Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
vbfl85

Future Interstate 57

25 posts in this topic


I think this is an excellent development, and I never understood why it hadn't been pursued before now.  If and when this is accomplished, this will technically give Jonesboro TWO interstate highways, whereas they had NONE just a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great idea! Would there be a connector between the interstate and Jonesboro. Like a i-157?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Allen Alexander said:

This is a great idea! Would there be a connector between the interstate and Jonesboro. Like a i-157?

(Just looking at the map...) I would think they could just extend out I-555 a little bit to reach to the new I-57... but I don't know about the area, or how feasible that is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, it can't technically be re-designated an interstate until it links to ANOTHER interstate.  If that can happen in Jonesboro, then the designation can be applied (but Jonesboro's other link on the east side is actually a spur of I-55 designated I-555....not sure if that qualifies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would also mean that AR 440 could finally be resigned as I 440 for the stretch of the northbelt freeway connecting I 40 with 67/167 (future I 57).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My original post on the subject under the Arkansas topic: " Highway 67 starting at I-40 in North Little will become "Future I-57".  By doing this sometime in the future the highway will link up to I-57 in Missouri creating a direct link to Chicago. When this happens I expect traffic out of Missouri heading west now using I-55 and I-40 through West Memphis will move over to I-57. The results of that could be that Little Rock and Central Arkansas becomes a major transportation hub. " 

The section in question goes from I-40 up 67 to Walnut Ridge. It runs about 20 miles west of Jonesboro and the exit to Jonesboro from the south is AR 226. This highway is being rebuilt to four lanes and should be complete by the summer. Also in June the final 14 mile segment of 67 to Walnut Ridge should be complete.

Interstates do not have to be linked to another interstate. A good example of this is I-22 in Mississippi and Alabama. It became I-22 in 2012 and still does not connect although it will if they can ever finish the last five mile section in Birmingham.

Edited by skirby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, skirby said:

My original post on the subject under the Arkansas topic: " Highway 67 starting at I-40 in North Little will become "Future I-57".  By doing this sometime in the future the highway will link up to I-57 in Missouri creating a direct link to Chicago. When this happens I expect traffic out of Missouri heading west now using I-55 and I-40 through West Memphis will move over to I-57. The results of that could be that Little Rock and Central Arkansas becomes a major transportation hub. " 

The section in question goes from I-40 up 67 to Walnut Ridge. It runs about 20 miles west of Jonesboro and the exit to Jonesboro from the south is AR 226. This highway is being rebuilt to four lanes and should be complete by the summer.  Interstates do not have to be linked to another interstate. A good example of this is I-22 in Mississippi and Alabama. It became I-22 in 2012 and still does not connect although it will if they can ever finish the last five mile section in Birmingham.

While there may be exceptions, I think this is the general rule.  I've driven I-22 a lot, and the only thing remaining is the interchange.  In fact, they didn't officially designate it as I-22 until the last leg was completed in Birmingham, short of the overpass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


According to the bill authorizing I-57 in Arkansas any section built to interstate standards can be designated I-57. As for the last segment of I-22 it has been in the works since 2010. I've been getting off at Coalburg for years and in a couple of weeks I will be doing it again. I guess one should expect that  when one of the interchange bridges is designed wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skirby said:

According to the bill authorizing I-57 in Arkansas any section built to interstate standards can be designated I-57. As for the last segment of I-22 it has been in the works since 2010. I've been getting off at Coalburg for years and in a couple of weeks I will be doing it again. I guess one should expect that  when one of the interchange bridges is designed wrong.

Ouch!  Really?  Remember when that happened on the I-40 widening relating to a bridge at the Levy exit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, vbfl85 said:

This would also mean that AR 440 could finally be resigned as I 440 for the stretch of the northbelt freeway connecting I 40 with 67/167 (future I 57).

This is a very good point.  Absolutely true (and an example to which we've been referring...that it can't be designated a federal "freeway" until it terminates at another freeway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Architect said:

This is a very good point.  Absolutely true (and an example to which we've been referring...that it can't be designated a federal "freeway" until it terminates at another freeway).

I still don't see this to be correct. My examples to back this are I-530, I-540 and I-49, all in Arkansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, skirby said:

I still don't see this to be correct. My examples to back this are I-530, I-540 and I-49, all in Arkansas.

You're right that there are inconsistencies, which makes it confusing.  There must be particulars about when that applies, as I specifically remember AHTD explaining that was why the portion of I-440 doesn't have a federal designation between I-40 and 67/167.  Maybe it only applies to urban connectors (with 3 digits), but then that wouldn't explain I-530 to Pine Bluff.  I get I-49 in NWA because it continues north of Bentonville all the way to K.C. and connects to other freeways...there's just a current gap in what is otherwise planned to connect appropriately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interstate does not have to connect to another interstate to be an interstate. Interstates like I-530 are spurs and designated by odd number in front of the interstate which they branch from.  Interstates like I-430 and I-440 with even numbers are bypasses or beltways.  Also see I-465(?) in Indianapolis as a beltway. The 6 in I-630 means it is a connector.  It connects I-30 to I-440.  

Interstates are numbered even for east-west routes (I-10, I-20, I-40, etc.) and go from south to north. (I-10 along the Gulf and Mexican border; I-70 up north) 

Interstates are numbered odd for north-south routes (I-55, I-35) and go from west to east.  (I-5 along the Pacific; I-95 along the Atlantic)

At least this is what I recall from long ago.  There are exceptions.  I-30 is given one of the east-west cross-country designations but goes only from Dallas to Little Rock.  Future i-69 doesn't fit in the numbering scheme but was given the designation by legislative fiat.  Whoever drafted the legislation to create I-69 had a sense of humor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arkanzin said:

An interstate does not have to connect to another interstate to be an interstate. Interstates like I-530 are spurs and designated by odd number in front of the interstate which they branch from.  Interstates like I-430 and I-440 with even numbers are bypasses or beltways.  Also see I-465(?) in Indianapolis as a beltway. The 6 in I-630 means it is a connector.  It connects I-30 to I-440.  

Interstates are numbered even for east-west routes (I-10, I-20, I-40, etc.) and go from south to north. (I-10 along the Gulf and Mexican border; I-70 up north) 

Interstates are numbered odd for north-south routes (I-55, I-35) and go from west to east.  (I-5 along the Pacific; I-95 along the Atlantic)

At least this is what I recall from long ago.  There are exceptions.  I-30 is given one of the east-west cross-country designations but goes only from Dallas to Little Rock.  Future i-69 doesn't fit in the numbering scheme but was given the designation by legislative fiat.  Whoever drafted the legislation to create I-69 had a sense of humor. 

Yes, I knew about those numbering conventions.  But do you not acknowledge language/communication provided by organizations previously about no designation when it links to a state highway?  That's exactly what AHTD said about I-440, and consequently, it isn't designated as a federal interstate north of I-40.  Why is that?

p.s.  I-69.  I see what you did there....LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Architect said:

Yes, I knew about those numbering conventions.  But do you not acknowledge language/communication provided by organizations previously about no designation when it links to a state highway?  That's exactly what AHTD said about I-440, and consequently, it isn't designated as a federal interstate north of I-40.  Why is that?

p.s.  I-69.  I see what you did there....LOL.

I-69 is another good example of what we are taking about. It starts/ends depending on your direction right now around Cleveland, TX and heads south to Houston. It will not connect to another interstate heading north east until it hits I-49 in Louisiana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of off the subject, but has anything else been said about i69. This interstate seems very important, but not much seems to be happening with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of I-69...what a boondoggle.  If you draw a straight line from Memphis to Shreveport, it's not that much more direct than just taking I-30 and then I-49.  So you'd think then that they'd run it a bit farther south to justify it's existence, but INEXPLICABLY it doesn't even run through El Dorado, which is really the only major urban area between Memphis and Shreveport.  It just boggles the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can thank Trent Lott for that.  He was Senate Majority Leader at the time I-69 was approved by Congress.  It was to go from Memphis to Shreveport the most direct route possible.  Lott, however, said there would be no I-69 unless it went through Mississippi.  He used his power to keep it in Mississippi as much as possible.  Jay Dickey was the Congressman from that Arkansas Congressional District and proposed a split, like I-35E and I-35W, to go to Stuttgart, Pine Bluff, and El Dorado.  Lott refused to let that amendment be put into the bill and I-69 is now scheduled to cross into Arkansas somewhere near McGehee.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arkanzin said:

You can thank Trent Lott for that.  He was Senate Majority Leader at the time I-69 was approved by Congress.  It was to go from Memphis to Shreveport the most direct route possible.  Lott, however, said there would be no I-69 unless it went through Mississippi.  He used his power to keep it in Mississippi as much as possible.  Jay Dickey was the Congressman from that Arkansas Congressional District and proposed a split, like I-35E and I-35W, to go to Stuttgart, Pine Bluff, and El Dorado.  Lott refused to let that amendment be put into the bill and I-69 is now scheduled to cross into Arkansas somewhere near McGehee.  

 

I guess that's my point...if it actually followed the most direct route, it would be sort of pointless to build.  Since it is now planned to go so far south into Mississippi before crossing, all the more reason it shouldn't bypass El Dorado.  Crazy.

But...we're also not blameless on political maneuvering.  Do you guys remember that when I-55 was built, OUR senators were influential in it traversing through Arkansas rather than straight north from Memphis through TN/KY/MO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, this is going to be long.

Should I-555 connect to Future I 57?

Duh, yes.

Can it follow US 63? No. They screwed the pooch on that.

How is Jonesboro going to connect to Future I-57?  Well, Arkansas 226 is being upgraded to a 4 lane, divided  roadway from just south of Jonesboro to US 67/I-57.

Does that connect to I-555? Why, no it doesn't and it's silly. It isn't being built to interstate standard.  So, as soon as it's done, a hundred at grades connections will be made. The push to upgrade it to interstate standard needs to be made now.

How would you connect it to I-555? Well, the easiest way would be to connect where the new ARK 226 ends at US 49 is to run an interstate quality road from there east to just north of Bay and tie into I-555  there.

Golly gee, that's a lot of trouble and it would leave Jonesboro with an interstate spur. Yes, it would but it will be no different than Ft. Smith once I-49 is done.

I bet Jonesboro wants all that traffic funneled through town, wouldn't they? Yeah, so you got to sell it not just them but everyone else as well.

So, Mr. Smartypants, can you sell it to me? Yes, sell it as an extension of I-22 from Memphis. This would included it sharing signage up the future I-69 to Millington to the Future I-69/I-269 interchange, there a new interstate with a new bridge would be built and it would run to where the  I-555/I-55 interchange at Turrell is. 

Wow, that's bold but why run an new interstate to just south of Walnut Ridge, basically nowhere?

But, that's not where it would terminate it. It would share signage with I-57 to Walnut Ridge. From there, you push to upgrade the basic route of US 412 to an interstate with the final goal of running I-22 from Birmingham to I-35(Stillwater, OK) so, in summary you would have a most east/west I-22 that would basically run from Tulsa , NWA, Harrison, Mt. Home Jonesboro, Memphis, Tupelo, and finally Birmingham. I would give NEA and NWA a east/west and north/south interstate interchange to promote to commercial and industrial interests. Basically connect to major college areas. Add an emphasis to 4 lane US 167 from Batesville to the new version of 412. Now, once east of Mt. Home the new roadway should be built a little direct and further south than current US 412 to cut milage down. 

Shew, that was a doozy, ya done? No! Allow me to rant on I-69. The posters that ranted on that are correct. Lott totally screwed us on that. Guess what, Lott is gone. Sadly, it may be too late as ROW is being done for the needless I-69 bridge. It would benefit Arkansas more for  new 4 lane bridge at Helena or just south of West Memphis. I'll explain in a following post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TRB said:

Oh boy, this is going to be long.

Should I-555 connect to Future I 57?

Duh, yes.

Can it follow US 63? No. They screwed the pooch on that.

How is Jonesboro going to connect to Future I-57?  Well, Arkansas 226 is being upgraded to a 4 lane, divided  roadway from just south of Jonesboro to US 67/I-57.

Does that connect to I-555? Why, no it doesn't and it's silly. It isn't being built to interstate standard.  So, as soon as it's done, a hundred at grades connections will be made. The push to upgrade it to interstate standard needs to be made now.

How would you connect it to I-555? Well, the easiest way would be to connect where the new ARK 226 ends at US 49 is to run an interstate quality road from there east to just north of Bay and tie into I-555  there.

Golly gee, that's a lot of trouble and it would leave Jonesboro with an interstate spur. Yes, it would but it will be no different than Ft. Smith once I-49 is done.

I bet Jonesboro wants all that traffic funneled through town, wouldn't they? Yeah, so you got to sell it not just them but everyone else as well.

So, Mr. Smartypants, can you sell it to me? Yes, sell it as an extension of I-22 from Memphis. This would included it sharing signage up the future I-69 to Millington to the Future I-69/I-269 interchange, there a new interstate with a new bridge would be built and it would run to where the  I-555/I-55 interchange at Turrell is. 

Wow, that's bold but why run an new interstate to just south of Walnut Ridge, basically nowhere?

But, that's not where it would terminate it. It would share signage with I-57 to Walnut Ridge. From there, you push to upgrade the basic route of US 412 to an interstate with the final goal of running I-22 from Birmingham to I-35(Stillwater, OK) so, in summary you would have a most east/west I-22 that would basically run from Tulsa , NWA, Harrison, Mt. Home Jonesboro, Memphis, Tupelo, and finally Birmingham. I would give NEA and NWA a east/west and north/south interstate interchange to promote to commercial and industrial interests. Basically connect to major college areas. Add an emphasis to 4 lane US 167 from Batesville to the new version of 412. Now, once east of Mt. Home the new roadway should be built a little direct and further south than current US 412 to cut milage down. 

Shew, that was a doozy, ya done? No! Allow me to rant on I-69. The posters that ranted on that are correct. Lott totally screwed us on that. Guess what, Lott is gone. Sadly, it may be too late as ROW is being done for the needless I-69 bridge. It would benefit Arkansas more for  new 4 lane bridge at Helena or just south of West Memphis. I'll explain in a following post.

Interesting suggestion.  Question:  Is highway 412 being build to interstate standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Architect said:

Interesting suggestion.  Question:  Is highway 412 being build to interstate standards?

No, and it should be from this point forward, The 412 bypass of Springdale is being built to interstate standard, so there's that.

Now, back to my continuation of that that post.

Memphis and North Miss is about to gain a new 3/4s loop of Memphis. Arkansas is excluded. I'm ready for LR to fight this. Our exclusion on loops around Memphis needs to stop.  in fact there's opportunity for Arkansas to be part of two Memphis loops. Bare with me here. I wrote about a new northern bridge that would connect I-55/I-55 to Future I-69/I-269(the end of the northern portion of a new Memphis loop). For Arkansas, another bridge is needed to the south of Memphis. This would be be southern portion of a complete loop of Memphis. Here is an image from the Southern Corridor study that outlined possible new bridge crossings around Memphis. 

XyM3S.jpg

The northern routh I mentioned is V1-7. The southern portion of the of a complete loop would be V1-1 on this map. you see where the same portion of I-69 will connect to I-55/I-269. That should answer questions on whether Arkansas can sign I-57 without it connecting to other portions of it, btw. You can use the existing roadways to complete the loop but I wouldn't. I would connect V1-1 and V1-7 by running a new road north of I-40 to the area west of Marion where Hino's plant is at and the two intermodal facilities are at, thus connecting the industrial development zone via interstate. from US 64 i will continue on to around Jericho.Yes, this would basically reroute I-55 around West Memphis but that's a good thing considering air quality, ease the traffic bottleneck and the such. It would make vast swaths of land much better for all kinds of development as well. There that's loop number 1.

 

Now for Loop 2. Lets start at the I-55/I-155 interchange at Hayti MO. There 155(us412) runs across the River to Dyersburg. This is going to tie in to I-69 there. Now 412 from Dyersburg to Jackson is a 4 lane divided road that would need to be upgraded to interstate. From Jackson TN to Selmer TN, US 45 would need to be upgrade to a 4 lane divided interstate. From Selmer to Corinth MS, US 45 is 4 lane divided with most of the Miss section at Interstate standard.  US 45 from Corinth to Tupelo is 4 lane divided that needs to be brought up to interstate standard, the area around Tupelo proper is there already. This loop would intersect I-22 here. From Tupelo, US 278 to Oxford and then to Batesville/I-55 is again 4 lane divided and needs upgraded to interstate. Upgrade US 278 from Batesville to Clarkdale to interstate. Share Future I-69 north to Rich MS. From there, upgrade US 49 to Helena to interstate, build new four lane bridge, upgrade US 49 to Barton to interstate. Ark 1 from Barton to Forrest City brought up to interstate standard. Portions of Ark 1 is 4 lane divided or under construction to be 4 laned divided, just not interstate. To go even farther with that, 4 lane Ark 1 to the ne southern bypass of Jonesboro that would extend I-555 that I mentioned, 4 lane us 412 to interstate standard from Walnut Ridge to Paragould to Kennett to Hayti. There a complete interstate outer loop of Memphis.

A new inner loop and then an outerloop with Memphis as the bullseye.

its a bit much, but with the seismic issues of the region, it adds redundacy in case of failures. 

As for I-69, it should have ran south to Greenville, used the new bridge US 278 bridge from there to Lake Villiage and Arkansas concentrate of upgrading US 82 across South Arkansas as mostly I-69, running 530 down to Monticello to then to Hamburg and then to the LA line. I-530 could have been included as I-57 all the way thru Arkansas to Monroe LA then to Alexandria LA

Forgive all mistakes

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two poor examples of the two loops

inner loop.jpg

outer memphis loop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My idea for I-22 extension. The striking thing is that it would offer a good relief route to take the truck load off of I-40

 

i-22.jpg

Edited by TRB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.