I-57 Approved

[JREwing78]

Short answer: No, US-412 doesn't merit further expansion in Missouri. Not yet, anyway.

Missouri isn't too far behind though. They have about 20 miles of US-412 to convert to 4-lane when traffic warrants it, then ultimately the conversion to limited access roadway. Get I-69 extended down to Dyersberg and you might see the demand wake up a bit, but functionally the area is pretty well served by highway connections to Little Rock and Memphis.

About the only thing Paragould is lacking is a good N-S corridor to Memphis. An east-to-south US-49 bypass of Jonesboro tying into US-78 solves that problem.

Arkansas sticking a Interstate on US-412 would primarily be to make Paragould seem more important. US-412 east of I-57 is 4-laned and plenty capable of carrying 3 to 4 times the traffic it does now. But they need to limit access on the US-412 bypass before it's built up and they have to come back with an outer-bypass.

If Jonesboro needs better connectivity to Little Rock, they'd be better served raising the grade over the Cache River on US-78 east of I-57, since US-78 is the only major roadway in the area currently underwater despite the massive flooding going on.

And then? That's a lot of Interstate highway mileage for a relatively lightly-populated area. Without a connection to US-60 east of Springfield, MO or a direct 4-lane Interstate-compatible route carved through the Ozarks to Bentonville and Fayetteville, there's not a lot of reason for national-level traffic to wind up in either Paragould or Jonesboro.

Via US-412 and I-57, Jackson, TN to Little Rock is an hour longer and 55 miles farther than staying on I-40. You might shave 10 minutes off that converting it to an all-freeway route. Most aren't getting off I-40 short of something catastrophic happening to the I-40 bridge over the Mississippi.

[english si]

About the only thing Paragould is lacking is a good N-S corridor to Memphis. An east-to-south US-49 bypass of Jonesboro tying into US-78 solves that problem.

That's what I had concluded, and then piggy back on the Jonesboro-Little Rock route for going that way...

Via US-412 and I-57, Jackson, TN to Little Rock is an hour longer and 55 miles farther than staying on I-40. You might shave 10 minutes off that converting it to an all-freeway route. Most aren't getting off I-40 short of something catastrophic happening to the I-40 bridge over the Mississippi.

No one was talking about I-40 here. I-69 to Little Rock and beyond (ie bypassing Memphis and the unlikely to ever get finished I-69 in MS and AR on a shorter route) is why you'd upgrade US412 in MO.

And, if done right, the connection from Kennet, MO to I-57 would go through Jonesboro, rather than via Walnut Ridge.

[cenarkbizowner]

Just a couple of questions:

1. If Google maps have the portion of the freeway through Jacksonville as I-57, then why didn't ARDOT refer to it as I-57 on the latest highway map?

2. Why isn't the freeway from the Air Base exit north to the Highway 5 exit deemed as I-57, as far as the state highway map?

3. Any clue on when the overhead signs will be changed to reflect the designation?

[I-55]

Just a couple of questions:

1. If Google maps have the portion of the freeway through Jacksonville as I-57, then why didn't ARDOT refer to it as I-57 on the latest highway map?

The correct question is "if ARDOT hasn't signed it, why does Google show it?" and the answer as usual is "because Google Maps signs stuff incorrectly all the time"

[TBKS1]

This isn't super relevant to this particular thread but I thought it was pretty ironic that someone accidentally drove into a sign assembly that was already likely to be replaced with new I-57 shields very soon. This was taken at Kiehl Avenue near exit 5 adjacent to the new I-57 designation.

This will get repaired eventually but not for the same reason. This was taken about a mile away from where I live, adjacent to the newly signed I-57 here in Central Arkansas. I-57 shields are still in the process of being put up around here but someone drove into this sign before the I-57 shields were installed at this specific location.

[TBKS1]

Alright so a bit of an update that actually is relevant to this thread, but the BGSs at exit 155 on I-40 have been replaced with I-57 shields. Weirdly US 67/167 were patched over for some reason, I don't really know why, even for ARDOT this is kind of unusual.

I was also discussing this with another Central Arkansas based roadgeek (@Interstate 411) who told me that he literally drove this section yesterday and these weren't up, so this must have been done overnight.





I'm sure a lot of people are going to be upset with this but frankly I have zero say in what my state does, and I've lived in this state long enough to see that ARDOT has made some really out of pocket decisions in my lifetime. Nothing they do really surprises me anymore.

[PColumbus73]

They look like fairly new signs, so patching it makes sense.

[Bobby5280]

Quite a lot of negative space between that I-57 shield and the "North" cardinal direction lettering -obvious consequence of patching over two US highway shields with one Interstate shield.

[The Ghostbuster]

So, is Interstate 57 now fully signed along the US 67 freeway corridor between Interstate 40 and US 412 East/Business 412 West?

[Road Hog]

At least they dropped the state and now call it just St. Louis, as opposed to Bay St. Louis, Miss. or East Saint Louis, Ill.

Even though I-57 leads nowhere near any of those.

[ilpt4u]

Now I-57 has 2 Control Cities it doesn't go to and needs I-55 to finish the journey: Memphis AND Saint Louis!

[english si]

So, is Interstate 57 now fully signed along the US 67 freeway corridor between Interstate 40 and US 412 East/Business 412 West?

No, as pointed out upthread, they have left off the bit through Jacksonville that's not up to standards and will sign it as part of the upgrade works. And presumably, the bridge that ARDOT doesn't yet consider interstate is also not signed as interstate yet.

We've also only seen one BGS, and presumably they will be working north with those as they did with the stand alone shields.

[MikieTimT]

Alright so a bit of an update that actually is relevant to this thread, but the BGSs at exit 155 on I-40 have been replaced with I-57 shields. Weirdly US 67/167 were patched over for some reason, I don't really know why, even for ARDOT this is kind of unusual.

I was also discussing this with another Central Arkansas based roadgeek (@Interstate 411) who told me that he literally drove this section yesterday and these weren't up, so this must have been done overnight.





I'm sure a lot of people are going to be upset with this but frankly I have zero say in what my state does, and I've lived in this state long enough to see that ARDOT has made some really out of pocket decisions in my lifetime. Nothing they do really surprises me anymore.

As busy as that stretch of road is during daylight hours, it's completely logical that it was changed out overnight.  And patching a fairly new BGS would take less time and equipment, reducing the lane closure time, than swapping in a new BGS.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Now I-57 has 2 Control Cities it doesn't go to and needs I-55 to finish the journey: Memphis AND Saint Louis!

They are obviously  trying to entice as much non-Memphis traffic off of 40 east as possible.

[I-55]

Now I-57 has 2 Control Cities it doesn't go to and needs I-55 to finish the journey: Memphis AND Saint Louis!

They are obviously  trying to entice as much non-Memphis traffic off of 40 east as possible.

Makes sense. People going to STL know that 55 goes there, people going to Chicago know they eventually end up on 57. As a roadgeek though, potentially seeing Dallas and Chicago on the same overhead assembly at 900 miles part would be something to behold.

[Bobby5280]

No, as pointed out upthread, they have left off the bit through Jacksonville that's not up to standards and will sign it as part of the upgrade works.

It's worth mentioning the highway segment in Jacksonville is well along in construction. That's probably why AR DOT went ahead and started signing the rest of the freeway as I-57.

[edwaleni]

Now I-57 has 2 Control Cities it doesn't go to and needs I-55 to finish the journey: Memphis AND Saint Louis!

They are obviously  trying to entice as much non-Memphis traffic off of 40 east as possible.

Makes sense. People going to STL know that 55 goes there, people going to Chicago know they eventually end up on 57. As a roadgeek though, potentially seeing Dallas and Chicago on the same overhead assembly at 900 miles part would be something to behold.

It appears ArDOT simply took off the US-67 shield and replaced it with a I-57 shield and left the control city unchanged. US-67 does go through St Louis as Lindbergh Ave.

I would guess that a major sign change will be forthcoming in some near future.

[bassoon1986]

Now I-57 has 2 Control Cities it doesn't go to and needs I-55 to finish the journey: Memphis AND Saint Louis!

They are obviously  trying to entice as much non-Memphis traffic off of 40 east as possible.

Makes sense. People going to STL know that 55 goes there, people going to Chicago know they eventually end up on 57. As a roadgeek though, potentially seeing Dallas and Chicago on the same overhead assembly at 900 miles part would be something to behold.

Where will that be? Is that what control city will be shown for I-57 at Sikeston? I would have thought maaaaaybe Little Rock.

[Revive 755]

Makes sense. People going to STL know that 55 goes there, people going to Chicago know they eventually end up on 57. As a roadgeek though, potentially seeing Dallas and Chicago on the same overhead assembly at 900 miles part would be something to behold.

I don't even see Dallas being used around Little Rock on Streetview.  Texarkana is showing up, with a couple instances of Little Rock for WB I-30 near I-40.

[Henry]

Now I-57 has 2 Control Cities it doesn't go to and needs I-55 to finish the journey: Memphis AND Saint Louis!

They are obviously  trying to entice as much non-Memphis traffic off of 40 east as possible.

Makes sense. People going to STL know that 55 goes there, people going to Chicago know they eventually end up on 57. As a roadgeek though, potentially seeing Dallas and Chicago on the same overhead assembly at 900 miles part would be something to behold.

That was somewhat expected, as when I-57 begins in Chicago, it uses Memphis the entire way down to Sikeston. With the new beginning east of Little Rock, St. Louis will be used the entire way up to Sikeston as well, and that's where the ricochet occurs.

Speaking of Sikeston, will there be eventual plans to rebuild the now-cloverleaf junction into something else? At the very least, I could see a cloverstack with two loops for opposite-direction movements (NB I-55 to SB I-57, and SB I-55 to NB I-57), and flyovers for same-direction movements (NB I-57 to NB I-55, and SB I-57 to SB I-55).

[bassoon1986]

But will St Louis be signed beyond Poplar Bluff on I-57? US 67 is much more direct than US 60 and I-55. Maybe a sign saying something like

St Louis via US 67 North - 150 miles
St Louis vis I-57 & I-55 - 196 miles

[ilpt4u]

But will St Louis be signed beyond Poplar Bluff on I-57? US 67 is much more direct than US 60 and I-55. Maybe a sign saying something like

St Louis via US 67 North - 150 miles
St Louis vis I-57 & I-55 - 196 miles

Probably depends on how much STL-bound traffic MoDOT wants using expressway-grade 4-lane 67 between Poplar Bluff and Festus.

If they want STL traffic following 67, sign 67 North St Louis and 60 East/57 North Chicago

If they want STL traffic following 57 to 55, sign 67 North Fredericktown or Farmington and 60 East/57 North St Louis

[edwaleni]

Seems obvious to me based on mileage and timing:

[ilpt4u]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^That travel time number will be just slightly lower with a full Interstate-standard Freeway I-57/US 60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston, but not enough lower to make up 30 minutes/45 miles

All that said, Control City logic has baffled us before. Even MoDOT's logic with such.

Presently, MoDOT signs 60 East: Sikeston and 60 West/67 North: Springfield/St Louis at the Poplar Bluff Cloverleaf. Will MoDOT leave that as 57 upgrades, especially from the AR state line into Poplar Bluff, continue? TBD

[sprjus4]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^That travel time number will be just slightly lower with a full Interstate-standard Freeway I-57/US 60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston, but not enough lower to make up 30 minutes/45 miles

All that said, Control City logic has baffled us before. Even MoDOT's logic with such.

Presently, MoDOT signs 60 East: Sikeston and 60 West/67 North: Springfield/St Louis at the Poplar Bluff Cloverleaf. Will MoDOT leave that as 57 upgrades, especially from the AR state line into Poplar Bluff, continue? TBD

US-67 up to St. Louis is also all four lane divided highway and mostly signed for 65 mph I believe. So no reason to go out of the way just to stay on interstate.