AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 155579 times)

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3669
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 10:16:18 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #25 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.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 971
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:36:27 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #26 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?
Logged

jerryarkansas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14
  • Location: bono ar
  • Last Login: September 16, 2019, 04:08:06 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #27 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.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 971
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:36:27 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #28 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?
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 06:40:52 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 971
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:36:27 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #30 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
Logged

jerryarkansas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14
  • Location: bono ar
  • Last Login: September 16, 2019, 04:08:06 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #31 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2013, 08:56:08 PM »

This article 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 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):

Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2013, 02:28:34 PM »

On September 26 and 27, AHTD held public meetings regarding US 67 Proposed Corridors from US 63 in Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:

edit - added above map
The Comment Form indicates that interstate-grade construction (Future I-30?) is still on the table
This May 8, 2013 article 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 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.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 03:12:13 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

M86

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 488
  • Uff da

  • Location: Driving the Upper Midwest
  • Last Login: July 18, 2019, 03:11:17 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #34 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.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8558
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 09:31:05 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #35 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:
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:05:43 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2013, 09:27:17 AM »

This article 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 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):



Now I see why 3 miles costs $38 million:
   http://goo.gl/maps/70XLH
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2255
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 32
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 01:26:53 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #37 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.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2013, 01:24:22 PM »

On September 26 and 27, AHTD held public meetings regarding US 67 Proposed Corridors from US 63 in Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line:
This article 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, the Highway 67 Coalition has endorsed a route from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line.  This October 30 article 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)?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 01:59:48 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2057
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: September 01, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1788
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 09:36:00 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #40 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.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 06:40:52 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #41 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Mr. Hughes

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2
  • Last Login: September 23, 2014, 01:17:30 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #42 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?
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8558
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 09:31:05 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #43 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

Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #44 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 reports is the case with a bridge near Ellington, MO:

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).
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 11:08:45 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2014, 08:01:14 PM »

This article 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, the Highway 67 Coalition has endorsed a route from Walnut Ridge to the Missouri state line.  This October 30 article 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.
Logged

AHTD

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 303
  • www.idrivearkansas.com

  • Age: 106
  • Location: Arkansas
  • Last Login: June 21, 2017, 07:31:14 PM
    • AHTD Online
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #46 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?
Logged
Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2014, 11:06:50 PM »

This May 8, 2013 article .... 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?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 10:56:13 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

AHTD

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 303
  • www.idrivearkansas.com

  • Age: 106
  • Location: Arkansas
  • Last Login: June 21, 2017, 07:31:14 PM
    • AHTD Online
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #49 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

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
 
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   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.
 
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 03:37:54 PM by AHTD »
Logged
Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.