PM
Getting back on track, any status on the following?

1. The opening of the new US 67 freeway segment between AR 226 and Hoxie?

2. The status of the new route from Walnut Ridge to the state line?

3. The status of the bill that designated this route I-57?

#1 I'm expecting this Fall. I drove by there a couple months ago and it appeared all but finished except the ramps at US 63.

#2, #3 I've heard no news.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2016, 04:24:29 PM
That means it likely won't happen for a long time.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: qguy on June 24, 2016, 09:09:34 AM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7392/27644222936_a07b08bcfd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7PSno)

This is supposed to keep the slabs from "floating" which is the thump-thump sound you hear on older concrete surfaces. 

It also keeps the ends of the slabs from warping, which is extremely annoying and potentially dangerous (especially for tractor-trailers). The PA Turnpike has chronically had problems with this on the 1940-vintage portions of the highway.


That section has a different length of the concrete slabs. That is what makes it that bad

Also because the concrete was laid directly on (slightly) compacted soil, with virtually no subgrade.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 24, 2016, 12:26:19 PM
Next section of US 67 opens in August

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/111757/work-to-expand-arkansas-226-us-67-speeds-toward-august-finish
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on June 27, 2016, 07:14:40 AM
Next section of US 67 opens in August

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/111757/work-to-expand-arkansas-226-us-67-speeds-toward-august-finish

Found this paragraph odd:
Quote
U.S. 67 is a major thoroughfare for trucks moving goods from Chicago to New Orleans. The added lanes and higher traffic speeds will allow commerce to flow at a more efficient rate, McMillan said.

If that's how they're getting between Chicago and New Orleans, they must be either padding miles or really hate Mississippi.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 27, 2016, 09:46:41 AM
Next section of US 67 opens in August

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/111757/work-to-expand-arkansas-226-us-67-spee
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 27, 2016, 09:53:44 AM
Next section of US 67 opens in August

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/111757/work-to-expand-arkansas-226-us-67-speeds-toward-august-finish

Found this paragraph odd:
Quote
U.S. 67 is a major thoroughfare for trucks moving goods from Chicago to New Orleans. The added lanes and higher traffic speeds will allow commerce to flow at a more efficient rate, McMillan said.

If that's how they're getting between Chicago and New Orleans, they must be either padding miles or really hate Mississippi.

I-49 goes from New Orleans to Canada.I guess it makes better press that to say 49 goes to Kansas, then 29 or 35 to Canada.

67 crosses I-55 which can give you Chicago and I-49 which can give you NOLA.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 28, 2016, 03:29:40 AM
Nope...I-49 currently only goes from Lafayette to Texarkana, from Alma to Fayetteville, and from Pineville to I-435 in Kansas City. The plans are to expand I-49 to from New Orleans to Kansas City. No plans to renumber I-29 or I-35 from KC to the Canadian border (or Duluth), IFAIK.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 28, 2016, 04:53:59 AM
The only way 67 is part of the commercial route from Chicago to New Orleans is if truckers regularly missed the 57-55 loop at Sikeston and just kept going (oopsie!). 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on June 29, 2016, 02:04:04 AM
Perhaps the writer meant from Chicago to Dallas, which would be correct.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2016, 01:09:19 PM
McMillan's reference to New Orleans is likely just a misspeaking incident; if one had a dollar for every time a local official gets an obvious fact wrong, they could probably finance/build the missing freeway link from Hoxie to Poplar Bluff. 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 11, 2016, 08:45:35 AM
I came down US67 from Poplar Bluff. Some notes

1: On the connection between the northern section of 67 at Walnut Ridge to US63 at Hoxie, you will see an exit number for US63, i did not venture down that far on it, as i exited onto 63 west instead of 63 east.

2: All along US 67 between Hoxie and Swifton you will see the State route marker covered by the US67 shield, for easy transformation once the freeway is done.

3: Black River Truss Bridge on US67 at Pocahontas is closed. All traffic diverted to the 1986 girder span. 40 ton weight limit both directions now.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on July 11, 2016, 12:23:05 PM
I came down US67 from Poplar Bluff. Some notes

1: On the connection between the northern section of 67 at Walnut Ridge to US63 at Hoxie, you will see an exit number for US63, i did not venture down that far on it, as i exited onto 63 west instead of 63 east.

2: All along US 67 between Hoxie and Swifton you will see the State route marker covered by the US67 shield, for easy transformation once the freeway is done.

3: Black River Truss Bridge on US67 at Pocahontas is closed. All traffic diverted to the 1986 girder span. 40 ton weight limit both directions now.
Should be open within another month. The 67 shields will then reveal the AR 367 shield. One of these days, I'll drive 67 to the state line and back.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: RBBrittain on July 11, 2016, 01:56:53 PM
3: Black River Truss Bridge on US67 at Pocahontas is closed. All traffic diverted to the 1986 girder span. 40 ton weight limit both directions now.
I believe AHTD is replacing the truss bridge. Still only tangential to this discussion; even if Future I-30/57 is routed thru the Pocahontas area it definitely won't be over these bridges. They might be used for an upgraded, non-freeway US 67, but if bypassed completely Pocahontas will still need that replacement bridge to maintain four-lane access to Walnut Ridge.

IMO, environmental considerations will likely force any new-location replacement for US 67 (freeway or not) to bypass Pocahontas, unless its political pull overwhelms both that and Corning's preference for the other route. Any new route near Pocahontas would require either a separate crossing of the Current River (and possibly other streams) as well as the Black River, or else a Black River crossing much closer to Dave Donaldson/Black River WMA than Pocahontas itself; any one of those crossings could raise serious wetlands and/or floodplain issues. A route paralleling the railroad thru Knobel to Corning would only have to cross the Black River, most likely close to the existing railroad bridge with minimal wetlands or floodplain issues. (Those issues likely influenced the routing of US 67 from Bald Knob to Newport, which crosses the White River in southern Jackson County to avoid the huge floodplain west of Newport that AR 367 still crosses.)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 11, 2016, 05:06:42 PM
3: Black River Truss Bridge on US67 at Pocahontas is closed. All traffic diverted to the 1986 girder span. 40 ton weight limit both directions now.
I believe AHTD is replacing the truss bridge. Still only tangential to this discussion; even if Future I-30/57 is routed thru the Pocahontas area it definitely won't be over these bridges. They might be used for an upgraded, non-freeway US 67, but if bypassed completely Pocahontas will still need that replacement bridge to maintain four-lane access to Walnut Ridge.

IMO, environmental considerations will likely force any new-location replacement for US 67 (freeway or not) to bypass Pocahontas, unless its political pull overwhelms both that and Corning's preference for the other route. Any new route near Pocahontas would require either a separate crossing of the Current River (and possibly other streams) as well as the Black River, or else a Black River crossing much closer to Dave Donaldson/Black River WMA than Pocahontas itself; any one of those crossings could raise serious wetlands and/or floodplain issues. A route paralleling the railroad thru Knobel to Corning would only have to cross the Black River, most likely close to the existing railroad bridge with minimal wetlands or floodplain issues. (Those issues likely influenced the routing of US 67 from Bald Knob to Newport, which crosses the White River in southern Jackson County to avoid the huge floodplain west of Newport that AR 367 still crosses.)

I know it was Tangental to the discussion, but it felt like a good place to put this, showing that the old 67 corridor will be getting some upgrades.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on July 11, 2016, 10:04:26 PM
3: Black River Truss Bridge on US67 at Pocahontas is closed. All traffic diverted to the 1986 girder span. 40 ton weight limit both directions now.
I believe AHTD is replacing the truss bridge. Still only tangential to this discussion; even if Future I-30/57 is routed thru the Pocahontas area it definitely won't be over these bridges. They might be used for an upgraded, non-freeway US 67, but if bypassed completely Pocahontas will still need that replacement bridge to maintain four-lane access to Walnut Ridge.

IMO, environmental considerations will likely force any new-location replacement for US 67 (freeway or not) to bypass Pocahontas, unless its political pull overwhelms both that and Corning's preference for the other route. Any new route near Pocahontas would require either a separate crossing of the Current River (and possibly other streams) as well as the Black River, or else a Black River crossing much closer to Dave Donaldson/Black River WMA than Pocahontas itself; any one of those crossings could raise serious wetlands and/or floodplain issues. A route paralleling the railroad thru Knobel to Corning would only have to cross the Black River, most likely close to the existing railroad bridge with minimal wetlands or floodplain issues. (Those issues likely influenced the routing of US 67 from Bald Knob to Newport, which crosses the White River in southern Jackson County to avoid the huge floodplain west of Newport that AR 367 still crosses.)

I've always thought having the future US 67 freeway north of Walnut Ridge run parallel to AR 34/90 via O'Kean, Delaplaine and Knobel to Corning would make more sense than running it near Pocahontas, which would cause a lot of environmental disruptions. In fact, IIRC, I believe the original plan made in the 1990's was to have the US 67 freeway parallel to AR 34/90 until Pocahontas complained it would bypass them.

Regardless, they just need to figure out a route north of Walnut Ridge! It's taking waaaay to long!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 21, 2016, 03:56:49 PM
Now that U.S. 67 will officially become Interstate 57 (which I am so happy about) instead of the "northern" extension of Interstate 30, does anyone think that Interstate 530 south of Little Rock to Pine Bluff could get renumbered to an extension of the extension of Interstate 57, so that the extension of the current Interstate 530 south of Pine Bluff, to meet with the future Interstate 69 would be an extension of the extension of the extension of Interstate 57?  Enough of the jokes, but I wonder if there is a possibility to keep the number throughout so that travelers north on Interstate 69 would see the major 2 digit Interstate 57, and know that's a major corridor to St. Louis and Chicago.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 21, 2016, 05:13:43 PM
I doubt Interstate 530 will become an extension of 57. I have a better (although fictional) number for the corridor: Interstate 53!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 21, 2016, 07:19:34 PM
OK - slight fictional detour of thread -- I-53 would be just fine for a 530/67 combination -- but only if extended north of Poplar Bluff to I-55 at Festus -- essentially a direct St. Louis access route from 69 (US 60 between Poplar Bluff & Sikeston could stay I-57 as the Chicago cutoff).  Otherwise, the proposed legislation of the corridor as I-57 is perfectly fine as is, with or without I-530! 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 22, 2016, 10:43:30 AM
I don't like I-530 as a possible southern extension of I-57. The US-67 roadway (now future I-57) is running on a Northeast to Southwest diagonal pointing more toward Dallas and the I-30 corridor. I-530 takes a fairly hard turn to the South-Southeast.

If I-530 was ever extended down into Louisiana, perhaps to Monroe and Alexandria, then I would be all for calling it I-53. For now, as a freeway just going to Pine Bluff I think I-530 is good enough. If the road can be fully finished to the I-69 corridor and I-69 itself is finished then perhaps I-530 could be renamed, perhaps to I-630 or I-830. But I don't think very many people care enough to do that.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 22, 2016, 11:24:33 AM
I don't like I-530 as a possible southern extension of I-57. The US-67 roadway (now future I-57) is running on a Northeast to Southwest diagonal pointing more toward Dallas and the I-30 corridor. I-530 takes a fairly hard turn to the South-Southeast.

If I-530 was ever extended down into Louisiana, perhaps to Monroe and Alexandria, then I would be all for calling it I-53. For now, as a freeway just going to Pine Bluff I think I-530 is good enough. If the road can be fully finished to the I-69 corridor and I-69 itself is finished then perhaps I-530 could be renamed, perhaps to I-630 or I-830. But I don't think very many people care enough to do that.

There is already a 630 at Little Rock

It would make no sense to rename 530 as 630 or 830 as even numbers connote a loop or bypass.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 22, 2016, 01:59:14 PM
3-digit Interstates can also be even numbered when they begin at one Interstate, such as I-30, and end at another Interstate, like I-69.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on July 22, 2016, 02:25:56 PM
3-digit Interstates can also be even numbered when they begin at one Interstate, such as I-30, and end at another Interstate, like I-69.

I-495 on Long Island doesn't end at an interstate.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 23, 2016, 04:22:00 PM
The numbering of I-495 on Long Island was simply for local convenience; the LIE had been NY 495 for years before that, and it was thought that a numerical change would be confusing to regional motorists.  God forbid you ask a Hamptons resident to internalize new information into their routines! 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 23, 2016, 04:56:19 PM
I had thought the I-495 numbering might have been put there to tie into a half dozen or more different bridge/tunnel proposals to cross the Long Island Sound from Long Island to either Connecticut or Rhode Island, re-attaching into I-495. Pigs will probably be flying before such a crossing is ever built, thanks in part to both politics and the insane cost inflation going on with road building and other civil engineering projects. At this rate it won't be long before it costs a million dollars just to pave a simple drive way.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on July 23, 2016, 05:23:48 PM
Alrighty, enough with the route number debate. Can we get back to focusing on the US 67 upgrades, such as what the route will be for north of Walnut Ridge?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on August 11, 2016, 09:54:23 PM
Finally!

http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0 (http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0)

Now if only they could figure out a route from Walnut Ridge to the state line........
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 11, 2016, 10:04:56 PM
Finally!

http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0 (http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0)

Now if only they could figure out a route from Walnut Ridge to the state line........

I thought it opened last month?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: yakra on August 12, 2016, 01:49:48 AM
Quote
The former section of U.S. 67 from Newport to south Hoxie will now be designated as U.S. 367
Ell Oh Ell, Troll Face, or something.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM
Quote
The former section of U.S. 67 from Newport to south Hoxie will now be designated as U.S. 367
Ell Oh Ell, Troll Face, or something.

AR 367
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on August 12, 2016, 09:43:29 AM
Finally!

http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0 (http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/major-highway-projects-complete-northeast-arkansas#stream/0)

Now if only they could figure out a route from Walnut Ridge to the state line........

I think it's almost safe to assume it'll be at least interstate specs now with the whole Bozeman/I-57 thing.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 12, 2016, 05:00:09 PM
It will likely be awhile before we see any Interstate 57 shields along US 67.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mvak36 on August 12, 2016, 05:00:32 PM
I think it's almost safe to assume it'll be at least interstate specs now with the whole Bozeman/I-57 thing.

Something I have been wondering about with this whole thing. Did MO agree to the extension of the interstate? I'm not sure they have the money to do the upgrades.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on August 12, 2016, 07:29:40 PM
Did the bill that designated the US 67 corridor as future Interstate 57 even get signed into law?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 12, 2016, 08:27:05 PM
I think it's almost safe to assume it'll be at least interstate specs now with the whole Bozeman/I-57 thing.

Something I have been wondering about with this whole thing. Did MO agree to the extension of the interstate? I'm not sure they have the money to do the upgrades.
Not to my knowledge. I think it's up for a vote in Arkansas in 2017, but I have heard nothing from Missouri.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: KamKam on August 13, 2016, 02:01:46 AM
Yes SO happy that section is now open! It's a blessing for those living in the far Northeast!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 13, 2016, 11:43:03 AM
I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Besides that complaint this route will definitely benefit me in the future whenever I drive to Texas in the future. If I ever go back to the Big Bend region I might see if driving through Arkansas is any better than shunpiking I-44 through Oklahoma. The only downside to driving through Arkansas is that I'll have to drive through Dallas and Fort Worth which will probably slow me down unless I drive through them at night.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 14, 2016, 09:49:25 AM
I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Actually 67 follows its old alignment to Cabot, where the northern section of 367 begins. But to have upgraded 367 to freeway standards would likely have destroyed almost every town along the road.
 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 14, 2016, 11:05:18 AM
I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Actually 67 follows its old alignment to Cabot, where the northern section of 367 begins. But to have upgraded 367 to freeway standards would likely have destroyed almost every town along the road.
 

I think you misunderstood. I meant that I wish the 2 lane highway from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge (SR 367) was still signed as US 67 and that the freeway was signed as something else (like SR 567). I'd rather have US 67 running parallel to I-57 than to have SR 367 running parallel to I-57 and US 67 (a pointless concurrency).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 14, 2016, 01:35:32 PM
I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Actually 67 follows its old alignment to Cabot, where the northern section of 367 begins. But to have upgraded 367 to freeway standards would likely have destroyed almost every town along the road.
 

I think you misunderstood. I meant that I wish the 2 lane highway from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge (SR 367) was still signed as US 67 and that the freeway was signed as something else (like SR 567). I'd rather have US 67 running parallel to I-57 than to have SR 367 running parallel to I-57 and US 67 (a pointless concurrency).

67 has been in the process of being upgraded since the 1960's. I don't think anyone ever took an Interstate designation seriously until Dr Boozeman decided to copy Rick Crawford
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on August 16, 2016, 12:05:28 AM
Knowing AHTD's practices, I'm betting the US 67-167 (and 64) shields come down once the I-57 shields go up on that alignment.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on August 17, 2016, 08:24:51 AM
Did the bill that designated the US 67 corridor as future Interstate 57 even get signed into law?

Nope, it's just Bozeman pandering
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 18, 2016, 06:49:19 PM
On a semi-related note, the The Times Dispatch in Walnut Ridge noted the extension of AR 367

Quote
With the opening of the new Hwy. 67, the old highway has been designated by the AHTD as Hwy. 367.

Hwy. 367 will begin at the Main Street/Highway 34 stoplight in Walnut Ridge and continue south through Hoxie and into Jackson County.

The stretch of the old highway from Main Street north to the new Highway 67 toward Pocahontas will remain Highway 67B North.

Main St is also US 412, which means the 4 block 67B / 412 overlap is being eliminated.
Here is a Google map view of the area. https://goo.gl/maps/FjVbjMPR9it

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 19, 2016, 02:24:24 PM
I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 19, 2016, 02:44:33 PM
I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
IMO, after Rick Crawford got attention with the 63/555 redesignation,  Senator Boozman wants "credit" (and attention) for redesignating 67 as I-57. (can I say "attention whore" and get away with saying that here?)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: KamKam on August 25, 2016, 10:45:57 AM
I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
RIGHT?!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on August 25, 2016, 04:03:35 PM
I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
RIGHT?!
Speed limit is 70 on the rural stretch from just north of Jacksonville to now, Walnut Ridge. Limit drops to 55/60 north of there.
AHTD needs to get on the ball and make it controlled access to the MO/AR state line with the 70 mph speed limit. No half measures will do. It needs to be all or nothing. That's what I say...
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on August 25, 2016, 06:03:46 PM
This highway is completely irrelevant compared to I-49

They shouldn't spend another cent on it until I-49 is done
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 26, 2016, 10:14:09 AM
Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 26, 2016, 10:53:05 PM
Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.

I don't understand why AHTD doesn't run I-49 down I-540 to US 71 on the southside of Ft Smith. Then they wouldn't have to build a new bridge over the Arkansas River.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SteveG1988 on August 26, 2016, 11:43:01 PM
Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.

I don't understand why AHTD doesn't run I-49 down I-540 to US 71 on the southside of Ft Smith. Then they wouldn't have to build a new bridge over the Arkansas River.

Probably to have an outer freeway bypass of the city, keeping traffic off I-540. I've used 540 in a truck, it isn't bad, but i doubt it would handle all of the 540 traffic plus the 49 traffic that a properly connected route will. Plus connecting 540 to 71 would require a lot of stuff to be moved, businesses, access to a steel mill may change, etc. Completing US67 to a freeway in MO would benefit the region more than you would think. I use the 57 to 67 to 30 corridor a lot in the truck. having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on August 27, 2016, 10:40:38 AM
Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

It would be the direct route from Dallas to Chicago. It also helps Texarkana in their aims to be a distribution hub.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: SquonkHunter on August 27, 2016, 10:43:04 AM
...Having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

I made a road trip from Dallas to the Detroit area some years ago. This route would have saved me considerable time and mileage had it been in place back then. I'm sure the traffic volume is much higher now with the potential for even more when completed.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on August 27, 2016, 10:43:51 AM
Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.

Who cares about the tiny sections in other states. AHTD has 30 years of work on I-49 in the state
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: wanderer2575 on August 27, 2016, 10:59:42 AM
I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
IMO, after Rick Crawford got attention with the 63/555 redesignation,  Senator Boozman wants "credit" (and attention) for redesignating 67 as I-57. (can I say "attention whore" and get away with saying that here?)

I'd guess it's the usual general "economic development" theory -- post RWB shields on a highway and businesses will rush to relocate there.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on August 27, 2016, 11:26:15 AM
Which of these is the easier sale to state legislators and Congressmen?

"Let's complete this highway that will connect New Orleans and Kansas City. It will go through mountains, so it's going to take a long time to complete and be very expensive. Also, it has segments in two other states, one of which has virtually no economic benefit from it."

"Let's complete this highway that will connect Dallas and Chicago. It will go through fairly flat land, so it will be a lot less expensive than that other route."

If you were a member of Congress or a state legislator, which would you support?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on August 27, 2016, 11:59:07 AM
An interstate route between Chicago and Dallas already exists and building another redundant route will do nothing for anyone, especially Arkansas
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: jbnv on August 27, 2016, 12:47:20 PM
An interstate route between Chicago and Dallas already exists and building another redundant route will do nothing for anyone, especially Arkansas

That's your opinion...

...Having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

I made a road trip from Dallas to the Detroit area some years ago. This route would have saved me considerable time and mileage had it been in place back then. I'm sure the traffic volume is much higher now with the potential for even more when completed.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: bjrush on August 27, 2016, 01:02:57 PM
An interstate route between Chicago and Dallas already exists and building another redundant route will do nothing for anyone, especially Arkansas

That's your opinion...

...Having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

I made a road trip from Dallas to the Detroit area some years ago. This route would have saved me considerable time and mileage had it been in place back then. I'm sure the traffic volume is much higher now with the potential for even more when completed.

It's not my opinion one already exists.

No one cares it would have a continuous route number between Little Rock and Chicago. That has to be the least relevant pathway in the world. Spending billions to satisfy a map curiosity is moronic.

Not to mention the Chicago-KC connection could perfectly tie into I-49 and do the same thing while additionally connecting to points south. Little Rock is not relevant. They need to build I-49 and beef up I-30 and I-40

No industry is coming to Arkansas because I-57 happens to run through Walnut Ridge. That is a pipe dream.

Trip generation doesn't happen because roads are built. Roads are built based on where people want to go before they're built
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on August 27, 2016, 03:51:49 PM
I don't understand why AHTD doesn't run I-49 down I-540 to US 71 on the southside of Ft Smith. Then they wouldn't have to build a new bridge over the Arkansas River.
Quite possibly because they've already built much of the Ft. Smith bypass already across the former Ft. Chaffee site (apparently signed currently as AR 549 -- their "go-to" designation for future I-49 segments).  The I-540 segment through Ft. Smith has a narrow and curvy profile; not really suitable as a route intended to permanently serve large levels of long-distance traffic.  IMO, the right decision was made -- keep through I-49 traffic out of central Ft. Smith.

As far as the US 67/"I-57" situation is concerned, while the traffic on I-40 between Little Rock & West Memphis is presently troublesome, it hasn't reached "critical mass" as of yet; if it does so, then a relief route such as an extended US 67/I-57 freeway may come in handy (but if I were either MO or AR DOT, I wouldn't be in any particular hurry to build anything near-term).
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on August 28, 2016, 12:00:11 PM
540 was "refurbished" a couple years ago, but is barely equipped to handle current traffic in Ft Smith & Van Buren. Too many on-ramps run into off-ramps with little or no separation (that's probably left for another discussion).

There is a proposal to eventually reroute 540 into I-49 (somewhere between Rogers Ave and Phoenix), but that is likely years off,  as is completion of I-49 

67 may be upgraded to Missouri, but I think it will be a long time before there a full freeway through Missouri.  And the 57 designation is hogwash.


Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on August 28, 2016, 05:19:02 PM
67 may be upgraded to Missouri, but I think it will be a long time before there a full freeway through Missouri.  And the 57 designation is hogwash.

I agree about Missouri, though as it has been said before, it would not be very difficult to upgrade the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line to full Interstate freeway, since most of it is already high-quality expressway (including some frontage roads) that could easily be upgraded. Only about 10 or so miles of new alignment between US 160/MO 158 and the state line needs to be built.

And the 57 designation is not hogwash, it's very reasonable. Unless you'd rather see it designated as a new I-53 to avoid having the numbers go "out of the grid".

But get the Bella Vista Bypass finished and reconstruct I-70 first before doing this!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 28, 2016, 07:55:03 PM
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure US 67 is not going to be built to interstate standards from Walnut Ridge to the MO state line. They are just going to 4 lane the sections that are still 2 lanes and build bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning.

http://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning

Quote
"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line,"

Quote
The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: I-39 on August 28, 2016, 10:47:51 PM
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure US 67 is not going to be built to interstate standards from Walnut Ridge to the MO state line. They are just going to 4 lane the sections that are still 2 lanes and build bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning.

http://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning

Quote
"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line,"

Quote
The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

This was 3 years ago, before the corridor was proposed to become I-57. Frankly, it would make no sense for them to do what was described. US 67 from Walnut Ridge to the MO state line needs to be at least a 4 lane divided expressway (similar to the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and US 160/MO 158 in Missouri), even if it's not a full interstate freeway.

I don't know what the official current status of the road is, but my guess is that further US 67 upgrades north of Walnut Ridge are on hold until Missouri figures out their transportation funding fiasco.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on August 29, 2016, 12:31:53 AM
I think it makes sense. I-57 did not pass. US 67 in Missouri is currently just 4 lanes with at grades. Taking I-40 to I-55 isn't even that far out of the way. You currently only save 9 miles from LR to Sikeston via US 67. Let's assume that number would go up to 20 miles if it ever became I-57. It just doesn't seem like it's worth the money to make it interstate quality up to the border with MO. I always thought the point of upgrading US 67 was just so northeastern Arkansas, particularly Jonesboro, had a better road to Little Rock.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: lordsutch on August 29, 2016, 12:57:12 AM
Well, I-57 "did not pass" because the 2017 transportation funding bill hasn't passed yet. But including US 67 from I-40 to US 412 in the Interstate highway system, albeit without a specific route number, is in the Senate version of the bill (S.2844) reported out of committee, so it has a decent chance of getting into whatever final bill makes it out of Congress.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 29, 2016, 09:51:49 AM
I think it makes sense. I-57 did not pass. US 67 in Missouri is currently just 4 lanes with at grades. Taking I-40 to I-55 isn't even that far out of the way. You currently only save 9 miles from LR to Sikeston via US 67. Let's assume that number would go up to 20 miles if it ever became I-57. It just doesn't seem like it's worth the money to make it interstate quality up to the border with MO. I always thought the point of upgrading US 67 was just so northeastern Arkansas, particularly Jonesboro, had a better road to Little Rock.

Connecting the US 67 freeway to I-57/I-55 has been on the "to do" list for a long time.   My Dad inherited some land near Poplar Bluff 30 years ago and even then he mentioned that an interstate was supposed to be going through.

It has always been about more than just a connector from NE Arkansas to Little Rock.
Title: Re: Future I-30 or I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 29, 2016, 04:48:16 PM
They should figure out what they are going to do with the US 60/67 corridor between Corning AR and Sikeston (via Poplar Bluff) MO before choosing an Interstate designation for the corridor.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on August 29, 2016, 08:46:19 PM
They should figure out what they are going to do with the US 60/67 corridor between Corning AR and Sikeston (via Poplar Bluff) MO before choosing an Interstate designation for the corridor.

Choosing an interstate designation would at least keep it from being built as a five lane undivided route or a four-lane divided with many intersections and driveways.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: NE2 on August 30, 2016, 12:06:44 AM
US 75/US 69/I-44/I-55 and I-30/I-57 are practically equivalent Dallas-Chicago routes. Both probably merit improvements.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2016, 01:16:33 AM
I agree about US-75/US-69 in Oklahoma. Regardless of what happens in Arkansas, a great deal of commercial trucking traffic and a lot of other long distance traffic in general will keep using that route from Dallas to Big Cabin, OK due to shorter, more direct path. It's one of the nation's busiest highway corridors that isn't a superhighway.

Maybe if I-57 was completed between Little Rock and Sikeston it might draw some of that big rig traffic off US-69 in Oklahoma. No one likes stop lights, speed zones and speed traps when all they're trying to do is drive a long distance between point a and point b.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on August 30, 2016, 03:00:05 AM
US 75/US 69/I-44/I-55 and I-30/I-57 are practically equivalent Dallas-Chicago routes. Both probably merit improvements.
The one advantage that a I-30/"I-57" Dallas-Chicago routing has over any corridor through Oklahoma to I-44 is that it doesn't have to go through St. Louis, which is and always has been a chokepoint.  Little Rock is reasonably easy to negotiate (thanks to I-440/AR 440) compared to St. Louis and environs. 

Nonetheless, it's too bad local OK politics (and lack of $$) have prevented the state from taking advantage of that ISTEA codicil that states that US 69 from the state line to I-40 can become an Interstate whenever OKDOT (a) makes a formal application to that effect, and (b) actually completes the freeway along the route.  Of course, TX would have to apply for designation of US 75 as well to make the OK section continuous to Dallas (and nix the plans to "boulevardize" I-345).  With the pending completion of I-49 north of I-40, that corridor would constitute a mileage shortening for Dallas-Kansas City or St. Louis commercial traffic.  However, that may just be too many ducks to line up in a row -- especially if an extension from I-40 to I-44 would be proposed as well.  Don't see any action happening here anytime soon!     
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
St. Louis is still a major hub in the Interstate highway system, considerably more so than Little Rock. I-270 and I-255 are sufficient at letting long distance traffic bypass the bottlenecks that can happen downtown. Their roadways are at least 3 or 4 lanes wide nearly their entire length, except for the far North section of I-270 which drops to 2 lanes each direction.

I don't know why or even how interests in Southeastern Oklahoma have blocked efforts of upgrading US-69 to Interstate standards. How does that region have the clout to do that? To me the efforts to keep US-69 backwards and inadequate are just stupid and even dangerous.

Just last week there was a fatal accident on US-69 in Caddo, OK involving a truck that was hauling acid. The acid spill closed the OK-22 bridge over US-75/US-69. This was at an Interstate style exit. Imagine the fun that would happen if the spill occurred in the middle of one of these little towns along US-69, such as Atoka. The funny thing is literally thousands of big rig trucks are hauling all sorts of flammable and hazardous liquids through there.

Most towns want heavy truck traffic diverted away from their downtown street infrastructure, especially if the towns are on the hook at all to pay for any of that street upkeep. But apparently not here! The stupidity makes me think of the stereotypes for SE OK, visions of the movie "Deliverance" with banjo playing mutants and other kinds of thumb-heads.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on August 30, 2016, 03:29:55 PM
I don't know why or even how interests in Southeastern Oklahoma have blocked efforts of upgrading US-69 to Interstate standards. How does that region have the clout to do that? To me the efforts to keep US-69 backwards and inadequate are just stupid and even dangerous.

Most towns want heavy truck traffic diverted away from their downtown street infrastructure, especially if the towns are on the hook at all to pay for any of that street upkeep. But apparently not here!
It seems there may be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel here: the 4-lane divided commercial stretch of US 69/75 between Durant and the TX line is planned for upgrading to a full freeway, matching the rest of the Durant bypass.  But Atoka, Stringtown, and the other burgs along the way apparently still want that steady stream of truck traffic through their midst -- maybe enough of it is stopping at the diners and fueling facilities to supply a significant amount of the town's revenue (I call it the Breezewood Syndrome -- and I'm probably not alone there!) -- and they don't want the cash cow to die.   
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: amroad17 on August 31, 2016, 04:38:23 AM
Unless this proposed freeway is ever going to reach Poplar Bluff and then Sikeston, it should remain as US 67.  If Arkansas wants to make this an Interstate highway, then something like I-340 would suffice.

A couple of thoughts...

    1.  When I drove for an expedited company out of Cincinnati and had to go to Little Rock or even Dallas, I would avoid Nashville and Memphis.  I would take the Western Kentucky Pkwy., I-24, Purchase Pkwy., US 51, I-155/US 412, US 412 past Hayti all the way to Walnut Ridge, and pick up US 67 to Little Rock.  A selfish reason was that I only had to deal with two scalehouses between Cincinnati and Little Rock.  Anyway, I have wished for the US 412 corridor to be upgraded to expressway or freeway status from Walnut Ridge to Kennett, MO.  I know if that was so, many drivers from the Ohio Valley would go this way instead of dealing with Nashville and Memphis on their way to Little Rock or east Texas.  It is a pleasant drive, however, I know it might be a bit longer in distance.
         IIRC, one of our members had proposed, in the Fictional Section, an extension of I-30 along this routing to end near Lexington, KY.
    2.  Has Arkansas given any thought to a bypass of sorts of West Memphis?  This is in fictional territory, but I could see a "cutoff freeway" between a point near the TA Truckstop near Earle and going to a point near the I-55/I-555 interchange in Turrell.  If built, this would get rid of the "bend" one would make driving I-40 East to I-55 North and vice versa.  US 63 could be routed on this, as this wouldn't necessarily need an I-number.

Opinions are welcome on these thoughts.  Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on August 31, 2016, 11:01:25 AM
Unless this proposed freeway is ever going to reach Poplar Bluff and then Sikeston, it should remain as US 67.  If Arkansas wants to make this an Interstate highway, then something like I-340 would suffice.

A couple of thoughts...

    1.  When I drove for an expedited company out of Cincinnati and had to go to Little Rock or even Dallas, I would avoid Nashville and Memphis.  I would take the Western Kentucky Pkwy., I-24, Purchase Pkwy., US 51, I-155/US 412, US 412 past Hayti all the way to Walnut Ridge, and pick up US 67 to Little Rock.  A selfish reason was that I only had to deal with two scalehouses between Cincinnati and Little Rock.  Anyway, I have wished for the US 412 corridor to be upgraded to expressway or freeway status from Walnut Ridge to Kennett, MO.  I know if that was so, many drivers from the Ohio Valley would go this way instead of dealing with Nashville and Memphis on their way to Little Rock or east Texas.  It is a pleasant drive, however, I know it might be a bit longer in distance.
         IIRC, one of our members had proposed, in the Fictional Section, an extension of I-30 along this routing to end near Lexington, KY.
    2.  Has Arkansas given any thought to a bypass of sorts of West Memphis?  This is in fictional territory, but I could see a "cutoff freeway" between a point near the TA Truckstop near Earle and going to a point near the I-55/I-555 interchange in Turrell.  If built, this would get rid of the "bend" one would make driving I-40 East to I-55 North and vice versa.  US 63 could be routed on this, as this wouldn't necessarily need an I-number.

Opinions are welcome on these thoughts.  Thanks in advance.

They would never extend out that far. If they ever entertain that, it would run just to the east of Crawfordsville on US 64 and it would only make sense if two new bridges were built. One connecting  I-55/I-555 to I-269 north of Memphis and one that would run south of west Memphis and connect to something. I prefer the Tunica area and I-69

That would give you a complete loop of greater Memphis.

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 31, 2016, 10:19:23 PM
If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.

Quote from: sparker
It seems there may be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel here: the 4-lane divided commercial stretch of US 69/75 between Durant and the TX line is planned for upgrading to a full freeway, matching the rest of the Durant bypass.

I'm not sure if ODOT is going to upgrade the entire non-freeway segment of US-69 between the Platter Road exit and the Durant bypass. I thought I saw a map that showed the freeway upgrade only going from Chickasaw Road just South of Calera and up to the Durant bypass. That would still leave a couple or so miles of non-freeway 4-lane between Calera and Colbert.

One thing is certain, they need to upgrade the damned highway to Interstate standards. Too many people are getting hurt or even killed along the route. In addition to the fatal accident and acid spill last week a motorcyclist was killed recently in Calera, driving Southbound on US-69 when a lady pulled out in front of him from a cross street.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on August 31, 2016, 10:35:39 PM
St. Louis is still a major hub in the Interstate highway system, considerably more so than Little Rock. I-270 and I-255 are sufficient at letting long distance traffic bypass the bottlenecks that can happen downtown. Their roadways are at least 3 or 4 lanes wide nearly their entire length, except for the far North section of I-270 which drops to 2 lanes each direction.

I-270 has been overtaken so much by suburban growth that it has some congestion during the peak hours.  I-255 is fine when not under construction, although queues from major incidents on I-270 can back up onto it on the Missouri side.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 01, 2016, 02:52:49 AM

I'm not sure if ODOT is going to upgrade the entire non-freeway segment of US-69 between the Platter Road exit and the Durant bypass. I thought I saw a map that showed the freeway upgrade only going from Chickasaw Road just South of Calera and up to the Durant bypass. That would still leave a couple or so miles of non-freeway 4-lane between Calera and Colbert.

One thing is certain, they need to upgrade the damned highway to Interstate standards. Too many people are getting hurt or even killed along the route. In addition to the fatal accident and acid spill last week a motorcyclist was killed recently in Calera, driving Southbound on US-69 when a lady pulled out in front of him from a cross street.
Well, that certainly sucks -- if they're only going to upgrade a couple of miles of 69/75 rather than the entire P.O.S. stretch south of Durant!  Most of my dad's side of the family lives in SE OK, spread out along US 70; and that's the road I normally use to and from Dallas or US 82 (I-40, US 287, and US 82 is my regular route when driving; Dallas is the nearest major airport otherwise).  I've had near-misses with semis and RV's crossing the road north of Colbert -- and the traffic volume certainly would make a freeway facility appropriate.  Whoever owns the land and/or the businesses along that stretch must wield a lot of political power in the state, using it Breezewood-style!     
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on September 01, 2016, 10:56:50 AM
If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.


IF Missouri goes along. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
Even with Missouri's horrible political and budgetary issues, I still think we'll see both the Belle Vista bypass completed and I-57 completed between Little Rock and Sikeston long before we see things like the Great River Bridge get built, much less the rest of I-69 in Misssissippi, Arkansas and Louisiana. Texas might as well re-number I-69 as something else, like I-47.

It's basically going to take a massive change in federal government policy regarding Interstate highways to give I-69 any hope of being completed. It will never happen with individual states footing most of the bill. At least I-57 can slowly be piece-mealed together.

Quote from: sparker
I've had near-misses with semis and RV's crossing the road north of Colbert -- and the traffic volume certainly would make a freeway facility appropriate.  Whoever owns the land and/or the businesses along that stretch must wield a lot of political power in the state, using it Breezewood-style!

I think it's just Oklahoma being cheap as hell on infrastructure and having no forward looking plans on it either. It's literally taking ODOT decades to build one new interchange at I-44 and I-235 in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile they'll let developers build over the top of any obvious transportation corridors that will be badly needed in the future. Their "strategy" is doing a little as possible to get by.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 01, 2016, 04:03:19 PM
I think it's just Oklahoma being cheap as hell on infrastructure and having no forward looking plans on it either. It's literally taking ODOT decades to build one new interchange at I-44 and I-235 in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile they'll let developers build over the top of any obvious transportation corridors that will be badly needed in the future. Their "strategy" is doing a little as possible to get by.
Also known as "covering one's ass" in regards to criticism over lack of progress:  do a little project here and there to make it look like you're actually doing something significant, then rationalizing the project limitations by crying impoverishment, local preference, or any one of many excuses.  This has occurred repeatedly in not only OK but in a multitude of other states (my own CA included!); it's become S.O.P. for many DOT's.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2016, 09:43:33 PM
Meanwhile, South of the Red River some HUGE projects are actually moving forward toward completion. A 4 or 5 level stack interchange in Texas seems like a dime a dozen thing there. Enough of them get built that it seems like a surplus of them plop over into Louisiana in a few places. Meanwhile OK can't seem to manage anything like that. But I can't criticize too hard. Colorado can barely manage getting a decent 4 lane divided highway built, despite lots of fatalities along roads like US-24 East of Colorado Springs.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 02, 2016, 01:24:49 PM
I think it's just Oklahoma being cheap as hell on infrastructure and having no forward looking plans on it either. It's literally taking ODOT decades to build one new interchange at I-44 and I-235 in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile they'll let developers build over the top of any obvious transportation corridors that will be badly needed in the future. Their "strategy" is doing a little as possible to get by.
Also known as "covering one's ass" in regards to criticism over lack of progress:  do a little project here and there to make it look like you're actually doing something significant, then rationalizing the project limitations by crying impoverishment, local preference, or any one of many excuses.  This has occurred repeatedly in not only OK but in a multitude of other states (my own CA included!); it's become S.O.P. for many DOT's.

It is what I have always called the "creating a diversion".  Look over here at this cool thing we built here.  Look away from the bad thing you are currently looking at.  This thing we did is so much better than the old one, and will be so much better.  Sure the problem still exists over there, but look at the shiny new thing!  Happens in Texas too.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 02, 2016, 02:49:38 PM
It is what I have always called the "creating a diversion".  Look over here at this cool thing we built here.  Look away from the bad thing you are currently looking at.  This thing we did is so much better than the old one, and will be so much better.  Sure the problem still exists over there, but look at the shiny new thing!  Happens in Texas too.
Too true -- but at least in Texas, you tend to do things bigger and shinier -- 25 miles (the nascent I-14) or even 47 miles (I-2)  rather than 3 or 4 miles before calling it "mission accomplished!".  And at least TXDOT, via the "frontage road first" method, engages in ROW preservation.   And I haven't seen more stacks anywhere except the blackjack tables in Vegas!  I could go on........................
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: rte66man on September 07, 2016, 09:11:49 AM
I don't know why or even how interests in Southeastern Oklahoma have blocked efforts of upgrading US-69 to Interstate standards. How does that region have the clout to do that? To me the efforts to keep US-69 backwards and inadequate are just stupid and even dangerous.

Most towns want heavy truck traffic diverted away from their downtown street infrastructure, especially if the towns are on the hook at all to pay for any of that street upkeep. But apparently not here!
It seems there may be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel here: the 4-lane divided commercial stretch of US 69/75 between Durant and the TX line is planned for upgrading to a full freeway, matching the rest of the Durant bypass.  But Atoka, Stringtown, and the other burgs along the way apparently still want that steady stream of truck traffic through their midst -- maybe enough of it is stopping at the diners and fueling facilities to supply a significant amount of the town's revenue (I call it the Breezewood Syndrome -- and I'm probably not alone there!) -- and they don't want the cash cow to die.   

Traffic fines are the "cash cow".  Stringtown was nationally known for it's "revenue raising" efforts until the Legislature passed a law capping the percentage of total revenue for a city that could come from traffic fines.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 07, 2016, 11:21:13 AM
If it was up to me I'd have those little burgs put all that speed trap cash cow revenue raising money back into maintenance of the truck pummeled streets they refuse to bypass. That's not to mention the medical bills of people getting hurt in accidents along that heavily traveled stop and go corridor.

Maybe if I-57 did get finished between Little Rock and Sikeston it might light a fire under some asses in Oklahoma to get US-69 un-f**cked and upgraded.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 07, 2016, 07:59:19 PM
Don't hold your breath on that!
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US 41 on September 07, 2016, 10:52:08 PM
If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.


IF Missouri goes along. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding.

I know this is completely fictional, but I think it would be better if AR 226 was upgraded to interstate quality and then a new interstate were built from Jonesboro over to I-155. Then just sign it as I-69 so it can get finished within the next 20 years. At Texarkana it can just follow US 59 down to Laredo.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: wtd67 on September 07, 2016, 11:36:07 PM
If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.


IF Missouri goes along. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding.

I know this is completely fictional, but I think it would be better if AR 226 was upgraded to interstate quality and then a new interstate were built from Jonesboro over to I-155. Then just sign it as I-69 so it can get finished within the next 20 years. At Texarkana it can just follow US 59 down to Laredo.

It may be fictional, but it makes more since than what they are trying to do with with I-69 now.  They could extend the freeway from Walnut Ridge and head directly east on a new alignment north of Paragould to connect over to 412 then to I-155.   Another option would be as you suggested, upgrade 226 to interstate.  This could loop around the south and east of Jonesboro and connect to the east of Paragould to 412 to I-155.  It could tie into the industrial area east of Jonesboro by going this way.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on September 08, 2016, 08:08:52 AM
If they can have various disconnected segments of I-69 across the country then I see no problem with US-67 North of Little Rock being designated as I-57. There is a much better chance of it being completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston than I-69 getting built through Arkansas and Mississippi.


IF Missouri goes along. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding.

I know this is completely fictional, but I think it would be better if AR 226 was upgraded to interstate quality and then a new interstate were built from Jonesboro over to I-155. Then just sign it as I-69 so it can get finished within the next 20 years. At Texarkana it can just follow US 59 down to Laredo.

Generally the US 412 corridor between Walnut Ridge and Kennett would be what I would take between I-155 and US 67 as an alternative to I-55 and I-40 to get between Dallas and Chicago (or Indianapolis or points northeast). If/when US 412 is improved between those two areas, then it would provide an even better alternative. It would certainly take trucks off of clogged I-40 between West Memphis and North Little Rock
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: chays on September 11, 2016, 05:10:53 PM
Now that US 67 is on its new alignment between AR 226 and Hoxie, are the old US 67 signs taken down?  Or is that old alignment now signed as "Old US 67"?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 11, 2016, 05:46:25 PM
Now that US 67 is on its new alignment between AR 226 and Hoxie, are the old US 67 signs taken down?  Or is that old alignment now signed as "Old US 67"?
Last I heard, it will be redesignated as AR 367 south of Walnut Ridge, like the original US 67 alignment to the south.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Tomahawkin on September 11, 2016, 08:31:35 PM
Anyone have pics of the new extension to Hoxie? Walnut Ridge? I haven't been on that road in 8 years
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on September 12, 2016, 11:52:55 AM
Now that US 67 is on its new alignment between AR 226 and Hoxie, are the old US 67 signs taken down?  Or is that old alignment now signed as "Old US 67"?
Last I heard, it will be redesignated as AR 367 south of Walnut Ridge, like the original US 67 alignment to the south.

AR 367 to US 412/AR 34 in Walnut Ridge (also replacing 67B from Hoxie to Walnut Ridge)

Was going to look this weekend, but was running late so skipped it.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: chays on September 12, 2016, 01:23:10 PM
Now that US 67 is on its new alignment between AR 226 and Hoxie, are the old US 67 signs taken down?  Or is that old alignment now signed as "Old US 67"?
Last I heard, it will be redesignated as AR 367 south of Walnut Ridge, like the original US 67 alignment to the south.

AR 367 to US 412/AR 34 in Walnut Ridge (also replacing 67B from Hoxie to Walnut Ridge)

Was going to look this weekend, but was running late so skipped it.
Thanks guys
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: KamKam on September 15, 2016, 07:33:39 PM
Yep AR 367 is what it'll be called. Makes More sense that way
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on October 11, 2016, 10:31:09 PM
Yep AR 367 is what it'll be called. Makes More sense that way
367 up to US 412, then 67B (field verified)

New signs north of AR 226 are FHWA and not Clearview :)

US 63 is one exit NB, 2 exits SB (Hoxie and Jonesboro)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 13, 2016, 05:42:35 PM
Now if only they can decide whether or not the freeway will continue north of Walnut Ridge.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 01, 2016, 12:31:09 PM
Now if only they can decide whether or not the freeway will continue north of Walnut Ridge.
I just noticed, but north of the US 67/Byp US 63/US 412 interchange and south of the US 67/AR 34 bridge is stubs for the freeway continuation. There's even a couple of bridges where there's just grading.

I also just checked Wikipedia's Unused highways page, and these stubs aren't listed...
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: edwaleni on November 12, 2016, 09:52:32 PM
It is more likely that the following will occur. 

MoDOT is more interested in the US60 corridor between Springfield and Sikeston.

With the I-66 plan across Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri via Cape Girardeau dead in the water, MoDOT wants to continue to elevate the US60 route to interstate standards.

Most of the route east of Springfield is four-lane divided and several stretches are freeway-grade. On July 9, 2010, The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) finished the process of upgrading US 60 to four lanes along a 59-mile (95 km) segment between Willow Springs and Van Buren. The completion of this project means that US 60 is now a four-lane facility from Springfield to Charleston, a distance of approximately 240 miles (390 km). A stretch of US 60 from east of US 65 in Springfield to Rogersville has been in long range plans to be upgraded to freeway status, removing all at-grade crossings, installing overpasses and interchanges, and access roads.

If this is the case then it is more likely that his route will be I-42 as a east-west interstate in some future.

What does this mean for US67/I-30?

If Arkansas chooses to extend the US67 express project to the state line then MoDOT will want to terminate the upgrade at Popular Bluff with a full exchange with the future E-W route.  If this would be considered an auxiliary route (like I-340) or a full route (like I-51 or I-53) is unknown as it is just so many years down the road.

MoDOT has been upgrading US67 between Poplar Bluff and Farmington, (south of St Louis) but most of this have been safety related upgrades, not a desire to take it to interstate standards. Any serious thoughts to further upgrades of US67 in this space would have to follow many years of I-55 capacity updates from Sikeston to Festus and is just not likely.

MoDOT has other issues at the moment as they can't get funding to connect to the Bella Vista Bypass and Arkansas had to pass a local tax to finish their end.

If Arkansas had extra money it would go into other plans, like the I-49 Bypass at Fort Smith, I-69 from McGehee to the I-69 bridge on the Mississippi and the AR-530 South extension to the future I-69 connecting with the Monticello bypass south of Wilmar. The US71 upgrades from Texarkana north to DeQueen.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on November 19, 2016, 09:30:35 AM
This article is mostly about Ark 18 but has a tidbit on US 67. It states an increase in truck traffic has been noticed with the new openings.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on November 19, 2016, 02:36:20 PM
This article is mostly about Ark 18 but has a tidbit on US 67. It states an increase in truck traffic has been noticed with the new openings.


Wish a link to the article had been included.  In any case, it would be interesting to see if that increased truck traffic on US 67 turns east on US 412 to access the I-155 bridge into TN or if it continues into MO to (ostensibly) turn east on US 60 as a "shortcut" to I-57 -- or maybe even continues north on 67 into the St. Louis metro area.  With all the talk about Interstate "pick-a-number" being extended over US 67 and possibly 60, determining where the heavier traffic patterns exist today might be a reasonable next step in the process.   
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on November 20, 2016, 07:09:17 PM
This article is mostly about Ark 18 but has a tidbit on US 67. It states an increase in truck traffic has been noticed with the new openings.


Wish a link to the article had been included.  In any case, it would be interesting to see if that increased truck traffic on US 67 turns east on US 412 to access the I-155 bridge into TN or if it continues into MO to (ostensibly) turn east on US 60 as a "shortcut" to I-57 -- or maybe even continues north on 67 into the St. Louis metro area.  With all the talk about Interstate "pick-a-number" being extended over US 67 and possibly 60, determining where the heavier traffic patterns exist today might be a reasonable next step in the process.   


http://talkbusiness.net/2016/11/significant-highway-project-connecting-jonesboro-to-blytheville-set-to-begin-bridge-work-in-pocahontas-ongoing/
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 21, 2016, 02:31:07 PM
Quote from: sparker
In any case, it would be interesting to see if that increased truck traffic on US 67 turns east on US 412 to access the I-155 bridge into TN or if it continues into MO to (ostensibly) turn east on US 60 as a "shortcut" to I-57 -- or maybe even continues north on 67 into the St. Louis metro area.

It all depends on the destination.

Traffic coming from Little Rock heading to St. Louis would likely stay on US-67 past Poplar Bluff and take it all the way to Festus, MO where US-67 merges into I-55, about 25 miles South of St. Louis. The highway is completely 4-laned between Poplar Bluff and Festus and has some freeway quality segments along the way. It's not a perfectly straight route, but it is by far the shortest route.

I can't see traffic coming up through Walnut Ridge taking a right on US-412 to pick up I-155 unless it is headed to a destination in TN, KY or some other spot in the Ohio River Valley. It's about 75 miles between Walnut Ridge and the I-55/I-155 interchange in Hayti, AR. That compares to 52 miles between the US-60/US-67 interchange in Poplar Bluff and the I-55/I-57 interchange in Sikeston.

Overall, I think this future I-30 or I-57 corridor is more about building another direct link between the giant Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth metro areas rather than perhaps providing a faster way to St. Louis or farther North along the Mississippi.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: edwaleni on November 21, 2016, 10:42:48 PM
This article is mostly about Ark 18 but has a tidbit on US 67. It states an increase in truck traffic has been noticed with the new openings.


Wish a link to the article had been included.  In any case, it would be interesting to see if that increased truck traffic on US 67 turns east on US 412 to access the I-155 bridge into TN or if it continues into MO to (ostensibly) turn east on US 60 as a "shortcut" to I-57 -- or maybe even continues north on 67 into the St. Louis metro area.  With all the talk about Interstate "pick-a-number" being extended over US 67 and possibly 60, determining where the heavier traffic patterns exist today might be a reasonable next step in the process.   


http://talkbusiness.net/2016/11/significant-highway-project-connecting-jonesboro-to-blytheville-set-to-begin-bridge-work-in-pocahontas-ongoing/

US67 bridge upgrade in Pocahontas was a kind of "had to" upgrade. The north span was built in the early 50's and used a deficient rated steel truss while the south span used reinforced concrete and appears to have been built in the late 1970's.  With all the traffic lights in town, its no wonder driving here is called "Pokey". This was strictly an ageing structure replacement, not really an enhancement to traffic. If/when US67 Express reaches this area, a full bypass with a span over the Black River will be needed.

With the 2 lane road north of Pocahontas to Corning, I can't see this as being very optimal just yet.  MoDOT has US67 updated as far south as US160 south of Poplar Bluff.  If and when they (AR and MO) decide to close the gap, it will be a few years from now.

If/when I-69 through Arkansas is ever done, I wonder how much traffic it will leech off of US67 Express.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Tomahawkin on November 21, 2016, 11:49:01 PM
Quote from: sparker
In any case, it would be interesting to see if that increased truck traffic on US 67 turns east on US 412 to access the I-155 bridge into TN or if it continues into MO to (ostensibly) turn east on US 60 as a "shortcut" to I-57 -- or maybe even continues north on 67 into the St. Louis metro area.

It all depends on the destination.

Traffic coming from Little Rock heading to St. Louis would likely stay on US-67 past Poplar Bluff and take it all the way to Festus, MO where US-67 merges into I-55, about 25 miles South of St. Louis. The highway is completely 4-laned between Poplar Bluff and Festus and has some freeway quality segments along the way. It's not a perfectly straight route, but it is by far the shortest route.

I can't see traffic coming up through Walnut Ridge taking a right on US-412 to pick up I-155 unless it is headed to a destination in TN, KY or some other spot in the Ohio River Valley. It's about 75 miles between Walnut Ridge and the I-55/I-155 interchange in Hayti, AR. That compares to 52 miles between the US-60/US-67 interchange in Poplar Bluff and the I-55/I-57 interchange in Sikeston.

Overall, I think this future I-30 or I-57 corridor is more about building another direct link between the giant Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth metro areas rather than perhaps providing a faster way to St. Louis or farther North along the Mississippi.

I agree. I wanted to see this happen 15 years ago when I lived in backwards Jonesboro AR. That area needs the revenue. Hell they should toll the road to fund I-49 and help state interstate and state route improvements. Especially since I 40 needs them...
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 22, 2016, 01:44:03 AM
I think I-40 is an important enough route that it can get by on its own. It's easily one of the most critical long distance routes in the entire Interstate highway system. As the needs come I-40 will be expanded to meet them. It's a more difficult go for I-49. That route is not fully built out yet and still subject to a lot of political second guessing. I think Arkansas will have a good slog of a battle to get the leg between Texarkana and Fort Smith built. Heck, just getting the bridge over the Arkansas River South of Alma has turned into a serious challenge.

The idea of tolling the super highway between Little Rock and Poplar Bluff is a risky one. For one thing the traffic levels would have to be high enough for the toll road to pay for itself. Another problem is most people really hate toll roads, despite the fairness one could argue that toll roads provide. Any turnpike has to be built and/or maintained on what it takes in from the toll revenue, rather than tax dollars. Any "conservative" should just absolutely love that, right? Not. Everyone is looking for a free ride in some respect, regardless of political ideology. We're all inherently selfish. That's the one big thing we all have in common. Some true leader just has to be willing to grow a big enough backbone to call us on all our contradictory B.S.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: yakra on January 11, 2017, 03:05:15 PM
With the relocation of US67, US67Bus (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us067bushox) as hitherto known no longer connects to its parent at the south end. AHTD's Lawrence County map (https://www.arkansashighways.com/maps/Counties/County%20PDFs/LawrenceCounty.pdf) has it labeled as AR367 as far north as US412. Based on my GMSV adventures around the state, I'm betting that the state of affairs on the ground is as shown in OSM: AR367 has its north end at US412, and US67Bus now has its south end at US412. Which wouldn't surprise me in the least, as Arkansas is no stranger to bannered (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us063buspin) routes (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us064busalm) only (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us064busmcc) connecting (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us064buspar) to (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us067busbig) the (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us067busdat) parent (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us079busmag) at (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us079busstu) one (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us167bustho) end (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ar.us412byppar).

Can anyone out there confirm whether this is the case?

Also, if anyone could point me to a link to AASHTO's approval of the US67 relocation (if there actually was one) and save me a little time searching for it myself on AASHTO's site, I'd be much obliged. :)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mvak36 on January 11, 2017, 03:20:10 PM

Also, if anyone could point me to a link to AASHTO's approval of the US67 relocation (if there actually was one) and save me a little time searching for it myself on AASHTO's site, I'd be much obliged. :)
See page 29 of the following link:http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Arkansas%20AM2013.pdf. That's the application.

Here's the approval: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18%20-%20Addendum%20Oct28.pdf

Is this what you were looking for?
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on January 11, 2017, 05:27:19 PM
Field research confirms AR 367 replaces 67B to US 412 at Walnut Ridge.  US 67B resumes 3 blocks west at US 412 and heads north.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: yakra on January 12, 2017, 12:20:06 AM
Excellent! Thanks for the replies.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2017, 06:11:48 PM
For what it's worth, AHTD has submitted the completion of US 67 to the Missouri state line as a 2023 letting for the Trump infrastructure plan (p. 9/132 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_04_17_5_56_52.jpeg)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on April 26, 2017, 06:29:13 PM
For what it's worth, AHTD has submitted the completion of US 67 to the Missouri state line as a 2023 letting for the Trump infrastructure plan (p. 9/132 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_04_17_5_56_52.jpeg)

Wonder if they coordinated anything with MO (state line-Poplar Bluff) regarding the US 67 project?  In any case, that's some wish list!  With the Monticello-McGehee (the $ figure quoted seems like a relative bargain -- maybe it's only for an initial 2-lanes) and Great River Bridge listed, it looks like ADOT is prepared to go pretty much "all in" on I-69.  Not surprising that widening I-40 between LR and Memphis would require $1B with all the structures required to cross the various floodplains along the route.     
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on April 28, 2017, 04:14:41 PM
Since it connects with US 67, I'll pose the question here: What in the world is the AR 89 project? 89 is discontinuous and doesn't go directly to Conway.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on April 29, 2017, 02:06:03 PM
Since it connects with US 67, I'll pose the question here: What in the world is the AR 89 project? 89 is discontinuous and doesn't go directly to Conway.
I hope it involves replacing the overpass at Cabot (exit 19). It is a "Poor boy" 4 lane (originally a 2 lane bridge)  and that bridge still experiences major backup at rush hour. That bridge needs to be double in width for allowing a center turn lane as well as a right exit lane for the freeway ramps.
Arkansas has a smorgasbord of disconnected routes. 305, 310, 110, 13.... and too many others to mention.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: US71 on April 29, 2017, 06:05:39 PM
Since it connects with US 67, I'll pose the question here: What in the world is the AR 89 project? 89 is discontinuous and doesn't go directly to Conway.
Only one I know is the proposed realignment at AR 365, building a bridge over the railroad.
There has been talk for years about connecting the disconnected segments, but I've seen no proposals


SM-G930V

Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on May 06, 2017, 10:59:10 AM
... (and maybe time to change the name of this thread). This April 25 Press Release (https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=F06B1DF1-91E3-4D75-B452-90AE49E2E3FF) announces that Arkansas Senator John Boozman has introduced a bill to designate US 67 as Future I-57 and that any current sections of US 67 that are currently interstate standard could be officially designated as I-57

It's official. President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf) that designates US 67 as I-57 (p. 663/708 of pdf):

Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
‘‘(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.’’.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)’’.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I–169.’’.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 06, 2017, 11:30:59 AM
Ugh. An I-57 west of I-55. Would have much preferred I-53 to match up with a proposed I-53 Avenue of the Saints. But, OK.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: mvak36 on May 06, 2017, 12:55:47 PM
I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 06, 2017, 02:52:20 PM
I did notice that the legislation only includes US 67 as far north as US 412, which means Hoxie/Walnut Ridge (the completed limited-access portion of the route).  Unless follow-up legislation (which would have to likely occur in concert with MO) that applies to the rest of the corridor north to Poplar Bluff and then east to Sikeston, it's likely that the completed section will be the only designated and likely signed portion of I-57 SW of I-55 for the foreseeable future.   It's unlikely that MO will consider any projects on their portion before clearing out a good portion of their considerable backlog of projects, Interstate (I'm talking about you, I-49) and other. 
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 06, 2017, 05:19:26 PM
On the bright side, it wouldn't be very difficult for Missouri to upgrade US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff and US-67 down the Arkansas border. Some portions are already limited access and much of the rest is 4 lane divided with frontage roads on one or both sides of the highway.

An eventual Interstate upgrade of US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston seems realistic in the long term since they have been adding more freeway quality sections to US-60 East of Springfield. I do agree MoDOT has other higher priorities, like finishing I-49 down to the Belle Vista Bypass.

I think Arkansas has the more difficult task with extending the I-57 freeway up to the Missouri border. Most of that will have to be built on a new terrain alignment.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 06, 2017, 07:17:46 PM
... (and maybe time to change the name of this thread). This April 25 Press Release (https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=F06B1DF1-91E3-4D75-B452-90AE49E2E3FF) announces that Arkansas Senator John Boozman has introduced a bill to designate US 67 as Future I-57 and that any current sections of US 67 that are currently interstate standard could be officially designated as I-57

It's official. President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf) that designates US 67 as I-57 (p. 663/708 of pdf):

Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
‘‘(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.’’.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)’’.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I–169.’’.

I'll update the thread title because of this. ;)
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 06, 2017, 11:46:42 PM
On the bright side, it wouldn't be very difficult for Missouri to upgrade US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff and US-67 down the Arkansas border. Some portions are already limited access and much of the rest is 4 lane divided with frontage roads on one or both sides of the highway.

An eventual Interstate upgrade of US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston seems realistic in the long term since they have been adding more freeway quality sections to US-60 East of Springfield. I do agree MoDOT has other higher priorities, like finishing I-49 down to the Belle Vista Bypass.

I think Arkansas has the more difficult task with extending the I-57 freeway up to the Missouri border. Most of that will have to be built on a new terrain alignment.

Whatever they do, build high enough to NOT go under.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 07, 2017, 12:13:47 AM
At least MO has already bypassed Poplar Bluff, the largest community on their portion of the corridor, with an adequate or upgradeable freeway facility.  It's also likely that the routing of the remainder of the Arkansas portion will be the subject of considerable controversy:  a more direct (and likely cheaper) routing via AR 34, 90 and following the UP tracks versus a longer routing via Pocahontas which would serve that community but at a higher price (more interchanges required; increased parcel cost, the inevitable eminent-domain issues, ad nauseum).  It'll certainly be interesting to observe how AR DOT juggles this!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on May 07, 2017, 11:16:52 AM
On the bright side, it wouldn't be very difficult for Missouri to upgrade US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff and US-67 down the Arkansas border. Some portions are already limited access and much of the rest is 4 lane divided with frontage roads on one or both sides of the highway.

An eventual Interstate upgrade of US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston seems realistic in the long term since they have been adding more freeway quality sections to US-60 East of Springfield. I do agree MoDOT has other higher priorities, like finishing I-49 down to the Belle Vista Bypass.

I think Arkansas has the more difficult task with extending the I-57 freeway up to the Missouri border. Most of that will have to be built on a new terrain alignment.

Whatever they do, build high enough to NOT go under.
Exactly! We have had some flooding recently, with the US 67 section north of Walnut Ridge closed due to high water. They will have to raise the road way up in order for that not to happen again.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on May 07, 2017, 12:31:15 PM
At least MO has already bypassed Poplar Bluff, the largest community on their portion of the corridor, with an adequate or upgradeable freeway facility.  It's also likely that the routing of the remainder of the Arkansas portion will be the subject of considerable controversy:  a more direct (and likely cheaper) routing via AR 34, 90 and following the UP tracks versus a longer routing via Pocahontas which would serve that community but at a higher price (more interchanges required; increased parcel cost, the inevitable eminent-domain issues, ad nauseum).  It'll certainly be interesting to observe how AR DOT juggles this!
It will be interesting to say the least. Now that the bill by Boozman has been signed into law, Maybe that will push AHTD to get things going forward quicker. They have been piecemealing the 67 corridor together since the early 1960's. C'mon and finish the bloody thing already!
So for those that are new to the board, I'll post the progress of the corridor (completion year dates, etc.)
Late 1950's: construction began from the then new I-40 corridor to Jacksonville, ending at exit 11 (Air Force Base exit). Freeway opened up in 1962-3.
1965: Freeway extended north to Lonoke County line. Once had an at-grade intersection at Coffelt Rd before the frontage roads were completed.
1971: Freeway opened up to Beebe, ending at exit 28.
1974: Freeway opened up to Searcy, ending at exit 42.
1976: Freeway opened up to Searcy, ending at exit 46. (Searcy officially bypassed)
1978: Freeway opened up to Bald Knob, ending at exit 55. Interestingly, the roadway (both sets of lanes) was replaced from around mile marker 50 to 55 due to the concrete being substandard. Roadway (southbound lanes) was replaced starting 1996, ending in 2016.
1983: Freeway opened up to just north of Russell.
1985: Freeway opened up to Bradford.
1990-1: Freeway opened up to Newport, ending at exit 82.
1993-4: Freeway opened up to Newport, ending at Stegall Rd. (exit 83)
1996-7: Freeway opened up to Newport ending at Air base Rd (at-grade). Work began on an interchange around year 2004. Interchange added and freeway was no longer at-grade at Air Base Rd. Work began extending 67 to Walnut ridge mid 2000's.
2008-9: Freeway opened up to AR 226 (exit 102)
August 2016: Freeway opened up to Walnut Ridge.

Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 07, 2017, 06:49:44 PM
I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AK and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: robbones on May 07, 2017, 07:00:25 PM


I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AR and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.

Corrected Arkansas for you

Z963VL

Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on May 07, 2017, 07:00:53 PM
I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AK and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.

Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock). So how many miles of highway need to be upgraded before the new I-57 extension is complete? Could it be that it could be finished before I-49 is finished in AR?

Also...I reiterate what I said several pages and a year or two ago: kiss all of the US 64/67/167 concurrency signs goodbye. Better go get your pictures of them while you can.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on May 07, 2017, 07:33:49 PM
Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock).

More signs of how I-57 is the wrong numerical designation for this corridor.

I'll bet I-57 keeps Memphis as a control city for most of it's currently existing route as well.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: aboges26 on May 07, 2017, 08:18:31 PM
Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock).

More signs of how I-57 is the wrong numerical designation for this corridor.

I'll bet I-57 keeps Memphis as a control city for most of it's currently existing route as well.

Or Memphis could be swapped for DALLAS?  There is no other natural southern continuation of I-57 than to continue to Little Rock.  Should there ever be an I-53, then it could easily have its southern terminus in Poplar Bluff at I-57.  I-57 now will connect not only Chicago to Little Rock, but to Dallas by completely bypassing the need to use I-40 and I-55.  So I do not understand how I-57 only deserves to serve Chicago to Memphis traffic, when it can provide a bypass of sections of two congested transnational interstates and provide a more direct connection between Chicago and Dallas.  Seems like a win-win and the only sign needed to indicate the correct numerical designation when rules must be broken.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 07, 2017, 08:48:35 PM
Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock).

More signs of how I-57 is the wrong numerical designation for this corridor.

I'll bet I-57 keeps Memphis as a control city for most of it's currently existing route as well.

Or Memphis could be swapped for DALLAS?  There is no other natural southern continuation of I-57 than to continue to Little Rock.  Should there ever be an I-53, then it could easily have its southern terminus in Poplar Bluff at I-57.  I-57 now will connect not only Chicago to Little Rock, but to Dallas by completely bypassing the need to use I-40 and I-55.  So I do not understand how I-57 only deserves to serve Chicago to Memphis traffic, when it can provide a bypass of sections of two congested transnational interstates and provide a more direct connection between Chicago and Dallas.  Seems like a win-win and the only sign needed to indicate the correct numerical designation when rules must be broken.

Dallas-Chicago is a more viable high-volume inter-facility corridor than Dallas-St. Louis; both DFW and Chicago have extensive rail-truck offloading facilities; considerably more than in St. Louis (actually, East St. L. and environs host most of what's there in that respect) -- at least for the present.  That was likely a consideration in the decision to cobble together a single-numbered corridor that potentially enhances that service, particularly since if & when completed it'll probably take a good deal of traffic away from the perennially congested and truck-heavy I-40 east of Little Rock.

In an idealized (and Fictional!) world, my choice would have been to have a I-53 corridor incorporating the I-530 extension down to nascent I-69 (and possibly further) and US 67 north of there all the way to I-55 at Festus, MO; US 60 from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston could then be a shorter extension of I-57.  But in the real world of limited resources (and limited vision), I suppose the I-57 corridor will suffice for the time being. :-|   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 07, 2017, 08:59:45 PM

Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock). So how many miles of highway need to be upgraded before the new I-57 extension is complete? Could it be that it could be finished before I-49 is finished in AR?

Also...I reiterate what I said several pages and a year or two ago: kiss all of the US 64/67/167 concurrency signs goodbye. Better go get your pictures of them while you can.

My 2 pfennig's: if Missouri isn't on board, why bother with I-57 in Arkansas? IMO, this is just grandstanding by Doc Boozman. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on May 07, 2017, 09:46:03 PM
Or Memphis could be swapped for DALLAS?

Very unlikely given that Texarkana is used on I-30 in both the Dallas and Little Rock areas.

There is no other natural southern continuation of I-57 than to continue to Little Rock.  Should there ever be an I-53, then it could easily have its southern terminus in Poplar Bluff at I-57.

It does not look like a natural continuation to me, more like a strained extension, possibly with a useless multiplex in the future if the US 60 corridor across Missouri is brought up to interstate standards and an even 2di designation is sought.  Plus many of the freight flow maps from FHWA show a significant volume of trucks going for the I-39 corridor (not directly accessible from I-57 though the maps indicate a decent number of trucks are using I-74 for the connection).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 08, 2017, 01:06:02 AM
A great deal of heavy truck traffic headed out of Dallas to points in the Northeast use US-75 and US-69 in Oklahoma to get to I-44 in Big Cabin. Perhaps if the I-57 corridor is complete between Little Rock and Chicago that might pull some traffic off that non-Interstate corridor in Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Future I-30/US 67
Post by: billtm on May 08, 2017, 09:12:57 AM
I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AK and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.

Why does Congress even bother designating numbers to Interstate corridors? Half the time it seems pretty obvious they don't understand the numbering conventions, so why not let the FHWA or AASHTO come up with the number? If they still choose 57 so be it, at least it will be coming from an orginazation that cares about the interstates as a system. :confused:
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Henry on May 08, 2017, 09:59:59 AM
Unless MO decides to build an extension of I-57, I don't see why this number can ever work. Not to mention that Little Rock will be another Kansas City, what with two Interstates ending that could very easily become one (I-29 and I-49, we're looking at you!).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 08, 2017, 02:19:46 PM
So is the I-57 designation in Arkansas now official? I didn't see any news articles posted about it over the weekend.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 08, 2017, 02:27:06 PM
Unless MO decides to build an extension of I-57, I don't see why this number can ever work. Not to mention that Little Rock will be another Kansas City, what with two Interstates ending that could very easily become one (I-29 and I-49, we're looking at you!).

The whole thing (I-57 S and W of I-55) is clearly and solely predicated upon completion of a Walnut Ridge-Poplar Bluff-Sikeston Interstate-grade corridor; Boozman obviously didn't want to tweak MO right now -- given their well-publicized fiscal shortfall(s) -- so he simply truncated the corridor to US 412 to avoid backlash (he'll eventually have to work with MO folks to get the rest built, so why burden them now is likely the rationale here).  Just political S.O.P.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2017, 05:41:21 PM
It's probably going to be a long time before future Interstate 57 makes it to Little Rock. How interested is Missouri in upgrading the US 60/67 corridor, anyway?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on May 08, 2017, 07:28:26 PM
It's probably going to be a long time before future Interstate 57 makes it to Little Rock. How interested is Missouri in upgrading the US 60/67 corridor, anyway?

I am sure it is low on their priority list.

However, it wouldn't cost that much to do (compared with, say, finishing I-49 in Arkansas). There would only be about 15 miles of new four-lane to build. The rest of it could probably easily be covered to limited-access and interstate grade.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 08, 2017, 08:01:55 PM
Unless MO decides to build an extension of I-57, I don't see why this number can ever work. Not to mention that Little Rock will be another Kansas City, what with two Interstates ending that could very easily become one (I-29 and I-49, we're looking at you!).
But Doc Boozman can use it to justify his reelection (ignore what I did to your healthcare, I created I-57)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 08, 2017, 08:29:31 PM
What's the big deal here? So what if the corridor becomes I-57?

Sure, it won't be completed for a while, but I like this. Yeah, it doesn't completely follow numbering guidelines, but neither does I-24 in Tennessee, I-69 south of Indianapolis, etc.

Of course, they need to focus on getting I-49 done first, but bravo for pushing for the I-57 designation.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on May 08, 2017, 09:10:36 PM
What's the big deal here? So what if the corridor becomes I-57?

It's a poor joining of different corridors.  The US 60 corridor should have gotten one 2di number, US 67 another 2di in the future.

Yeah, it doesn't completely follow numbering guidelines, but neither does I-24 in Tennessee, I-69 south of Indianapolis, etc.

I-24 is at least closer to a straight line and did not have an existing corridor to follow northwest of Hopkinsville.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on May 09, 2017, 03:50:50 AM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Henry on May 09, 2017, 09:59:03 AM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.
Agreed on all counts!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 09, 2017, 10:03:26 AM
It's a poor joining of different corridors.  The US 60 corridor should have gotten one 2di number, US 67 another 2di in the future.

I disagree. It's not an ideal joining, but there are worse ones.

It is unlikely US 60 will be upgraded to full interstate standards across Missouri. Same with US 67 north of Poplar Bluff. So there is no need to preserve numbers for those corridors.

Maybe I-53 would have been a bit better here, but I don't personally mind I-57. This is a long time coming and while it will be a while before it is fully finished, I'm excited.

Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 09, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.

Maybe I-53 would have been better, since it is after all more of a north-south route.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: dvferyance on May 09, 2017, 10:05:20 AM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.
It would depend on Missouri. It's freeway it most of Arkansas. It's mainly Missouri where the upgrades would have to be done. I think I-57 makes more sense because it runs more north and south than east and west. Sure it doesn't fit into the grid but neither does I-30.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on May 09, 2017, 11:04:54 AM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.

Interstate 57 was chosen because it is a more north-south route, rather east-west.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on May 09, 2017, 11:05:56 AM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.

Maybe I-53 would have been better, since it is after all more of a north-south route.

I-53 was an option, but was put down due to it being short, and 2 other terminuses being at I-53's end (I-30 on southern, I-57 on northern)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 09, 2017, 12:34:34 PM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.

Interstate 57 was chosen because it is a more north-south route, rather east-west.

If Arkansas built it out to the state line and Missouri found a way, this I-57 extention could be expanded to meet up with I-69  via  I530 and Ark 530 at Monticello and eventually extended to Monroe, Alexandria and Lake Charles.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: chays on May 09, 2017, 01:00:19 PM
It's probably going to be a long time before future Interstate 57 makes it to Little Rock. How interested is Missouri in upgrading the US 60/67 corridor, anyway?
Huh?  The bill states I-57 is designated from "Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412".  When you say "Little Rock", do you mean the city proper or the metro area?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 09, 2017, 04:32:39 PM
It's probably going to be a long time before future Interstate 57 makes it to Little Rock. How interested is Missouri in upgrading the US 60/67 corridor, anyway?
Huh?  The bill states I-57 is designated from "Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412".  When you say "Little Rock", do you mean the city proper or the metro area?

It's likely the reference is to the metro area, which includes N.L.R. and about the first 10 miles of US 67/167 north of I-40.  Both the I-30/40 and (new) 40/57 interchanges are in North Little Rock; that's always been the transportation hub of the area, dating back to railroad days (NLR has the major UP rail yard in the region). 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 09, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
I think the Interstate 53 designation should have gone where existing Interstate 530 is now.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on May 09, 2017, 09:04:21 PM
It is unlikely US 60 will be upgraded to full interstate standards across Missouri. Same with US 67 north of Poplar Bluff. So there is no need to preserve numbers for those corridors.

Sure, let's not consider future developments that appear unlikely at the moment so we can repeat the mistakes made elsewhere in the country with interstate designations.  Especially when Missouri has previously wanted to build or upgrade parts of US 67 between I-55 and Poplar Bluff to a freeway.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 09, 2017, 09:29:15 PM
Since it connects to the Interstate system at its south end -- and is legislatively defined as ending at US 412, there's no real reason why the existing freeway couldn't be signed as I-57 soon if not immediately -- pending the various upgrade projects that are going on along its southernmost segment.  An associated question:  will AR 440 between I-40 and the new I-57 be designated as an extension of I-440 now that it will connect to another Interstate at its northern terminus?   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on May 10, 2017, 12:29:45 PM
Since it connects to the Interstate system at its south end -- and is legislatively defined as ending at US 412, there's no real reason why the existing freeway couldn't be signed as I-57 soon if not immediately -- pending the various upgrade projects that are going on along its southernmost segment.  An associated question:  will AR 440 between I-40 and the new I-57 be designated as an extension of I-440 now that it will connect to another Interstate at its northern terminus?   
Seeing that US 67 is about be signed as I-57, it only makes sense that AR 440 becomes I-440 since it will terminate at an interstate.
Getting back to US 67, The highway dept have completed the southbound side of 67 from  Main st to the existing 6 lane segment south of town. The old northbound lanes and overpasses have been demolished (Redmond Rd to just past Main St) . They are actually moving rather quick.
North of Jacksonville, the northbound side has jersey barriers, especially on the right shoulder side... from the Air Force Base exit to exit 16.
Exit 20 (or 21) is being worked on as well. It will be a northern bypass of Cabot (Highway 38).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2017, 01:06:00 PM
Should have called it I-30. It connects to I-30 via I-40 but won't connect to I-57 for many years now...idiot legislators and adolescent president.

Interstate 57 was chosen because it is a more north-south route, rather east-west.

If Arkansas built it out to the state line and Missouri found a way, this I-57 extention could be expanded to meet up with I-69  via  I530 and Ark 530 at Monticello and eventually extended to Monroe, Alexandria and Lake Charles.

Which is why it should have been designated I-53 to begin with. Let the Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Monticello-Pine Bluff-Little Rock extension be I-51. Leave I-57 for US 67 from NLR to Popular Bluff and the US 60 extension east of Popular Bluff to Sikeston. Use I-53 for US 57 up to Festus, then run with I-55 to St. Louis, then use a outer loop bypass to connect with I-64/US 40/US 61, then run an I-53 along an upgraded Avenue of the Saints (US 61/IA 28) to south of Minneapolis.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: dvferyance on May 10, 2017, 02:00:26 PM
It's a poor joining of different corridors.  The US 60 corridor should have gotten one 2di number, US 67 another 2di in the future.

I disagree. It's not an ideal joining, but there are worse ones.

It is unlikely US 60 will be upgraded to full interstate standards across Missouri. Same with US 67 north of Poplar Bluff. So there is no need to preserve numbers for those corridors.

Maybe I-53 would have been a bit better here, but I don't personally mind I-57. This is a long time coming and while it will be a while before it is fully finished, I'm excited.
What do you base your argument on? Has MODOT come out and said that? US 60 actually has many interchanges ok yes there are at grade intersections. Many of them could just be cul du saced for a very minimumal cost. A Couple of interchanges and overpasses would have to be built but when I look at it not that many. The only additional interchanges needed would be at Hwy E in Morehouse and at Hwy 153. It's not like massive upgrades are needed.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 10, 2017, 03:50:05 PM
US-60 across Southern Missouri has a lot of freeway quality segments to it. But there is still quite a lot of work to do in making the entire route between Springfield and Sikeston Interstate quality. A lot of the most difficult work, such as the freeway to freeway US-60/US-63 interchange, was done early last decade. Back then there was a lot more work going on with "high priority corridors" and a new I-66 using the US-60 corridor was a possibility at the time.

In the past few years conservative hysteria has taken over the governments in many states, which translated to politicians whoring themselves to voters with big tax cuts. State budgets and operations got imploded in the process. For instance, Oklahoma is descending into a nightmare situation over this type of fiscal stupidity. Oklahoma wants to pass all sorts of new anti-abortion laws. But with the way they're gutting public education and any idea of affordable health care a woman of child bearing age would have to be crazy continuing to live in this damned state. The Sooner State will end up becoming the sausage festival state with no ladies in sight.

Anyway, so while there was considerable effort going on at converting the US-60 corridor into an Interstate a decade ago, most of the work has since ground to a halt. For now, the best this corridor can hope for is an busy at grade intersection being converted to a freeway exit every couple or so years. Hopefully Missouri DOT and various towns along the US-60 corridor can at least keep new developments from building too close to the existing 4-lane in order to preserve some future freeway right of way. Some states (like Oklahoma) really suck at that.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on May 10, 2017, 06:08:17 PM
In the past few years conservative hysteria has taken over the governments in many states, which translated to politicians whoring themselves to voters with big tax cuts. State budgets and operations got imploded in the process. For instance, Oklahoma is descending into a nightmare situation over this type of fiscal stupidity. Oklahoma wants to pass all sorts of new anti-abortion laws.

Don't forget that damn Ten Commandments monument that the Oklahoma legislature has a hard-on for.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 10, 2017, 06:39:59 PM
Oklahoma wants to pass all sorts of new anti-abortion laws. But with the way they're gutting public education and any idea of affordable health care a woman of child bearing age would have to be crazy continuing to live in this damned state. The Sooner State will end up becoming the sausage festival state with no ladies in sight.

OK's politicians-in-charge sound like folks who would watch "The Handmaid's Tale" and say "Gilead?  Now why didn't we think of that first?"





Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: intelati49 on May 11, 2017, 10:03:17 AM
It is unlikely US 60 will be upgraded to full interstate standards across Missouri. Same with US 67 north of Poplar Bluff. So there is no need to preserve numbers for those corridors.

Sure, let's not consider future developments that appear unlikely at the moment so we can repeat the mistakes made elsewhere in the country with interstate designations.  Especially when Missouri has previously wanted to build or upgrade parts of US 67 between I-55 and Poplar Bluff to a freeway.

I was going to say something like that. I say it's likely, just not in less than 30 years. There's no purpose right now to plan that project right now.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2017, 01:40:41 PM
At the very least Missouri DOT and various towns along the US-60 corridor need to preserve ROW set-backs so a freeway upgrade can happen at some point in the future. Far too often regulators will have a backbone only as strong as wet spaghetti and let developers build all over a future freeway right of way just to be "pro business."

Quote from: bugo
Don't forget that damn Ten Commandments monument that the Oklahoma legislature has a hard-on for.

Yeah, they'll waste plenty of taxpayer money fighting that one in the courts, along with wasting more time and money on other steps to dismantle the separation of church and state. But the guys in charge of our state government don't seem to be scared of losing their jobs. There's enough gullible idiots in this state re-electing those clowns. They just keep telling themselves this state's problems are all to do with black and brown people on welfare and drugs.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 11, 2017, 07:23:50 PM
A thought on the I-53 vs. I-57 question. If the road is ever going to be extended to Missouri, then I-57 is the right choice. If not, then I agree I-53 would be better. But if you want the road to be extended, then I-57 is the right choice, because it highlights the gap and encourages people to think about doing the extension. It may take a while, sometimes a long while, but gaps in the system tend to be closed eventually.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 11, 2017, 08:36:00 PM
A thought on the I-53 vs. I-57 question. If the road is ever going to be extended to Missouri, then I-57 is the right choice. If not, then I agree I-53 would be better. But if you want the road to be extended, then I-57 is the right choice, because it highlights the gap and encourages people to think about doing the extension. It may take a while, sometimes a long while, but gaps in the system tend to be closed eventually.

This is actually one of the better points made regarding this or similar gap issues.  Selecting a number that corresponds to an existing route -- and is reasonably close in terms of mileage and/or trajectory will inevitably raise questions in both official and regional public circles regarding why the sections are not joined -- and speculation as to the advantages of having an Interstate corridor through the area adjoining the pathway.  When the US 67 freeway is indeed signed as I-57, look for pressure from towns, local politicos, and other interests in both states to fill the gap sooner than later.  The process is simple -- if you want to get something done, first create a squeaky wheel! 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: txstateends on May 12, 2017, 01:41:58 AM
A thought on the I-53 vs. I-57 question. If the road is ever going to be extended to Missouri, then I-57 is the right choice. If not, then I agree I-53 would be better. But if you want the road to be extended, then I-57 is the right choice, because it highlights the gap and encourages people to think about doing the extension. It may take a while, sometimes a long while, but gaps in the system tend to be closed eventually.

This is actually one of the better points made regarding this or similar gap issues.  Selecting a number that corresponds to an existing route -- and is reasonably close in terms of mileage and/or trajectory will inevitably raise questions in both official and regional public circles regarding why the sections are not joined -- and speculation as to the advantages of having an Interstate corridor through the area adjoining the pathway.  When the US 67 freeway is indeed signed as I-57, look for pressure from towns, local politicos, and other interests in both states to fill the gap sooner than later.  The process is simple -- if you want to get something done, first create a squeaky wheel! 

That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on May 12, 2017, 03:35:48 AM
Texas could take steps to extend I-45 to Denison today if it wanted to. The precedent has been set where you can terminate at a US highway. US 69 qualifies. The stretch through Sherman is substandard and frankly dangerous, but TxDOT has future plans to fix that.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on May 12, 2017, 03:47:59 AM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 12, 2017, 05:02:07 AM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).
Texas could take steps to extend I-45 to Denison today if it wanted to. The precedent has been set where you can terminate at a US highway. US 69 qualifies. The stretch through Sherman is substandard and frankly dangerous, but TxDOT has future plans to fix that.

At this time, it would be pointless to designate a I-45 extension over US 75 strictly within Texas; without OK cooperation, such designation would have to end at the state line; the only advantage to such an in-state designation would be to effectively put an end to the freeway removal efforts aimed at I-345 in Dallas.  While OK has the OK (pun deliberate!) to designate an Interstate along US 69 north as far as I-40 (ISTEA section 1174) once up to standards, there's no indication, despite the upgrade of the Durant bypass, that there is any intention to do so in the foreseeable future (internecine state politics, including the desire of certain en route communities to maintain speed traps along existing US 69, mitigate against such an upgrade).  If anything, OK's attitude toward improving anything requiring public sector activity, transportation-related or not, seems to be tending toward the retrograde!  Any new Interstate corridors within the state will likely have to wait until the inmates cease to run the asylum!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 12, 2017, 11:18:44 AM
Quote from: bugo
US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).

US-69 sure needs to be upgraded in Oklahoma, from the Red River all the way to I-44 in Big Cabin. The amount of heavy truck traffic on this road is crazy. IMHO this is one of the most badly needed Interstate highway upgrades in the nation. It's asinine that a few towns along the way would want to block an Interstate highway upgrade. So maybe what needs to happen is the US-69 main streets in those towns need to get pulverized to gravel and leave it 100% to those towns to fix it with their own tax dollars. Even if the towns were begging for I-45 to be brought up through there there's no money to do that now.

We have a bunch of ignoramus jerks running the state government, militantly following troglodyte ideology, whoring themselves to voters with tax cuts and wrecking the budget. They still think more tax cuts will help the state will "grow" its way out of this mess. Um, no. As things increasingly go to hell in the Sooner state, it's going to repel any potential new businesses and residents from moving here and it will entice people who live here already to leave. Our elected leaders know what's happening yet only want to double-down on their "purist" ideology.

News flash to these partisan ass-hats: it costs MONEY, taxpayer provided MONEY, to have things like good public schools staffed by good quality teachers, police, highway patrol, running water, sewage treatment plants, trash removal, jails, prisons, etc. None of this stuff is free. You can never pay for any of that crap with prayer and flag waving.

I have little faith we'll get better leadership in the state capitol any time soon since a giant tide of knuckle-dragging doofus voters keep electing the same militantly partisan ass-hats to office. Too much of Oklahoma's general public loves a candidate who wraps himself in the American flag, uses the Holy Bible as a prop and subliminally or overtly demonizes minorities and immigrants. It's not important for the candidate to have an actual, work-able game plan to improve the state. All he needs is a scapegoat where voters can direct their fury while the candidate accomplishes not a damned thing.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Henry on May 12, 2017, 11:38:53 AM
They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on May 12, 2017, 11:51:03 AM


I have little faith we'll get better leadership in the state capitol any time soon since a giant tide of knuckle-dragging doofus voters keep electing the same militantly partisan ass-hats to office. Too much of Oklahoma's general public loves a candidate who wraps himself in the American flag, uses the Holy Bible as a prop and subliminally or overtly demonizes minorities and immigrants. It's not important for the candidate to have an actual, work-able game plan to improve the state. All he needs is a scapegoat where voters can direct their fury while the candidate accomplishes not a damned thing.

When did Asa Hutchinson move to Oklahoma?  </s>
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 12, 2017, 01:39:04 PM
Alright, enough with the politics........

Anyway, getting back on track, to my point earlier about US 60 not being upgraded to interstate standards, there are a lot more important things for Missouri to do, so any upgrade to interstate standards is decades away (even though I don't think it really needs it, the four lane expressway is more than adequate). As for US 67 north of Poplar Bluff, an upgrade to interstate standards is not really needed with I-55 just east of there. The current four lane expressway serves more local traffic than through. Just upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line would be adequate (even though I am fully aware that is years away as well).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 12, 2017, 04:24:46 PM
Alright, enough with the politics........

Anyway, getting back on track, to my point earlier about US 60 not being upgraded to interstate standards, there are a lot more important things for Missouri to do, so any upgrade to interstate standards is decades away (even though I don't think it really needs it, the four lane expressway is more than adequate). As for US 67 north of Poplar Bluff, an upgrade to interstate standards is not really needed with I-55 just east of there. The current four lane expressway serves more local traffic than through. Just upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line would be adequate (even though I am fully aware that is years away as well).

It'll probably be relatively simple to upgrade US 60 to Interstate standards between Poplar Bluff and I-55; a good job of ROW preservation has been done (no private access and wide spacing between at-grade crossings, as well as enough easement for frontage roads).  South of Poplar Bluff is a different story; while spot upgrades have been undertaken on the current alignment, it's likely that a new-terrain facility will be needed to replace US 67 -- but it likely will not venture too far from the present route.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 12, 2017, 05:11:03 PM
Alright, enough with the politics........

Anyway, getting back on track, to my point earlier about US 60 not being upgraded to interstate standards, there are a lot more important things for Missouri to do, so any upgrade to interstate standards is decades away (even though I don't think it really needs it, the four lane expressway is more than adequate). As for US 67 north of Poplar Bluff, an upgrade to interstate standards is not really needed with I-55 just east of there. The current four lane expressway serves more local traffic than through. Just upgrading US 60/67 between Sikeston and the state line would be adequate (even though I am fully aware that is years away as well).

It'll probably be relatively simple to upgrade US 60 to Interstate standards between Poplar Bluff and I-55; a good job of ROW preservation has been done (no private access and wide spacing between at-grade crossings, as well as enough easement for frontage roads).  South of Poplar Bluff is a different story; while spot upgrades have been undertaken on the current alignment, it's likely that a new-terrain facility will be needed to replace US 67 -- but it likely will not venture too far from the present route.

Exactly. It will cost more for Arkansas to build a new Interstate-grade US 67 from Walnut Ridge to the state line as compared to Missouri upgrading the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line. The Missouri section from SR 158 south to the state line is only about 12 miles, and even though it will likely have to be built on a new alignment to the west, that's not terribly far and the terrain is relatively flat (however, there will have to be a few modifications at the SR 158 interchange, as I believe the second lane drops off at the ramp to SR 158).

I know a a few years ago (2014), the failed transportation sales tax in Missouri was to fund the remaining US 67 four lane segment from SR 158 to the state line. Does anyone know if that was going to be on a new alignment or simply upgrade the existing alignment?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 12, 2017, 06:41:20 PM
I know a a few years ago (2014), the failed transportation sales tax in Missouri was to fund the remaining US 67 four lane segment from SR 158 to the state line. Does anyone know if that was going to be on a new alignment or simply upgrade the existing alignment?

IIRC, the former Missouri project was to 5-lane US 67 as a surface facility (probably a sop to roadside businesses).  The Arkansas portion north of Walnut Ridge will indeed be more expensive due to the need to either squeeze up against the eastern flank of the Ozarks in the Pocahontas area or cross the Black River floodplain if a more easterly alignment is selected; either option entails at least some major expenses.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on May 12, 2017, 10:26:54 PM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).

All the more reason for Arkansas to pull a rabbit out of it's ass on I-49. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 12, 2017, 10:32:22 PM
That's one thing I don't understand about US 75 in and north of Dallas.  All the work to make the corridor uber-freewayish in TX, Sherman and other places wanting an interstate, I-45 primed and ready to be a reality north of I-30....and yet, nothing.  Hopefully the future of I-57 doesn't have to wait with as much baited breath  :-|

US 69 in Oklahoma won't be upgraded into a freeway for many years (if ever).

All the more reason for Arkansas to pull a rabbit out of it's ass on I-49. 

If by that you mean get I-30 to I-40 done within most of our lifetimes; then yeah -- grab that furry little thing and yank -- and hope to hell some money comes flying out afterward!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on May 14, 2017, 08:06:42 AM
How long is it going to take to get I-57 in Arkansas signed?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on May 14, 2017, 11:25:29 AM
How long is it going to take to get I-57 in Arkansas signed?

If AR signs I-57, won't that obligate MO to sign TEMP I-57 on a route toward Sikeston?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 14, 2017, 04:20:27 PM
How long is it going to take to get I-57 in Arkansas signed?

If AR signs I-57, won't that obligate MO to sign TEMP I-57 on a route toward Sikeston?

Best guess on AR signage is within a year or two from I-40 to Walnut Ridge -- provided the few substandard sections are upgraded by then.  Since nothing within MO is included in the authorizing legislation, they're under no obligation to post anything referring to I-57, future signage included.  Whether they do so somewhere down the line would have to be based on a "gentlemen's agreement" between the states' DOT's and would be voluntary on MO's part.  If they choose to legislate a corridor of their own over US 67 and US 60, then once the legislation was signed they could at least sign the Poplar Bluff bypass as I-57 -- but that's merely speculation at this time.  Both US 67 and US 60 are already high-priority corridors (the former as a segment of the statewide HPC 61 cluster and the latter as part of the "transcontinental" HPC 3); while it's possible that those segments could conceivably be used as the basis for a designation, it's highly unlikely -- the present legislation germane to those two corridors would have to be parsed out to make that possible.  I'ts likely that AR will have to come up with a concrete plan to extend their freeway north to the state line before MO takes any action on the matter.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: DJStephens on May 14, 2017, 05:38:41 PM
They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.

Such a scenario should use the "US 169" corridor, (Tulsa - KC) as much of it is already up to grade - freeway, expressway, or super two.  Just need to either bisect or bypass the Coffeyville area. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Revive 755 on May 14, 2017, 07:34:26 PM
They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.

It wouldn't be any worse than Chicagoland, which has four north-south routes ending in the same (albeit larger) metropolitan area with I-55, I-57, I-65, and now I-41.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 14, 2017, 09:42:58 PM
They could take it a step further and extend I-45 to Kansas City, KS/MO (plus wasn't there a proposal to do it several years ago?), but then that would create an instance of three north-south routes ending in the same city/metropolitan area (along with I-29 and I-49), and I'm not sure they'd want to have that.

Such a scenario should use the "US 169" corridor, (Tulsa - KC) as much of it is already up to grade - freeway, expressway, or super two.  Just need to either bisect or bypass the Coffeyville area. 

Since we're flirting with fictional here -- a more likely scenario would be for a I-45 extension alignment, were it to actually occur, would head straight up through OK and KS along US 69 -- with a slight "jog" on I-44/Will Rogers Turnpike; there's more completed facility on that option, particularly in KS.  A 3di Tulsa branch over the INT and US 75 from I-45/US 69 near McAlester could be a possibility as well. 

Wouldn't count on any of it, though -- at least until there's a sea change in OK! 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: longhorn on May 16, 2017, 02:42:44 PM
It looks like 67 north of Popular Bluff is close to interstate level, well close. Why not finish it out to I-55 and have a relief valve for all the traffic taking I-44 to hwy 69 to get the Dallas? Or is this the mythical I-53 that's being talked about?

Regards Hwy 75/69 route, its interstate grade mostly up to Muskogee except for McAlester and Atoka. If not I-45 then I-39
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 16, 2017, 03:26:15 PM
While mostly divided, US 67 from Poplar Bluff to Festus still has quite a bit of private driveway/farm road access that will need to be addressed with structures and/or frontage roads to raise it to Interstate standards.  And, yes, this segment has been mentioned in Fictional as a potential I-53, along with the Avenue of the Saints north of St. Louis.  The issue with the Oklahoma route is Oklahoma itself; except for the Durant bypass (which could be considered a local SIU), little has been done since the freeway north of McAlester was completed in the '80's.  The politics and internecine quarrels responsible for the lack of progress on this corridor have been discussed at length in this and other threads.  It's unlikely that we'll see any additional Interstates in Oklahoma within a decade or two -- it'll take that long for any state administration with some vision to even clear the backlog accumulated by years of neglect.  Put it this way -- the OK state government badly needs the services of a competent craneoproctologist!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 16, 2017, 04:32:34 PM
Quote from: Longhorn
It looks like 67 north of Popular Bluff is close to interstate level, well close. Why not finish it out to I-55 and have a relief valve for all the traffic taking I-44 to hwy 69 to get the Dallas? Or is this the mythical I-53 that's being talked about?

Regards Hwy 75/69 route, its interstate grade mostly up to Muskogee except for McAlester and Atoka. If not I-45 then I-39

US-67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus, MO just South of St. Louis would take a great deal of money to upgrade fully to Interstate standards. The existing road is nearly all divided 4-lane and has some freeway style exits, but it also has many drive ways and other sub-standard features. I think Missouri would do a lot better upgrading US-60 to Interstate standards, starting with the Sikeston to Poplar Bluff segment and then moving down from Poplar Bluff to the Arkansas border.

US-69 in Oklahoma is only Interstate quality for the 50 miles between McAlester and Muskogee. The portion of US-69 in McAlester might get upgraded to Interstate quality IF Oklahoma's state legislature and governor's office can overcome their partisan insanity and get the state's operations properly funded. As of now transportation projects in Oklahoma are all but dead, even projects that were in progress. Another short US-69 improvement project in Calera, just South of Durant, was supposed to let in 2019, but that could get put on hold indefinitely. Between Durant and McAlester there are lots of slow down points along US-69 (Tushka, Atoka, Stringtown, Kiowa, Savanna). North of Muskogee US-69 has several zones of stop and go traffic in various towns like Pryor.

With the way politicians have been selling I-14 to connect military installations one could do a sales pitch for I-45 on US-69 since the huge Army Ammunition Plant is just West of McAlester.

Quote from: sparker
Since we're flirting with fictional here -- a more likely scenario would be for a I-45 extension alignment, were it to actually occur, would head straight up through OK and KS along US 69 -- with a slight "jog" on I-44/Will Rogers Turnpike; there's more completed facility on that option, particularly in KS.  A 3di Tulsa branch over the INT and US 75 from I-45/US 69 near McAlester could be a possibility as well.

Routing a possible I-45 up US-75 from the US-69 split to Tulsa would be difficult. There's a lot of corridor encroachment along US-75 in Glenpool, Olkmulgee and Henryetta. A good amount of new terrain routing and bypasses would be required. US-169 North of Tulsa is freeway quality through Owasso and up to Collinsville. But I can't see upgrading that road to a freeway North of there. Very little of US-169 is freeway quality in Kansas; there are runs of Super 2 with exits. US-69 in far Eastern Kansas has a lot more of it upgraded to freeway/Interstate quality. That's all the more reason to push any I-45 extension along US-69 to Big Cabin, OK.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 17, 2017, 09:45:26 PM
Unless there would be a lot of blowback from Tulsa & environs about not being included in any corridor plan, a route straight up US 69 would be the most beneficial from a regional standpoint.  Any project would likely have to be split in two with I-40 as the division point, since south of there is essentially "pre-approved" via the original ISTEA '91 legislation -- and the Texas portion is at least functionally done.  To the north, getting an Interstate-grade corridor around Muskogee will be tricky -- likely either a new-terrain bypass to the west or some sort of OK 165/Muskogee Tpk. alignment; either way will pose a problem that'll require a significant $$ outlay.  If I were planning the corridor, I'd get the southern half done first and consider the remainder as a long-term project.

That being said -- it's likely that the I-57/US 67 corridor to the east has a much greater chance of completion than does anything involving Oklahoma -- at least for the near term.  As an aside -- it's interesting to compare those two corridors in a historic sense -- both have long service as St. Louis-Dallas corridors well prior to Interstate establishment -- each featured rival passenger rail service; the corridor through OK was the route of the "Texas Special", a joint passenger venture of the M-K-T (Missouri-Kansas-Texas) and SLSF "Frisco" rail lines; the train ran from St. Louis (with through cars from Chicago via the Wabash RR) to San Antonio via Springfield, MO and DFW.  The rival Missouri Pacific corridor, through Poplar Bluff, Little Rock, and Texarkana was the "Texas Eagle", which also terminated in San Antonio after serving DFW.  Both ran on similar schedules, with the Texas Special having about a half-hour advantage between St. Louis and DFW, while the Eagle had a definite advantage between DFW and San Antonio.  It was a similar rivalry to the fabled NYC/Pennsylvania service between Chicago and NYC.  It's interesting to see the two potential Interstate corridors compared in terms of mileage and travel convenience, given their historical significance.  BTW, when Amtrak initiated their St. Louis-DFW service, they did so more or less via the "Eagle" route through Little Rock; the OK route has been freight-only since about 1967. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on May 19, 2017, 11:35:11 AM
This article (http://www.semissourian.com/story/2413483.html) reports that the Highway 67 Corp., a booster group for US 67 in southeast Missouri, will present a request today to officials in Washington, D.C. to "close the gap" for I-57:

Quote
With the announcement improvements to U.S. 67 could be paid for in half the time expected, community leaders are looking at another four-lane highway project they said could be crucial for future development.
Members of the Highway 67 Corp. made the announcement at a recent meeting before signing a new resolution that will be presented today to elected officials in Washington, D.C.
It asks U.S. representatives and senators to close a gap of less than 240 miles in an interstate connection between Chicago and Dallas, with Poplar Bluff at its heart.
Representatives of Southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas want this gap to be designated as future Interstate 57
miles, said Tom Lawson, a Highway 67 Corp. member.
“It can be a reality, but it will take support from everyone: cities, counties, Arkansas, Missouri ...,” Lawson said, adding, “We’re a long way from realizing the success that will come, but it can" ....
It is important communities come together now on the new project, he said, before work begins on an infrastructure bill promised by President Donald Trump.
"This is just the first step, what we’re doing today, to get us to that point,” Lawson said before the resolution was signed. “I think this is a terribly important project, and I just hope all of us live to see the day when we get the job done.” ....
The interstate gap follows U.S. 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff, drops down U.S. 67 to the Arkansas state line and eventually joins interstate-quality highway north of Little Rock, Arkansas.
About 60 percent, or 140 miles, of what could be the final link in a major transportation corridor already is built to interstate standards, said Bill Robison of Smith and Co. Engineers.
The remaining approximately 100 miles is split almost evenly between two-lane road and existing four-lane highway that is near interstate standard, according to Robison.
No dollar amount has been placed on the cost of upgrades; however, MoDOT representatives said the agency does not have the funding.
At one time, it seemed as if there wasn’t money to fund U.S. 67 improvements, said Steve Halter, president of the Greater Poplar Bluff Area Chamber of Commerce.
“If we have a plan put together, we’ll get the funding; we’ll find a way,” he said.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on May 19, 2017, 11:36:46 AM
This article (http://www.semissourian.com/story/2413483.html) reports that the Highway 67 Corp., a booster group for US 67 in southeast Missouri, will present a request today to officials in Washington, D.C. to "close the gap" for I-57:

Quote
With the announcement improvements to U.S. 67 could be paid for in half the time expected, community leaders are looking at another four-lane highway project they said could be crucial for future development.
Members of the Highway 67 Corp. made the announcement at a recent meeting before signing a new resolution that will be presented today to elected officials in Washington, D.C.
It asks U.S. representatives and senators to close a gap of less than 240 miles in an interstate connection between Chicago and Dallas, with Poplar Bluff at its heart.
Representatives of Southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas want this gap to be designated as future Interstate 57
miles, said Tom Lawson, a Highway 67 Corp. member.
“It can be a reality, but it will take support from everyone: cities, counties, Arkansas, Missouri ...,” Lawson said, adding, “We’re a long way from realizing the success that will come, but it can" ....
It is important communities come together now on the new project, he said, before work begins on an infrastructure bill promised by President Donald Trump.
"This is just the first step, what we’re doing today, to get us to that point,” Lawson said before the resolution was signed. “I think this is a terribly important project, and I just hope all of us live to see the day when we get the job done.” ....
The interstate gap follows U.S. 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff, drops down U.S. 67 to the Arkansas state line and eventually joins interstate-quality highway north of Little Rock, Arkansas.
About 60 percent, or 140 miles, of what could be the final link in a major transportation corridor already is built to interstate standards, said Bill Robison of Smith and Co. Engineers.
The remaining approximately 100 miles is split almost evenly between two-lane road and existing four-lane highway that is near interstate standard, according to Robison.
No dollar amount has been placed on the cost of upgrades; however, MoDOT representatives said the agency does not have the funding.
At one time, it seemed as if there wasn’t money to fund U.S. 67 improvements, said Steve Halter, president of the Greater Poplar Bluff Area Chamber of Commerce.
“If we have a plan put together, we’ll get the funding; we’ll find a way,” he said.

Beat me to it, I was just posting this article when you posted it.

At least this is going into the mainstream now, but I still doubt this happens anytime soon (at least until Missouri fixes their transportation funding crisis).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: longhorn on May 19, 2017, 01:44:33 PM
Unless there would be a lot of blowback from Tulsa & environs about not being included in any corridor plan, a route straight up US 69 would be the most beneficial from a regional standpoint.  Any project would likely have to be split in two with I-40 as the division point, since south of there is essentially "pre-approved" via the original ISTEA '91 legislation -- and the Texas portion is at least functionally done.  To the north, getting an Interstate-grade corridor around Muskogee will be tricky -- likely either a new-terrain bypass to the west or some sort of OK 165/Muskogee Tpk. alignment; either way will pose a problem that'll require a significant $$ outlay.  If I were planning the corridor, I'd get the southern half done first and consider the remainder as a long-term project.

That being said -- it's likely that the I-57/US 67 corridor to the east has a much greater chance of completion than does anything involving Oklahoma -- at least for the near term.  As an aside -- it's interesting to compare those two corridors in a historic sense -- both have long service as St. Louis-Dallas corridors well prior to Interstate establishment -- each featured rival passenger rail service; the corridor through OK was the route of the "Texas Special", a joint passenger venture of the M-K-T (Missouri-Kansas-Texas) and SLSF "Frisco" rail lines; the train ran from St. Louis (with through cars from Chicago via the Wabash RR) to San Antonio via Springfield, MO and DFW.  The rival Missouri Pacific corridor, through Poplar Bluff, Little Rock, and Texarkana was the "Texas Eagle", which also terminated in San Antonio after serving DFW.  Both ran on similar schedules, with the Texas Special having about a half-hour advantage between St. Louis and DFW, while the Eagle had a definite advantage between DFW and San Antonio.  It was a similar rivalry to the fabled NYC/Pennsylvania service between Chicago and NYC.  It's interesting to see the two potential Interstate corridors compared in terms of mileage and travel convenience, given their historical significance.  BTW, when Amtrak initiated their St. Louis-DFW service, they did so more or less via the "Eagle" route through Little Rock; the OK route has been freight-only since about 1967. 


That last part is funny in addition to Oklahoma being to cheap to improve its road infrastructure. Oklahoma along with Texas helps subsidizes an Amtrak train between FTW and OKC. Nice history note on passenger rail service via Springfield MO. Did  that continue to Tulsa heading south? I thought that was old Burlington Northern line not MKT between OKC and STL?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on May 19, 2017, 09:24:03 PM
That last part is funny in addition to Oklahoma being to cheap to improve its road infrastructure. Oklahoma along with Texas helps subsidizes an Amtrak train between FTW and OKC. Nice history note on passenger rail service via Springfield MO. Did  that continue to Tulsa heading south? I thought that was old Burlington Northern line not MKT between OKC and STL?

The original St. Louis-Springfield-Tulsa-OKC line was the old St. Louis San Francisco (SLSF, or "Frisco" in the vernacular) main line; a branch south into Fort Worth took off from Sapulpa, just SW of Tulsa and took a rather convoluted route into Denison, TX before continuing on to Ft. Worth.  While the SLSF did have its own passenger service from St. Louis to DFW, the premium service, the "Texas Special", was a joint venture of both SLSF and MKT.  It used SLSF rails from St. Louis to Vinita, OK, and switched off there to the MKT, which ran straight down US 69 to Denison, then curved a bit east before swinging back to Dallas.  That was, of course, a more direct route than an all-SLSF routing, so the two railroads joined forces to institute a service that could compete, schedule-wise, with the Missouri Pacific's "Eagle" service via Little Rock.  They even had dedicated diesel locomotives painted a rather gaudy red-and-white with "Texas Special" on its flanks and the logos of the two rail lines on the front face.  The service was instituted about 1952 and lasted until around 1966; Lionel famously recreated the diesel's paint scheme in a mid-1950's model.  The Frisco was absorbed into Burlington Northern in 1980, while UP bought MKT in 1988.  The Frisco line west of Sapulpa was sold to a local operator about 15 years ago due to lack of through traffic.  The only passenger service in OK is the Fort Worth-OKC "Heartland" service; that uses BNSF/former Santa Fe tracks for its entire run paralleling I-35W and I-35.   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2017, 04:44:34 PM
Senator John Boozman finally issued a June 1 Press Release (https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=29F24923-B0A3-48F5-B1E6-55E5D7EB7AFD) touting his efforts in creating the "Future I-57":

Quote
Provision Allowing Arkansas to Designate Portion of Highway 67 'Future I-57' Becomes Law
WASHINGTON –
A provision authored by U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) that enables Arkansas to designate a portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as “Future I-57” was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 funding that recently became law.
“The presence of an official interstate highway is one of the key factors that developers consider when determining where to make major investments, such as building new factories. This designation is an important step to make Arkansas a better-connected state that is open for business,” Boozman said.
Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This provision provides the state the ability to request that any segment of the road that is built to interstate standards be officially added to the federal interstate system as “I-57.”
Resolutions of support for the I-57 designation have been passed by the Newport Economic Development Commission as well as Chambers of Commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, Sherwood and Searcy.
State and local officials from along the corridor shared their support for this important step in the process toward bringing this portion of Highway 67 into the interstate-highway system.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 01, 2017, 05:02:25 PM
Senator John Boozman finally issued a June 1 Press Release (https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=29F24923-B0A3-48F5-B1E6-55E5D7EB7AFD) touting his efforts in creating the "Future I-57":

Quote
Provision Allowing Arkansas to Designate Portion of Highway 67 'Future I-57' Becomes Law
WASHINGTON –
A provision authored by U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) that enables Arkansas to designate a portion of Highway 67, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as “Future I-57” was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 funding that recently became law.
“The presence of an official interstate highway is one of the key factors that developers consider when determining where to make major investments, such as building new factories. This designation is an important step to make Arkansas a better-connected state that is open for business,” Boozman said.
Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make Highway 67 an interstate-quality road. This provision provides the state the ability to request that any segment of the road that is built to interstate standards be officially added to the federal interstate system as “I-57.”
Resolutions of support for the I-57 designation have been passed by the Newport Economic Development Commission as well as Chambers of Commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, Sherwood and Searcy.
State and local officials from along the corridor shared their support for this important step in the process toward bringing this portion of Highway 67 into the interstate-highway system.

I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: yakra on June 02, 2017, 12:19:29 AM
I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Has he considered taxing and spending?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 02, 2017, 12:49:44 AM
I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Has he considered taxing and spending?

A Republican....in Arkansas?......please!!!  There's a greater chance a Razorback will be seen streaking across the sky!  They'll probably try to float some bonds or shift some $$ from elsewhere.  It'll probably cost $2M+ for the signage (including approach BGS's on I-40); in public-sector spending terms, that amount can probably be dealt with in a series of behind-the-scenes maneuvers.  Now when it comes time to actually spend some real bucks on an extension to the MO state line, we'll just have to see just how the good doctor intends to come up with the scratch!

P.S. -- it's a wonder he didn't include a I-440 extension along with the I-57 designation.

Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: LM117 on June 02, 2017, 06:06:08 AM
AHTD will probably request I-57 shields during AASHTO's next meeting this fall.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: LM117 on June 02, 2017, 06:11:00 AM
P.S. -- it's a wonder he didn't include a I-440 extension along with the I-57 designation.

Probably because it would be fairly easy to go through AASHTO/FHWA and get approval that way. Once I-57 shields start popping up on US-67, I doubt FHWA would have a problem with I-440 replacing AR-440.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 02, 2017, 08:11:22 AM
I'd like to hear how Dr Boozman intends to pay for it
Has he considered taxing and spending?

Only if SCROTUS approves
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 02, 2017, 08:13:56 AM
I wish they hadn't approved it for two reasons. One, it should be I-30. It directly connects to current I-30 via a short section of I-40. It doesn't and won't connect to the rest of I-57 for many years if ever. Whoever picked this number screwed up big time. Two, this means that the knuckle draggers at AHTD will be removing the US 64/67/167 shield assemblies between Beebe and Bald Knob. That saddens me.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 12:32:48 PM
I wish they hadn't approved it for two reasons. One, it should be I-30. It directly connects to current I-30 via a short section of I-40. It doesn't and won't connect to the rest of I-57 for many years if ever. Whoever picked this number screwed up big time.

I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 12:40:10 PM
In response to the question of how Senator Boozman intends to pay for this, I would imagine the states will be paying for most of the remaining sections of I-57 and it will receive little to no federal funding.

That being said, I bet you this get's completed before I-49. It's really only a matter of building the remaining 50 or so miles of Interstate-grade highway along US 67 between US 412 in Walnut Ridge and MO 158 south of Poplar Bluff, and then Missouri converting the expressway-grade segments of US 60/67 to interstate standards.

The biggest question is, where is Arkansas going to put the Interstate between Walnut Ridge and the state line? It is going to cost a lot more $$$ if they run it up by Pocahontas, since that is in a major floodplain. Pocahontas may not like it, but the most logical route to continue to the state line would be parallel to AR 34/90, like they've been planning all along.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 02, 2017, 02:15:13 PM
The interchange with Future I-47 and US-412 East of Walnut Ridge is already designed for the freeway to be extended parallel to AR-90 rather than turning North to Pocahontas. I'm sure the residents in Pocahontas would hate to be bypassed by I-57, but it makes more sense in the big picture view to send I-57 on a more direct route to Corning. It would require some completely new terrain roadway to be built between Knobel and Corning, running parallel to the rail line.

Quote from: bugo
I wish they hadn't approved it for two reasons. One, it should be I-30. It directly connects to current I-30 via a short section of I-40. It doesn't and won't connect to the rest of I-57 for many years if ever. Whoever picked this number screwed up big time.

I-30 is a major Interstate number. To me it makes more sense for it to begin and end at two other major Interstates (I-20 and I-40). I think the I-57 labeling makes more sense. It's not a major route number ending in a 5 or zero. I think there would be less of a problem with unfinished gaps in the overall route. Since the resulting gap between the two I-57 routes is not very big and not very challenging it can be filled. The maps will constantly remind policy makers that the gap in I-57 is there. There will be pressure to build it.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 03:34:41 PM
The interchange with Future I-47 and US-412 East of Walnut Ridge is already designed for the freeway to be extended parallel to AR-90 rather than turning North to Pocahontas. I'm sure the residents in Pocahontas would hate to be bypassed by I-57, but it makes more sense in the big picture view to send I-57 on a more direct route to Corning. It would require some completely new terrain roadway to be built between Knobel and Corning, running parallel to the rail line.

The route could go either way from the US 412 interchange, but I believe it was the plan all along to run it parallel to AR 90. But then Pocahontas stepped in and whined about being bypassed so now they are considering routes closer to them, but it will be very difficult because of floodplain issues.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 02, 2017, 05:37:37 PM
I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 07:33:07 PM
I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.

I guess, but again, the exit numbering on the existing US 67 freeway is set up for a north-south route, so they would have had to renumber all the exits. I would have been fine with either I-57 or I-30, just finish something between Sikeston and Little Rock!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 02, 2017, 08:40:39 PM
I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.

I guess, but again, the exit numbering on the existing US 67 freeway is set up for a north-south route, so they would have had to renumber all the exits. I would have been fine with either I-57 or I-30, just finish something between Sikeston and Little Rock!

How? Dr Boozman didn't earmark any money
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 10:00:43 PM
I-30 is an east-west route while this is more of a north-south route. They would have had to renumber all the exits along the corridor if it were to become an extension of I-30. Just because it doesn't connect to I-57 doesn't mean they can't put up I-57 shields. I-49 and I-69 don't fully connect and yet, there are sporadic sections that are numbered as such. I-57 is fine.

I-30 is a diagonal route from Texarkana to North Little Rock. The US 67-167 freeway continues the trajectory. It could be signed north-south or east-west.

I guess, but again, the exit numbering on the existing US 67 freeway is set up for a north-south route, so they would have had to renumber all the exits. I would have been fine with either I-57 or I-30, just finish something between Sikeston and Little Rock!

How? Dr Boozman didn't earmark any money

You really must not like Senator Boozman, lol.

Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 02, 2017, 10:05:34 PM

You really must not like Senator Boozman, lol.

Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Don't get me started.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Rothman on June 02, 2017, 10:44:30 PM



Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 02, 2017, 10:57:49 PM



Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

Didn't the Prez recently say that states are mostly on their own for infrastructure spending.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 10:58:58 PM



Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

That was a slightly sarcastic comment. Yes, there will be some federal funding, but I'm sure Arkansas and Missouri will foot the bill for most of this.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 03, 2017, 01:57:17 AM



Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

That was a slightly sarcastic comment. Yes, there will be some federal funding, but I'm sure Arkansas and Missouri will foot the bill for most of this.

Besides being a place to park the I-57 designation, the status of the US 67 corridor as the newest HPC portends a potential 80% federal contribution to work on the corridor; why the legislation just didn't extend it to the state line is puzzling (Boozman & company could have done that without favoring any particular alignment north of Walnut Ridge).  Of course, getting the designation is the easy part; wringing funds out of Congress for any corridor work, including signage of the existing freeway, has been/is/will be considerably more difficult (I'd have used the term taxing, but that'd just be adding insult to injury!).   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Rothman on June 03, 2017, 07:53:37 AM



Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

Didn't the Prez recently say that states are mostly on their own for infrastructure spending.
Don't know.  If he did, it would just be yet another dishonest or stupid thing he said along with the hundreds of others.  The FHWA funding isn't going away anytime soon.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Rothman on June 03, 2017, 07:56:09 AM



Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

That was a slightly sarcastic comment. Yes, there will be some federal funding, but I'm sure Arkansas and Missouri will foot the bill for most of this.
Baloney.  Federal eligibility is actually quite broad.  I would go even further than the other poster and say that it will be at least 80% federal and, if NHPP is used, probably 90%.

It all depends on the state's priorities.  If they want additional obligation limitation, that is a whole other story, but they are certainly able to advance construct the project to more easily find room in their capital program as is for this project.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2017, 04:24:02 PM
Does anyone know when/if future Interstate 57 signs will go up along the US 67 corridor? I assume its too soon for them to have gone up already.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 03, 2017, 06:27:56 PM
It should have been designated I-67, since a lot of locals call it that ;)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on June 03, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
It should have been designated I-67, since a lot of locals call it that ;)

More like I-67-167. I think they call it that even north of Bald Knob.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2017, 05:24:10 PM
Interstate 67? Personally, I'd prefer Interstate 53 for the corridor. But since Interstate 41/US 41 and Interstate 74/US 74 already exist, why not?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 09, 2017, 07:19:08 PM
It's going to be Interstate 57, it's now official. It's just a matter of building the remaining Interstate between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 10, 2017, 05:40:32 PM
It's going to be Interstate 57, it's now official. It's just a matter of building the remaining Interstate between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.

I wonder if Hell will freeze first?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2017, 04:31:58 PM
Probably.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 13, 2017, 06:47:29 PM
Probably.
Or maybe not; we've found in NC that the interstate bug is contagious.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 13, 2017, 09:16:46 PM
It's going to be Interstate 57, it's now official. It's just a matter of building the remaining Interstate between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.

I wonder if Hell will freeze first?  :hmmm:

It already did last year.........
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: yakra on June 15, 2017, 03:41:36 AM
We're roadgeeks here; shouldn't we refer to Centralia freezing?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: compdude787 on June 15, 2017, 01:21:50 PM
We're roadgeeks here; shouldn't we refer to Centralia freezing?

Where's Centralia? Do you mean Centralia, WA?  :-P
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2017, 03:19:10 PM
If hell has already frozen over, then everything anyone ever said would happen when hell freezes over, would have happened by now. I'm sure some sort of connection between Walnut Ridge, AR and Sikeston, MO will be built eventually. It may take 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or even 100 years, but it will ultimately happen (I hope!).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 15, 2017, 05:55:01 PM
If hell has already frozen over, then everything anyone ever said would happen when hell freezes over, would have happened by now. I'm sure some sort of connection between Walnut Ridge, AR and Sikeston, MO will be built eventually. It may take 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or even 100 years, but it will ultimately happen (I hope!).

If a pool were established, my money would be on a timeframe of 15-25 years to get Walnut Ridge-Poplar Bluff-Sikeston built/upgraded to Interstate (57) status.  Bypassing the roadside businesses south of Poplar Bluff or a bridge over the Black River -- one or the other -- will likely be the final segment to be completed.   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 15, 2017, 07:20:10 PM
It will get built the next time Missouri and Arkansas pass a funding transportation proposal (gas tax hike, ballot initiative, etc). Something will have to happen pretty soon in both states, they are both far behind and it's only a matter of time before a major infrastructure failure happens, which will generate outrage and a call for action.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Tomahawkin on June 15, 2017, 08:19:28 PM
I said it before and will say it again. (Just like interstate 49) make it a toll road. Charge 2 dollars for all the snowbirds who travel from the Midwest to Texas and it solves the Statewide funding issues. Make the local residents buy a sticker pass
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 18, 2017, 04:14:21 PM
Here is the EIS for US 67 in Madison, Wayne and Butler Counties in Missouri. This includes the improvements to US 67 from south of Poplar Bluff to just shy of the state line.

https://books.google.com/books?id=S801AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA2-PA66&lpg=SA2-PA66&dq=Route+67+neelyville&source=bl&ots=DflTG123sS&sig=bdSExanqDD3YfE8aU02Qki0NYJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpKafmMjUAhUB2D4KHQIuB5MQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=S801AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA2-PA66&lpg=SA2-PA66&dq=Route+67+neelyville&source=bl&ots=DflTG123sS&sig=bdSExanqDD3YfE8aU02Qki0NYJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpKafmMjUAhUB2D4KHQIuB5MQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false)

For the section of US 67 that still hasn't been built to four lanes (between MO 158 and the state line), they discuss some alternatives, and it generally shows a new, four lane divided facility (I can't entirely tell if it was entirely freeway-grade or not) being constructed parallel and to the west to the existing US 67. The only interchange would be a diamond at MO 142 in Neelyville.

I wonder if this is still the plan all these years later?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2017, 07:33:16 PM
Here is the EIS for US 67 in Madison, Wayne and Butler Counties in Missouri. This includes the improvements to US 67 from south of Poplar Bluff to just shy of the state line.

https://books.google.com/books?id=S801AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA2-PA66&lpg=SA2-PA66&dq=Route+67+neelyville&source=bl&ots=DflTG123sS&sig=bdSExanqDD3YfE8aU02Qki0NYJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpKafmMjUAhUB2D4KHQIuB5MQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=S801AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA2-PA66&lpg=SA2-PA66&dq=Route+67+neelyville&source=bl&ots=DflTG123sS&sig=bdSExanqDD3YfE8aU02Qki0NYJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpKafmMjUAhUB2D4KHQIuB5MQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false)

For the section of US 67 that still hasn't been built to four lanes (between MO 158 and the state line), they discuss some alternatives, and it generally shows a new, four lane divided facility (I can't entirely tell if it was entirely freeway-grade or not) being constructed parallel and to the west to the existing US 67. The only interchange would be a diamond at MO 142 in Neelyville.

I wonder if this is still the plan all these years later?


As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.     
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 18, 2017, 08:46:51 PM
As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2017, 09:08:48 PM
As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 

Even though the logical route for I-57 is indeed US 67 and US 60, with Poplar Bluff as the transition point, the actual existing legislation only designated I-57 as far north as US 412 (Walnut Ridge).  The sole factor that might have tipped the scales in favor of a 5-lane facility would have been pressure from local interests looking to increase capacity on US 67 without the possibility of being bypassed.  If the alternative cited in the EIS is indeed retained, then there's no further alignment issue within MO that would be an obstacle to eventual corridor completion. 

And that begs a further question:  is there any activity within MODOT or even local entities toward furthering similar legislation within that state re this I-57 extension?  Perhaps the Arkansas/Boozman designation is too new to have provoked any flurry of Missouri interest as of yet; maybe they're waiting to see just where the Arkansas alignment north of Walnut Ridge will be located so coordination of plans can occur.  It would be too bad if the dynamic seen with I-49 repeated itself here -- the functional equivalent of playing "phone tag" ("your move"......"no, your move"....ad nauseum) with this project! 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 18, 2017, 09:38:29 PM
As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 

Even though the logical route for I-57 is indeed US 67 and US 60, with Poplar Bluff as the transition point, the actual existing legislation only designated I-57 as far north as US 412 (Walnut Ridge).  The sole factor that might have tipped the scales in favor of a 5-lane facility would have been pressure from local interests looking to increase capacity on US 67 without the possibility of being bypassed.  If the alternative cited in the EIS is indeed retained, then there's no further alignment issue within MO that would be an obstacle to eventual corridor completion. 

And that begs a further question:  is there any activity within MODOT or even local entities toward furthering similar legislation within that state re this I-57 extension?  Perhaps the Arkansas/Boozman designation is too new to have provoked any flurry of Missouri interest as of yet; maybe they're waiting to see just where the Arkansas alignment north of Walnut Ridge will be located so coordination of plans can occur.  It would be too bad if the dynamic seen with I-49 repeated itself here -- the functional equivalent of playing "phone tag" ("your move"......"no, your move"....ad nauseum) with this project!

I think Missouri has no choice, but to help connect them eventually, though it does not have to be down right away. Plus, Poplar Bluff is very much in favor of extending I-57, they have been lobbying heavily to Senator Blunt and Congressman Jason Smith (in addition to Boozman and Crawford) for funding. Even though "Future I-57" is only designated to US 412, the designation would likely be extended with any additional freeway built north of there.

If I were Arkansas and Missouri, I'd build the Corning-Poplar Bluff section next. Any bypass of Corning is likely going to have to be built on the west side of town, so that is a starting point for connecting the lines. The bypass could start at US 62 on the west side of town, head north to an interchange with AR 328 and then curve northeast to roughly parallel the existing US 67 to the state line. Missouri could then pick it up and build a new US 67 freeway parallel to the west of the existing US 67 (similar to the proposed route in the EIS above) from there to the MO 158 interchange (where they could also fix the deficiencies on the US 67 four lane improvements done back in 2012-2014, such as the substandard shoulders). Then remove the remaining grade crossings from there until the US 60 interchange in Poplar Bluff (only two that I see) and Presto!

Arkansas could then focus all its efforts on building between US 412 in Walnut Ridge and US 62 in Corning while Missouri just focuses on upgrading US 60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

The remaining improvements to complete the I-57 extension could be divided up into three phases.

1. The segment from US 412 in Walnut Ridge to US 62 Corning
2. The segment from US 62 in Corning to US 60 in Poplar Bluff.
3. The segment from US 60 in Poplar Bluff to the existing I-55/57 interchange in Sikeston.

Do number 2 first, then 1 and worry about number 3 last, after the new terrain sections are built. We don't need another I-49 situation here.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2017, 11:15:31 PM
As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 

Even though the logical route for I-57 is indeed US 67 and US 60, with Poplar Bluff as the transition point, the actual existing legislation only designated I-57 as far north as US 412 (Walnut Ridge).  The sole factor that might have tipped the scales in favor of a 5-lane facility would have been pressure from local interests looking to increase capacity on US 67 without the possibility of being bypassed.  If the alternative cited in the EIS is indeed retained, then there's no further alignment issue within MO that would be an obstacle to eventual corridor completion. 

And that begs a further question:  is there any activity within MODOT or even local entities toward furthering similar legislation within that state re this I-57 extension?  Perhaps the Arkansas/Boozman designation is too new to have provoked any flurry of Missouri interest as of yet; maybe they're waiting to see just where the Arkansas alignment north of Walnut Ridge will be located so coordination of plans can occur.  It would be too bad if the dynamic seen with I-49 repeated itself here -- the functional equivalent of playing "phone tag" ("your move"......"no, your move"....ad nauseum) with this project!

I think Missouri has no choice, but to help connect them eventually, though it does not have to be down right away. Plus, Poplar Bluff is very much in favor of extending I-57, they have been lobbying heavily to Senator Blunt and Congressman Jason Smith (in addition to Boozman and Crawford) for funding. Even though "Future I-57" is only designated to US 412, the designation would likely be extended with any additional freeway built north of there.

If I were Arkansas and Missouri, I'd build the Corning-Poplar Bluff section next. Any bypass of Corning is likely going to have to be built on the west side of town, so that is a starting point for connecting the lines. The bypass could start at US 62 on the west side of town, head north to an interchange with AR 328 and then curve northeast to roughly parallel the existing US 67 to the state line. Missouri could then pick it up and build a new US 67 freeway parallel to the west of the existing US 67 (similar to the proposed route in the EIS above) from there to the MO 158 interchange (where they could also fix the deficiencies on the US 67 four lane improvements done back in 2012-2014, such as the substandard shoulders). Then remove the remaining grade crossings from there until the US 60 interchange in Poplar Bluff (only two that I see) and Presto!

Arkansas could then focus all its efforts on building between US 412 in Walnut Ridge and US 62 in Corning while Missouri just focuses on upgrading US 60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

The remaining improvements to complete the I-57 extension could be divided up into three phases.

1. The segment from US 412 in Walnut Ridge to US 62 Corning
2. The segment from US 62 in Corning to US 60 in Poplar Bluff.
3. The segment from US 60 in Poplar Bluff to the existing I-55/57 interchange in Sikeston.

Do number 2 first, then 1 and worry about number 3 last, after the new terrain sections are built. We don't need another I-49 situation here.

Essentially in agreement here -- do the most difficult section: the one that would require inter-state/inter-agency coordination and cooperation first; that'll obviate the "phone tag" I cited above.  Once that's done, Missouri will simply need to coast (in a relative sense) through the remaining upgrades.  And that'll leave Arkansas with its choice of an (again relatively) simple route via AR 34 & 90 and Corning or the more troublesome and/or exacting one, in terms of both politics and physical alignment, via Pocahontas in order to more directly serve that population center.  Since Missouri will likely follow its own internal schedule as to US 60 upgrades, there's a good chance that segment will be at least well under way while the debate over the Arkansas routing is being resolved.  Nevertheless, I'll project 2032, give or take three-odd years, for the corridor's completion.       
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2017, 04:55:33 AM
I said it before and will say it again. (Just like interstate 49) make it a toll road. Charge 2 dollars for all the snowbirds who travel from the Midwest to Texas and it solves the Statewide funding issues. Make the local residents buy a sticker pass

Federal law and Arkansas/Missouri law forbids the construction of Interstate and US highways as toll roads.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Henry on June 19, 2017, 09:51:23 AM
I reckon that I-57 would be completed before I-49, given the situations in Bella Vista and central Kansas City.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 19, 2017, 04:31:40 PM
I think the laws forbidding US and Interstate Highways as toll roads should be repealed. You no longer need toll booths. All tolls could be collected electronically.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 19, 2017, 05:42:17 PM
I think the laws forbidding US and Interstate Highways as toll roads should be repealed. You no longer need toll booths. All tolls could be collected electronically.

Not quite -- all tolls could be charged to the customer electronically; actual collection depends upon agency access to individual customer accounts -- a la the various pre-paid and/or monthly billed systems found with most current toll road systems.  "Bill-by-plate" systems, particularly in regard to out-of-state vehicles, contain a much higher and more convoluted collection system requiring paper billing (for legal purposes) and inevitable delays in collection.  Also, they're seen as another step toward the public cost of driving being addressed by direct user fees vis-a-vis a more diffused system like fuel taxation -- for better or worse, the present default system.  The only way to toll efficiently is to get pretty much every potential user of the toll roads (both regular and incidental) on the same page regarding setting up individual accounts for billing purposes -- and a lot of folks regard that as a step too far in terms of privacy as well as "upcharging" (particularly if the governing jurisdiction wishes to engage in such things as congestion pricing, regular-usage discounting, etc.).  Making the assumption that the driving public in general is consistently using or even adept at media manipulation so as to make toll-road usage just another app is in itself a big stretch!  Universal electronic tolling is only in the conceptual stage right now -- it'll be a long haul until a system that is intuitive enough to be used by most of the driving public can be developed. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 19, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Tolls. No tolls. Who cares? There honestly is no such thing as a "free" road. You pay for it via taxes at the fuel pumps or you pay for it with tolls. All roads cost money. So it really shouldn't make any difference if a new Interstate has toll booths on it or not.

I keep laughing at the complaints people here in Oklahoma make about removing the toll booths and how the roads have been "paid for" already. I had a conversation with one friend this weekend on the topic. Do these people somehow think that once a toll road has been "paid for" then that's it? No more money to be spent on the road ever again? We can take down the toll booths. But the trade off is a nice hike in the gasoline taxes (which, by the way, have not been raised since 1993).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2017, 10:19:16 PM


Tolls. No tolls. Who cares? There honestly is no such thing as a "free" road. You pay for it via taxes at the fuel pumps or you pay for it with tolls. All roads cost money. So it really shouldn't make any difference if a new Interstate has toll booths on it or not.

Pfft. 

Right, we pay for it via gas taxes OR tolls -- but NOT both.  That is why it matters quite a bit. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 20, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
Any so-called "free" road requires maintenance and periodic improvement like adding lanes or safety features like cable barriers. I don't know about Arkansas, but Oklahoma's fuel tax rate is pathetically out of date and I know it's not the only state with grossly under-funded fuel tax rates. Getting those rates increased in "red" states like mine is all but impossible to do. And then if they actually do something (like the 1.25% fee increase new vehicle purchase excise tax) all that money goes into the general fund, not transportation. Hell, Gov. Fallin was going to do that with her fuel tax increase idea.

If the selfish voters cannot understand the concept of inflation, how that applies to a 24 year old fuel tax rate that doesn't buy shit compared to what it did in 1993, and they insist on voting down any fuel tax rate increases then something has to give. A road that was previously "free" might end up with some toll booths installed on it. With the way things are going I won't be surprised to see RFID toll tag readers sprout up on regular surface streets.

Maybe the voters can take a pay cut down to what they were making 1993 and try to balance their checkbooks on that.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 20, 2017, 09:58:55 AM
Any so-called "free" road requires maintenance and periodic improvement like adding lanes or safety features like cable barriers. I don't know about Arkansas, but Oklahoma's fuel tax rate is pathetically out of date and I know it's not the only state with grossly under-funded fuel tax rates. Getting those rates increased in "red" states like mine is all but impossible to do. And then if they actually do something (like the 1.25% fee increase new vehicle purchase excise tax) all that money goes into the general fund, not transportation. Hell, Gov. Fallin was going to do that with her fuel tax increase idea.

If the selfish voters cannot understand the concept of inflation, how that applies to a 24 year old fuel tax rate that doesn't buy shit compared to what it did in 1993, and they insist on voting down any fuel tax rate increases then something has to give. A road that was previously "free" might end up with some toll booths installed on it. With the way things are going I won't be surprised to see RFID toll tag readers sprout up on regular surface streets.

Maybe the voters can take a pay cut down to what they were making 1993 and try to balance their checkbooks on that.

Like many aren't already?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: rte66man on June 20, 2017, 02:40:54 PM
Any so-called "free" road requires maintenance and periodic improvement like adding lanes or safety features like cable barriers. I don't know about Arkansas, but Oklahoma's fuel tax rate is pathetically out of date and I know it's not the only state with grossly under-funded fuel tax rates. Getting those rates increased in "red" states like mine is all but impossible to do. And then if they actually do something (like the 1.25% fee increase new vehicle purchase excise tax) all that money goes into the general fund, not transportation. Hell, Gov. Fallin was going to do that with her fuel tax increase idea.

If the selfish voters cannot understand the concept of inflation, how that applies to a 24 year old fuel tax rate that doesn't buy shit compared to what it did in 1993, and they insist on voting down any fuel tax rate increases then something has to give. A road that was previously "free" might end up with some toll booths installed on it. With the way things are going I won't be surprised to see RFID toll tag readers sprout up on regular surface streets.

Maybe the voters can take a pay cut down to what they were making 1993 and try to balance their checkbooks on that.

I'll throw this out for discussion.  Some people vote against a fuel tax increase in OK because of how politics has screwed up an efficient way of fixing roads.  When a state can 4 lane rural SW OK highways that parallel each other about 20 miles apart (OK6 and US 183) while letting urban needs in OKC and Tulsa go untreated, then people get very cynical and don't trust the government to spend any increase wisely. 

IMO, if they want a fuel tax increase, then it needs to be tied to specific projects based on objective needs.  I can see dividing the increased revenue by ODOT district, AADT, or some other way that ensures the projects that are most needed are funded first.  Once they are completed, then the next tier can be funded, and on down the line.  Sure, I see this is a "pie in the sky" idea, but I do know if some new approach isn't tried, then the public will continue to turn down a fuel tax increase.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 21, 2017, 12:53:46 AM
The vast majority of voters are not thinking about details in the slightest bit. All they see is "tax hike" and they knee-jerk yell "wasteful spending" without providing or even knowing any specifics to back it up.

I'll agree the US-183 and OK-6 projects were political pork barrel crap born in the 1990's, basically conciliation prizes for not getting those stupid Clinton to Snyder and Duncan to Davis turnpikes built. Since then we've had a hell of a lot of globalization spike the prices of concrete, steel, asphalt and any other road building material. Safety standards have mandated more expensive designs to new roadways and existing highways. I saw ODOT do a lot of work beefing up shoulders and adding cable barriers to OK-7, US-62 and I-44 around here. That wasn't cheap. Voter don't think about any of that stuff. Like I've said before, voters think all that stuff can be paid for with prayer and flag waving.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 21, 2017, 07:35:30 PM
I see somebody deleted my post about overmoderation. I guess I hit too close to home. I'm waiting for this post to disappear down the memory hole. At aaroads, it's not 2017, it's 1984.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 21, 2017, 07:45:44 PM
Alright, enough! Please stop talking about Oklahoma and its refusal to raise money for transportation. It's frustrating, I know, but this thread has nothing to do with that. Take the conversation elsewhere. Please and thank you!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on June 22, 2017, 04:13:59 AM
Arkansas voters have a history of supporting tax increases when presented in a statewide referendum. They approved one of the nation's first soft drink taxes a full two decades before NYC did. They've approved gas tax increases and bond issues for roads. The mood might be anti-tax in Little Rock, but they'll go for it in Lavaca and Lepanto.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 22, 2017, 12:56:11 PM
Alright, enough! Please stop talking about Oklahoma and it's refusal to raise money for transportation. It's frustrating, I know, but this thread has nothing to do with that. Take the conversation elsewhere. Please and thank you!

"its"
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Scott5114 on June 23, 2017, 08:36:12 AM
Alright, enough! Please stop talking about Oklahoma and it's refusal to raise money for transportation. It's frustrating, I know, but this thread has nothing to do with that. Take the conversation elsewhere. Please and thank you!

"its"

  • When replying to other posters, messages should focus on the content of the post being replied to, and not its presentation (spelling, grammar, usage, etc.)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 23, 2017, 11:27:17 AM
Arkansas voters have a history of supporting tax increases when presented in a statewide referendum. They approved one of the nation's first soft drink taxes a full two decades before NYC did. They've approved gas tax increases and bond issues for roads. The mood might be anti-tax in Little Rock, but they'll go for it in Lavaca and Lepanto.

So Asa has more to reward his pals with (you seriously don't believe it will all go to roads?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 23, 2017, 07:51:45 PM
Alright, enough! Please stop talking about Oklahoma and it's refusal to raise money for transportation. It's frustrating, I know, but this thread has nothing to do with that. Take the conversation elsewhere. Please and thank you!

"its"

(http://i.imgur.com/1S6ZJZ6.jpg)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: yakra on June 24, 2017, 02:07:10 AM
The palindrome of "Bolton" would be "Notlob"
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 24, 2017, 02:39:40 PM
Arkansas voters have a history of supporting tax increases when presented in a statewide referendum. They approved one of the nation's first soft drink taxes a full two decades before NYC did. They've approved gas tax increases and bond issues for roads. The mood might be anti-tax in Little Rock, but they'll go for it in Lavaca and Lepanto.

So Asa has more to reward his pals with (you seriously don't believe it will all go to roads?

It all depends on how it is worded. If its worded properly to ensure it only goes to roads, the public may support it.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:22:42 PM
I think the laws forbidding US and Interstate Highways as toll roads should be repealed. You no longer need toll booths. All tolls could be collected electronically.
Get I Pass/ EZ Pass if you want to pay that way. That what it is for.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 24, 2017, 07:49:43 PM
Alright, enough! Please stop talking about Oklahoma and it's refusal to raise money for transportation. It's frustrating, I know, but this thread has nothing to do with that. Take the conversation elsewhere. Please and thank you!

"its"

  • When replying to other posters, messages should focus on the content of the post being replied to, and not its presentation (spelling, grammar, usage, etc.)

*yawn*

Is doxxing against forum rules?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 24, 2017, 07:55:14 PM
The way the OTA is set up, the system is not complete if any part of the system is under construction and is not eligible to be converted to a free road. What OTA does is keeps the turnpikes under perpetual construction. They rebuild a section of highway very cheaply so it will have to be rebuilt in 10 years. The western part of the Muskogee Turnpike is a good example. It's been rebuilt twice since I moved to Tulsa in 2007. Right now there are 2 or 3 construction zones on the Muskogee, all west of US 69.

Portions of the Indian Nation Turnpike are in awful condition. I drove it from McAlester to Henryetta two weeks ago today and the section just north of US 270/OK 1 is terrible. I remember parts further to the south being in rough shape the last time I drove it a few years ago.

They are finally rebuilding the toll plaza on the Muskogee at the OK 51 interchange near Coweta. The through lanes will become Pikepass lanes and cash customers will have to exit off to pay the toll, a system that all of the turnpikes should use. It will be exactly like the system on the Creek Turnpi - I mean "Liberty Parkway", hehehe.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 24, 2017, 09:15:52 PM

They are finally rebuilding the toll plaza on the Muskogee at the OK 51 interchange near Coweta. The through lanes will become Pikepass lanes and cash customers will have to exit off to pay the toll, a system that all of the turnpikes should use. It will be exactly like the system on the Creek Turnpi - I mean "Liberty Parkway", hehehe.

I noticed that last week. Looks like the 51/351 junction is also being improved.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on June 24, 2017, 09:32:41 PM
There is construction at the 51/Muskogee Turnpike split, but I didn't see anything that looked like they were rebuilding the interchange.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 24, 2017, 09:42:11 PM
There is construction at the 51/Muskogee Turnpike split, but I didn't see anything that looked like they were rebuilding the interchange.

Down near the new toll booths being built, at least South/East Bound. I was going to back and look my way home, but didn't.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: mgk920 on June 25, 2017, 10:37:55 AM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on June 25, 2017, 11:44:04 AM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Not US 167....US 165 through Monroe & Alexandria down to Lake Charles.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 25, 2017, 11:48:25 AM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Not US 167....US 165 through Monroe & Alexandria down to Lake Charles.

Wouldn't I-69 come close?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on June 25, 2017, 11:54:09 AM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Not US 167....US 165 through Monroe & Alexandria down to Lake Charles.

Wouldn't I-69 come close?

I-69 will allegedly get as close as El Dorado, then head east,  then curve southward intersecting I-20 west of Minden. Then go south and curve westward underneath Shreveport.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 25, 2017, 01:54:51 PM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Better idea: Extend I-57 from Sikeston to Little Rock, then multiplex it with I-30 to Texarkana and then extend it along the US 59/77 corridor to the Mexican border. Would replace I-69 between Memphis and Texas.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on June 25, 2017, 02:13:53 PM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Better idea: Extend I-57 from Sikeston to Little Rock, then multiplex it with I-30 to Texarkana and then extend it along the US 59/77 corridor to the Mexican border. Would replace I-69 between Memphis and Texas.

It would save billions of dollars that no one seems to have.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 25, 2017, 10:01:34 PM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Not US 167....US 165 through Monroe & Alexandria down to Lake Charles.

Wouldn't I-69 come close?

I-69 will allegedly get as close as El Dorado, then head east,  then curve southward intersecting I-20 west of Minden. Then go south and curve westward underneath Shreveport.

Some have cited the possibility that the I-530/AR 530 project from Little Rock south to the I-69 alignment near Monticello could conceivably be a southern extension of I-57.  If that occurs, place your bets on regional interests strongly suggesting a southward extension along US 425 and US 165 to at least Monroe, LA (I-20) or, more ambitiously, I-49 at Alexandria.  Whether such a corridor makes it all the way to I-10 would be purely speculative at this time (and more appropriately directed toward Fictional).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: inkyatari on June 26, 2017, 04:23:45 PM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Better idea: Extend I-57 from Sikeston to Little Rock, then multiplex it with I-30 to Texarkana and then extend it along the US 59/77 corridor to the Mexican border. Would replace I-69 between Memphis and Texas.

I've made this suggestion previously.  The only problem is how I-30 ends in little rock, thus creating an unnecessary multiplex.  Unless you create two separate I-57's
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 26, 2017, 06:55:46 PM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Better idea: Extend I-57 from Sikeston to Little Rock, then multiplex it with I-30 to Texarkana and then extend it along the US 59/77 corridor to the Mexican border. Would replace I-69 between Memphis and Texas.

I've made this suggestion previously.  The only problem is how I-30 ends in little rock, thus creating an unnecessary multiplex.  Unless you create two separate I-57's

This thread-within-a-thread is now verging on Fictional!  That being said -- if by some twist of fate the plans for the central Shreveport-Memphis segment of I-69 are abandoned, then the Texas portion south of Texarkana (presently planned as I-69 and I-369) will require renumbering; I'd suggest I-47 for that purpose (an I-57 extension being reserved for I-530 + LA extension of such).  How that would play out in South Texas would be something TBD.  No need for a long multiplex down I-30!     
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 26, 2017, 07:08:29 PM
Maybe this is in the sole realm of 'fictional/fantasy' musing, but assuming that this I-57 extension comes off as planned, could we see a push from the local pols along the way to extend 'I-57' further southward, perhaps towards I-49 in Alexandria, LA via the US 167 corridor (and beyond all the way to I-10 in the Lake Charles, LA area)?

 :hmmm:

Mike

Better idea: Extend I-57 from Sikeston to Little Rock, then multiplex it with I-30 to Texarkana and then extend it along the US 59/77 corridor to the Mexican border. Would replace I-69 between Memphis and Texas.

I've made this suggestion previously.  The only problem is how I-30 ends in little rock, thus creating an unnecessary multiplex.  Unless you create two separate I-57's

This thread-within-a-thread is now verging on Fictional!  That being said -- if by some twist of fate the plans for the central Shreveport-Memphis segment of I-69 are abandoned, then the Texas portion south of Texarkana (presently planned as I-69 and I-369) will require renumbering; I'd suggest I-47 for that purpose (an I-57 extension being reserved for I-530 + LA extension of such).  How that would play out in South Texas would be something TBD.  No need for a long multiplex down I-30!     

Yes, the I-57 extension proposal is fictional, but it makes a lot more sense than building an all new I-69 between Memphis and Texas. And I was just suggesting extending the I-57 so as to unify the corridor under one number, but I don't think it really matters (with GPS systems, no one would really care if the corridor was 5 different two digits, I-69/70/57/30/47). I wouldn't mind seeing US 59/77 upgraded into I-47 from Texarkana to the Mexican border (considering I-47 does not yet exist).

Anyway..... getting back on track, here's to hoping I-57 is completed within the next 20 years!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 26, 2017, 07:57:05 PM
Anyway..... getting back on track, here's to hoping I-57 is completed within the next 20 years!

If MO can get some semblance of their shit together within 10-15 years, then a full I-57 completion is well within the realm of possibility.  If one defocuses a bit and looks at the Missouri "forest" rather than just the separate "trees" within, the whole state seems to function as one of the major potential national crossroads -- albeit unfulfilled at this time.  The AOS in the northeast quadrant, the US 36/I-72 corridor, some sort of connection to/via Jefferson City -- all projects (OK, maybe not Jeff City!) that have larger regional if not national implications.  Whether we -- or even MoDOT -- like it or not, MO lies in the pathway of connectivity in the Midwest -- and as can be seen by their relatively quick upgrade of US 71 to I-49, they're willing to do what they can (maybe they blew their multi-year "wad" on that particular project) when the resources present themselves. 
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 27, 2017, 07:22:54 PM
Does anyone really see future Interstate 57 going beyond Little Rock? I certainly don't.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 27, 2017, 07:35:10 PM
Does anyone really see future Interstate 57 going beyond Little Rock? I certainly don't.

No, any proposal to go beyond Little Rock is just (at this point) speculation on this forum.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 27, 2017, 09:51:02 PM
Does anyone really see future Interstate 57 going beyond Little Rock? I certainly don't.

No, any proposal to go beyond Little Rock is just (at this point) speculation on this forum.

Yes, this is simply specuation:  if AR 530 is built out to Interstate standards within the next 15 years or so, there is the strong possibility that could be localized pressure to extend I-57 over that route as well as the finished part of I-530 (if I-57 is at least in the process of being finished north of Little Rock).  Many posters have gone a bit further, speculating an extension as far as central/southwest Louisiana -- abetted by the occasional regional rumblings about such matters (e.g. upgrading US 165 through Monroe down to Alexandria). 

But until there is genuine movement toward the completion of I-57 north of Little Rock, then everything south of there remains strictly opportunity.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 27, 2017, 10:51:26 PM
I-57 is a diagonal interstate. It doesn't make any sense for it to over-write the I-530 designation in some distant hope of an interstate being extended to Monroe, LA. I'm sorry, but that's just not a major traffic corridor. And because I-57 runs so diagonal into Little Rock the act of making it do a hard dog-leg turn due South just doesn't seem right. If any Interstate is going to go into Monroe just let it be I-530 or even give it another 2di number like I-53.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 27, 2017, 10:59:42 PM

But until there is genuine movement toward the completion of I-57 north of Little Rock, then everything south of there remains strictly opportunity.

Makes a great sound bite , though: "I supported I-57 north of Little Rock"
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 27, 2017, 11:34:43 PM
I-57 is a diagonal interstate. It doesn't make any sense for it to over-write the I-530 designation in some distant hope of an interstate being extended to Monroe, LA. I'm sorry, but that's just not a major traffic corridor. And because I-57 runs so diagonal into Little Rock the act of making it do a hard dog-leg turn due South just doesn't seem right. If any Interstate is going to go into Monroe just let it be I-530 or even give it another 2di number like I-53.

Hard turns?  Dog-legs?  I-75 through Chattanooga & Knoxville says a big fat hello!  Plenty of precedents all over the Interstate system for a mixed-bag alignment.  I-57 is only slightly diagonal for most of its Illinois mileage, except (obviously) immediately south of Effingham.  And an alignment along US 165 in Louisiana more or less mimics the Illinois trajectory (a few degrees clockwise from vertical).  Having an interim diagonal segment in between wouldn't be all that bad -- considering the ludicrousness of three trunk Interstates all terminating in the Little Rock area.  Just so posters & readers don't have to toggle back & forth unnecessarily, I'll indulge a bit of fictional here, since it's already been brought up:  if you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

But until there is genuine movement toward the completion of I-57 north of Little Rock, then everything south of there remains strictly opportunity.

Makes a great sound bite , though: "I supported I-57 north of Little Rock"

Yes, it does.  Maybe that'll be Boozman's re-election slogan!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 28, 2017, 04:54:26 AM
I'll indulge a bit of fictional here, since it's already been brought up:  if you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.

I have proposed exactly that, but as an I-51. I'd prefer I-53 to be what is now the I-57 extension to Popular Bluff, but continuing up US 67 to Festus, then cosigned with I-55 to the burbs of St. Louis, then an outer loop around St. Louis to US 40/US 61, then taking over the Avenue of the Saints corridor through MO and IA.

Or, if you want to cut out the I-69 extension between Monticello and Tenaha, you can make what was the segment of I-69 from Monticello to Brookhaven south of Memphis  at the I-55/I-269 junction into I-53. Heck, if money really wasn't an object, you could even make an I-53 extension down US 425 to Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez, then down US 61 to Baton Rouge, then down I-110 and I-10 down to I-55, while shifting I-10 to proposed I-49 South and extending I-12 to Lafayette.

[All right, enough Fictional for now.]
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on June 28, 2017, 08:49:18 AM
I-57 is a diagonal interstate. It doesn't make any sense for it to over-write the I-530 designation in some distant hope of an interstate being extended to Monroe, LA. I'm sorry, but that's just not a major traffic corridor. And because I-57 runs so diagonal into Little Rock the act of making it do a hard dog-leg turn due South just doesn't seem right. If any Interstate is going to go into Monroe just let it be I-530 or even give it another 2di number like I-53.

Hard turns?  Dog-legs?  I-75 through Chattanooga & Knoxville says a big fat hello!  Plenty of precedents all over the Interstate system for a mixed-bag alignment.  I-57 is only slightly diagonal for most of its Illinois mileage, except (obviously) immediately south of Effingham.  And an alignment along US 165 in Louisiana more or less mimics the Illinois trajectory (a few degrees clockwise from vertical).  Having an interim diagonal segment in between wouldn't be all that bad -- considering the ludicrousness of three trunk Interstates all terminating in the Little Rock area.  Just so posters & readers don't have to toggle back & forth unnecessarily, I'll indulge a bit of fictional here, since it's already been brought up:  if you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

But until there is genuine movement toward the completion of I-57 north of Little Rock, then everything south of there remains strictly opportunity.

Makes a great sound bite , though: "I supported I-57 north of Little Rock"

Yes, it does.  Maybe that'll be Boozman's re-election slogan!

Sounds better than "I voted to take away your healthcare".
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: jbnv on June 28, 2017, 08:53:47 AM
An interstate along US 165 from Lake Charles to Little Rock is of far more theoretical value to Louisiana than the current I-69 alignment. If Louisiana politicians start talking about that, then these ideas will enter the realm of plausibility. Look at I-14, which is pure vaporware at this point.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2017, 02:55:03 PM
Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: rte66man on June 28, 2017, 03:17:11 PM
If you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

Never happen.  US65 from Harrison south to Conway would cost untold BILLIONS to build out to interstate standards. While it looks good in the fictional realm, it will never happen.  But I guess we can always dream........
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: jbnv on June 28, 2017, 04:21:25 PM
Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?

US 165 in Louisiana was upgraded to a four-lane expressway about a decade ago. I don't know what traffic counts are. The basic fact is that US 165 connects three of Louisiana's largest cities and represents an alternate route from southeast Texas through Louisiana to Little Rock, Memphis and other points north and east.

Yes, it will probably be decades before the traffic volumes justify making the corridor a freeway. Even when they do, there will be plenty of issues getting it around/through the various cities and towns along the way and limiting access along the stretch.

The same argument about need applies to I-69 between Texas and Memphis. And I dare someone to demonstrate that completed I-69 will provide more benefit to Louisiana than freeway US 165.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 28, 2017, 04:57:26 PM
If you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

Never happen.  US65 from Harrison south to Conway would cost untold BILLIONS to build out to interstate standards. While it looks good in the fictional realm, it will never happen.  But I guess we can always dream........

Probably so.  Looks good on a map, but the Ozarks do pose a formidable obstacle to efficient construction.  Never been on this particular road; for realistic assessment, I'll gladly defer to those who have.   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 28, 2017, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: sparker
Hard turns?  Dog-legs?  I-75 through Chattanooga & Knoxville says a big fat hello!

At least I-75 in Tennessee has an excuse for the hard turns (mountains). There's not quite so much of that through Central Arkansas. If I-57 is completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston there will be a lot of Chicago-Dallas traffic on that route. Monroe is not a major destination for traffic along that corridor. Hell, there's not any rush to get I-530 completed to the proposed I-69 corridor. That's just disconnected segments of 2-lane road going through there.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 29, 2017, 03:07:52 AM
Quote from: sparker
Hard turns?  Dog-legs?  I-75 through Chattanooga & Knoxville says a big fat hello!

At least I-75 in Tennessee has an excuse for the hard turns (mountains). There's not quite so much of that through Central Arkansas. If I-57 is completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston there will be a lot of Chicago-Dallas traffic on that route. Monroe is not a major destination for traffic along that corridor. Hell, there's not any rush to get I-530 completed to the proposed I-69 corridor. That's just disconnected segments of 2-lane road going through there.

Maybe not Monroe, but if US 165 is freewayized all the way down to I-10 and I-530/I-51 is extended, all of a sudden the port cities of Lake Charles and Beaumont get some decent traffic, and Alexandria and possibly Monroe may get some decent growth.

Of course, this is way long term. The 4-laning of US 165 and US 425 (thanks to the TIMED tax) is sufficient enough for the next 10-20 years. I-49 South and I-10 through Baton Rouge/Baton Rouge Bypass, and perhaps the I-49 ICC in Shreveport and a new I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge in Lake Charles, should be the main priorities for Louisiana right now.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: codyg1985 on June 29, 2017, 07:15:53 AM
If you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

Never happen.  US65 from Harrison south to Conway would cost untold BILLIONS to build out to interstate standards. While it looks good in the fictional realm, it will never happen.  But I guess we can always dream........

Probably so.  Looks good on a map, but the Ozarks do pose a formidable obstacle to efficient construction.  Never been on this particular road; for realistic assessment, I'll gladly defer to those who have.   

It is quite a mountainous drive through quite scenic territory. I believe AHTD has plans to widen certain segments to four lanes, but I am not sure if it will be a typical "Arkansas Freeway" (five lanes or four lanes undivided) or two separate carriageways similar to US 65 north of Harrison.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2017, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: sparker
Hard turns?  Dog-legs?  I-75 through Chattanooga & Knoxville says a big fat hello!

At least I-75 in Tennessee has an excuse for the hard turns (mountains). There's not quite so much of that through Central Arkansas. If I-57 is completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston there will be a lot of Chicago-Dallas traffic on that route. Monroe is not a major destination for traffic along that corridor. Hell, there's not any rush to get I-530 completed to the proposed I-69 corridor. That's just disconnected segments of 2-lane road going through there.

Actually, the mountains -- and the swampland east of them -- is the primary reason for the diagonal portion of US 67/future I-57 -- the highway is more or less at or near the "fall line" of the eastern Ozark flank, essentially following the original Missouri Pacific rail line, which had the good sense to avoid the mountains and also avoid the perennially flood-prone flatlands from there to the Mississippi River (the old railroad surveyors pretty much knew what they were doing!).  A diagonal route in this location is not placed there to expedite Texas-Chicago traffic (although the fact that it does so is simply icing on the proverbial cake), but because it lies along a very functional "natural" corridor, along with I-30/US 67 in SW Arkansas (another MP follower), which functions much the same but along the Ouachita rather than Ozark southeastern flank.  So in a sense one could say that, like I-75's path between Appalachian ridges, the path of I-57 is merely doing the best it can with the topography it encounters!

AR 530 is 2-lane, but on an easement intended for 4-lanes that'll eventually be Interstate grade.  It's being built a segment at a time as budgetary factors permit.  My guess is unless the trunk I-69 project somehow becomes accelerated, there will be little hurry to bring 530 up to Interstate standards in the near term; it'll remain just a relatively quick way to get from Little Rock/Pine Bluff to Monticello.   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on June 30, 2017, 05:23:50 PM
Anyway, let's get back on topic.

Missouri convened their transportation task force this week and seemed to agree that a fuel tax hike was needed.

http://www.whig.com/20170629/missouri-transportation-panel-backs-campaign-for-higher-fuel-tax# (http://www.whig.com/20170629/missouri-transportation-panel-backs-campaign-for-higher-fuel-tax#)

My guess would be funding for the Improvements to make US 60/67 into I-57 will be included in the next capital program after they figure out how to raise some revenue.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 01, 2017, 06:15:34 PM
There is construction at the 51/Muskogee Turnpike split, but I didn't see anything that looked like they were rebuilding the interchange.

Down near the new toll booths being built, at least South/East Bound. I was going to back and look my way home, but didn't.

I thought you meant the western end of the turnpike. You were talking about the Coweta interchange, right? That whole area is being reconfigured. It will be nice when it is finished. Now to do something about the tollbooth south of Muskogee that requires Pikepass users to slow down to 30 MPH...
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 01, 2017, 06:23:40 PM
I-30 does not end in Little Rock. I-57 won't end in Little Rock either.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 01, 2017, 06:32:32 PM
Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?
Much of US 65 north of Lake Village is 4-Lanes, partially controlled access. Dumas and McGehee are 5-Lanes. South of Lake Village, 65 is 2-Lanes and crappy pavement
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 02, 2017, 01:01:08 AM
I-30 does not end in Little Rock. I-57 won't end in Little Rock either.

You are absolutely correct, sir!  They will both terminate in NORTH Little Rock!  Hope this clears up a major controversy!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 02, 2017, 01:33:49 AM
I'm just being pedantic.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 02, 2017, 02:07:20 AM
I'm just being pedantic.

That's cool!  I was just adding a wee dram of sarcasm to the proceedings.  Carry on!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 02, 2017, 11:48:21 PM
Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?
Much of US 65 north of Lake Village is 4-Lanes, partially controlled access. Dumas and McGehee are 5-Lanes. South of Lake Village, 65 is 2-Lanes and crappy pavement

I really don't think US 165 in Louisiana needs to be an interstate. Now that the entirety of it to Bastrop and US 425 have been 4-laned, I think it adequately moves traffic from SW Louisiana to NE Louisiana. Maybe I'm a little biased because I live directly on 165, but making it interstate is a waste of money to me.

Plus, traffic from central Louisiana or below it wouldn't use that corridor to get to Little Rock and points further north. It's quicker to use US 167 straight up the middle to get to Little Rock.


iPhone
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 03, 2017, 12:13:22 AM
Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?
Much of US 65 north of Lake Village is 4-Lanes, partially controlled access. Dumas and McGehee are 5-Lanes. South of Lake Village, 65 is 2-Lanes and crappy pavement

I really don't think US 165 in Louisiana needs to be an interstate. Now that the entirety of it to Bastrop and US 425 have been 4-laned, I think it adequately moves traffic from SW Louisiana to NE Louisiana. Maybe I'm a little biased because I live directly on 165, but making it interstate is a waste of money to me.

Plus, traffic from central Louisiana or below it wouldn't use that corridor to get to Little Rock and points further north. It's quicker to use US 167 straight up the middle to get to Little Rock.


iPhone

Actually, a potential Interstate from Alexandria to Little Rock via the 165/425/530 corridor would only be marginally longer than the direct US 167 route and would, of course, avoid the slowdowns inherent with a surface corridor through interim towns.  The "lure" of a high(er)-speed route that would save some time (and brake wear) would likely be sufficient to entice most of any direct traffic (particularly of the commercial variety) between those points to utilize such an Interstate-grade facility.  That being said, right now the corridor as it stands is adequate to handle the current level of regional traffic.  However, if other corridor concepts through the region (I-14, I-69) gain enough of a foothold to prompt actual development, don't be surprised if you hear drumbeats for similar enhancement of the 165 corridor, particularly north from Alexandria.  These things tend to produce regional offspring (see TX and NC for examples)!     
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 03, 2017, 12:40:29 PM
There is little, if any, chance of US-165 being upgraded to Interstate quality between Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe. The route may be 4-laned already, but far too much of it has homes and commercial businesses built close to the road. There isn't enough room to add frontage roads. Adding more complication, a railroad line parallels US-165 between Lake Charles and Alexandria.

If an Interstate was going to be built along this corridor most of it would have to be built on a new terrain alignment. And that goes along with a 100% new terrain path of any would-be Interstate between the current Southern end of AR-530 and Monroe, LA.

I just don't see enough traffic along that corridor to justify a full blown Interstate. The population isn't there to warrant it. Also, it's really two corridors since Alexandria traffic would use US-167 to get to Little Rock while Monroe traffic would use US-425. People in that region should feel lucky they have 4 lane expressways serving them rather than only 2 lane roads.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 03, 2017, 01:35:24 PM
There is little, if any, chance of US-165 being upgraded to Interstate quality between Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe. The route may be 4-laned already, but far too much of it has homes and commercial businesses built close to the road. There isn't enough room to add frontage roads. Adding more complication, a railroad line parallels US-165 between Lake Charles and Alexandria.

If an Interstate was going to be built along this corridor most of it would have to be built on a new terrain alignment. And that goes along with a 100% new terrain path of any would-be Interstate between the current Southern end of AR-530 and Monroe, LA.

I just don't see enough traffic along that corridor to justify a full blown Interstate. The population isn't there to warrant it. Also, it's really two corridors since Alexandria traffic would use US-167 to get to Little Rock while Monroe traffic would use US-425. People in that region should feel lucky they have 4 lane expressways serving them rather than only 2 lane roads.

All this regarding any Interstate corridor south of Pine Bluff is pure speculation pending Arkansas' completion of the 530 corridor as an Interstate-grade facility down as far as the nascent E-W I-69 corridor near Monticello.  And it looks, at least for the time being, that completing it as a 2-lane expressway is the plan for the near term; this would not bode well for anything south of there along US 425 and/or US 165.  And Bobby is quite correct as to the likely need for a new-terrain alignment for anything in the Monroe-Alexandria corridor (with the possible exception of Monroe itself); the 4-laning was largely accomplished by twinning, leaving most of the private access to the highway intact; while increasing the capacity of the facility, the concept of rendering it limited-access wasn't a primary consideration here. 

Quite a few posters have posited the US 165 corridor as the likely "next big thing" in LA Interstate development -- but some of those have advanced the view that such a corridor would obviate much of the need for I-69; the N-S alignment is seen as more an alternative to I-69 than an addition to that corridor's "supporting cast" (as an extension of the 530 "branch").  However, to get this thread back in the direction of the OP, speculation as to the viability of a continuous southern I-57 extension supplanting the I-530/AR 530 corridor and continuing south into LA is just that until the presently-planned/legislated corridor northeast of Little Rock is completed or at least within sight of that happening.  Right now LA has got their hands full with the completion of I-49, the looming presence of I-69, and the recent injection of I-14 into the mix (which has got mid-state congressional types drooling, with pens & keyboards at the ready);  it's at present unlikely anyone will want to add one more corridor to the wish list.  Despite the fact that down the line something like the US 165 corridor might actually be deemed useful as a regional Interstate (and we here dissect the details of such just the same), in reality it's speculative fiction.     
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: jbnv on July 03, 2017, 01:43:08 PM
Yes, it's unlikely that we will ever get an interstate between Lake Charles and Little Rock unless the population of Louisiana starts growing dramatically, which is highly unlikely with our current government.  :rolleyes: However, a case can be made that a network of expressways from south Louisiana to central Arkansas has economic benefits for both states, promotes tourism between the two, and helps with hurricane evacuation. So LaDOTD and AHTD should at least talk about this now and decide on a coordinated plan, as they did successfully with I-49.

It doesn't take much logic to dismiss I-69 as a priority for Louisiana. The route simply does not benefit the state enough to justify prioritizing it. I personally support talking about US 165/167 as much as possible. Since so much of Louisiana politics is good-old-boy politics anyway, why not play along. More good-old-boys get a payoff through a Lake-Charles-to-Little-Rock corridor than through I-69.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on July 04, 2017, 08:56:29 PM
Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2017, 10:13:17 PM
Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

New thread for US 165 here:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20634.0

Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 05, 2017, 01:28:43 AM
Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

Thread drift happens. It's the nature of the internet. If you haven't been online enough to realize this, maybe you should refrain from complaining about it. And to think that they look at *me* as the bad guy when I complain about overmoderation.

*waits for this post to disappear down the memory hole. Orwell would love this forum.*
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 05, 2017, 01:41:30 AM
Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

Thread drift happens. It's the nature of the internet. If you haven't been online enough to realize this, maybe you should refrain from complaining about it. And to think that they look at *me* as the bad guy when I complain about overmoderation.

*waits for this post to disappear down the memory hole. Orwell would love this forum.*

Well -- since one of the suggested designations for a potential US 165 freeway was as an extension, via I/AR-530, of the I-57 designation south of Little Rock, it makes such a discussion relevant within the context of the thread.  But now that a Fictional thread has been started about the 165 corridor, discourse other than whether such a corridor should actually be a I-57 extension would best be expressed in that other thread -- including the merits of or issues with upgrading US 165 to an Interstate.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 05, 2017, 02:46:48 AM
I agree with Sparker. It is totally relevant.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on July 05, 2017, 08:13:59 PM
Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

Thread drift happens. It's the nature of the internet. If you haven't been online enough to realize this, maybe you should refrain from complaining about it. And to think that they look at *me* as the bad guy when I complain about overmoderation.

*waits for this post to disappear down the memory hole. Orwell would love this forum.*

That is fine, but US 165 upgrades doesn't have anything to do with the I-57 extension from Sikeston to Little Rock. If it drifted into a related topic, I wouldn't care, but US 165 upgrades (and extending I-57 south from Little Rock) are completely fictional and have nothing to do with the main topic here. Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly fine with the discussion of upgrading US 165, but it should go in the fictional highways section because there are no official plans to extend I-57 along the corridor. This thread should be limited to discussing progress towards the actual, on-the-table proposal to extend I-57 to North Little Rock (and closely related projects).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on July 05, 2017, 10:16:28 PM
Is it really that big of a deal if it is discussed in this thread? Does it even matter? Everything doesn't fit into a neat little box. If I write a post that is about both US 67 and US 165 do I have to start a third topic? It just sounds like petulant nonsense and is completely unnecessary. Just go with the flow.

To stay on topic, ROADS!

I still say US 67-167 should have been an I-30 extension. It connects to I-30 today (via a very short overlap on I-40) and it may not connect to the Missouri/Illinois I-57 for several decades. It wasn't a very good decision to give it that number. And before you say "But...but it runs north-south!" the trajectory is the same as I-30's is in Arkansas so it really doesn't matter. Should I-30 be truncated to I-49 and should I-57 be extended to Texarkana? Just like discussions of I-57 and US 165, it doesn't fit neatly into a perfectly square box. There must be some kind of mental disorder that makes one want to categorize everything into a box.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 05, 2017, 11:04:04 PM
If anything, it should have been I-30 but Doc Boozman had a different idea. Maybe you can take it up with him?

Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 06, 2017, 01:14:12 AM
If anything, it should have been I-30 but Doc Boozman had a different idea. Maybe you can take it up with him?

Regardless of the similar trajectory, the Little Rock area is the linchpin (or maybe fulcrum?) of whatever ultimate freeway network builds up around it.  I-30 functions more in an east-west fashion, funneling I-40 traffic down to Texas and vice-versa; while the northern nascent I-57 section along US 67 takes that traffic pattern further north; most of the traffic heading further east will veer off onto I-40 at that point, so the E-W function is pretty well dissipated once north of Little Rock.  Many, many years ago (pre-ISTEA), I thought that the US 67/60 continuum would work well as a feeder into Kentucky as well, with the parkway system taking traffic from Sikeston east to the Lexington area to disperse on I-64 or 75.  Now something like that would have made a neat eastern I-30 extension -- a lengthy interregional diagonal connector.  But, like the proverbial best-laid plans, this was not to be, with I-69 subsuming that region's planning efforts.  At least I-57 will provide a more direct outlet to Chicago and the rest of the Great Lakes states via connecting routes like I-70.  Not perfect by any means, but at least reasonably rational.     
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: mgk920 on July 06, 2017, 10:05:48 AM
Is it really that big of a deal if it is discussed in this thread? Does it even matter? Everything doesn't fit into a neat little box. If I write a post that is about both US 67 and US 165 do I have to start a third topic? It just sounds like petulant nonsense and is completely unnecessary. Just go with the flow.

To stay on topic, ROADS!

I still say US 67-167 should have been an I-30 extension. It connects to I-30 today (via a very short overlap on I-40) and it may not connect to the Missouri/Illinois I-57 for several decades. It wasn't a very good decision to give it that number. And before you say "But...but it runs north-south!" the trajectory is the same as I-30's is in Arkansas so it really doesn't matter. Should I-30 be truncated to I-49 and should I-57 be extended to Texarkana? Just like discussions of I-57 and US 165, it doesn't fit neatly into a perfectly square box. There must be some kind of mental disorder that makes one want to categorize everything into a box.

All that I did was mused about if and/or when we might start seeing some of the small-town local pols along the way begin to push for a southward extension of 'I-57'.

 :-o

Mike
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on July 07, 2017, 09:20:35 AM
All that I did was mused about if and/or when we might start seeing some of the small-town local pols along the way begin to push for a southward extension of 'I-57'.

 :-o

Mike

Maybe when they quit talking about high taxes.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Wayward Memphian on July 07, 2017, 03:35:18 PM
If you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

Never happen.  US65 from Harrison south to Conway would cost untold BILLIONS to build out to interstate standards. While it looks good in the fictional realm, it will never happen.  But I guess we can always dream........

Probably so.  Looks good on a map, but the Ozarks do pose a formidable obstacle to efficient construction.  Never been on this particular road; for realistic assessment, I'll gladly defer to those who have.   

It is quite a mountainous drive through quite scenic territory. I believe AHTD has plans to widen certain segments to four lanes, but I am not sure if it will be a typical "Arkansas Freeway" (five lanes or four lanes undivided) or two separate carriageways similar to US 65 north of Harrison.

US 412 should be of more focus. A four lane,  divided roadway with a good bit of limited access connecting NWA-Harrison- Mt Home -Jonesboro would benefit the state the most and certainly reduce presure  off of  I-40 and US 64 between Conway to Beebe. I can't tell you how many use that cutover to travel from NEA to NWA. I have  used it for years since my college days to going back east to duck hunt all because US 412 is just unimaginable to use as transit from one corner to the next.

Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2017, 05:03:06 PM
I hope they decide what to do with US 67 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO soon. I don't want to have to wait a few decades for them to make up their minds.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on July 07, 2017, 09:31:13 PM
I hope they decide what to do with US 67 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO soon. I don't want to have to wait a few decades for them to make up their minds.

The choices are quite straightforward:  serve the local population (primarily Pocahontas) via an alignment along or near present US 67; this would involve more interchanges, a crossing of the Black River in a populated area, threading the facility between the river bottom and the Ozark fall line, and very likely more property acquisition expenses.  Despite all that, it may end up being the politically necessary choice.  The other alignment would head NE along AR 34 and AR 90, tracing the UP main RR line -- and subsequently crossing the Black River floodplain at pretty much the same point the RR crosses it.  Because it's mostly farmland, there would be fewer interchanges and lower property costs, as well as crossing the river bottom at one of its narrower points (as the RR did 100+ years ago!).  More direct with less cost, but has much less local service value.  Someone (ARDOT or maybe Boozman & Co.) will have to make a choice sooner than later if this corridor is to be in any way expedited; the rest of us will just have to hang in there and see what goes down!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on July 08, 2017, 09:56:43 AM
I hope they decide what to do with US 67 between Walnut Ridge, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO soon. I don't want to have to wait a few decades for them to make up their minds.

The choices are quite straightforward:  serve the local population (primarily Pocahontas) via an alignment along or near present US 67; this would involve more interchanges, a crossing of the Black River in a populated area, threading the facility between the river bottom and the Ozark fall line, and very likely more property acquisition expenses.  Despite all that, it may end up being the politically necessary choice.  The other alignment would head NE along AR 34 and AR 90, tracing the UP main RR line -- and subsequently crossing the Black River floodplain at pretty much the same point the RR crosses it.  Because it's mostly farmland, there would be fewer interchanges and lower property costs, as well as crossing the river bottom at one of its narrower points (as the RR did 100+ years ago!).  More direct with less cost, but has much less local service value.  Someone (ARDOT or maybe Boozman & Co.) will have to make a choice sooner than later if this corridor is to be in any way expedited; the rest of us will just have to hang in there and see what goes down!

They need to choose the AR 34 alignment. Pocahontas may not like it, but it will be much easier and cheaper to go that way (especially since the road will now have to be Interstate-grade) and this project needs to get going. This was the original plan all along, but Pocahontas got all mad and complained about bypassing their town so they forced ArDOT to consider alignments closer to them. Problem is it will be an engineering nightmare and it will cost a ton more $$$ to run it by them since they are in a floodplain.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: adventurernumber1 on September 21, 2017, 03:33:57 PM
I've known about this proposal for a long time (the future I-57 extension), but something in terms of facilitating transportation has just clicked with me personally for the first time. Existing Interstate 57 (a north-south way out of Chicago that avoids other metro areas like St. Louis) and Interstate 30 (a critical and beneficial "slip Interstate" that not only carries cross-country traffic switching from I-40 to I-20 et al., but is also obviously important locally for Arkansas and Texas) are both important, high-truck-traffic, "short-cut" interstates. Now, the connection between these two interstates (I-30 and I-57) will be directly bridged by a new Interstate 57 extension. This will provide a direct connection from Chicago to the Mid-South that completely bypasses all major metro areas except for Chicagoland itself. Once all is completed, this whole "short-cut" interstate can efficiently take you from Chicago ultimately to places like Arkansas (Little Rock directly), Louisiana, DFW (via I-30, which together with this forms a super "short-cut" Interstate corridor, aside from going through moderate-sized Little Rock and Texarkana), and the rest of Texas. I already thought the I-57 extension was a great idea, but after deeply thinking about this, I see even more of how true genius it is!!!! I am incredibly excited (especially now) to see the development of this extension of Interstate 57 in Missouri and Arkansas.

 :thumbsup:  :cheers:
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: mgk920 on September 21, 2017, 11:18:33 PM
I've known about this proposal for a long time (the future I-57 extension), but something in terms of facilitating transportation has just clicked with me personally for the first time. Existing Interstate 57 (a north-south way out of Chicago that avoids other metro areas like St. Louis) and Interstate 30 (a critical and beneficial "slip Interstate" that not only carries cross-country traffic switching from I-40 to I-20 et al., but is also obviously important locally for Arkansas and Texas) are both important, high-truck-traffic, "short-cut" interstates. Now, the connection between these two interstates (I-30 and I-57) will be directly bridged by a new Interstate 57 extension. This will provide a direct connection from Chicago to the Mid-South that completely bypasses all major metro areas except for Chicagoland itself. Once all is completed, this whole "short-cut" interstate can efficiently take you from Chicago ultimately to places like Arkansas (Little Rock directly), Louisiana, DFW (via I-30, which together with this forms a super "short-cut" Interstate corridor, aside from going through moderate-sized Little Rock and Texarkana), and the rest of Texas. I already thought the I-57 extension was a great idea, but after deeply thinking about this, I see even more of how true genius it is!!!! I am incredibly excited (especially now) to see the development of this extension of Interstate 57 in Missouri and Arkansas.

 :thumbsup:  :cheers:

I think of I-57 in the same way, part of the original concept of the 'Interstate' system (cross-country commerce that bypasses major metros).

I see the same thing with US 41 between Chicagoland and Hopkinsville, KY and onward towards Atlanta via I-24 and 75, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 22, 2017, 02:58:33 AM
I think of I-57 in the same way, part of the original concept of the 'Interstate' system (cross-country commerce that bypasses major metros).

I see the same thing with US 41 between Chicagoland and Hopkinsville, KY and onward towards Atlanta via I-24 and 75, too.
Mike

Except for a few "missing links" such as I-22 and I-49 (and the potential I-40 extension into the San Joaquin Valley -- I just had to get that in there!!!!), I suspect a sizeable portion of planned future Interstate corridors will traverse regions marked more by smaller -- or even negligible -- urban areas rather than mimic the simple "connect-the-dots" interurban facilities that characterized the original Interstate network.  Part of that is political and/or developmental; smaller areas that don't wish to remain so perpetually press (individually or collectively if feasible) for corridors that serve their regions (the I-14 option via San Angelo, TX is a prime example of such, abetted by similar activities in Midland, Temple, and Bryan/State College), while mature urban areas that are already quite self-sufficient (e.g. Austin) don't see the need to acquire additional Interstate corridor access; they're doing fine without it.  Any additional Interstate connections will be imposed upon them from outside rather than initiated from within (i.e., TxDOT planning a corridor down TX 71 at the request of trucking interests and/or local political forces en route).  The other part, or "flip side" if you will, is congestion (even periodic) between metropolitan areas located moderate distances apart; "relief" routes -- often coincidentally serving other interim areas, are sometimes planned and even deployed (the eastern I-86 serves as an example of this); avoiding those "chokepoints" endemic to the larger "dots" in the extant "connect-the-dot" methodology is a primary raison d'etre of many newer corridor concepts.  The oft-discussed "Memphis-Atlanta" corridor via Huntsville and Rome, GA is specifically laid out to avoid both Birmingham, AL as well as the segment of I-20 between that city and Atlanta, which is subject to congestion even far afield from the anchoring metro areas (although Huntsville itself, growing as it has, may not be much better than Birmingham in the long haul). 

Clearly and obviously I-57 fits into that "relief" category; at its full planned length it encounters no major metro areas between Little Rock and Chicago save Champaign/Urbana.  Currently there's no really good relatively direct route between Nashville and Chicago that doesn't involve "slogs" through Louisville and Indianapolis (or the "long haul" 24/57 routing, which is more optimized for Nashville-St. Louis); so a N-S corridor via Terre Haute could well be considered as a future such relief route.  Don't think that it'll get all the way into Chicagoland itself; it'll likely merge with either I-65 somewhere around Rensselaer, IN or possibly, after utilizing most of IN 63, turn NW to get to I-57 somewhere in the Gilman, IL area (apologies for the fictional aspect of this post).  But it'll do what US 41 has always done -- provided an efficient corridor between Chicago and the Deep South, with only the moderately-sized cities of Evansville and Terre Haute providing any potential for delay.  And while not possessing the sheer ability to rival its I-65 alternate to the east in terms of potential AADT (not going through Indianapolis or Louisville will do that to you!), in all likelihood it'll eventually find its own ridership.  In other words, a "relief" corridor with its own particular utility; IMHO that's the type of corridor that will come to dominate Interstate network expansion efforts.

Curiously, three of the more recent additions to the network -- at least at the legislated level -- are inverse versions of the above concept:  I-41 in WI, I-86 in NY (and a bit in PA), and the potential I-7 or I-9 along CA 99.  All three function (or will) as regional "dot connectors", commissioned to serve as an alternative to other corridors that themselves avoid (or merely skirt) metro regions (although the extensive NY "x90" network effectively addresses that issue for I-90).  But I-86 blithely connects the secondary towns of Binghamton, Elmira, and Jamestown while cutting off quite a bit of mileage between NYC metro and Cleveland vis-a-vis I-90 in addition to providing a "shunpiking" option.  And in WI, while I-43, while serving secondary cities such as Sheboygan deliberately avoided the major developed area north of Milwaukee along Us 41 -- a concept recently addressed by I-41, which functions as a "main street" within the region.  And the potential Interstate along CA 99 will do much the same, connecting the cities (with many more of them possessing large population figures than in 1956-57) bypassed by I-5, while simultaneously serving as a relief route for that extant arterial.  Just goes to show -- the "relief route" concept is a double-edged sword!     
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on September 22, 2017, 04:12:30 AM
Pocahontas can stick it if they don't like it. It is already connected to Future I-30/57 at Walnut Ridge by an undivided 4-5 lane "Arkansas Freeway". US 62-67 could also be 4 laned between Pocahontas and Corning by a similar Arkansas Freeway undivided highway or even better, a true 4 lane divided expressway. An alternative would be to make AR 304 into an expressway to connect Pocahontas to I-30/57 east/north. This way Pocahontas would be served by 4 lane highways while I-30/57 would take the shorter, quicker, cheaper route along AR 34/90.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: adventurernumber1 on September 23, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
Also, I have a question. For obvious reasons (with I-440 being an even I-x40), Interstate 440 currently ends at Interstate 40 (because it is prohibited from being a spur), and the road turns into AR 440 going north (still limited-access) until it ends at the US 67/US 167 freeway (FUTURE I-57). Once the US 67 freeway is designated as Interstate 57 in its totality, will all of this AR 440 be changed to I-440, since at that point it would be possible to do so. It wouldn't make any sense to me if they didn't do that.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: ilpt4u on September 23, 2017, 08:37:54 PM
Also, I have a question. For obvious reasons (with I-440 being an even I-x40), Interstate 440 currently ends at Interstate 40 (because it is prohibited from being a spur), and the road turns into AR 440 going north (still limited-access) until it ends at the US 67/US 167 freeway (FUTURE I-57). Once the US 67 freeway is designated as Interstate 57 in its totality, will all of this AR 440 be changed to I-440, since at that point it would be possible to do so. It wouldn't make any sense to me if they didn't do that.  :hmm:
I'd rather see I-440 decommissioned once I-57 makes it to Little Rock

One way or the other, route either I-30 or I-57 onto the current I/AR 440, and route the other thru Downtown on current I-30, multiplex with I-40 for a short jog, and then onto the US 67/167 Freeway, between the current junctions with I/AR 440

I would probably leave I-30 as the Downtown Thru Route, and put I-57 on the Decommissioned I/AR 440

This also leaves open a future possibility to continue I-57 Southward down current I-530. And if that option is to be entertained, I'd actually favor I-57 being the Downtown Thru route, and I-30 being routed over the current I/AR 440 bypass route. I-630 would have to be shifted to I-657 (or other even57), and I-57 would have its first child =)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 24, 2017, 12:04:08 AM
Also, I have a question. For obvious reasons (with I-440 being an even I-x40), Interstate 440 currently ends at Interstate 40 (because it is prohibited from being a spur), and the road turns into AR 440 going north (still limited-access) until it ends at the US 67/US 167 freeway (FUTURE I-57). Once the US 67 freeway is designated as Interstate 57 in its totality, will all of this AR 440 be changed to I-440, since at that point it would be possible to do so. It wouldn't make any sense to me if they didn't do that.  :hmm:
I'd rather see I-440 decommissioned once I-57 makes it to Little Rock

One way or the other, route either I-30 or I-57 onto the current I/AR 440, and route the other thru Downtown on current I-30, multiplex with I-40 for a short jog, and then onto the US 67/167 Freeway, between the current junctions with I/AR 440

I would probably leave I-30 as the Downtown Thru Route, and put I-57 on the Decommissioned I/AR 440

This also leaves open a future possibility to continue I-57 Southward down current I-530. And if that option is to be entertained, I'd actually favor I-57 being the Downtown Thru route, and I-30 being routed over the current I/AR 440 bypass route. I-630 would have to be shifted to I-657 (or other even57), and I-57 would have its first child =)

Still think I-530 should be in the mix somewhere:  an alternate plan would be:
(1)  Reroute I-30 over I-440 and its AR 440 extension.
(2)  I-57 will continue south (after a slight jog on I-40) via present I-30 through downtown Little Rock, and......
(2A)  ........continue south subsuming I-530 and eventually its AR 530 extension if & when that's built out to spec.
(3)  Everything else remains the same.

In short, no use keeping a long 3di around when there's a 2di in the wings ready to take up the gauntlet.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2017, 07:16:36 PM
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: mvak36 on September 25, 2017, 01:23:47 PM
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.
Least confusing too. I just assumed that was what they were going to do, but you never know I guess.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 PM
So, any news on finishing the remainder of the US 67 freeway (Future I-57)?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: ilpt4u on September 25, 2017, 10:45:19 PM
So, any news on finishing the remainder of the US 67 freeway (Future I-57)?
All the way to US 60/Poplar Bluff, MO?

MoDOT doesn't have the funding to do any more upgrades on their portion, at least at present
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 25, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.

Well, if they had taken my suggestion and designated it as I-53 rather than I-57, then you could make a case for realigning I-30 along that stretch of AR 440 to bypass LR, converting the N/S section of I-30 through LR to I-53, and then simply extending I-53 along I-530/AR 530 and further to at least I-20 in Monroe.

But, water under the bridge.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 26, 2017, 05:02:15 PM
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.

Well, if they had taken my suggestion and designated it as I-53 rather than I-57, then you could make a case for realigning I-30 along that stretch of AR 440 to bypass LR, converting the N/S section of I-30 through LR to I-53, and then simply extending I-53 along I-530/AR 530 and further to at least I-20 in Monroe.

But, water under the bridge.

Even though it's a bit out of grid, there's no reason why I-57 just couldn't be commissioned south of Little Rock per my previous suggestion as well as a slight numerical modification of the "I-53" plans stated above.  But until funds are found to complete I-57 in the north part of the state as well as within MO, there's no practical reason to make any such changes at this point in time.  By that time, AR 530 may even be completed down to Monticello, albeit as a 2-lane initial "placeholder" facility, so the rationale for effecting a designation change at that time may be somewhat more compelling.   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Henry on September 27, 2017, 09:21:08 AM
There is precedent for two 2di's ending in the same city where they could easily be combined into one longer route (Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City and potentially Chicago, if I-41 ever makes it there, come to mind).
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 28, 2017, 12:58:15 AM
There is precedent for two 2di's ending in the same city where they could easily be combined into one longer route (Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City and potentially Chicago, if I-41 ever makes it there, come to mind).

Precedent, yes; mandate, no.  While technically I-530 could eventually find itself as I-53, particularly if ever extended to Monroe or Alexandria, there's really no rationale to favor that designation over a I-57 extension (except for grid purists).  Either designation would be appropriate -- even though a northerly I-53 extension, ostensibly up US 65 into MO, will likely never occur.  But, hell, this is Fictional -- so may as well speculate big!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: edwaleni on September 28, 2017, 01:18:27 PM
I found this older press release on US-67

New US-67 route in the works between Walnut Ridge and Corning

WALNUT RIDGE, AR (KAIT) - After almost three years of going back and forth with having to agree on a new hwy 67 route to the Missouri state line, a compromise has been made. The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

"We expect announcements over the next year of multiple industrial developments along this route," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House.

With new developments in the work comes anticipated heavy traffic.  House said taking care of it now is important before it becomes a problem in the future.

"With all those plans in mind, we're trying to get ready for that," said House. "Some companies have already made some big investments in properties along this line."

Although, it took nearly three years to come up with a compromise from all the cities along highway 67, the new proposed route is much affordable and timely than what was originally discussed.

"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line," said House.  "We're following the existing route except for minor adjustments and the bypasses around Corning and around Pocahontas."

House said there's a lot more to this new proposal than just accommodating the amount of drivers who will be traveling on the highway.

"It's for safety, environmental impact, economic development and industrial growth," said House.

There's not a lot of money for the project now, but House said a new highway bill could fund the project much sooner than anticipated If it's approved.

"There are ways at which we may be able to begin the building of this project through some influence on the bill."

House said they are waiting for approval signatures from Searcy city officials, and plan to send the proposal to Governor Beebe and the Highway Commission to approve.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on September 28, 2017, 04:27:46 PM
I found this older press release on US-67

New US-67 route in the works between Walnut Ridge and Corning

WALNUT RIDGE, AR (KAIT) - After almost three years of going back and forth with having to agree on a new hwy 67 route to the Missouri state line, a compromise has been made. The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

"We expect announcements over the next year of multiple industrial developments along this route," said Walnut Ridge Mayor Don House.

With new developments in the work comes anticipated heavy traffic.  House said taking care of it now is important before it becomes a problem in the future.

"With all those plans in mind, we're trying to get ready for that," said House. "Some companies have already made some big investments in properties along this line."

Although, it took nearly three years to come up with a compromise from all the cities along highway 67, the new proposed route is much affordable and timely than what was originally discussed.

"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line," said House.  "We're following the existing route except for minor adjustments and the bypasses around Corning and around Pocahontas."

House said there's a lot more to this new proposal than just accommodating the amount of drivers who will be traveling on the highway.

"It's for safety, environmental impact, economic development and industrial growth," said House.

There's not a lot of money for the project now, but House said a new highway bill could fund the project much sooner than anticipated If it's approved.

"There are ways at which we may be able to begin the building of this project through some influence on the bill."

House said they are waiting for approval signatures from Searcy city officials, and plan to send the proposal to Governor Beebe and the Highway Commission to approve.

Older press release?  This sounds like a preliminary concept for one of the previously proffered concepts -- possibly a 5-lane surface facility -- that should be moot now that the I-57 designation has been applied to this corridor.  Check the date on that press release; if it's earlier than about mid-2015, it probably doesn't reflect recent corridor events.  This plan may still eventually be built primarily for safety purposes if the I-57 corridor bypasses the area to the east (the AR 34/90 alignment); Pocahontas & Corning would still benefit from those improvements independent of the Interstate corridor.  Now -- if I-57 ends up following US 67 on such an alignment via the more populated area, there will need to be extensive frontage roads and other concessions to local businesses, as well as multiple interchanges along the Pocahontas and Corning bypasses; it's likely that option would be considerably more costly than the eastern routing.   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: MikieTimT on September 28, 2017, 04:37:32 PM
Not to mention underwater more often.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2017, 05:47:14 PM
Might the Pocahontas Bypass be built as a 2-lane highway initially (like the 549 Bella Vista Bypass, and the 569 Monticello Bypass), and expanded to four lanes at a later date?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on September 28, 2017, 08:07:06 PM
Regardless of where the new US 67 (Future I-57) route ultimately goes (either to Pocahontas or along AR 34), they will likely have to put the Corning bypass on the west side of town. As such, they should get going on building that section right now (kind of like what they did with the Hoxie/Walnut Ridge bypass). Start with an interchange with the existing US 67 and build north and east, ending at AR 328.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2017, 10:15:46 AM
It's official. President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf) that designates US 67 as I-57 (p. 663/708 of pdf):
Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
‘‘(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.’’.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)’’.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I–169.’’
.

On Sept. 27, FHWA got around to amending its list of high priority corridors (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm), but it did not include the future interstate designations. I assume it was a simple oversight, but i thought I would post in case somebody had a better explanation:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_10_17_10_13_38.png)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on October 09, 2017, 08:56:03 PM
It's official. President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf) that designates US 67 as I-57 (p. 663/708 of pdf):
Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
‘‘(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.’’.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)’’.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I–169.’’
.

On Sept. 27, FHWA got around to amending its list of high priority corridors (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm), but it did not include the future interstate designations. I assume it was a simple oversight, but i thought I would post in case somebody had a better explanation:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_10_17_10_13_38.png)

So what does this mean? Will I-57 shields start popping up along the US 67 corridor soon?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on October 10, 2017, 12:18:13 AM
It's official. President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf) that designates US 67 as I-57 (p. 663/708 of pdf):
Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
‘‘(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.’’.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)’’.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I–169.’’
.

On Sept. 27, FHWA got around to amending its list of high priority corridors (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm), but it did not include the future interstate designations. I assume it was a simple oversight, but i thought I would post in case somebody had a better explanation:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_10_17_10_13_38.png)

So what does this mean? Will I-57 shields start popping up along the US 67 corridor soon?

Probably a 50/50 chance; on the plus side is the fact that I-540 north of I-40 was renumbered before the connection to Missouri was completed (or even funded) -- so there's precedent for this type of action.  On the negative side -- at least I-49's signage had a SIU purpose -- connect I-40 to NWA (as I-540 had done for 17 years); dropping off traffic in Walnut Ridge/Hoxie may not be considered sufficient to warrant I-57 signage at this time -- at least until plans to the MO state line are finalized.   Could go either way; probably the deciding factor will be whether there is enough local/in-state pressure to do so.   
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on October 10, 2017, 06:14:54 PM
Bye-bye to all of the US concurrency signs between NLR & Bald Knob. Get your pictures while you can.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 11, 2017, 10:09:44 AM
Bye-bye to all of the US concurrency signs between NLR & Bald Knob. Get your pictures while you can.
Welp, it looks like Arkansas is phasing out all of our US Routes! Bon Voyage, US 67!
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: yakra on October 11, 2017, 12:36:20 PM
Meh, it's still got a little relevance south of Exit 114...
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: sparker on October 11, 2017, 12:44:21 PM
Bye-bye to all of the US concurrency signs between NLR & Bald Knob. Get your pictures while you can.
Welp, it looks like Arkansas is phasing out all of our US Routes! Bon Voyage, US 67!
Meh, it's still got a little relevance south of Exit 114...

Hey, I-40 and US 64 coexist parallel to one another west of Conway, likewise I-49 and US 71 in much of NWA, and I-30 and US 67 over most of their length SW of Little Rock (plus many others within AR).  I wouldn't worry too much about US designations disappearing; it's likely the formerly-ever-expanding AR 367 will be reiterated as US 67 when and if I-57 is posted -- regardless of any official entreaties to the contrary.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: cjk374 on October 12, 2017, 06:46:20 AM
Bye-bye to all of the US concurrency signs between NLR & Bald Knob. Get your pictures while you can.
Welp, it looks like Arkansas is phasing out all of our US Routes! Bon Voyage, US 67!
Meh, it's still got a little relevance south of Exit 114...

Hey, I-40 and US 64 coexist parallel to one another west of Conway, likewise I-49 and US 71 in much of NWA, and I-30 and US 67 over most of their length SW of Little Rock (plus many others within AR).  I wouldn't worry too much about US designations disappearing; it's likely the formerly-ever-expanding AR 367 will be reiterated as US 67 when and if I-57 is posted -- regardless of any official entreaties to the contrary.

Has AR ever put a US route back onto an AR 3(ex-US xx) highway? I don't believe they did when I-530 was born.

As far as US 67 is concerned, it is still a big deal outside of AR. It may not be signed worth a damn when the I-57 signs go up, but it will still exist on BGSs & ARDOT paper records.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: NE2 on October 12, 2017, 10:09:18 PM
Has AR ever put a US route back onto an AR 3(ex-US xx) highway? I don't believe they did when I-530 was born.
They briefly put US 71 on I-540 north of Fort Smith before moving it back onto what had become AR 471.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on October 12, 2017, 10:38:50 PM
Has AR ever put a US route back onto an AR 3(ex-US xx) highway? I don't believe they did when I-530 was born.
They briefly put US 71 on I-540 north of Fort Smith before moving it back onto what had become AR 471.

??

I-49 (then AR 540, later I-540) north of Alma was originally proposed as "new" 71 and would tie in with the Fayetteville Bypass. 71 would fork off just past AR 112 and head north towards Bentonville. Old 71 was to have become AR 471.

But 71 never got rerouted at Alma due to the last few remaining commercial interests were afraid tourists wouldn't recognize 471 as old 71.

Similarly, old 71 in NW Arkansas was changed from 471 to US 71B again due to commercial interests.There was a brief transition of 71B cosigned with 471.

BTW: the original exit signs on the Fayetteville Bypass referred to the new highway as US 471, not AR 471, but this was quickly changed.


The other question if I understand correctly, reverting a 3d US to 3d AR that was a 3d US: not to my knowledge except in the case of a mis-sign


Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: NE2 on October 12, 2017, 11:05:44 PM
Oops, you're right. AR 471 became US 71B.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: bugo on October 19, 2017, 09:20:12 PM
They won't put US 67 back on the old route. There is no precedent of this happening in Arkansas that I know of, and besides AASHTO frowns on that sort of thing.

That is, if AHTD ever bothered to apply to AASHTO to reroute US 67 onto the freeway in the first place. They just got around to applying to reroute US 71 onto the Waldron bypass this year, and the Waldron bypass has been US 71 since before I was born (I'm 43.)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on October 28, 2017, 05:40:46 PM
They won't put US 67 back on the old route. There is no precedent of this happening in Arkansas that I know of, and besides AASHTO frowns on that sort of thing.


Not to mention parts of old 67 have been chopped up by the expressway.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2017, 07:41:35 PM
They won't put US 67 back on the old route. There is no precedent of this happening in Arkansas that I know of, and besides AASHTO frowns on that sort of thing.

AASHTO doesn't seem to be frowning as much these days. They allowed NC to put US-117 back on it's previous 2-lane alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson after the nearby freeway became I-795. NC also got approval to put US-17 back through Wilmington.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Road Hog on October 28, 2017, 09:38:02 PM
They won't put US 67 back on the old route. There is no precedent of this happening in Arkansas that I know of, and besides AASHTO frowns on that sort of thing.


Not to mention parts of old 67 have been chopped up by the expressway.

They could do it north of Jacksonville at Exit 16, as the old 67 is continuous from that point. But it’s in such crappy condition that it barely qualifies as a 3-digit state highway up to Beebe.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on October 28, 2017, 09:55:20 PM
They won't put US 67 back on the old route. There is no precedent of this happening in Arkansas that I know of, and besides AASHTO frowns on that sort of thing.


Not to mention parts of old 67 have been chopped up by the expressway.

They could do it north of Jacksonville at Exit 16, as the old 67 is continuous from that point. But it’s in such crappy condition that it barely qualifies as a 3-digit state highway up to Beebe.

What about Searcy? Through town or follow the zig-zag for 367? ;)
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: capt.ron on October 29, 2017, 12:51:35 PM
They won't put US 67 back on the old route. There is no precedent of this happening in Arkansas that I know of, and besides AASHTO frowns on that sort of thing.


Not to mention parts of old 67 have been chopped up by the expressway.

They could do it north of Jacksonville at Exit 16, as the old 67 is continuous from that point. But it’s in such crappy condition that it barely qualifies as a 3-digit state highway up to Beebe.
ARDOT is FINALLY getting around to repaving the stretch of old 67 aka AR 367 from exit 16 to the Lonoke / White county line. The road is in very bad shape. I think the road was originally concrete and they paved over it. The concrete sections are separating so its "bump-ump bump-ump bump-ump" constantly. As far as resigning it as US 67, it wouldn't make any sense as the road barely meets state highway standards, let alone modern US highway standards. They could, but they would need to rip out all of those old and narrow bridges (one is visible from the 67 freeway at the Lonoke / Pulaski county line), and replace the roadway, and like US71 stated, the old alignment of US 67 was taken by the southbound lanes of US 67 from just south of exit 44 to 42... and in Jacksonville around the Air Force Base exit.
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: I-39 on October 29, 2017, 01:26:12 PM
I take it there is still no news on what to do with US 67 north of Walnut Ridge?
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on October 29, 2017, 06:13:37 PM
I take it there is still no news on what to do with US 67 north of Walnut Ridge?

No money
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on October 30, 2017, 10:04:12 AM
 :D
https://mobile.twitter.com/shanebroadway/status/923571641422155776
Title: Re: Future I-57/US 67
Post by: US71 on October 30, 2017, 10:39:58 AM
:D
https://mobile.twitter.com/shanebroadway/status/923571641422155776

I posted this a few days ago  :bigass:


Future I-57 signs at the ARDOT sign shop (via Twitter)