NW to SE Missouri highway

[bugo]

It's notoriously hard to get from northwest Missouri to the southeastern part of the state.  The routes that connect these two regions are curvy, narrow, hilly, and dangerous.  A US 63 expressway/freeway would help a lot, but a full freeway really needs to connect these two regions, not just an expressway.   A road from near Rolla to Clinton would really need to be built.

[Alps]

I-29/I-49 to US 60 looks like the only way to do it, and it's not even completed yet, and far from a diagonal. (Trying to keep this from being Fictional)

[kphoger]

Getting anywhere that's not on a four-lane highway in Missouri can be a headache.

[US71]

It's notoriously hard to get from northwest Missouri to the southeastern part of the state.  The routes that connect these two regions are curvy, narrow, hilly, and dangerous.  A US 63 expressway/freeway would help a lot, but a full freeway really needs to connect these two regions, not just an expressway.   A road from near Rolla to Clinton would really need to be built.

From KC, you could take Mo 7 to Clinton, Mo 13 to Springfield, then US 60 to Sikeston. 

[golden eagle]

While on the subject of getting around in Missouri, I have a co-worker who will be traveling to Jefferson City this weekend and has been trying to figure out the best way to get there. Would it be better if she took I-55 to St. Louis, then west on I-70, or should she take US 63 at Turrell, AR? I saw where 63 goes directly to JC, but I didn't know if going that way would be the best option?

[Revive 755]

US 63 is mostly 65 mph between US 60 and somewhere south of Jefferson City, and the part between US 60 and Rolla has an abundance of passing lanes.  I'm not sure how much time would be lost in some of the towns along the way.

Otherwise, if time is not too much of a problem, I would recommend I-44 and US 50 to Jefferson City over I-70.  Unless there is a lot of roadwork or slowpokes, that route didn't used to take much longer than going up to I-70, and it is a tad more scenic.

[bugo]

It's notoriously hard to get from northwest Missouri to the southeastern part of the state.  The routes that connect these two regions are curvy, narrow, hilly, and dangerous.  A US 63 expressway/freeway would help a lot, but a full freeway really needs to connect these two regions, not just an expressway.   A road from near Rolla to Clinton would really need to be built.

From KC, you could take Mo 7 to Clinton, Mo 13 to Springfield, then US 60 to Sikeston. 

That's not acceptable.  There should be a new freeway built from Clinton to where I-57 meets I-55.  MO 7 could be upgraded to freeway between Clinton and US 71.

[codyg1985]

I have often wondered about a Memphis-Springfield-Kansas City freeway, and something like that would fit here. Memphis and KC are both big distribution hubs, right?

[golden eagle]

Otherwise, if time is not too much of a problem, I would recommend I-44 and US 50 to Jefferson City over I-70.  Unless there is a lot of roadwork or slowpokes, that route didn't used to take much longer than going up to I-70, and it is a tad more scenic.

She's driving from MS. Would it be practical going down I-44? I don't have a map in front of me right now to look.

[NE2]

Using St. Joseph to Sikeston and Google Maps' distances:
*439 mi, 29-70-55
*446 mi, 29-50-109-W-MM-M-55
*457 mi, 29-71-7-13-60
*460 mi, 29-50-63-72-55
*462 mi, 36-63-50-109-W-MM-M-55
*469 mi, 29-71-7-44-72-55

Unless you're avoiding traffic in the far outer St. Louis area (109-W-MM-M), there's no need to cut through the Rolla area.

[Scott5114]

I can't speak to the specifics of W, MM, and M specifically (in this case they may be perfectly acceptable suburban roads, for instance), but I would certainly encourage that the traveler do some research before recommending a lettered route. Lettered routes can be rather uneven in quality. The one lettered route I incorporated into a trip once, Route O in Greene County, felt a lot more like one of Oklahoma's county roads than a state highway, and I didn't feel as comfortable with it as I did the numbered highways.

[NE2]

W looks a bit underpowered, but M is a four-lane expressway and MM is an improved two-lane.

[kphoger]

I used to take the M-MM-W route when I lived in southern Illinois and wanted to bypass Saint Louis on my way to Kansas.  The four-lane section is great (I've been pulled over for speeding on it), MM was undergoing construction at that time so I'm not sure what it's like now, and W–though 'underpowered'–wasn't too terribly bad and could actually be called pleasant if traffic was light enough (not a common occurrance).

One note, though:   it may have been corrected by now, but I recall one turn not being signed.  I thought it was where W makes that last turn to the north toward Eureka, but GMSV shows the sign there in both directions with a date stamp from after I moved away from the area, and they appear to have been there awhile.  It shouldn't be a big deal anyway, since there's usually a steady stream of traffic.

Not having driven to Jefferson City except from the southwest, just looking at the map, I would suggest:
I-55 north
EITHER (the M-MM-W bypass if it will be close to rush hour http://g.co/maps/wrvnz)
OR (I-270 west at any other time http://g.co/maps/s353f) around Saint Louis
I-44 west to exit 247
US-50 west to Jefferson City

[Revive 755]

W looks a bit underpowered, but M is a four-lane expressway and MM is an improved two-lane.

W is a typical Missouri lettered route; MM is more of a somewhat-improved two lane road with some curves straightened and some turn lanes, but I suspect the stoplight at MO 30 overloads in the peak hours, and the general MM corridor is overloaded.  MM was supposed to be a four lane road with a narrow median, but MoDOT gave up on the idea after the locals couldn't agree on an alignment.

Back in the early 1990's, the whole M-MM-W-109 corridor was supposed to be upgraded to an expressway connecting I-55 to US 40, but local opposition killed it - the I-55 to I-44 section of the corridor appears on the StL area National Highway System map as an unbuilt route:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/mo/stlouis_mo.pdf

[huskeroadgeek]

I did a NW to SE Missouri drive several times back in the mid 90s going from Nebraska to Sikeston, MO(my sister-in-law is from Sikeston). I always took I-29/I-435/I-70/US 40-61(now I-64)/I-270/I-55. I remember considering taking MO 7 and 13 to Springfield and US 60 to Sikeston, but much of that route was still 2 lane at the time, so I figured the interstate was better.
Although it would only be part of a NW to SE highway, I've long thought that the failure to create a Kansas City to Springfield freeway was one of the biggest holes in Missouri's highway system. At least it's better now with the route being 4 lane expressway the entire way, although there still should be a full bypass of Clinton to avoid the 3 traffic lights in the city and a full freeway interchange at US 71 and MO 7 to avoid the backups which often occur on the exit ramp to MO 7 from US 71.

[US71]

I did a NW to SE Missouri drive several times back in the mid 90s going from Nebraska to Sikeston, MO(my sister-in-law is from Sikeston). I always took I-29/I-435/I-70/US 40-61(now I-64)/I-270/I-55. I remember considering taking MO 7 and 13 to Springfield and US 60 to Sikeston, but much of that route was still 2 lane at the time, so I figured the interstate was better.
Although it would only be part of a NW to SE highway, I've long thought that the failure to create a Kansas City to Springfield freeway was one of the biggest holes in Missouri's highway system. At least it's better now with the route being 4 lane expressway the entire way, although there still should be a full bypass of Clinton to avoid the 3 traffic lights in the city and a full freeway interchange at US 71 and MO 7 to avoid the backups which often occur on the exit ramp to MO 7 from US 71.

There are plans to upgrade the 71/7 interchange eventually, though I've not seen any plans.