AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-57 Approved  (Read 61657 times)

ChimpOnTheWheel

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 36
  • Location: The Midwest
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 02:35:09 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #575 on: December 10, 2020, 07:37:19 PM »

Is there any actual updates to the construction of I-57 between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge? Or any news on signage of I-57 between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?
Logged
Just a casual.

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4180
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 10:12:28 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #576 on: December 10, 2020, 09:34:22 PM »

Quote from: Revive 755
Sikeston is too small (around 16,000) to be a control city all the way up in Chicagoland.

Sikeston is at the current terminus of I-57, and is the turning point to get on I-55 to actually drive down to Memphis. That makes Sikeston 100% valid as a control city.

If you want to sign using 'turning points' might as well sign Pulley's Mill first.
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1315
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 07:50:23 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #577 on: December 10, 2020, 09:43:02 PM »

Is there any actual updates to the construction of I-57 between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge? Or any news on signage of I-57 between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?
There is a Future I-57 sign southbound just south of the US 63 interchange.

The control city is still St. Louis on the south end. They are on overhead gantries just off I-40 and start showing up on BGSes just past Beebe.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9879
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:50:05 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #578 on: December 11, 2020, 04:59:41 AM »

Knowing Illinois signing practices, we'll just get "Arkansas".
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 913
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 10:25:49 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #579 on: December 11, 2020, 01:13:07 PM »

Is there any actual updates to the construction of I-57 between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge? Or any news on signage of I-57 between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge?

Since this posting, no.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2551106#msg2551106
Logged

Tomahawkin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 396
  • Last Login: Today at 08:16:22 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #580 on: December 11, 2020, 10:20:34 PM »

Where is that ARDOT poster? He used to give good 411 on interstate projects! I hope to see news that 57 will get started by June of next year or at least a planned projection of the 57 routing??? This has been 20 years overdue! IMO because of the commercial traffic from Chicago to Texas
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2338
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 09:06:20 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #581 on: December 11, 2020, 10:58:08 PM »

AR DOT could start signing US-67 as I-57 from the I-40 interchange in North Little Rock up to the AR-440 interchange and sign AR-440 and I-440 while they're at it. Jacksonville still remains the big hold-up for signing US-67 as I-57 any farther North. There's still a bunch of sub-standard bridges, ramps and other garbage along US-67 through there. A lot of work has been done on US-67 both North and South of Jacksonville. The stuff within Jacksonville needs to be fixed now. From Cabot on North the main problem with US-67 is sub-standard shoulders. That's easier to fix than bad ramps and bridges.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 10510
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 10:11:38 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #582 on: December 13, 2020, 07:35:51 PM »

Where is that ARDOT poster? He used to give good 411 on interstate projects! I hope to see news that 57 will get started by June of next year or at least a planned projection of the 57 routing??? This has been 20 years overdue! IMO because of the commercial traffic from Chicago to Texas

I know the PR guy for ARDOT (Randy?) is no longer there. I'm not sure who took over, off hand.
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Last Login: January 18, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #583 on: January 13, 2021, 01:58:02 PM »

I just noticed something. All of the alternatives for Future I-57 between Corning and the Missouri state line cross the existing US 67 just south of AR 328. Why not have it cross AR 328 and keep it west of the current alignment? It seems there is more open land there.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 913
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 10:25:49 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #584 on: January 14, 2021, 08:57:18 AM »

I just noticed something. All of the alternatives for Future I-57 between Corning and the Missouri state line cross the existing US 67 just south of AR 328. Why not have it cross AR 328 and keep it west of the current alignment? It seems there is more open land there.

Because west of US-67 but north of AR-328 is a FEMA certified flood zone. East of the current ROW is considered low risk.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 09:04:26 AM by edwaleni »
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 913
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 10:25:49 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #585 on: January 14, 2021, 09:11:51 AM »

The current US-67 was built before FEMA zones were established. Some of the zone passes east of the current ROW. But for all basic purposes, they are avoiding it as much as possible.



https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Last Login: January 18, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #586 on: January 14, 2021, 09:40:31 AM »

The current US-67 was built before FEMA zones were established. Some of the zone passes east of the current ROW. But for all basic purposes, they are avoiding it as much as possible.



https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer

Fair enough. It looks like they can't avoid it either way, but its a bit less on the eastern side.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1286
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 11:09:59 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #587 on: January 14, 2021, 10:21:19 AM »

And if the levees have issues it gets worse. There are old discussions of US 34 in Illinois.
You can still build but the costs are wild. In This case it's 120 to 250 million for 5 rural miles.
67 In Illinois has similar huge streaches.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7561
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 08:53:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #588 on: January 14, 2021, 09:53:05 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.  Funny thing -- when those rail lines were being surveyed and subsequently built in the latter part of the 19th century, for the most part they managed to skirt those areas prone to flooding (and without the aid of aerial surveys!).  Surprised tracking that old MoPac line as much as possible hasn't occurred to both MODOT and ADOT (and guessing that local issues have intervened otherwise).
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Last Login: January 18, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #589 on: January 14, 2021, 10:54:49 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.  Funny thing -- when those rail lines were being surveyed and subsequently built in the latter part of the 19th century, for the most part they managed to skirt those areas prone to flooding (and without the aid of aerial surveys!).  Surprised tracking that old MoPac line as much as possible hasn't occurred to both MODOT and ADOT (and guessing that local issues have intervened otherwise).

Nevertheless, it is still going to head through a lot of flood zone areas near Pocahontas (the most likely alignment for north of Walnut Ridge). But I guess the eastern route would be better as it will tie into the Missouri section better.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 913
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 10:25:49 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #590 on: January 14, 2021, 11:56:50 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.  Funny thing -- when those rail lines were being surveyed and subsequently built in the latter part of the 19th century, for the most part they managed to skirt those areas prone to flooding (and without the aid of aerial surveys!).  Surprised tracking that old MoPac line as much as possible hasn't occurred to both MODOT and ADOT (and guessing that local issues have intervened otherwise).

I will go back and look, but I am pretty sure that this particular line was under water during the Floods of 1927 in Arkansas. They spent several months after raising the grade above what was the floodline of that time. So I don't want to knock the ingenuity of Jay Gould's land engineers, but I am pretty sure the original rail was laid at ground elevation. The only planned (if you can call it that) avoidance at the time was the swamps surrounding the Black River.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 408
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 06:57:47 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #591 on: January 15, 2021, 10:59:17 AM »

And if the levees have issues it gets worse. There are old discussions of US 34 in Illinois.
You can still build but the costs are wild. In This case it's 120 to 250 million for 5 rural miles.
67 In Illinois has similar huge streaches.

Especially true if they end up building a long viaduct over the floodplain, which is what I would do to eliminate the concern of the highway flooding and allowing the water to freely flow beneath the highway to avoid more severe flooding that would occur if they built the highway across the floodplain on elevated embankments. The flooding of I-40 near the White River back in 2011 should be a really good lesson learned for designing the US-67 freeway extension.
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, H1, H2, H3, H201

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1286
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 11:09:59 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #592 on: January 15, 2021, 11:07:45 AM »

That is what the corps to IDOT it needed to do to 4 lane 34 in Henderson County. They responded by saying we are road builders not dam builders.....I think they ran into this all over and that along with too little traffic killed off most projects.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2338
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 09:06:20 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #593 on: January 15, 2021, 11:59:42 AM »

Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Last Login: January 18, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #594 on: January 15, 2021, 12:15:53 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 913
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 10:25:49 AM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #595 on: January 16, 2021, 01:29:48 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.

As I noted earlier, the Pocahontas route is the same mileage as the railroad route. The route miles that would cross flood plain is actually slightly more on the railroad side then it is on the Pocahontas side. As for the number of bridges, it would require the same on either route, so the costs would be roughly the same. The hassle of using the railroad route is 2 things. There is industrial/residential east of Corning that would be expensive to acquire. Second there is extensive flood plain south and southeast of Corning, hence the desire to keep the Corning bypass to the west of town.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Last Login: January 18, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #596 on: January 16, 2021, 01:45:34 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Looks to me like staying as close to the RR line east of present US 67 would be the optimal way to minimize the mileage through the flood zone.

Just looking at overhead view of the uncompleted US-67/US-412 interchange in Walnut Ridge, it's easy to see the original intention was to make the freeway follow alongside the railroad corridor. The grassy unpaved main lanes that go through the interchange are pointing that direction.

Of course they can modify the actual route to swing around past that interchange to point Future I-57 toward Pocahontas. But it is going to come at the cost of having to build the highway up on one hell of an earth berm and/or long bridges in any of the flood-prone zones, such as the confluence of the Current River and Black River to the East of Pocahontas as well as land near those rivers. The old rail corridor avoids most of that and threads through one of the easiest areas to cross between Knobel and Corning.

I originally was in favor of routing near Pocahontas when the alternatives presented last fall were released, but now I think routing along AR 34/90 & the railroad would be the better option. The latter crosses through less of the floodplain area, but political clout will likely lead it to be routed near Pocahontas anyway. They claim a new alignment would be cheaper going towards Pocahontas, but I can't imagine that will be the case due to the types of earth beam/bridges required.

The only problem is the AR 34/90 alignment will require an awkward fish hook-like bypass of Corning since a Corning bypass will have to be west of town.

As I noted earlier, the Pocahontas route is the same mileage as the railroad route. The route miles that would cross flood plain is actually slightly more on the railroad side then it is on the Pocahontas side. As for the number of bridges, it would require the same on either route, so the costs would be roughly the same. The hassle of using the railroad route is 2 things. There is industrial/residential east of Corning that would be expensive to acquire. Second there is extensive flood plain south and southeast of Corning, hence the desire to keep the Corning bypass to the west of town.

They aren’t even considering an eastern bypass of Corning anymore. And how is it so the number of flood plain miles is more on the railroad side? It passes further away from Black River WLMA than the Pocahontas route does.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2766
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 05:55:29 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #597 on: January 16, 2021, 03:04:55 PM »

Although this would likely jack up the price of building the roadway, I would advocate elevating the US 67/future Interstate 57 proposed freeway through the flood plains.
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1315
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 07:50:23 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #598 on: January 16, 2021, 03:48:39 PM »

Although this would likely jack up the price of building the roadway, I would advocate elevating the US 67/future Interstate 57 proposed freeway through the flood plains.
Is it cheaper to build a berm or a viaduct?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7561
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 21, 2021, 08:53:56 PM
Re: I-57 Approved
« Reply #599 on: January 16, 2021, 05:26:28 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^
Since the current plan is to "cut the corner" and route I-57 to the northwest of Corning, if it were to more closely follow the UP tracks it would have to cross US 67 north of town and then curve north on the west side of the rail line.  From what I understand from reading the previous posts, the plan is to stay west of US 67 in order to meet the MO planned alignment -- but that passes directly through much of the historic floodplain in both states.  A question that needs to be answered before any more speculation occurs is this:  is the MO alignment functionally "written in stone"; i.e., has the ROW been acquired or the route publicized as a final choice, which would make it difficult if not impossible to modify at this juncture.  If that toggles toward a yes, then ADOT would have to build their west-of-67 alignment in a fashion to mitigate against potential flooding (if this were CA, it would be on a not-terribly-high berm with relatively closely-spaced bridges and/or culverts).  The choice between bridge/viaduct or berm would likely hinge upon the stability of the soil along the ROW.  OTOH, if MO hasn't fully finalized their exact route, then it's possible that a reroute across US 67 and along the tracks could obviate much of the "floodproofing" -- but that would involve a berm at least the elevation of the tracks -- but on, in all probability, more solid ground.  Nevertheless, chances are that if MDOT has put time & effort into determining their best option north of the state line, that'll be what will eventually be built -- and ADOT will simply need to do what they have to do to construct a secure facility.
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.