AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum just turned ten years old! Where has all the time gone?

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 23726 times)

US71

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

  • Posts: 8437
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 11:32:37 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
I-57 Approved
« on: October 11, 2017, 09:09:35 PM »

AASHTO has approved I-57 in Arkansas from I-40 at North Little Rock to US 412 at Walnut Ridge.

https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2017/06/USRN-01-Minutes-and-Application-results_-AM-Phoenix-2017.pdf
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 11:33:45 AM by US71 »
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1120
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:01:31 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2017, 04:47:53 AM »

It appears from that the only thing approved was a Future I-57 designation. Hold on to your shields.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8437
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 11:32:37 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2017, 12:15:41 PM »

It appears from that the only thing approved was a Future I-57 designation. Hold on to your shields.

So we'll see "Future I-57" signs?
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10357
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 05:31:25 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2017, 03:28:25 PM »

Only if FHWA approves.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 201
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 12:38:36 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2017, 01:33:43 AM »

Only if FHWA approves.

The section through Jacksonville still needs to be brought up to interstate standards before US-67 can be designated as I-57. The first phase to reconstruct the Jacksonville section is underway, but IIRC, ArDOT is still trying to cobble together about $70 million to pay for the second phase project.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 700
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:55 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2017, 01:05:09 PM »

I don't know if they should be allowed to sign it yet. Missouri hasn't even shown any interest in building their portion, AFAIK.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 990
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:03 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2017, 01:35:42 PM »

I don't know if they should be allowed to sign it yet. Missouri hasn't even shown any interest in building their portion, AFAIK.
Signing it may be the nudge needed to get US 60 from Sikeston to Poplar Bluff upgraded to Freeway/Interstate, which IMHO should be the "easy" part for MO. Its already a partially limited divided expressway, with plenty of ROW for frontage roads to go full limited access

After that upgrade, MO and AR can work together, getting the Poplar Bluff to Walnut Ridge road built, which, I would think, will end up new terrain more than an existing US 67 upgrade, and thus, the more expensive part of the project
Logged

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 210
  • Last Login: April 17, 2019, 10:03:19 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2017, 02:18:40 PM »

Only if FHWA approves.

The section through Jacksonville still needs to be brought up to interstate standards before US-67 can be designated as I-57. The first phase to reconstruct the Jacksonville section is underway, but IIRC, ArDOT is still trying to cobble together about $70 million to pay for the second phase project.
It's controlled access but fraught with dinky on-off ramps. Phase III (from the air force base exit south to Main St.) will take the longest to complete due to tight ROW.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 201
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 12:38:36 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2017, 02:54:03 PM »

Only if FHWA approves.

The section through Jacksonville still needs to be brought up to interstate standards before US-67 can be designated as I-57. The first phase to reconstruct the Jacksonville section is underway, but IIRC, ArDOT is still trying to cobble together about $70 million to pay for the second phase project.
It's controlled access but fraught with dinky on-off ramps. Phase III (from the air force base exit south to Main St.) will take the longest to complete due to tight ROW.

There is a lot of development right up to the highway between Main Street and Little Rock AFB. A lot of businesses would have to move to accommodate reconstructing US-67 Phase III.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4676
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:32:25 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2017, 09:16:53 AM »

Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2160
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: Today at 05:23:22 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2017, 02:42:28 PM »

At this point, the question is which MO-AR connection will get done first; I-49 or I-57.
(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

TheArkansasRoadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1030
  • The Dude

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
  • Last Login: April 11, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2017, 05:10:25 PM »

Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
What about the map that shows Missouri's I-57 (currently ending) at whatever road that is. (The map I am speaking of is in some thread in Mid-South) In that case, does that mean that I57 is (or has) making/made progress in Missouri and we are just waiting for Arkansas to get going?
Logged
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2093
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 04:10:21 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2017, 05:28:18 PM »

Interstate 57 in Arkansas: IT LIVES! I'm sure 57 will be completed before 87 in NC/VA. As for 49 vs. 57, a lot more of future 57 has been constructed than future 49, plus it is quite a bit shorter, so I'd say 57 will be done sooner than 49.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3547
  • Last Login: April 17, 2019, 09:42:43 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2017, 08:01:40 PM »

Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
What about the map that shows Missouri's I-57 (currently ending) at whatever road that is. (The map I am speaking of is in some thread in Mid-South) In that case, does that mean that I57 is (or has) making/made progress in Missouri and we are just waiting for Arkansas to get going?

There has not been much if any progress for upgrading US 60 between I-55 and US 67, or US 67 from US 60 to the Arkansas border to a freeway.  AFAIK there's been more progress bringing US 61 up to a freeway north of I-70 to Troy.

Unless there is a big political push to finish the corridor or the locals decided to significantly chip in, the most I see is Missouri doing is four-laning the rest of US 67 down to the border and calling it good.  Even if Missouri does get more funding overall, a good amount of that is likely to go towards rebuilding I-70 and I-44 across the state IMHO.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2017, 08:04:51 PM by Revive 755 »
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13771
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:01 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2017, 09:49:50 PM »

Why did Missouri decide to upgrade US 71 to I-49? Was there dedicated funding?
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5342
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:14:41 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2017, 05:15:23 AM »

Now the guessing game can begin as to which one will be completed first: I-57 in MO or I-87 in VA.
What about the map that shows Missouri's I-57 (currently ending) at whatever road that is. (The map I am speaking of is in some thread in Mid-South) In that case, does that mean that I57 is (or has) making/made progress in Missouri and we are just waiting for Arkansas to get going?

There has not been much if any progress for upgrading US 60 between I-55 and US 67, or US 67 from US 60 to the Arkansas border to a freeway.  AFAIK there's been more progress bringing US 61 up to a freeway north of I-70 to Troy.

Unless there is a big political push to finish the corridor or the locals decided to significantly chip in, the most I see is Missouri doing is four-laning the rest of US 67 down to the border and calling it good.  Even if Missouri does get more funding overall, a good amount of that is likely to go towards rebuilding I-70 and I-44 across the state IMHO.

Unless MO folks, including politicos from the SE portion of the state as well as MODOT, are completely oblivious to what's going on regarding this corridor and the developmental activities in AR, the requisite pressure to upgrade US 60 to Interstate standards and construct a freeway paralleling US 67 will likely be forthcoming in the near future.  AFAIK, tentative plans from several years back to 5-lane US 67 south of Poplar Bluff have been put on hold.  Whether this was done for simply fiscal reasons or as an acknowledgement of the potential I-57 corridor supplanting/bypassing the present facility and prompting a rethinking of that route's status isn't presently clear.  It's probable that any plans for these two connecting MO facilities are dependent upon whether or not AR follows through and sets forth concrete plans for their own freeway from Walnut Ridge to the state line.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7968
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:17 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2017, 07:38:20 AM »

Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)

(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 700
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:55 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2017, 08:44:26 AM »

Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)


I agree. There are so many projects around the state that need to be done first like the BVB, the three-laning and reconstruction of I-70, etc., that I'm not sure this will happen anytime soon unless they're influenced by political pressure like you said.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9857
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:35:31 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2017, 01:08:53 PM »

(AR-MO?  Nah, I like "MO-AR" better; much funnier.)

It's AR-MO...come on, we're roadgeeks, we always go south to north 'cause the milemarkers do. :P

You might be laughing at yourself, but I almost posted the same thing yesterday...
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5342
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:14:41 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2017, 03:04:47 PM »

Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)


I agree. There are so many projects around the state that need to be done first like the BVB, the three-laning and reconstruction of I-70, etc., that I'm not sure this will happen anytime soon unless they're influenced by political pressure like you said.

Basically agree with the above statements -- but once Bella Vista is underway, some level of local activity toward the I-57 project might be in the hopper.  The US 60 portion of the project could be done piecemeal -- one grade separation or shoulder widening project at a time -- but the bigger project along US 67, most likely on new terrain -- will probably be the last piece to be dealt with -- probably on a longer (10+ yrs) timetable.  And, again, it'll be up to AR to finalize the plans for their northernmost portion before MO even looks seriously at doing anything on their side of the line.
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 700
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:55 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2017, 03:23:05 PM »

Problem is that MoDOT can barely scrape together the cash for the Bella Vista bypass, much less another new interstate project. SE MO might be able to put more pressure on Jeff City than SW MO could, but I wouldn't bet on it—SW MO has a much more concrete need and direct benefit for I-49 (direct freeway connection between Joplin and NW AR) than SE MO can illustrate with I-57 (connecting...Sikeston to Little Rock, I guess?)


I agree. There are so many projects around the state that need to be done first like the BVB, the three-laning and reconstruction of I-70, etc., that I'm not sure this will happen anytime soon unless they're influenced by political pressure like you said.

Basically agree with the above statements -- but once Bella Vista is underway, some level of local activity toward the I-57 project might be in the hopper.  The US 60 portion of the project could be done piecemeal -- one grade separation or shoulder widening project at a time -- but the bigger project along US 67, most likely on new terrain -- will probably be the last piece to be dealt with -- probably on a longer (10+ yrs) timetable.  And, again, it'll be up to AR to finalize the plans for their northernmost portion before MO even looks seriously at doing anything on their side of the line.

You have more faith in Missouri legislators coming up with that kind of many than I do lol. But maybe they will do piecemeal upgrades like you say.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6015
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 02:52:07 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2017, 09:08:49 PM »

Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5342
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:14:41 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2017, 09:23:21 PM »

Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.

Really?  I-30 ending in Walnut Ridge (aka Podunk) for whatever time it takes for everyone concerned to get their shit together?  At least with the I-57 designation it knows where it's supposed to go!   
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6015
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 02:52:07 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2017, 10:39:34 PM »

Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.
Really?  I-30 ending in Walnut Ridge (aka Podunk) for whatever time it takes for everyone concerned to get their shit together?  At least with the I-57 designation it knows where it's supposed to go!   

Yes, really.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1602
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:40:47 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2017, 12:29:40 AM »

Quote from: bugo
Bad idea. It should have been I-30. It presently connects to I-30 while it might not connect to I-57 in Missouri for 50 years if ever.

The US-67 Freeway in North Little Rock doesn't really connect directly to I-30 at all. I-30 ends at Exit 153 of I-40. Exit 154 is North Hills Blvd. Then Exit 155 is US-67 (and Future I-57). The two freeways terminate into I-40 pretty close together, but it's not a single interchange.

I'm far more favor of the I-57 number than I-30. For one thing, the current route is US-67, a North-South route. I-30 is an East-West route. From the Little Rock area US-67 is carrying traffic primarily to destinations up NORTH. Not West. So an odd-numbered designation like I-57 would make more sense. And I do like the implied pressure numbering this route from North Little Rock to Jonesboro as I-57 would apply to bridging the gap to existing the end of existing I-57. It's a do-able thing and I think a project that is justifiable. It's going to be decades before I-69 is ever completed. So a lot of NAFTA oriented truck traffic coming up from Texas headed to the Northeast US is going to be taking routes like I-30 to Little Rock (and US-69 through Oklahoma to I-44) to get to those highly populated destinations.

Logged

 


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.