AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 166865 times)

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13987
  • fuck

  • Age: 12
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:02:57 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #125 on: February 21, 2015, 04:14:20 AM »

(reply to deleted post)

Do we need to add a disclaimer like on railfan sites that we don't have employee records? :bigass:

Nothing against you, but you'd want to check with AHTD.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 02:31:48 AM by NE2 »
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.

Stratuscaster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 558
  • Last Login: April 05, 2019, 11:19:30 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #126 on: February 22, 2015, 12:19:06 AM »

As someone that's made the drive from Chicagoland to Hoxie more than a few times over the last 30 years, just 4-laning the section between Poplar Bluff and Pocahontas (along with a well-placed Pocahontas bypass) would improve things greatly.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #127 on: February 22, 2015, 06:22:30 PM »

As someone that's made the drive from Chicagoland to Hoxie more than a few times over the last 30 years, just 4-laning the section between Poplar Bluff and Pocahontas (along with a well-placed Pocahontas bypass) would improve things greatly.

I agree to a certain extent, but since they have already built the freeway to Hoxie/Walnut Ridge, I would build an expressway with the option to later convert to freeway/interstate. They wouldn't need to put in the interchanges and grade separations right away, only later if traffic warranted it. Upgrading the corridor into an extension of either I-30 or I-57 should still be the long term goal, but an interim expressway would be fine (considering funding restraints by both Arkansas and Missouri). It would cost a little less then building a full blown freeway. 

Although personally, I think Arkansas should focus on finishing I-49 before finishing this.
Logged

cbalducc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 55
  • Last Login: October 29, 2015, 04:50:51 PM
US 67 construction in Arkansas
« Reply #128 on: March 25, 2015, 10:50:04 AM »

Is the new US 67 complete to Walnut Ridge yet?
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: US 67 construction in Arkansas
« Reply #129 on: March 25, 2015, 11:59:14 AM »

IDriveArkansas is currently projecting a Mid-2016 completion date.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #130 on: May 27, 2015, 06:50:14 PM »

Is the new US 67 complete to Walnut Ridge yet?

This May 8 TV video includes some construction footage, reports that 2.5 miles of the project remain to be paved and also reports that everything should be completed by Fall 2016:

Quote
Looking toward the project for the Highway 67 at Hoxie it doesn't look like there has been much improvement.
However, Resident Engineer of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Shannon Luke said a lot of work has been done.
Luke said the reason people in the area may start seeing more equipment near the Hoxie area is because the project is actually making it's way closer there.
He said they have been working from south to north for the project and over the past year alone they have covered around 5 miles.
"The first 7 miles of the job have been paved, and the remaining two and a half miles there is what you're seeing the activity on," Luke said.
While two and a half miles remain, Luke said the remaining work will take some time and with weather permitting the project should be done by Fall 2016.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 06:45:18 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #131 on: May 27, 2015, 11:52:14 PM »

Quote
I agree to a certain extent, but since they have already built the freeway to Hoxie/Walnut Ridge, I would build an expressway with the option to later convert to freeway/interstate. They wouldn't need to put in the interchanges and grade separations right away, only later if traffic warranted it.

They can do that if they just secure enough right of way and mandate set-backs for new businesses and residences be far enough off the road to provide room any future upgrades. If they don't manage the corridor properly it will just get boxed in with development right up to the edge of the highway. Then any future freeway would have to be built on an entirely new alignment.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #132 on: May 28, 2015, 10:44:48 AM »

Quote
I agree to a certain extent, but since they have already built the freeway to Hoxie/Walnut Ridge, I would build an expressway with the option to later convert to freeway/interstate. They wouldn't need to put in the interchanges and grade separations right away, only later if traffic warranted it.

They can do that if they just secure enough right of way and mandate set-backs for new businesses and residences be far enough off the road to provide room any future upgrades. If they don't manage the corridor properly it will just get boxed in with development right up to the edge of the highway. Then any future freeway would have to be built on an entirely new alignment.

That's where mapping and corridor protection comes in
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #133 on: July 23, 2015, 04:18:02 PM »

AHTD's Sept. 30 presentation to the Blytheville Lions Club includes a slide providing a Feb 2015 completion date for the Cash Bypass (page 13/41 of pdf)

This July 24 AHTD presentation to the Jonesboro Exchange Club indicates that the four remaining sections of AR 226 under construction between US 67 and US 49 are estimated to be completed in December, 2015 (p. 46/57 of pdf):

Logged

KamKam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Location: Texarkana, AR
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:32:32 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #134 on: July 28, 2015, 04:25:42 PM »

The 2015-2016 Map shows HWY 226 between U.S. 67 and 49 be completed as a divided highway
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #135 on: July 28, 2015, 07:31:46 PM »

Somehow, I think the likelihood of the US 67 freeway getting an Interstate designation anytime soon is slim to none.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2073
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:30:26 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #136 on: July 29, 2015, 07:30:52 AM »

Somehow, I think the likelihood of the US 67 freeway getting an Interstate designation anytime soon is slim to none.

At least not until it connects with Poplar Bluff.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

US71

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

  • Posts: 9807
  • Sign Inspector, mad man with a camera

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 09:49:21 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #137 on: July 29, 2015, 12:44:57 PM »

Somehow, I think the likelihood of the US 67 freeway getting an Interstate designation anytime soon is slim to none.

At least not until it connects with Poplar Bluff.

Worry about the road, not the designation, like US 71, AR 540 , I-540, I-49
Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1225
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 09:53:51 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #138 on: July 29, 2015, 08:42:59 PM »

The 2015-2016 Map shows HWY 226 between U.S. 67 and 49 be completed as a divided highway

They did jump the gun, but the map does include 2016, by when 226 will be complete.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #139 on: August 01, 2015, 11:45:02 PM »

If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1225
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 09:53:51 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #140 on: August 02, 2015, 08:43:11 AM »

If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.
Logged

US 41

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1801
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Terre Haute, IN
  • Last Login: June 23, 2020, 09:21:41 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #141 on: August 02, 2015, 11:11:43 AM »

If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.
Logged
Places I've drove in North America

USA (38)= AL, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PE, QC
Mexico (6)= CH, CO, DG, NL, SI, TM

US71

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

  • Posts: 9807
  • Sign Inspector, mad man with a camera

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 09:49:21 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #142 on: August 02, 2015, 12:45:57 PM »

If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?
Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5871
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 07:00:26 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #143 on: August 02, 2015, 01:58:23 PM »

If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?

As has been mentioned multiple times on here, there is no additional federal funds for interstates any longer and hasn't been since MAP-21 was signed.  The only major division of federal fund eligibility is between funds to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) and those that can be used on all federal-aid highways.  There are no major federal fund sources specifically tied to interstate highways.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

US71

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

  • Posts: 9807
  • Sign Inspector, mad man with a camera

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 09:49:21 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #144 on: August 02, 2015, 04:20:13 PM »

If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?

As has been mentioned multiple times on here, there is no additional federal funds for interstates any longer and hasn't been since MAP-21 was signed.  The only major division of federal fund eligibility is between funds to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) and those that can be used on all federal-aid highways.  There are no major federal fund sources specifically tied to interstate highways.

Then an Interstate designation would serve no useful purpose (like I-49 north of Carthage ;) )
Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5871
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 07:00:26 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #145 on: August 02, 2015, 06:37:32 PM »

If they ever finish the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and Little Rock as a freeway, it should become I-53, since it fits in with the numbering system and it is not a used interstate number yet.

It will tie in directly with I-57 in Sikeston. Seems kind of silly to give it a different number when you have a direct connection between Chicago and Little Rock. Diagonal interstates break the grid regularly.

Extend the connection to between Dallas and Chicago and it's better to have just two numbers —30 and 57 — than a needless three.

Or just leave it alone and call it US 67.

Makes sense to me, but if they call it an Interstate, maybe they can get more Federal money to waste?

As has been mentioned multiple times on here, there is no additional federal funds for interstates any longer and hasn't been since MAP-21 was signed.  The only major division of federal fund eligibility is between funds to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) and those that can be used on all federal-aid highways.  There are no major federal fund sources specifically tied to interstate highways.

Then an Interstate designation would serve no useful purpose (like I-49 north of Carthage ;) )


We're only talking funding-wise.  FHWA now only blesses highways adhering to certain engineering specifications and standards with the holy interstate shield.

Also donned on me over the weekend that this is another opportunity to point out another reason why the NY 17/I-86 conversion has come to a standstill.  Although there are politicians out there convinced that interstates stimulate economy -- I mean, just look at Binghamton, NY!  Three interstate highways has made it the economic engine of the State! </mega sarcasm> -- the weaker incentives can be a factor in such capital program decision-making.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 08:57:06 AM by Rothman »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2141
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 07:36:03 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #146 on: August 02, 2015, 06:38:29 PM »

If they ever label US 67 as an interstate, you can kiss those US 167 & US 64 overlap signs good bye.   :no:  :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

US71

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

  • Posts: 9807
  • Sign Inspector, mad man with a camera

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 09:49:21 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #147 on: August 02, 2015, 09:53:38 PM »

If they ever label US 67 as an interstate, you can kiss those US 167 & US 64 overlap signs good bye.   :no:  :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Good point!
Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #148 on: August 04, 2015, 02:53:13 PM »

Maybe the subject headline should just say US 67, since there is no guarantee that the corridor will become Interstate 30, nor whether it will become an Interstate at all.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2073
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:30:26 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #149 on: August 04, 2015, 03:12:01 PM »

I think AHTD has referred to the corridor in the past as a future extension of I-30, hence the thread title. I would prefer it to be I-57, but for now that is fantasy land until the freeway is completed.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

 


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.