AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 151096 times)

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1125
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:22 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #425 on: April 28, 2017, 04:14:41 PM »

Since it connects with US 67, I'll pose the question here: What in the world is the AR 89 project? 89 is discontinuous and doesn't go directly to Conway.
Logged

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 212
  • Last Login: May 20, 2019, 01:13:03 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #426 on: April 29, 2017, 02:06:03 PM »

Since it connects with US 67, I'll pose the question here: What in the world is the AR 89 project? 89 is discontinuous and doesn't go directly to Conway.
I hope it involves replacing the overpass at Cabot (exit 19). It is a "Poor boy" 4 lane (originally a 2 lane bridge)  and that bridge still experiences major backup at rush hour. That bridge needs to be double in width for allowing a center turn lane as well as a right exit lane for the freeway ramps.
Arkansas has a smorgasbord of disconnected routes. 305, 310, 110, 13.... and too many others to mention.
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8495
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 12:37:45 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #427 on: April 29, 2017, 06:05:39 PM »

Since it connects with US 67, I'll pose the question here: What in the world is the AR 89 project? 89 is discontinuous and doesn't go directly to Conway.
Only one I know is the proposed realignment at AR 365, building a bridge over the railroad.
There has been talk for years about connecting the disconnected segments, but I've seen no proposals


SM-G930V

Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3419
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 20, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #428 on: May 06, 2017, 10:59:10 AM »

... (and maybe time to change the name of this thread). This April 25 Press Release announces that Arkansas Senator John Boozman has introduced a bill to designate US 67 as Future I-57 and that any current sections of US 67 that are currently interstate standard could be officially designated as I-57

It's official. President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night that designates US 67 as I-57 (p. 663/708 of pdf):

Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
‘‘(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.’’.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)’’.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I–169.’’.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 11:22:26 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1312
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 03:40:28 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #429 on: May 06, 2017, 11:30:59 AM »

Ugh. An I-57 west of I-55. Would have much preferred I-53 to match up with a proposed I-53 Avenue of the Saints. But, OK.
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 708
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: May 20, 2019, 03:59:36 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #430 on: May 06, 2017, 12:55:47 PM »

I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5486
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:37:19 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #431 on: May 06, 2017, 02:52:20 PM »

I did notice that the legislation only includes US 67 as far north as US 412, which means Hoxie/Walnut Ridge (the completed limited-access portion of the route).  Unless follow-up legislation (which would have to likely occur in concert with MO) that applies to the rest of the corridor north to Poplar Bluff and then east to Sikeston, it's likely that the completed section will be the only designated and likely signed portion of I-57 SW of I-55 for the foreseeable future.   It's unlikely that MO will consider any projects on their portion before clearing out a good portion of their considerable backlog of projects, Interstate (I'm talking about you, I-49) and other. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1647
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:43:56 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #432 on: May 06, 2017, 05:19:26 PM »

On the bright side, it wouldn't be very difficult for Missouri to upgrade US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff and US-67 down the Arkansas border. Some portions are already limited access and much of the rest is 4 lane divided with frontage roads on one or both sides of the highway.

An eventual Interstate upgrade of US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston seems realistic in the long term since they have been adding more freeway quality sections to US-60 East of Springfield. I do agree MoDOT has other higher priorities, like finishing I-49 down to the Belle Vista Bypass.

I think Arkansas has the more difficult task with extending the I-57 freeway up to the Missouri border. Most of that will have to be built on a new terrain alignment.
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2635
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:58 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #433 on: May 06, 2017, 07:17:46 PM »

... (and maybe time to change the name of this thread). This April 25 Press Release announces that Arkansas Senator John Boozman has introduced a bill to designate US 67 as Future I-57 and that any current sections of US 67 that are currently interstate standard could be officially designated as I-57

It's official. President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night that designates US 67 as I-57 (p. 663/708 of pdf):

Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
‘‘(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.’’.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)’’.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I–57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I–169.’’.

I'll update the thread title because of this. ;)

Wayward Memphian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 192
  • Location: Fayetteville, AR
  • Last Login: Today at 02:04:49 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #434 on: May 06, 2017, 11:46:42 PM »

On the bright side, it wouldn't be very difficult for Missouri to upgrade US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff and US-67 down the Arkansas border. Some portions are already limited access and much of the rest is 4 lane divided with frontage roads on one or both sides of the highway.

An eventual Interstate upgrade of US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston seems realistic in the long term since they have been adding more freeway quality sections to US-60 East of Springfield. I do agree MoDOT has other higher priorities, like finishing I-49 down to the Belle Vista Bypass.

I think Arkansas has the more difficult task with extending the I-57 freeway up to the Missouri border. Most of that will have to be built on a new terrain alignment.

Whatever they do, build high enough to NOT go under.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5486
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:37:19 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #435 on: May 07, 2017, 12:13:47 AM »

At least MO has already bypassed Poplar Bluff, the largest community on their portion of the corridor, with an adequate or upgradeable freeway facility.  It's also likely that the routing of the remainder of the Arkansas portion will be the subject of considerable controversy:  a more direct (and likely cheaper) routing via AR 34, 90 and following the UP tracks versus a longer routing via Pocahontas which would serve that community but at a higher price (more interchanges required; increased parcel cost, the inevitable eminent-domain issues, ad nauseum).  It'll certainly be interesting to observe how AR DOT juggles this!
Logged

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 212
  • Last Login: May 20, 2019, 01:13:03 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #436 on: May 07, 2017, 11:16:52 AM »

On the bright side, it wouldn't be very difficult for Missouri to upgrade US-60 between Sikeston and Poplar Bluff and US-67 down the Arkansas border. Some portions are already limited access and much of the rest is 4 lane divided with frontage roads on one or both sides of the highway.

An eventual Interstate upgrade of US-60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston seems realistic in the long term since they have been adding more freeway quality sections to US-60 East of Springfield. I do agree MoDOT has other higher priorities, like finishing I-49 down to the Belle Vista Bypass.

I think Arkansas has the more difficult task with extending the I-57 freeway up to the Missouri border. Most of that will have to be built on a new terrain alignment.

Whatever they do, build high enough to NOT go under.
Exactly! We have had some flooding recently, with the US 67 section north of Walnut Ridge closed due to high water. They will have to raise the road way up in order for that not to happen again.
Logged

capt.ron

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 212
  • Last Login: May 20, 2019, 01:13:03 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #437 on: May 07, 2017, 12:31:15 PM »

At least MO has already bypassed Poplar Bluff, the largest community on their portion of the corridor, with an adequate or upgradeable freeway facility.  It's also likely that the routing of the remainder of the Arkansas portion will be the subject of considerable controversy:  a more direct (and likely cheaper) routing via AR 34, 90 and following the UP tracks versus a longer routing via Pocahontas which would serve that community but at a higher price (more interchanges required; increased parcel cost, the inevitable eminent-domain issues, ad nauseum).  It'll certainly be interesting to observe how AR DOT juggles this!
It will be interesting to say the least. Now that the bill by Boozman has been signed into law, Maybe that will push AHTD to get things going forward quicker. They have been piecemealing the 67 corridor together since the early 1960's. C'mon and finish the bloody thing already!
So for those that are new to the board, I'll post the progress of the corridor (completion year dates, etc.)
Late 1950's: construction began from the then new I-40 corridor to Jacksonville, ending at exit 11 (Air Force Base exit). Freeway opened up in 1962-3.
1965: Freeway extended north to Lonoke County line. Once had an at-grade intersection at Coffelt Rd before the frontage roads were completed.
1971: Freeway opened up to Beebe, ending at exit 28.
1974: Freeway opened up to Searcy, ending at exit 42.
1976: Freeway opened up to Searcy, ending at exit 46. (Searcy officially bypassed)
1978: Freeway opened up to Bald Knob, ending at exit 55. Interestingly, the roadway (both sets of lanes) was replaced from around mile marker 50 to 55 due to the concrete being substandard. Roadway (southbound lanes) was replaced starting 1996, ending in 2016.
1983: Freeway opened up to just north of Russell.
1985: Freeway opened up to Bradford.
1990-1: Freeway opened up to Newport, ending at exit 82.
1993-4: Freeway opened up to Newport, ending at Stegall Rd. (exit 83)
1996-7: Freeway opened up to Newport ending at Air base Rd (at-grade). Work began on an interchange around year 2004. Interchange added and freeway was no longer at-grade at Air Base Rd. Work began extending 67 to Walnut ridge mid 2000's.
2008-9: Freeway opened up to AR 226 (exit 102)
August 2016: Freeway opened up to Walnut Ridge.

Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 533
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: May 19, 2019, 06:12:19 PM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #438 on: May 07, 2017, 06:49:44 PM »

I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AK and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.
Logged

robbones

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 265
  • life on the black river of tar can be challenging

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Arkansas
  • Last Login: May 19, 2019, 11:24:27 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #439 on: May 07, 2017, 07:00:25 PM »



I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AR and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.

Corrected Arkansas for you

Z963VL

Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2048
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2019, 06:15:23 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #440 on: May 07, 2017, 07:00:53 PM »

I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AK and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.

Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock). So how many miles of highway need to be upgraded before the new I-57 extension is complete? Could it be that it could be finished before I-49 is finished in AR?

Also...I reiterate what I said several pages and a year or two ago: kiss all of the US 64/67/167 concurrency signs goodbye. Better go get your pictures of them while you can.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3573
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 09:25:26 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #441 on: May 07, 2017, 07:33:49 PM »

Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock).

More signs of how I-57 is the wrong numerical designation for this corridor.

I'll bet I-57 keeps Memphis as a control city for most of it's currently existing route as well.
Logged

aboges26

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 125
  • GIS Enthusiast / Canyon Country Adventurer

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Farmington, NM
  • Last Login: May 19, 2019, 12:15:47 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #442 on: May 07, 2017, 08:18:31 PM »

Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock).

More signs of how I-57 is the wrong numerical designation for this corridor.

I'll bet I-57 keeps Memphis as a control city for most of it's currently existing route as well.

Or Memphis could be swapped for DALLAS?  There is no other natural southern continuation of I-57 than to continue to Little Rock.  Should there ever be an I-53, then it could easily have its southern terminus in Poplar Bluff at I-57.  I-57 now will connect not only Chicago to Little Rock, but to Dallas by completely bypassing the need to use I-40 and I-55.  So I do not understand how I-57 only deserves to serve Chicago to Memphis traffic, when it can provide a bypass of sections of two congested transnational interstates and provide a more direct connection between Chicago and Dallas.  Seems like a win-win and the only sign needed to indicate the correct numerical designation when rules must be broken.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5486
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:37:19 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #443 on: May 07, 2017, 08:48:35 PM »

Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock).

More signs of how I-57 is the wrong numerical designation for this corridor.

I'll bet I-57 keeps Memphis as a control city for most of it's currently existing route as well.

Or Memphis could be swapped for DALLAS?  There is no other natural southern continuation of I-57 than to continue to Little Rock.  Should there ever be an I-53, then it could easily have its southern terminus in Poplar Bluff at I-57.  I-57 now will connect not only Chicago to Little Rock, but to Dallas by completely bypassing the need to use I-40 and I-55.  So I do not understand how I-57 only deserves to serve Chicago to Memphis traffic, when it can provide a bypass of sections of two congested transnational interstates and provide a more direct connection between Chicago and Dallas.  Seems like a win-win and the only sign needed to indicate the correct numerical designation when rules must be broken.

Dallas-Chicago is a more viable high-volume inter-facility corridor than Dallas-St. Louis; both DFW and Chicago have extensive rail-truck offloading facilities; considerably more than in St. Louis (actually, East St. L. and environs host most of what's there in that respect) -- at least for the present.  That was likely a consideration in the decision to cobble together a single-numbered corridor that potentially enhances that service, particularly since if & when completed it'll probably take a good deal of traffic away from the perennially congested and truck-heavy I-40 east of Little Rock.

In an idealized (and Fictional!) world, my choice would have been to have a I-53 corridor incorporating the I-530 extension down to nascent I-69 (and possibly further) and US 67 north of there all the way to I-55 at Festus, MO; US 60 from Poplar Bluff to Sikeston could then be a shorter extension of I-57.  But in the real world of limited resources (and limited vision), I suppose the I-57 corridor will suffice for the time being. :-|   
Logged

US71

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

  • Posts: 8495
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 12:37:45 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #444 on: May 07, 2017, 08:59:45 PM »


Much of the route in AR is at or near interstate quality (even has St. Louis as a control point on several mileage signs leaving Little Rock). So how many miles of highway need to be upgraded before the new I-57 extension is complete? Could it be that it could be finished before I-49 is finished in AR?

Also...I reiterate what I said several pages and a year or two ago: kiss all of the US 64/67/167 concurrency signs goodbye. Better go get your pictures of them while you can.

My 2 pfennig's: if Missouri isn't on board, why bother with I-57 in Arkansas? IMO, this is just grandstanding by Doc Boozman. 
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3573
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 09:25:26 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #445 on: May 07, 2017, 09:46:03 PM »

Or Memphis could be swapped for DALLAS?

Very unlikely given that Texarkana is used on I-30 in both the Dallas and Little Rock areas.

There is no other natural southern continuation of I-57 than to continue to Little Rock.  Should there ever be an I-53, then it could easily have its southern terminus in Poplar Bluff at I-57.

It does not look like a natural continuation to me, more like a strained extension, possibly with a useless multiplex in the future if the US 60 corridor across Missouri is brought up to interstate standards and an even 2di designation is sought.  Plus many of the freight flow maps from FHWA show a significant volume of trucks going for the I-39 corridor (not directly accessible from I-57 though the maps indicate a decent number of trucks are using I-74 for the connection).
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 10:03:23 PM by Revive 755 »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1647
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:43:56 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #446 on: May 08, 2017, 01:06:02 AM »

A great deal of heavy truck traffic headed out of Dallas to points in the Northeast use US-75 and US-69 in Oklahoma to get to I-44 in Big Cabin. Perhaps if the I-57 corridor is complete between Little Rock and Chicago that might pull some traffic off that non-Interstate corridor in Oklahoma.
Logged

billtm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 334
  • Age: 20
  • Location: West Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: May 10, 2019, 10:04:31 AM
Re: Future I-30/US 67
« Reply #447 on: May 08, 2017, 09:12:57 AM »

I still haven't seen anything from Missouri about extending I-57. I highly doubt the FHWA will allow Arkansas to sign it as I-57 till Missouri agrees to the extension and starts upgrading US 60 and US67.

That said, I do like the number for the corridor.
This is a route approved by Congress, and the legislation is binding on FHWA. If the road is up to interstate standard, FHWA will have no choice but to allow signing it.

The extension to and through Missouri is an entirely separate issue. At this point, that extension is not approved at all. Either AK and MO will have to apply for the approval, or folks in Congress will have to get busy again.

Why does Congress even bother designating numbers to Interstate corridors? Half the time it seems pretty obvious they don't understand the numbering conventions, so why not let the FHWA or AASHTO come up with the number? If they still choose 57 so be it, at least it will be coming from an orginazation that cares about the interstates as a system. :confused:
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4747
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:30:44 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #448 on: May 08, 2017, 09:59:59 AM »

Unless MO decides to build an extension of I-57, I don't see why this number can ever work. Not to mention that Little Rock will be another Kansas City, what with two Interstates ending that could very easily become one (I-29 and I-49, we're looking at you!).
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 07:01:09 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #449 on: May 08, 2017, 02:19:46 PM »

So is the I-57 designation in Arkansas now official? I didn't see any news articles posted about it over the weekend.
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.