AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 166861 times)

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #525 on: June 02, 2017, 10:58:58 PM »




Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

That was a slightly sarcastic comment. Yes, there will be some federal funding, but I'm sure Arkansas and Missouri will foot the bill for most of this.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #526 on: June 03, 2017, 01:57:17 AM »




Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

That was a slightly sarcastic comment. Yes, there will be some federal funding, but I'm sure Arkansas and Missouri will foot the bill for most of this.

Besides being a place to park the I-57 designation, the status of the US 67 corridor as the newest HPC portends a potential 80% federal contribution to work on the corridor; why the legislation just didn't extend it to the state line is puzzling (Boozman & company could have done that without favoring any particular alignment north of Walnut Ridge).  Of course, getting the designation is the easy part; wringing funds out of Congress for any corridor work, including signage of the existing freeway, has been/is/will be considerably more difficult (I'd have used the term taxing, but that'd just be adding insult to injury!).   
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5871
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 07:00:26 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #527 on: June 03, 2017, 07:53:37 AM »




Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

Didn't the Prez recently say that states are mostly on their own for infrastructure spending.
Don't know.  If he did, it would just be yet another dishonest or stupid thing he said along with the hundreds of others.  The FHWA funding isn't going away anytime soon.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5871
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 07:00:26 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #528 on: June 03, 2017, 07:56:09 AM »




Anyway, like I said, it will end up getting funded with state gas taxes and other state funds since the Federal Government doesn't give money for infrastructure improvements anymore.

Huh?  I would bet that federal funding represents the majority of the funding for any state's capital program.

That was a slightly sarcastic comment. Yes, there will be some federal funding, but I'm sure Arkansas and Missouri will foot the bill for most of this.
Baloney.  Federal eligibility is actually quite broad.  I would go even further than the other poster and say that it will be at least 80% federal and, if NHPP is used, probably 90%.

It all depends on the state's priorities.  If they want additional obligation limitation, that is a whole other story, but they are certainly able to advance construct the project to more easily find room in their capital program as is for this project.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2017, 07:59:25 AM by Rothman »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #529 on: June 03, 2017, 04:24:02 PM »

Does anyone know when/if future Interstate 57 signs will go up along the US 67 corridor? I assume its too soon for them to have gone up already.
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-57/US 67
« Reply #530 on: June 03, 2017, 06:27:56 PM »

It should have been designated I-67, since a lot of locals call it that ;)
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-57/US 67
« Reply #531 on: June 03, 2017, 06:50:14 PM »

It should have been designated I-67, since a lot of locals call it that ;)

More like I-67-167. I think they call it that even north of Bald Knob.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #532 on: June 09, 2017, 05:24:10 PM »

Interstate 67? Personally, I'd prefer Interstate 53 for the corridor. But since Interstate 41/US 41 and Interstate 74/US 74 already exist, why not?
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #533 on: June 09, 2017, 07:19:08 PM »

It's going to be Interstate 57, it's now official. It's just a matter of building the remaining Interstate between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.
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-57/US 67
« Reply #534 on: June 10, 2017, 05:40:32 PM »

It's going to be Interstate 57, it's now official. It's just a matter of building the remaining Interstate between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.

I wonder if Hell will freeze first?  :hmmm:
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-57/US 67
« Reply #535 on: June 13, 2017, 04:31:58 PM »

Probably.
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 644
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 06:38:27 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #536 on: June 13, 2017, 06:47:29 PM »

Probably.
Or maybe not; we've found in NC that the interstate bug is contagious.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #537 on: June 13, 2017, 09:16:46 PM »

It's going to be Interstate 57, it's now official. It's just a matter of building the remaining Interstate between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston.

I wonder if Hell will freeze first?  :hmmm:

It already did last year.........
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1077
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 01:03:42 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #538 on: June 15, 2017, 03:41:36 AM »

We're roadgeeks here; shouldn't we refer to Centralia freezing?
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 496
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 04:31:18 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #539 on: June 15, 2017, 01:21:50 PM »

We're roadgeeks here; shouldn't we refer to Centralia freezing?

Where's Centralia? Do you mean Centralia, WA?  :-P

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #540 on: June 15, 2017, 03:19:10 PM »

If hell has already frozen over, then everything anyone ever said would happen when hell freezes over, would have happened by now. I'm sure some sort of connection between Walnut Ridge, AR and Sikeston, MO will be built eventually. It may take 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or even 100 years, but it will ultimately happen (I hope!).
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #541 on: June 15, 2017, 05:55:01 PM »

If hell has already frozen over, then everything anyone ever said would happen when hell freezes over, would have happened by now. I'm sure some sort of connection between Walnut Ridge, AR and Sikeston, MO will be built eventually. It may take 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or even 100 years, but it will ultimately happen (I hope!).

If a pool were established, my money would be on a timeframe of 15-25 years to get Walnut Ridge-Poplar Bluff-Sikeston built/upgraded to Interstate (57) status.  Bypassing the roadside businesses south of Poplar Bluff or a bridge over the Black River -- one or the other -- will likely be the final segment to be completed.   
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #542 on: June 15, 2017, 07:20:10 PM »

It will get built the next time Missouri and Arkansas pass a funding transportation proposal (gas tax hike, ballot initiative, etc). Something will have to happen pretty soon in both states, they are both far behind and it's only a matter of time before a major infrastructure failure happens, which will generate outrage and a call for action.
Logged

Tomahawkin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 307
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 04:16:37 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #543 on: June 15, 2017, 08:19:28 PM »

I said it before and will say it again. (Just like interstate 49) make it a toll road. Charge 2 dollars for all the snowbirds who travel from the Midwest to Texas and it solves the Statewide funding issues. Make the local residents buy a sticker pass
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #544 on: June 18, 2017, 04:14:21 PM »

Here is the EIS for US 67 in Madison, Wayne and Butler Counties in Missouri. This includes the improvements to US 67 from south of Poplar Bluff to just shy of the state line.

https://books.google.com/books?id=S801AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA2-PA66&lpg=SA2-PA66&dq=Route+67+neelyville&source=bl&ots=DflTG123sS&sig=bdSExanqDD3YfE8aU02Qki0NYJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpKafmMjUAhUB2D4KHQIuB5MQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

For the section of US 67 that still hasn't been built to four lanes (between MO 158 and the state line), they discuss some alternatives, and it generally shows a new, four lane divided facility (I can't entirely tell if it was entirely freeway-grade or not) being constructed parallel and to the west to the existing US 67. The only interchange would be a diamond at MO 142 in Neelyville.

I wonder if this is still the plan all these years later?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #545 on: June 18, 2017, 07:33:16 PM »

Here is the EIS for US 67 in Madison, Wayne and Butler Counties in Missouri. This includes the improvements to US 67 from south of Poplar Bluff to just shy of the state line.

https://books.google.com/books?id=S801AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA2-PA66&lpg=SA2-PA66&dq=Route+67+neelyville&source=bl&ots=DflTG123sS&sig=bdSExanqDD3YfE8aU02Qki0NYJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpKafmMjUAhUB2D4KHQIuB5MQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

For the section of US 67 that still hasn't been built to four lanes (between MO 158 and the state line), they discuss some alternatives, and it generally shows a new, four lane divided facility (I can't entirely tell if it was entirely freeway-grade or not) being constructed parallel and to the west to the existing US 67. The only interchange would be a diamond at MO 142 in Neelyville.

I wonder if this is still the plan all these years later?


As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.     
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #546 on: June 18, 2017, 08:46:51 PM »

As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #547 on: June 18, 2017, 09:08:48 PM »

As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 

Even though the logical route for I-57 is indeed US 67 and US 60, with Poplar Bluff as the transition point, the actual existing legislation only designated I-57 as far north as US 412 (Walnut Ridge).  The sole factor that might have tipped the scales in favor of a 5-lane facility would have been pressure from local interests looking to increase capacity on US 67 without the possibility of being bypassed.  If the alternative cited in the EIS is indeed retained, then there's no further alignment issue within MO that would be an obstacle to eventual corridor completion. 

And that begs a further question:  is there any activity within MODOT or even local entities toward furthering similar legislation within that state re this I-57 extension?  Perhaps the Arkansas/Boozman designation is too new to have provoked any flurry of Missouri interest as of yet; maybe they're waiting to see just where the Arkansas alignment north of Walnut Ridge will be located so coordination of plans can occur.  It would be too bad if the dynamic seen with I-49 repeated itself here -- the functional equivalent of playing "phone tag" ("your move"......"no, your move"....ad nauseum) with this project! 
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #548 on: June 18, 2017, 09:38:29 PM »

As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 

Even though the logical route for I-57 is indeed US 67 and US 60, with Poplar Bluff as the transition point, the actual existing legislation only designated I-57 as far north as US 412 (Walnut Ridge).  The sole factor that might have tipped the scales in favor of a 5-lane facility would have been pressure from local interests looking to increase capacity on US 67 without the possibility of being bypassed.  If the alternative cited in the EIS is indeed retained, then there's no further alignment issue within MO that would be an obstacle to eventual corridor completion. 

And that begs a further question:  is there any activity within MODOT or even local entities toward furthering similar legislation within that state re this I-57 extension?  Perhaps the Arkansas/Boozman designation is too new to have provoked any flurry of Missouri interest as of yet; maybe they're waiting to see just where the Arkansas alignment north of Walnut Ridge will be located so coordination of plans can occur.  It would be too bad if the dynamic seen with I-49 repeated itself here -- the functional equivalent of playing "phone tag" ("your move"......"no, your move"....ad nauseum) with this project!

I think Missouri has no choice, but to help connect them eventually, though it does not have to be down right away. Plus, Poplar Bluff is very much in favor of extending I-57, they have been lobbying heavily to Senator Blunt and Congressman Jason Smith (in addition to Boozman and Crawford) for funding. Even though "Future I-57" is only designated to US 412, the designation would likely be extended with any additional freeway built north of there.

If I were Arkansas and Missouri, I'd build the Corning-Poplar Bluff section next. Any bypass of Corning is likely going to have to be built on the west side of town, so that is a starting point for connecting the lines. The bypass could start at US 62 on the west side of town, head north to an interchange with AR 328 and then curve northeast to roughly parallel the existing US 67 to the state line. Missouri could then pick it up and build a new US 67 freeway parallel to the west of the existing US 67 (similar to the proposed route in the EIS above) from there to the MO 158 interchange (where they could also fix the deficiencies on the US 67 four lane improvements done back in 2012-2014, such as the substandard shoulders). Then remove the remaining grade crossings from there until the US 60 interchange in Poplar Bluff (only two that I see) and Presto!

Arkansas could then focus all its efforts on building between US 412 in Walnut Ridge and US 62 in Corning while Missouri just focuses on upgrading US 60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

The remaining improvements to complete the I-57 extension could be divided up into three phases.

1. The segment from US 412 in Walnut Ridge to US 62 Corning
2. The segment from US 62 in Corning to US 60 in Poplar Bluff.
3. The segment from US 60 in Poplar Bluff to the existing I-55/57 interchange in Sikeston.

Do number 2 first, then 1 and worry about number 3 last, after the new terrain sections are built. We don't need another I-49 situation here.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #549 on: June 18, 2017, 11:15:31 PM »

As long as the planned facility has Interstate-grade geometry (as with most Midwest expressways) and maintains ROW preservation (i.e., lack of private access), it is likely to be readily upgradeable to Interstate standards similar to US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55 once funding to do so is identified.  IIRC, one of the original alternatives for this segment was a full-access 5-lane expansion of the existing route; adoption of that alternative would certainly pose an obstacle to an I-57 extension along the corridor.   

I heard that somewhere too, but where was that alternative in any of the planning documents? Even without I-57, it would make no sense to do a five lane undivided between MO 158 and the state line when the corridor between MO 158 and Festus is four lane divided highway for the entire length.

Of course, with the I-57 designation, this is all moot. The road will have to be Freeway/Interstate-grade now. I just wonder if they will follow the same routing they were planning in the document above. 

Even though the logical route for I-57 is indeed US 67 and US 60, with Poplar Bluff as the transition point, the actual existing legislation only designated I-57 as far north as US 412 (Walnut Ridge).  The sole factor that might have tipped the scales in favor of a 5-lane facility would have been pressure from local interests looking to increase capacity on US 67 without the possibility of being bypassed.  If the alternative cited in the EIS is indeed retained, then there's no further alignment issue within MO that would be an obstacle to eventual corridor completion. 

And that begs a further question:  is there any activity within MODOT or even local entities toward furthering similar legislation within that state re this I-57 extension?  Perhaps the Arkansas/Boozman designation is too new to have provoked any flurry of Missouri interest as of yet; maybe they're waiting to see just where the Arkansas alignment north of Walnut Ridge will be located so coordination of plans can occur.  It would be too bad if the dynamic seen with I-49 repeated itself here -- the functional equivalent of playing "phone tag" ("your move"......"no, your move"....ad nauseum) with this project!

I think Missouri has no choice, but to help connect them eventually, though it does not have to be down right away. Plus, Poplar Bluff is very much in favor of extending I-57, they have been lobbying heavily to Senator Blunt and Congressman Jason Smith (in addition to Boozman and Crawford) for funding. Even though "Future I-57" is only designated to US 412, the designation would likely be extended with any additional freeway built north of there.

If I were Arkansas and Missouri, I'd build the Corning-Poplar Bluff section next. Any bypass of Corning is likely going to have to be built on the west side of town, so that is a starting point for connecting the lines. The bypass could start at US 62 on the west side of town, head north to an interchange with AR 328 and then curve northeast to roughly parallel the existing US 67 to the state line. Missouri could then pick it up and build a new US 67 freeway parallel to the west of the existing US 67 (similar to the proposed route in the EIS above) from there to the MO 158 interchange (where they could also fix the deficiencies on the US 67 four lane improvements done back in 2012-2014, such as the substandard shoulders). Then remove the remaining grade crossings from there until the US 60 interchange in Poplar Bluff (only two that I see) and Presto!

Arkansas could then focus all its efforts on building between US 412 in Walnut Ridge and US 62 in Corning while Missouri just focuses on upgrading US 60 between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston.

The remaining improvements to complete the I-57 extension could be divided up into three phases.

1. The segment from US 412 in Walnut Ridge to US 62 Corning
2. The segment from US 62 in Corning to US 60 in Poplar Bluff.
3. The segment from US 60 in Poplar Bluff to the existing I-55/57 interchange in Sikeston.

Do number 2 first, then 1 and worry about number 3 last, after the new terrain sections are built. We don't need another I-49 situation here.

Essentially in agreement here -- do the most difficult section: the one that would require inter-state/inter-agency coordination and cooperation first; that'll obviate the "phone tag" I cited above.  Once that's done, Missouri will simply need to coast (in a relative sense) through the remaining upgrades.  And that'll leave Arkansas with its choice of an (again relatively) simple route via AR 34 & 90 and Corning or the more troublesome and/or exacting one, in terms of both politics and physical alignment, via Pocahontas in order to more directly serve that population center.  Since Missouri will likely follow its own internal schedule as to US 60 upgrades, there's a good chance that segment will be at least well under way while the debate over the Arkansas routing is being resolved.  Nevertheless, I'll project 2032, give or take three-odd years, for the corridor's completion.       
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.