AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future I-57/US 67  (Read 166855 times)

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 10:56:51 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #600 on: June 29, 2017, 03:07:52 AM »

Quote from: sparker
Hard turns?  Dog-legs?  I-75 through Chattanooga & Knoxville says a big fat hello!

At least I-75 in Tennessee has an excuse for the hard turns (mountains). There's not quite so much of that through Central Arkansas. If I-57 is completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston there will be a lot of Chicago-Dallas traffic on that route. Monroe is not a major destination for traffic along that corridor. Hell, there's not any rush to get I-530 completed to the proposed I-69 corridor. That's just disconnected segments of 2-lane road going through there.

Maybe not Monroe, but if US 165 is freewayized all the way down to I-10 and I-530/I-51 is extended, all of a sudden the port cities of Lake Charles and Beaumont get some decent traffic, and Alexandria and possibly Monroe may get some decent growth.

Of course, this is way long term. The 4-laning of US 165 and US 425 (thanks to the TIMED tax) is sufficient enough for the next 10-20 years. I-49 South and I-10 through Baton Rouge/Baton Rouge Bypass, and perhaps the I-49 ICC in Shreveport and a new I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge in Lake Charles, should be the main priorities for Louisiana right now.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2073
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:30:26 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #601 on: June 29, 2017, 07:15:53 AM »

If you simply dropped the last integer of I-530 and made it (and a LA extension) I-53, it might be long-term appropriate to take it up US 65 to Springfield,MO, and then on to greater KC via MO 13/7.  Otherwise, keep it as is or consider an I-57 designation down the line. 

Never happen.  US65 from Harrison south to Conway would cost untold BILLIONS to build out to interstate standards. While it looks good in the fictional realm, it will never happen.  But I guess we can always dream........

Probably so.  Looks good on a map, but the Ozarks do pose a formidable obstacle to efficient construction.  Never been on this particular road; for realistic assessment, I'll gladly defer to those who have.   

It is quite a mountainous drive through quite scenic territory. I believe AHTD has plans to widen certain segments to four lanes, but I am not sure if it will be a typical "Arkansas Freeway" (five lanes or four lanes undivided) or two separate carriageways similar to US 65 north of Harrison.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #602 on: June 29, 2017, 04:27:47 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Hard turns?  Dog-legs?  I-75 through Chattanooga & Knoxville says a big fat hello!

At least I-75 in Tennessee has an excuse for the hard turns (mountains). There's not quite so much of that through Central Arkansas. If I-57 is completed between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston there will be a lot of Chicago-Dallas traffic on that route. Monroe is not a major destination for traffic along that corridor. Hell, there's not any rush to get I-530 completed to the proposed I-69 corridor. That's just disconnected segments of 2-lane road going through there.

Actually, the mountains -- and the swampland east of them -- is the primary reason for the diagonal portion of US 67/future I-57 -- the highway is more or less at or near the "fall line" of the eastern Ozark flank, essentially following the original Missouri Pacific rail line, which had the good sense to avoid the mountains and also avoid the perennially flood-prone flatlands from there to the Mississippi River (the old railroad surveyors pretty much knew what they were doing!).  A diagonal route in this location is not placed there to expedite Texas-Chicago traffic (although the fact that it does so is simply icing on the proverbial cake), but because it lies along a very functional "natural" corridor, along with I-30/US 67 in SW Arkansas (another MP follower), which functions much the same but along the Ouachita rather than Ozark southeastern flank.  So in a sense one could say that, like I-75's path between Appalachian ridges, the path of I-57 is merely doing the best it can with the topography it encounters!

AR 530 is 2-lane, but on an easement intended for 4-lanes that'll eventually be Interstate grade.  It's being built a segment at a time as budgetary factors permit.  My guess is unless the trunk I-69 project somehow becomes accelerated, there will be little hurry to bring 530 up to Interstate standards in the near term; it'll remain just a relatively quick way to get from Little Rock/Pine Bluff to Monticello.   
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #603 on: June 30, 2017, 05:23:50 PM »

Anyway, let's get back on topic.

Missouri convened their transportation task force this week and seemed to agree that a fuel tax hike was needed.

http://www.whig.com/20170629/missouri-transportation-panel-backs-campaign-for-higher-fuel-tax#

My guess would be funding for the Improvements to make US 60/67 into I-57 will be included in the next capital program after they figure out how to raise some revenue.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6182
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: June 15, 2020, 07:12:53 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #604 on: July 01, 2017, 06:15:34 PM »

There is construction at the 51/Muskogee Turnpike split, but I didn't see anything that looked like they were rebuilding the interchange.

Down near the new toll booths being built, at least South/East Bound. I was going to back and look my way home, but didn't.

I thought you meant the western end of the turnpike. You were talking about the Coweta interchange, right? That whole area is being reconfigured. It will be nice when it is finished. Now to do something about the tollbooth south of Muskogee that requires Pikepass users to slow down to 30 MPH...
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6182
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: June 15, 2020, 07:12:53 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #605 on: July 01, 2017, 06:23:40 PM »

I-30 does not end in Little Rock. I-57 won't end in Little Rock either.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 07:08:43 PM by bugo »
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 #606 on: July 01, 2017, 06:32:32 PM »

Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?
Much of US 65 north of Lake Village is 4-Lanes, partially controlled access. Dumas and McGehee are 5-Lanes. South of Lake Village, 65 is 2-Lanes and crappy pavement
Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #607 on: July 02, 2017, 01:01:08 AM »

I-30 does not end in Little Rock. I-57 won't end in Little Rock either.

You are absolutely correct, sir!  They will both terminate in NORTH Little Rock!  Hope this clears up a major controversy!
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6182
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: June 15, 2020, 07:12:53 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #608 on: July 02, 2017, 01:33:49 AM »

I'm just being pedantic.
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 #609 on: July 02, 2017, 02:07:20 AM »

I'm just being pedantic.

That's cool!  I was just adding a wee dram of sarcasm to the proceedings.  Carry on!
Logged

bassoon1986

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1056
  • Finish I-49 north in LA!

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Woodworth, LA
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:44:47 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #610 on: July 02, 2017, 11:48:21 PM »

Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?
Much of US 65 north of Lake Village is 4-Lanes, partially controlled access. Dumas and McGehee are 5-Lanes. South of Lake Village, 65 is 2-Lanes and crappy pavement

I really don't think US 165 in Louisiana needs to be an interstate. Now that the entirety of it to Bastrop and US 425 have been 4-laned, I think it adequately moves traffic from SW Louisiana to NE Louisiana. Maybe I'm a little biased because I live directly on 165, but making it interstate is a waste of money to me.

Plus, traffic from central Louisiana or below it wouldn't use that corridor to get to Little Rock and points further north. It's quicker to use US 167 straight up the middle to get to Little Rock.


iPhone
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 #611 on: July 03, 2017, 12:13:22 AM »

Is an Interstate along the US 165 corridor in Arkansas and Louisiana really needed? How likely is even a freeway to be built along 165?
Much of US 65 north of Lake Village is 4-Lanes, partially controlled access. Dumas and McGehee are 5-Lanes. South of Lake Village, 65 is 2-Lanes and crappy pavement

I really don't think US 165 in Louisiana needs to be an interstate. Now that the entirety of it to Bastrop and US 425 have been 4-laned, I think it adequately moves traffic from SW Louisiana to NE Louisiana. Maybe I'm a little biased because I live directly on 165, but making it interstate is a waste of money to me.

Plus, traffic from central Louisiana or below it wouldn't use that corridor to get to Little Rock and points further north. It's quicker to use US 167 straight up the middle to get to Little Rock.


iPhone

Actually, a potential Interstate from Alexandria to Little Rock via the 165/425/530 corridor would only be marginally longer than the direct US 167 route and would, of course, avoid the slowdowns inherent with a surface corridor through interim towns.  The "lure" of a high(er)-speed route that would save some time (and brake wear) would likely be sufficient to entice most of any direct traffic (particularly of the commercial variety) between those points to utilize such an Interstate-grade facility.  That being said, right now the corridor as it stands is adequate to handle the current level of regional traffic.  However, if other corridor concepts through the region (I-14, I-69) gain enough of a foothold to prompt actual development, don't be surprised if you hear drumbeats for similar enhancement of the 165 corridor, particularly north from Alexandria.  These things tend to produce regional offspring (see TX and NC for examples)!     
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #612 on: July 03, 2017, 12:40:29 PM »

There is little, if any, chance of US-165 being upgraded to Interstate quality between Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe. The route may be 4-laned already, but far too much of it has homes and commercial businesses built close to the road. There isn't enough room to add frontage roads. Adding more complication, a railroad line parallels US-165 between Lake Charles and Alexandria.

If an Interstate was going to be built along this corridor most of it would have to be built on a new terrain alignment. And that goes along with a 100% new terrain path of any would-be Interstate between the current Southern end of AR-530 and Monroe, LA.

I just don't see enough traffic along that corridor to justify a full blown Interstate. The population isn't there to warrant it. Also, it's really two corridors since Alexandria traffic would use US-167 to get to Little Rock while Monroe traffic would use US-425. People in that region should feel lucky they have 4 lane expressways serving them rather than only 2 lane roads.
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 #613 on: July 03, 2017, 01:35:24 PM »

There is little, if any, chance of US-165 being upgraded to Interstate quality between Lake Charles, Alexandria and Monroe. The route may be 4-laned already, but far too much of it has homes and commercial businesses built close to the road. There isn't enough room to add frontage roads. Adding more complication, a railroad line parallels US-165 between Lake Charles and Alexandria.

If an Interstate was going to be built along this corridor most of it would have to be built on a new terrain alignment. And that goes along with a 100% new terrain path of any would-be Interstate between the current Southern end of AR-530 and Monroe, LA.

I just don't see enough traffic along that corridor to justify a full blown Interstate. The population isn't there to warrant it. Also, it's really two corridors since Alexandria traffic would use US-167 to get to Little Rock while Monroe traffic would use US-425. People in that region should feel lucky they have 4 lane expressways serving them rather than only 2 lane roads.

All this regarding any Interstate corridor south of Pine Bluff is pure speculation pending Arkansas' completion of the 530 corridor as an Interstate-grade facility down as far as the nascent E-W I-69 corridor near Monticello.  And it looks, at least for the time being, that completing it as a 2-lane expressway is the plan for the near term; this would not bode well for anything south of there along US 425 and/or US 165.  And Bobby is quite correct as to the likely need for a new-terrain alignment for anything in the Monroe-Alexandria corridor (with the possible exception of Monroe itself); the 4-laning was largely accomplished by twinning, leaving most of the private access to the highway intact; while increasing the capacity of the facility, the concept of rendering it limited-access wasn't a primary consideration here. 

Quite a few posters have posited the US 165 corridor as the likely "next big thing" in LA Interstate development -- but some of those have advanced the view that such a corridor would obviate much of the need for I-69; the N-S alignment is seen as more an alternative to I-69 than an addition to that corridor's "supporting cast" (as an extension of the 530 "branch").  However, to get this thread back in the direction of the OP, speculation as to the viability of a continuous southern I-57 extension supplanting the I-530/AR 530 corridor and continuing south into LA is just that until the presently-planned/legislated corridor northeast of Little Rock is completed or at least within sight of that happening.  Right now LA has got their hands full with the completion of I-49, the looming presence of I-69, and the recent injection of I-14 into the mix (which has got mid-state congressional types drooling, with pens & keyboards at the ready);  it's at present unlikely anyone will want to add one more corridor to the wish list.  Despite the fact that down the line something like the US 165 corridor might actually be deemed useful as a regional Interstate (and we here dissect the details of such just the same), in reality it's speculative fiction.     
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-57/US 67
« Reply #614 on: July 03, 2017, 01:43:08 PM »

Yes, it's unlikely that we will ever get an interstate between Lake Charles and Little Rock unless the population of Louisiana starts growing dramatically, which is highly unlikely with our current government.  :rolleyes: However, a case can be made that a network of expressways from south Louisiana to central Arkansas has economic benefits for both states, promotes tourism between the two, and helps with hurricane evacuation. So LaDOTD and AHTD should at least talk about this now and decide on a coordinated plan, as they did successfully with I-49.

It doesn't take much logic to dismiss I-69 as a priority for Louisiana. The route simply does not benefit the state enough to justify prioritizing it. I personally support talking about US 165/167 as much as possible. Since so much of Louisiana politics is good-old-boy politics anyway, why not play along. More good-old-boys get a payoff through a Lake-Charles-to-Little-Rock corridor than through I-69.
Logged
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #615 on: July 04, 2017, 08:56:29 PM »

Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 10:56:51 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #616 on: July 04, 2017, 10:13:17 PM »

Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

New thread for US 165 here:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20634.0

Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6182
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: June 15, 2020, 07:12:53 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #617 on: July 05, 2017, 01:28:43 AM »

Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

Thread drift happens. It's the nature of the internet. If you haven't been online enough to realize this, maybe you should refrain from complaining about it. And to think that they look at *me* as the bad guy when I complain about overmoderation.

*waits for this post to disappear down the memory hole. Orwell would love this forum.*
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 #618 on: July 05, 2017, 01:41:30 AM »

Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

Thread drift happens. It's the nature of the internet. If you haven't been online enough to realize this, maybe you should refrain from complaining about it. And to think that they look at *me* as the bad guy when I complain about overmoderation.

*waits for this post to disappear down the memory hole. Orwell would love this forum.*

Well -- since one of the suggested designations for a potential US 165 freeway was as an extension, via I/AR-530, of the I-57 designation south of Little Rock, it makes such a discussion relevant within the context of the thread.  But now that a Fictional thread has been started about the 165 corridor, discourse other than whether such a corridor should actually be a I-57 extension would best be expressed in that other thread -- including the merits of or issues with upgrading US 165 to an Interstate.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6182
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: June 15, 2020, 07:12:53 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #619 on: July 05, 2017, 02:46:48 AM »

I agree with Sparker. It is totally relevant.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #620 on: July 05, 2017, 08:13:59 PM »

Can we start a new thread for discussing US 165 Interstate upgrades? Let's keep this thread discussing I-57.

Thread drift happens. It's the nature of the internet. If you haven't been online enough to realize this, maybe you should refrain from complaining about it. And to think that they look at *me* as the bad guy when I complain about overmoderation.

*waits for this post to disappear down the memory hole. Orwell would love this forum.*

That is fine, but US 165 upgrades doesn't have anything to do with the I-57 extension from Sikeston to Little Rock. If it drifted into a related topic, I wouldn't care, but US 165 upgrades (and extending I-57 south from Little Rock) are completely fictional and have nothing to do with the main topic here. Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly fine with the discussion of upgrading US 165, but it should go in the fictional highways section because there are no official plans to extend I-57 along the corridor. This thread should be limited to discussing progress towards the actual, on-the-table proposal to extend I-57 to North Little Rock (and closely related projects).
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6182
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: June 15, 2020, 07:12:53 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #621 on: July 05, 2017, 10:16:28 PM »

Is it really that big of a deal if it is discussed in this thread? Does it even matter? Everything doesn't fit into a neat little box. If I write a post that is about both US 67 and US 165 do I have to start a third topic? It just sounds like petulant nonsense and is completely unnecessary. Just go with the flow.

To stay on topic, ROADS!

I still say US 67-167 should have been an I-30 extension. It connects to I-30 today (via a very short overlap on I-40) and it may not connect to the Missouri/Illinois I-57 for several decades. It wasn't a very good decision to give it that number. And before you say "But...but it runs north-south!" the trajectory is the same as I-30's is in Arkansas so it really doesn't matter. Should I-30 be truncated to I-49 and should I-57 be extended to Texarkana? Just like discussions of I-57 and US 165, it doesn't fit neatly into a perfectly square box. There must be some kind of mental disorder that makes one want to categorize everything into a box.
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 #622 on: July 05, 2017, 11:04:04 PM »

If anything, it should have been I-30 but Doc Boozman had a different idea. Maybe you can take it up with him?

Logged
Fear itself is largely an illusion.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #623 on: July 06, 2017, 01:14:12 AM »

If anything, it should have been I-30 but Doc Boozman had a different idea. Maybe you can take it up with him?

Regardless of the similar trajectory, the Little Rock area is the linchpin (or maybe fulcrum?) of whatever ultimate freeway network builds up around it.  I-30 functions more in an east-west fashion, funneling I-40 traffic down to Texas and vice-versa; while the northern nascent I-57 section along US 67 takes that traffic pattern further north; most of the traffic heading further east will veer off onto I-40 at that point, so the E-W function is pretty well dissipated once north of Little Rock.  Many, many years ago (pre-ISTEA), I thought that the US 67/60 continuum would work well as a feeder into Kentucky as well, with the parkway system taking traffic from Sikeston east to the Lexington area to disperse on I-64 or 75.  Now something like that would have made a neat eastern I-30 extension -- a lengthy interregional diagonal connector.  But, like the proverbial best-laid plans, this was not to be, with I-69 subsuming that region's planning efforts.  At least I-57 will provide a more direct outlet to Chicago and the rest of the Great Lakes states via connecting routes like I-70.  Not perfect by any means, but at least reasonably rational.     
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3745
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:26:07 PM
Re: Future I-57/US 67
« Reply #624 on: July 06, 2017, 10:05:48 AM »

Is it really that big of a deal if it is discussed in this thread? Does it even matter? Everything doesn't fit into a neat little box. If I write a post that is about both US 67 and US 165 do I have to start a third topic? It just sounds like petulant nonsense and is completely unnecessary. Just go with the flow.

To stay on topic, ROADS!

I still say US 67-167 should have been an I-30 extension. It connects to I-30 today (via a very short overlap on I-40) and it may not connect to the Missouri/Illinois I-57 for several decades. It wasn't a very good decision to give it that number. And before you say "But...but it runs north-south!" the trajectory is the same as I-30's is in Arkansas so it really doesn't matter. Should I-30 be truncated to I-49 and should I-57 be extended to Texarkana? Just like discussions of I-57 and US 165, it doesn't fit neatly into a perfectly square box. There must be some kind of mental disorder that makes one want to categorize everything into a box.

All that I did was mused about if and/or when we might start seeing some of the small-town local pols along the way begin to push for a southward extension of 'I-57'.

 :-o

Mike
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.