AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 166846 times)

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 #350 on: August 14, 2016, 01:35:32 PM »

I'm glad they finally finished US 67 from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge.

I wish that they would have left US 67 on its old alignment (AR 367), because whenever I-57 does go to Little Rock it will be another pointless concurrency that they will not be allowed to get rid of.

Actually 67 follows its old alignment to Cabot, where the northern section of 367 begins. But to have upgraded 367 to freeway standards would likely have destroyed almost every town along the road.
 

I think you misunderstood. I meant that I wish the 2 lane highway from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge (SR 367) was still signed as US 67 and that the freeway was signed as something else (like SR 567). I'd rather have US 67 running parallel to I-57 than to have SR 367 running parallel to I-57 and US 67 (a pointless concurrency).

67 has been in the process of being upgraded since the 1960's. I don't think anyone ever took an Interstate designation seriously until Dr Boozeman decided to copy Rick Crawford
Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 243
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Central Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:07:54 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #351 on: August 16, 2016, 12:05:28 AM »

Knowing AHTD's practices, I'm betting the US 67-167 (and 64) shields come down once the I-57 shields go up on that alignment.
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #352 on: August 17, 2016, 08:24:51 AM »

Did the bill that designated the US 67 corridor as future Interstate 57 even get signed into law?

Nope, it's just Bozeman pandering
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

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 #353 on: August 18, 2016, 06:49:19 PM »

On a semi-related note, the The Times Dispatch in Walnut Ridge noted the extension of AR 367

Quote
With the opening of the new Hwy. 67, the old highway has been designated by the AHTD as Hwy. 367.

Hwy. 367 will begin at the Main Street/Highway 34 stoplight in Walnut Ridge and continue south through Hoxie and into Jackson County.

The stretch of the old highway from Main Street north to the new Highway 67 toward Pocahontas will remain Highway 67B North.

Main St is also US 412, which means the 4 block 67B / 412 overlap is being eliminated.
Here is a Google map view of the area. https://goo.gl/maps/FjVbjMPR9it

Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

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 #354 on: August 19, 2016, 02:24:24 PM »

I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
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 #355 on: August 19, 2016, 02:44:33 PM »

I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
IMO, after Rick Crawford got attention with the 63/555 redesignation,  Senator Boozman wants "credit" (and attention) for redesignating 67 as I-57. (can I say "attention whore" and get away with saying that here?)
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 11:00:39 AM by US71 »
Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

KamKam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Location: Texarkana, AR
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:32:32 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #356 on: August 25, 2016, 10:45:57 AM »

I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
RIGHT?!
Logged

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 243
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Central Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:07:54 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #357 on: August 25, 2016, 04:03:35 PM »

I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
RIGHT?!
Speed limit is 70 on the rural stretch from just north of Jacksonville to now, Walnut Ridge. Limit drops to 55/60 north of there.
AHTD needs to get on the ball and make it controlled access to the MO/AR state line with the 70 mph speed limit. No half measures will do. It needs to be all or nothing. That's what I say...
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #358 on: August 25, 2016, 06:03:46 PM »

This highway is completely irrelevant compared to I-49

They shouldn't spend another cent on it until I-49 is done
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #359 on: August 26, 2016, 10:14:09 AM »

Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.
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 #360 on: August 26, 2016, 10:53:05 PM »

Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.

I don't understand why AHTD doesn't run I-49 down I-540 to US 71 on the southside of Ft Smith. Then they wouldn't have to build a new bridge over the Arkansas River.
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

SteveG1988

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2551
  • Age: 31
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 05:23:18 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #361 on: August 26, 2016, 11:43:01 PM »

Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.

I don't understand why AHTD doesn't run I-49 down I-540 to US 71 on the southside of Ft Smith. Then they wouldn't have to build a new bridge over the Arkansas River.

Probably to have an outer freeway bypass of the city, keeping traffic off I-540. I've used 540 in a truck, it isn't bad, but i doubt it would handle all of the 540 traffic plus the 49 traffic that a properly connected route will. Plus connecting 540 to 71 would require a lot of stuff to be moved, businesses, access to a steel mill may change, etc. Completing US67 to a freeway in MO would benefit the region more than you would think. I use the 57 to 67 to 30 corridor a lot in the truck. having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3648
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 03:18:10 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #362 on: August 27, 2016, 10:40:38 AM »

Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

It would be the direct route from Dallas to Chicago. It also helps Texarkana in their aims to be a distribution hub.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

SquonkHunter

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 48
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: May 11, 2020, 01:33:35 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #363 on: August 27, 2016, 10:43:04 AM »

...Having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

I made a road trip from Dallas to the Detroit area some years ago. This route would have saved me considerable time and mileage had it been in place back then. I'm sure the traffic volume is much higher now with the potential for even more when completed.
Logged

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #364 on: August 27, 2016, 10:43:51 AM »

Unfortunately for I-49, it would be a lot cheaper & easier for AHTD to finish upgrading US-67 and Future I-57 to the Missouri state line than it will be to fill in the I-49 gap between Fort Smith and Texarkana. Much shorter distance, no major river crossings and more gentle terrain.

I-49 has more complications. Missouri is endlessly dragging its feet on finishing its part of the Belle Vista bypass. Texas has no specific plans set for when it will build its tiny portion of I-49 near Texarkana. Funding for that large bridge near Fort Smith is still a big problem. Then there's all the mountainous terrain between Fort Smith and Texarkana to hurdle. I want I-49 to be finished, but I wouldn't be surprised if AHTD got distracted by putting money into easier projects.

Who cares about the tiny sections in other states. AHTD has 30 years of work on I-49 in the state
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 887
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 08:45:07 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #365 on: August 27, 2016, 10:59:42 AM »

I don't really see why US 67 even needs an interstate designation. The speed limit is already 70 on it. That's good enough for me.  :awesomeface:
IMO, after Rick Crawford got attention with the 63/555 redesignation,  Senator Boozman wants "credit" (and attention) for redesignating 67 as I-57. (can I say "attention whore" and get away with saying that here?)

I'd guess it's the usual general "economic development" theory -- post RWB shields on a highway and businesses will rush to relocate there.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3648
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 03:18:10 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #366 on: August 27, 2016, 11:26:15 AM »

Which of these is the easier sale to state legislators and Congressmen?

"Let's complete this highway that will connect New Orleans and Kansas City. It will go through mountains, so it's going to take a long time to complete and be very expensive. Also, it has segments in two other states, one of which has virtually no economic benefit from it."

"Let's complete this highway that will connect Dallas and Chicago. It will go through fairly flat land, so it will be a lot less expensive than that other route."

If you were a member of Congress or a state legislator, which would you support?
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #367 on: August 27, 2016, 11:59:07 AM »

An interstate route between Chicago and Dallas already exists and building another redundant route will do nothing for anyone, especially Arkansas
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3648
  • I take the back roads.

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Independence/Baton Rouge, LA
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 03:18:10 PM
    • Photos on Flickr
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #368 on: August 27, 2016, 12:47:20 PM »

An interstate route between Chicago and Dallas already exists and building another redundant route will do nothing for anyone, especially Arkansas

That's your opinion...

...Having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

I made a road trip from Dallas to the Detroit area some years ago. This route would have saved me considerable time and mileage had it been in place back then. I'm sure the traffic volume is much higher now with the potential for even more when completed.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

bjrush

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Go Hogs

  • Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #369 on: August 27, 2016, 01:02:57 PM »

An interstate route between Chicago and Dallas already exists and building another redundant route will do nothing for anyone, especially Arkansas

That's your opinion...

...Having that as a full freeway from  I-57 to I-30 would be a major benefit. Making it have a I-57 or I-30 number would entice people to use it. Since it would provide one continious route from Chicago to Little Rock, or from Dallas to Sikeston MO if you go with 30.

I made a road trip from Dallas to the Detroit area some years ago. This route would have saved me considerable time and mileage had it been in place back then. I'm sure the traffic volume is much higher now with the potential for even more when completed.

It's not my opinion one already exists.

No one cares it would have a continuous route number between Little Rock and Chicago. That has to be the least relevant pathway in the world. Spending billions to satisfy a map curiosity is moronic.

Not to mention the Chicago-KC connection could perfectly tie into I-49 and do the same thing while additionally connecting to points south. Little Rock is not relevant. They need to build I-49 and beef up I-30 and I-40

No industry is coming to Arkansas because I-57 happens to run through Walnut Ridge. That is a pipe dream.

Trip generation doesn't happen because roads are built. Roads are built based on where people want to go before they're built
« Last Edit: August 27, 2016, 01:08:31 PM by bjrush »
Logged
Woo Pig Sooie

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #370 on: August 27, 2016, 03:51:49 PM »

I don't understand why AHTD doesn't run I-49 down I-540 to US 71 on the southside of Ft Smith. Then they wouldn't have to build a new bridge over the Arkansas River.
Quite possibly because they've already built much of the Ft. Smith bypass already across the former Ft. Chaffee site (apparently signed currently as AR 549 -- their "go-to" designation for future I-49 segments).  The I-540 segment through Ft. Smith has a narrow and curvy profile; not really suitable as a route intended to permanently serve large levels of long-distance traffic.  IMO, the right decision was made -- keep through I-49 traffic out of central Ft. Smith.

As far as the US 67/"I-57" situation is concerned, while the traffic on I-40 between Little Rock & West Memphis is presently troublesome, it hasn't reached "critical mass" as of yet; if it does so, then a relief route such as an extended US 67/I-57 freeway may come in handy (but if I were either MO or AR DOT, I wouldn't be in any particular hurry to build anything near-term).
Logged

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 #371 on: August 28, 2016, 12:00:11 PM »

540 was "refurbished" a couple years ago, but is barely equipped to handle current traffic in Ft Smith & Van Buren. Too many on-ramps run into off-ramps with little or no separation (that's probably left for another discussion).

There is a proposal to eventually reroute 540 into I-49 (somewhere between Rogers Ave and Phoenix), but that is likely years off,  as is completion of I-49 

67 may be upgraded to Missouri, but I think it will be a long time before there a full freeway through Missouri.  And the 57 designation is hogwash.


Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #372 on: August 28, 2016, 05:19:02 PM »

67 may be upgraded to Missouri, but I think it will be a long time before there a full freeway through Missouri.  And the 57 designation is hogwash.

I agree about Missouri, though as it has been said before, it would not be very difficult to upgrade the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line to full Interstate freeway, since most of it is already high-quality expressway (including some frontage roads) that could easily be upgraded. Only about 10 or so miles of new alignment between US 160/MO 158 and the state line needs to be built.

And the 57 designation is not hogwash, it's very reasonable. Unless you'd rather see it designated as a new I-53 to avoid having the numbers go "out of the grid".

But get the Bella Vista Bypass finished and reconstruct I-70 first before doing this!
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 #373 on: August 28, 2016, 07:55:03 PM »

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure US 67 is not going to be built to interstate standards from Walnut Ridge to the MO state line. They are just going to 4 lane the sections that are still 2 lanes and build bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning.

http://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning

Quote
"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line,"

Quote
The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.
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

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #374 on: August 28, 2016, 10:47:51 PM »

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure US 67 is not going to be built to interstate standards from Walnut Ridge to the MO state line. They are just going to 4 lane the sections that are still 2 lanes and build bypasses around Pocahontas and Corning.

http://www.kait8.com/story/23820579/new-route-in-the-works-between-walnut-ridge-and-corning

Quote
"We're building only 37 miles instead of 57 miles, and we're building it from Pocahontas to the Missouri state line,"

Quote
The New route will use most of the existing highway 67 and create a bypass around Pocahontas on the east side, and a stretch of road that will lead to a bypass around Corning on the west side.

This was 3 years ago, before the corridor was proposed to become I-57. Frankly, it would make no sense for them to do what was described. US 67 from Walnut Ridge to the MO state line needs to be at least a 4 lane divided expressway (similar to the US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and US 160/MO 158 in Missouri), even if it's not a full interstate freeway.

I don't know what the official current status of the road is, but my guess is that further US 67 upgrades north of Walnut Ridge are on hold until Missouri figures out their transportation funding fiasco.
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.