I-57 Approved

[MikieTimT]

Neutered shields??? Why?? Are they going to set aside the cash to replace them with proper state-listed shields when the Missouri portion is completed??

Can you explain? I don't see the issue here

Usually, with Interstates intended to cross state lines like I-57 crossing into MO, they will put in non-neutered shields with the state name blasted on it (such as my profile emoji LA I-49 shield). Kind of surprised that ARDOT is going with the neutered shields without the state name; though, not really a big deal in the process of completing the I-57 extension/upgrade. If they do decide to switch over to non-neutered shields when the MO section is completed, it's gonna be kind of costly, especially if they finish early.

There are no I-49 signs in Arkansas that have the state name on them.  So, I doubt I-57 will either.

How Interstate 57 will impact Arkansas communities, businesses
Highway 67 now designated as Interstate 57, will soon connect North Little Rock to Chicago

[MikieTimT]

Corning Bypass breaks ground Nov. 14.  Will be the full 4 lane facility for 4.1 miles.

ARDOT to Break Ground on Corning Bypass

[ran4sh]

So this means US 67/US 167 will have I-57 shields, with a gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston?

There's a big 170-mile gap in I-49 right now. The interstate system had gaps in the 1960s and 1970s that got filled in over time.

I don't think Interstate gaps from the 60s and 70s should be compared to today tbh. In the 60s and 70s it was understood to be an incomplete system. The Interstate system was designated as being complete in the 90s. New additions should not be allowed to have gaps, since that would be an unusual condition (rather than the normal condition as it was back in the 60s etc)

[ran4sh]

It's good to hear Interstate 57 will be signposted along the US 67 corridor. Does this mean that AR 440 will finally be signposted as an extension of Interstate 440? I believe the reason AR 440 was signed as a state Highway upon completion is because it did not connect with an Interstate at the northern terminus.

Yes, this was also mentioned in the latest minute order from September 18th. (link)

It's interesting that Arkansas chose to split 440 into Interstate and state route like that. It isn't the only case of a freeway starting at one interstate, crossing another, and ending at a non-interstate - there are examples like I-385 in SC where the whole thing is Interstate despite one end at a non-interstate.

[I-39]

Corning Bypass breaks ground Nov. 14.  Will be the full 4 lane facility for 4.1 miles.

ARDOT to Break Ground on Corning Bypass

And I believe they also let to contract the next sections of I-57 in Missouri from MO 158 south. The priority right now should be getting the Corning bypass connected to the four lane in Missouri.

[webny99]

It's interesting that Arkansas chose to split 440 into Interstate and state route like that. It isn't the only case of a freeway starting at one interstate, crossing another, and ending at a non-interstate - there are examples like I-385 in SC where the whole thing is Interstate despite one end at a non-interstate.

However, there are examples of states doing it Arkansas' way too: New York state is probably the most notable, with I-/NY 481, I-/NY 390, I-/NY 590, I-/NY 690 and I-/NY 890 that all fit the criteria of starting at one interstate, having a junction with another (or in I-481 and I-890's case, the same one), and ending at a non-interstate.

All five are state routes between their non-interstate terminus and nearest interstate junction, and all five are freeways beyond their switch to a state route designation, though NY 481 and NY 590 also have non-freeway segments.

[edwaleni]

Corning Bypass breaks ground Nov. 14.  Will be the full 4 lane facility for 4.1 miles.

ARDOT to Break Ground on Corning Bypass

And I believe they also let to contract the next sections of I-57 in Missouri from MO 158 south. The priority right now should be getting the Corning bypass connected to the four lane in Missouri.

Lettings of US-67 (Future I-57) in Missouri only go as far as Neelyville (that I can find)

I have only see winning bid announcements on the Phase 1 and 2 work.

No lettings yet between Neelyville and the State Line.

[webny99]

Aside from the Corning bypass is the unbuilt section of I-57 going to use existing US 60 and US 67 or be built on new alignment (or a mix of both)?

[PColumbus73]

So this means US 67/US 167 will have I-57 shields, with a gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston?

There's a big 170-mile gap in I-49 right now. The interstate system had gaps in the 1960s and 1970s that got filled in over time.

I don't think Interstate gaps from the 60s and 70s should be compared to today tbh. In the 60s and 70s it was understood to be an incomplete system. The Interstate system was designated as being complete in the 90s. New additions should not be allowed to have gaps, since that would be an unusual condition (rather than the normal condition as it was back in the 60s etc)

I think it depends. For I-57, I think I would prefer it to not be signed until it's connected with the existing I-57, or construction the entire corridor is funded and planned within 5-10 years or so. I-42 in NC is a good example.

Something like the gap in I-49 is more acceptable since the two sections end at another interstate, even if I-49S has the short stub to US 71. The remaining section involves difficult terrain, which is going to be expensive to build through, so it's understandable that it won't be built quickly.

Bad examples are probably I-69(MS) and I-87. In both cases they just end with no clear funding or plan for continuation. I-69(MS) essentially dead ends, not even ending at US 61. Meanwhile, I-87 ends just outside Raleigh. To I-87's credit, it continues at US 64, but like in MS, NC doesn't seem to be invested in upgrading the rest of the corridor in the near-ish future.

[vdeane]

Okay so I attended the I-57 official designation meeting earlier today. I'm not completely certain when they'll start putting up new shields, I imagine it'll probably happen really soon (even on the BGS's on I-40 and I-440 that were quite literally just installed). I literally live right off of I-57 and drive by it almost every day. I'll let you guys know when it gets signed in the metro (and beyond)

Got a couple photos, including the unveiling of the sign and stealing an I-57 cookie from the table.

The sad thing is that the shield in the cookie has the correct number proportions but the actual ones they made don't.

It's interesting that Arkansas chose to split 440 into Interstate and state route like that. It isn't the only case of a freeway starting at one interstate, crossing another, and ending at a non-interstate - there are examples like I-385 in SC where the whole thing is Interstate despite one end at a non-interstate.

However, there are examples of states doing it Arkansas' way too: New York state is probably the most notable, with I-/NY 481, I-/NY 390, I-/NY 590, I-/NY 690 and I-/NY 890 that all fit the criteria of starting at one interstate, having a junction with another (or in I-481 and I-890's case, the same one), and ending at a non-interstate.

All five are state routes between their non-interstate terminus and nearest interstate junction, and all five are freeways beyond their switch to a state route designation, though NY 481 and NY 590 also have non-freeway segments.

Not really for NY 590.  Yes, there are RIROs north of exit 11, but the designation ends at Titus Avenue; it no longer continues to Culver Road.

Then there's the all non-freeway NY 787, which for some reason still has tenth mile markers (the only non-freeway, non-parkway location to have such in the state as far as I'm aware).

That said, it feels like the "state route extension of interstate" thing is waning, at least in NY.  I-481 will be going away next year.  NY 690 and I-690 will still exist, but will be treated as separate roads once I-690 gets mile-based exit numbers.  NY 890 is overshadowed by I-890 signage everywhere.  I-787's future is a question mark.  This could end up becoming a Region 4 thing.

[TBKS1]

Corning Bypass breaks ground Nov. 14.  Will be the full 4 lane facility for 4.1 miles.

ARDOT to Break Ground on Corning Bypass

Thank you, they mentioned this at the meeting but I forgot to bring it up.

Again looking back through this thread, it's kinda funny to me seeing everyone complain about the size margins on the interstate shields. I would have never noticed this. "Tell me you live in Arkansas without telling me you live in Arkansas"

[MikieTimT]

Corning Bypass breaks ground Nov. 14.  Will be the full 4 lane facility for 4.1 miles.

ARDOT to Break Ground on Corning Bypass

And I believe they also let to contract the next sections of I-57 in Missouri from MO 158 south. The priority right now should be getting the Corning bypass connected to the four lane in Missouri.

It's already funded, but hasn't yet been let from the end of the Corning Bypass to the Missouri state line.

Job 101173 - Clay 67 Corning – Missouri State Line (Future I-57) (S) - New Location 4.89 Miles - $64,000,000 - 2027 FFY

[edwaleni]

Aside from the Corning bypass is the unbuilt section of I-57 going to use existing US 60 and US 67 or be built on new alignment (or a mix of both)?

The Arkansas side will be all new ROW, no sharing.

In Missouri, they will be using existing, but widened ROW in the majority of the work. As it gets closer to Arkansas, it will bypass Neelyville and West Neelyville and the state line exit will be east of the existing 2 lane.

[MikieTimT]

Aside from the Corning bypass is the unbuilt section of I-57 going to use existing US 60 and US 67 or be built on new alignment (or a mix of both)?

The Arkansas side will be all new ROW, no sharing.

In Missouri, they will be using existing, but widened ROW in the majority of the work. As it gets closer to Arkansas, it will bypass Neelyville and West Neelyville and the state line exit will be east of the existing 2 lane.

This is the route from the ROD in Arkansas.  The top 2 segments between the top 3 green dots are funded, and groundbreaking on the Corning Bypass, which is between the second and third dots has groundbreaking next week and will be completed 2027.  The northernmost segment between the top 2 green dots should begin in 2027.

[TheStranger]

Aside from the Corning bypass is the unbuilt section of I-57 going to use existing US 60 and US 67 or be built on new alignment (or a mix of both)?

The Arkansas side will be all new ROW, no sharing.

Comparing that map to the existing north end of the US 67 bypass of Walnut Ridge, I did notice some of the ramp grading and mainline grading for future I-57 is in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walnut+Ridge,+AR/@36.0738498,-90.9328097,1115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87d6a339a52c8d07:0x20bc426755d9f32c!8m2!3d36.0683675!4d-90.9559411!16zL20vMHF2N20!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[Henry]

Mmm, fresh-baked I-57 shields!

[MikieTimT]

Aside from the Corning bypass is the unbuilt section of I-57 going to use existing US 60 and US 67 or be built on new alignment (or a mix of both)?

The Arkansas side will be all new ROW, no sharing.

Comparing that map to the existing north end of the US 67 bypass of Walnut Ridge, I did notice some of the ramp grading and mainline grading for future I-57 is in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walnut+Ridge,+AR/@36.0738498,-90.9328097,1115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87d6a339a52c8d07:0x20bc426755d9f32c!8m2!3d36.0683675!4d-90.9559411!16zL20vMHF2N20!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

That stub has been there for decades at this point.  Will finally get fleshed out hopefully in about 6 years, though, if the remaining ~32 miles gets funded after the segment to the border gets completed in 2030.  It's not yet been made clear if they plan on doing all of the remaining miles at once, or if there's another small SIU from Corning somewhere before Pocahontas (like the exit at Windmill/Gazaway Rd. before the bridge yet to be built), but I suspect funding will dictate that.  I'm sure ARDOT will apply for every federal grant opportunity that comes between now and 2030 to pull forward the remaining mileage, and will probably qualify for a few given the HPC status.

Shockingly, Google Maps hasn't switched the shields out yet despite regularly jumping the gun in other instances elsewhere.

[webny99]

However, there are examples of states doing it Arkansas' way too: New York state is probably the most notable, with I-/NY 481, I-/NY 390, I-/NY 590, I-/NY 690 and I-/NY 890 that all fit the criteria of starting at one interstate, having a junction with another (or in I-481 and I-890's case, the same one), and ending at a non-interstate.

All five are state routes between their non-interstate terminus and nearest interstate junction, and all five are freeways beyond their switch to a state route designation, though NY 481 and NY 590 also have non-freeway segments.

Not really for NY 590.  Yes, there are RIROs north of exit 11, but the designation ends at Titus Avenue; it no longer continues to Culver Road.

I'm aware of where 590 ends and actually had a hunch that this would come up, I just don't think it's a freeway north of Exit 11. And not just because of the RIRO's, it's very residential and more like a boulevard in character. There's also the 45 mph limit and the single lane southbound.

Still, the interstate designation could have easily extended to NY 104 in theory, but NY clearly adopted the same tact as Arkansas in this regard (not that that's a bad thing, just pointing out it's not unique to Arkansas).

[vdeane]

I'm aware of where 590 ends and actually had a hunch that this would come up, I just don't think it's a freeway north of Exit 11. And not just because of the RIRO's, it's very residential and more like a boulevard in character. There's also the 45 mph limit and the single lane southbound.

Still, the interstate designation could have easily extended to NY 104 in theory, but NY clearly adopted the same tact as Arkansas in this regard (not that that's a bad thing, just pointing out it's not unique to Arkansas).

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  I consider freeways to end at the first break in access control and no sooner.

Incidentally, NYSDOT wanted the interstates to end at NY 104, but AASHTO or FHWA said no.

[edwaleni]

Just south of Neelyville the new ROW for I-57 will veer off to the east and separate from the US-67 ROW at around CR-272. At MoDOT this is planned as "Phase 4".

[webny99]

I'm aware of where 590 ends and actually had a hunch that this would come up, I just don't think it's a freeway north of Exit 11. And not just because of the RIRO's, it's very residential and more like a boulevard in character. There's also the 45 mph limit and the single lane southbound.
...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  I consider freeways to end at the first break in access control and no sooner.

We're veering OT now, but I guess it then becomes a question of what counts as a break in access control, because I don't see how Orland Rd and especially Sunrise Cres wouldn't qualify as such, considering they're residential side streets, and the latter doesn't even have a traditional turn island associated with a freeway RIRO. I see those two as being just as much if not more of a break in access control as the roundabouts, so from that perspective you could say there's nothing stopping the entirety of Sea Breeze Dr from being considered controlled access - and in a certain sense, I'm open to the idea that it is, considering the lack of access points relative to the parallel section of Culver Rd.

[webny99]

Mmm, fresh-baked I-57 shields!

It seems that some in this thread would apply a different definition of baked to the actual I-57 shields. LOL.

[webny99]

Comparing that map to the existing north end of the US 67 bypass of Walnut Ridge, I did notice some of the ramp grading and mainline grading for future I-57 is in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walnut+Ridge,+AR/@36.0738498,-90.9328097,1115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87d6a339a52c8d07:0x20bc426755d9f32c!8m2!3d36.0683675!4d-90.9559411!16zL20vMHF2N20!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Nice. I seriously don't think it's possible to overstate how much the visual appeal of this interchange will be improved when this is complete, considering it looks like hot unsynchronized garbage in its half-completed state.

It's also good that the grading and ramp alignments are already in place so that the high-speed connection to existing US 67 can be maintained. I could see some states trying to cheap out with a simple diamond there and forcing 67 traffic through Walnut Ridge, but fortunately I think US 67 is built out enough as a Walnut Ridge bypass in its own right to prevent that from happening. The only missing ramp movement appears to be US 67 SB > future I-57 NB. That movement will probably end up being made by U-turning using the US 412 ramps, but a direct ramp or at least a Texas U-turn there would be ideal.

[Road Hog]

As long as they get the dang thing finished, they could make it Azerbaijan I-57 and I'd be good with it. But the huge numerals are hideous.

[jnewkirk77]

Aside from the Corning bypass is the unbuilt section of I-57 going to use existing US 60 and US 67 or be built on new alignment (or a mix of both)?

They're planning to use as much of the existing 67/60 alignment in Missouri as they can. The work east of Poplar Bluff will mainly involve a few new interchanges and closing off all the at-grade intersections.

Here's a link to MODOT's study of the 11-mile portion from CR 593 to I-55 at Sikeston.