We are in the process of evaluating how to improve the I-30 corridor through the Little Rock Metro. This will be our first design-build project and certainly the single largest contract AHTD has ever awarded - estimated around $450 million. The corridor improvements will occur between the South and North Terminals and will also include I-40 between State Highway 107 (JFK Blvd.) and U.S. 67/167.
We had a public meeting on Thursday of last week and debuted this animated traffic model of what the corridor improvements COULD look like:
https://vimeo.com/125509867 (https://vimeo.com/125509867)
Remember, this is subject to change, but note that very little right of way will be required (we already had a lot).
Enjoy!
Looks nice. How long is the design phase and when is construction tentatively scheduled to start? Thanks
I'm hoping that the black color of the interstate in the video does not mean that AHTD is going to use hot mix for this massive project. The new roads need to be all concrete.
Also I noticed in the video that the exit for US 67/167 is a right hand exit. Is that part of the project or has it already been changed. It has been years since I have seen that interchange.
The black color of the I-30 model is to highlight what is proposed. Not to indicate asphalt.
Yes, part of the U.S. 67/167 improvements include a right exit and a flyover over I-40 to eliminate the existing weaving.
Quote from: mvak36 on April 22, 2015, 09:16:23 AM
Looks nice. How long is the design phase and when is construction tentatively scheduled to start? Thanks
Should have a design/build team on board by late 2017. The project MUST be complete by 2023 when the half-cent sales tax funding this project expires.
Quote from: AHTD on April 22, 2015, 10:25:06 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 22, 2015, 09:16:23 AM
Looks nice. How long is the design phase and when is construction tentatively scheduled to start? Thanks
Should have a design/build team on board by late 2017. The project MUST be complete by 2023 when the half-cent sales tax funding this project expires.
Wow! Six years is mighty aggressive. Can it be done that fast?
Quote from: AHTD on April 22, 2015, 10:24:06 PM
The black color of the I-30 model is to highlight what is proposed. Not to indicate asphalt.
Yes, part of the U.S. 67/167 improvements include a right exit and a flyover over I-40 to eliminate the existing weaving.
I'm glad to hear this.
Quote from: lordsutch on August 05, 2015, 07:45:49 PM
the AR delegation had no juice to get things so they squabbled over nonsense like the Dickey Split to try to get a freeway from Pine Bluff to West Memphis that mostly would duplicate I-40, and prioritizing roads to Little Rock (US 67, I-530) and NW Ark over developing the Delta and the West Memphis area (in fairness, because that's where the voters are in Arkansas). Plus BRAC kicked Blytheville in the nuts and the place has never recovered, further pushing the state's political center of gravity west. AR also hung its hat on Clinton initiatives like the DRC that was supposed to be the Mississippi Valley's version of ARC but hasn't done anything much except generate studies after studies (which has helped drag down I-69 with it, since that was supposed to be the big centerpiece of DRC).
By contrast, the MS delegation had to pay attention to the Southaven area because it was one of the 3-4 largest in the state (even back in the 80s, Southaven + Horn Lake was bigger than W Memphis). And they had juice: MS had seniority in both the House and Senate for decades, MS and TN both had senate majority leaders, MS and TN went Republican with the 1994 wave while AR stuck with Democrats well past the time they'd lost the majority due to Clinton's coattails. And of course MS invested in roads in the 1987 Four-Lane program, which means MS has effectively had a completed I-22 for over a decade while AR is still piddling around trying to get US 67 up to Walnut Ridge and half-assing I-530 after half-assing parallel US 425 before it.
(above quote from I-55 Bridge in Memphis (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13661.msg2084052#msg2084052) thread)
This Commentary from a regular columnist with the
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/aug/05/whole-mess-roads/) suggests that AHTD might be ramming this expansion to ten lanes down Little Rock's throat:
Quote
The Highway Department has dedicated $427 million of that tax money for widening Interstate 30 from the north interchange of Interstates 30 and 40 and U.S. 67-167 southward to the interchange with Interstates 530 and 440.
That's more than three times the cost of the Big Rock flyover project recently completed in western Little Rock.
The Highway Department intends to seek augmenting financing from federal bridge-replacement funds and other federal sources. I've heard estimates that the eventual cost of the entire project could go to $750 million.
The project also happens to defy the operative long-term plan designed by Metroplan, which is an association of local government representatives tasked by the federal government with making and constantly updating a binding plan for the metropolitan region.
The latest plan, intended to apply to 2040, calls for capping local interstate highways at six lanes, forcing motorists to seek other choices, beefing up secondary regional arterials as alternatives to freeways, encouraging higher-density living and moving toward greater reliance on mass transit with buses and other high-occupancy vehicles, even light rail systems ....
minutes published online from a recent meeting of Metroplan's regional planning advisory council reveal frustrations with the Highway Department.
The gist of the discussion was that the Highway Department, as usual, was paying scant attention to that plan and its forward-thinking concepts and was determined instead simply to do what it always does–which is lay more pavement for more vehicles ....
Jim McKenzie, longtime head of Metroplan ....
stressed that Metroplan supports this improvement project for Interstate 30 through downtown, deeming it vital, but is concerned about whether the current plan is altogether the right one.
And that's especially so considering that the Highway Department is rushing the job because it wants it completed by the time the tax program expires in 2023.
Regardless, the rich get richer ..........
QuoteThe gist of the discussion was that the Highway Department, as usual, was paying scant attention to that plan and its forward-thinking concepts and was determined instead simply to do what it always does–which is lay more pavement for more vehicles ....
Isn't that the biggest job of any highway department? :hmmm: :confused:
The expansion of I-30 to Benton was fought by Metroplan for years because they said it would hasten white flight. I think the same thinking is at work with keeping it six lanes through downtown, which was obsolete 30 years ago.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on August 05, 2015, 07:45:49 PM
the AR delegation had no juice to get things so they squabbled over nonsense like the Dickey Split to try to get a freeway from Pine Bluff to West Memphis that mostly would duplicate I-40, and prioritizing roads to Little Rock (US 67, I-530) and NW Ark over developing the Delta and the West Memphis area (in fairness, because that's where the voters are in Arkansas). Plus BRAC kicked Blytheville in the nuts and the place has never recovered, further pushing the state's political center of gravity west. AR also hung its hat on Clinton initiatives like the DRC that was supposed to be the Mississippi Valley's version of ARC but hasn't done anything much except generate studies after studies (which has helped drag down I-69 with it, since that was supposed to be the big centerpiece of DRC).
By contrast, the MS delegation had to pay attention to the Southaven area because it was one of the 3-4 largest in the state (even back in the 80s, Southaven + Horn Lake was bigger than W Memphis). And they had juice: MS had seniority in both the House and Senate for decades, MS and TN both had senate majority leaders, MS and TN went Republican with the 1994 wave while AR stuck with Democrats well past the time they'd lost the majority due to Clinton's coattails. And of course MS invested in roads in the 1987 Four-Lane program, which means MS has effectively had a completed I-22 for over a decade while AR is still piddling around trying to get US 67 up to Walnut Ridge and half-assing I-530 after half-assing parallel US 425 before it.
(above quote from I-55 Bridge in Memphis (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13661.msg2084052#msg2084052) thread)
This Commentary from a regular columnist with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/aug/05/whole-mess-roads/) suggests that AHTD might be ramming this expansion to ten lanes down Little Rock's throat:
Quote
The Highway Department has dedicated $427 million of that tax money for widening Interstate 30 from the north interchange of Interstates 30 and 40 and U.S. 67-167 southward to the interchange with Interstates 530 and 440.
That's more than three times the cost of the Big Rock flyover project recently completed in western Little Rock.
The Highway Department intends to seek augmenting financing from federal bridge-replacement funds and other federal sources. I've heard estimates that the eventual cost of the entire project could go to $750 million.
The project also happens to defy the operative long-term plan designed by Metroplan, which is an association of local government representatives tasked by the federal government with making and constantly updating a binding plan for the metropolitan region.
The latest plan, intended to apply to 2040, calls for capping local interstate highways at six lanes, forcing motorists to seek other choices, beefing up secondary regional arterials as alternatives to freeways, encouraging higher-density living and moving toward greater reliance on mass transit with buses and other high-occupancy vehicles, even light rail systems ....
minutes published online from a recent meeting of Metroplan's regional planning advisory council reveal frustrations with the Highway Department.
The gist of the discussion was that the Highway Department, as usual, was paying scant attention to that plan and its forward-thinking concepts and was determined instead simply to do what it always does–which is lay more pavement for more vehicles ....
Jim McKenzie, longtime head of Metroplan ....
stressed that Metroplan supports this improvement project for Interstate 30 through downtown, deeming it vital, but is concerned about whether the current plan is altogether the right one.
And that's especially so considering that the Highway Department is rushing the job because it wants it completed by the time the tax program expires in 2023.
Regardless, the rich get richer ..........
Sad, really, better economic activity in Eastern Arkansas benefits all of Arkansas just like a completed I-49.
Now, a proposal for the boulevardization of I-30 through North Little Rock/ Little Rock (http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/jan/18/boulevard-proposed-for-downtown-lr-i-30/?news-arkansas); technological advances such as self-driving cars are presented as part of the justification:
Quote
Tom Fennell, a principal in the Little Rock firm Fennell Purifoy Architects, has applied his background in neighborhood planning to the area of the city he has called home for nearly 50 years.
Last week, he distributed small booklets to the Little Rock Board of Directors outlining what he sees could be done to improve the Interstate 30 corridor through downtown by transforming it into a tree-lined boulevard with intersections that takes motorists through the city rather than, as highway engineers envision it, a 10-lane thoroughfare that takes travelers by the city ....
Fennell said he worries that a traditional interstate wouldn't serve the region over the next 20 years as it has over the past 20, given the improvements in transportation technology -- such as self-driving cars -- that seem to be on the horizon.
"We don't know if the freeway application is going to be valid in 15 or 20 years," he said. "It could be a big mistake."
Fennell said he has seen the effect of freeways on downtown over the 49 years he has lived there and fears the I-30 corridor project is going to "exacerbate that issue."
Fennell's proposal, called Arkansas Boulevard, includes many ideas that opponents of the 10-lane alternative have discussed. In addition to redeveloping I-30 as an "at-grade" boulevard, it restructures the Interstate 30/Interstate 630 interchange, re-brands Interstate 440 as the new I-30 and adds a new Arkansas River crossing on the west side of downtown. ....
Fennell said the cost of the plan would be approximately the same as the estimated $600 million it will cost to renovate the I-30 corridor. The plan does not designate whether the transformed boulevard would be a city street, a state highway or a U.S. highway.
The booklet is available for viewing or download at the "Improve 30Crossing" Facebook page.
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department is reviewing Fennell's proposal and hopes to have a formal response soon, said Ben Browning, the agency's design build project director who is helping oversee the I-30 corridor project.
"We are definitely looking at it," Browning said. "It has some benefits, but there's so much more we have to look at."
The I-30 corridor project "is much bigger than downtown Little Rock," he said.
Quote from: Grzrd on January 26, 2016, 10:46:49 PM
Now, a proposal for the boulevardization of I-30 through North Little Rock/ Little Rock (http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/jan/18/boulevard-proposed-for-downtown-lr-i-30/?news-arkansas); technological advances such as self-driving cars are presented as part of the justification:
Quote
Tom Fennell, a principal in the Little Rock firm Fennell Purifoy Architects, has applied his background in neighborhood planning to the area of the city he has called home for nearly 50 years.
Last week, he distributed small booklets to the Little Rock Board of Directors outlining what he sees could be done to improve the Interstate 30 corridor through downtown by transforming it into a tree-lined boulevard with intersections that takes motorists through the city rather than, as highway engineers envision it, a 10-lane thoroughfare that takes travelers by the city ....
Fennell said he worries that a traditional interstate wouldn't serve the region over the next 20 years as it has over the past 20, given the improvements in transportation technology -- such as self-driving cars -- that seem to be on the horizon.
"We don't know if the freeway application is going to be valid in 15 or 20 years," he said. "It could be a big mistake."
Fennell said he has seen the effect of freeways on downtown over the 49 years he has lived there and fears the I-30 corridor project is going to "exacerbate that issue."
Fennell's proposal, called Arkansas Boulevard, includes many ideas that opponents of the 10-lane alternative have discussed. In addition to redeveloping I-30 as an "at-grade" boulevard, it restructures the Interstate 30/Interstate 630 interchange, re-brands Interstate 440 as the new I-30 and adds a new Arkansas River crossing on the west side of downtown. ....
Fennell said the cost of the plan would be approximately the same as the estimated $600 million it will cost to renovate the I-30 corridor. The plan does not designate whether the transformed boulevard would be a city street, a state highway or a U.S. highway.
The booklet is available for viewing or download at the "Improve 30Crossing" Facebook page.
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department is reviewing Fennell's proposal and hopes to have a formal response soon, said Ben Browning, the agency's design build project director who is helping oversee the I-30 corridor project.
"We are definitely looking at it," Browning said. "It has some benefits, but there's so much more we have to look at."
The I-30 corridor project "is much bigger than downtown Little Rock," he said.
(Begin rant.) Really? What kind of person
would turn an interstate into a
boulevard. They're meant to be limited access freeways, dagnabbit! We don't need another I-440, we're fine with the way Little Rock's freeway system is, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE PROJECT. I'd rather see a renovated I-30 along its whole length than a dumb surface boulevard just to appease residents that think freeways are ugly, well then, TELL THEM TO PAINT IT IN PRETTY COLORS. Maybe that appeases them? What's wrong with a new i-30 freeway bridge rather than something painted in hot pink that's a boulevard, with an Interstate shield? What is the very point? Why do all this re-designation work to turn I-440 as a spur,
just because it's a beltway? They must've thought to turn it into a spur for some reason, well then they can die in holes. We've gotten used to the routings, please do not change them. (End rant.)
This is typical New Urbanism at its worst: assume that people don't use freeways to access central core areas; visceral opposition to elevated highways as "ugly eyesores" which interfere with "development"; and of course, "road diets" designed to make auto use so offensive that their chosen mecca of rail-based transit becomes a more "attractive" alternative.
If this is the formula that they want to impose on Lafayette as a replacement for the I-49 Connector (along with Teche Ridge), then add me to this rant.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 27, 2016, 12:36:06 AM
This is typical New Urbanism at its worst: assume that people don't use freeways to access central core areas; visceral opposition to elevated highways as "ugly eyesores" which interfere with "development"; and of course, "road diets" designed to make auto use so offensive that their chosen mecca of rail-based transit becomes a more "attractive" alternative.
If this is the formula that they want to impose on Lafayette as a replacement for the I-49 Connector (along with Teche Ridge), then add me to this rant.
new urbanists are obsessed with inefficient boulevards. Not only will a boulevard not be able to handle interstate traffic, it would make pollution worse with all the stopping from signals, it could potentially be a dangerous road for pedestrians. Interstates in downtown areas are necessary, and most new urbanists are not engineers. The new urbanists ultimate dream is to destroy all cars and to make everyone use mass transit, which in America, is almost always a system that doesn't work from a money prospective (most mass transit systems run on a deficit). Rebuild the damn interstate, and get over it new urbanists. These assholes usually live downtown and don't even use the interstates to begin with, so they don't know how useful they really are. That's my rant, I don't care if anyone disagrees, it's my opinion.
I know it isn't Arkansas, but here in NY there are two proposals to turn interstates into boulevards that are seriously being considered: I-81 through Syracuse and I-895 (the Sheridan) in the Bronx. The former causes more worry than the latter, so I suppose such proposals need to be taken within their context.
That said, the idea that driverless cars eliminate the need for limited-access highways seems idiotic on its face.
As you might imagine, the Boulevard drawing doesn't have any solid engineering behind it. In effect, it's a pretty hand-drawing done by an architect.
One of the biggest problems with this "suggestion" is the author's contention with projections that traffic will increase by the design year of 2041. What's funny about that is we use numbers from the MPO that everyone keeps pointing to as the model for which we should follow. The MPO's own forecast shows the region is expected to grow by more than 220,000 between 2015 and 2040 - and 75% of that growth is projected to occur outside of the Little Rock Metro. That's a 1.2% annual increase in growth!
Remember - there are approximately 125,000 vpd in the downtown I-30 corridor. Where will all that traffic go?
The estimated $600 million + identified for this project can't be used on anything but the Interstate. Many of the locals (in downtown Little Rock) don't seem to understand that. They see a half-billion-dollar opportunity that they have no control over and demand it to be spent on transit, bike/ped, and now this boulevard. The money simply can't be re-appropriated for a non-highway use.
Additionally, there is a lot of talk about driverless cars, fewer cars and a whole lot of transit. The anticipation by a few who think we will be driving less in the near future is not supported by data recently published by FHWA. Check out these numbers: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm
November shows a 2.9% increase compared to the same month last year in Arkansas (page 6). The previous month comparisons were much higher over the summer, so the end of year report may be higher than the 2.9% increase.
The interesting chart is shown on page 9–that shows the nationwide VMT over time. It definitely shows the increase.
And guess what? SUV sales are off the charts right now.
Quote from: AHTDRemember - there are approximately 125,000 vpd in the downtown I-30 corridor. Where will all that traffic go?
Even if that volume rises commensurate with regional growth, it's a volume that shouldn't require any more than 8 lanes. AHTD's insistence on 10 lanes is not only alienating them from regional leaders, but it's wasting money on excess pavement that would be underutilized most of the day. That's money that would be better utilized in any of a number of other locations: bridge replacements, improving I-40, or improving local arterials so that you're not "putting all your eggs in one basket" (just ask DC'ers how that's worked for them...or commuters along the Katy Freeway now). Which brings me to my next point...
QuoteThe estimated $600 million + identified for this project can't be used on anything but the Interstate.
Unless there is a state law or the state legislature has specified funding for this (and please elaborate/specify if so), this one is flat out false. At the Federal level, Congress did away with dedicated Interstate Maintenance funding with MAP-21, merging it with NHS funding to form the National Highway Performance Program. Checking the Little Rock NHS maps, this is funding that doesn't necessarily have to be used on an Interstate, but could also be used on Roosevelt Rd, Arch St (south of Roosevelt), Broadway St (both of them), La Harpe Blvd/Cantrell Rd, University Ave, or Pike Ave, amongst others...
QuoteThe interesting chart is shown on page 9–that shows the nationwide VMT over time. It definitely shows the increase.
In total VMT, yes. But VMT-per-capita has leveled off. The increase we're seeing in VMT in the past few years is due to population growth, not due to people driving more.
QuoteAnd guess what? SUV sales are off the charts right now.
Largely because the Saudi's have flooded the market with cheap oil in an effort to knock out both Iran oil and the Bakken Oil Fields in ND/MT. That cannot sustain itself and at some point, the other shoe will drop.
Could they add some toll lanes to Little Rock's freeway system? Or would that be impractical?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2016, 06:00:02 PM
Could they add some toll lanes to Little Rock's freeway system? Or would that be impractical?
If memory serves correct, tolls are verboten along Arkansas highways
Quote from: froggieLargely because the Saudi's have flooded the market with cheap oil in an effort to knock out both Iran oil and the Bakken Oil Fields in ND/MT. That cannot sustain itself and at some point, the other shoe will drop.
There is a good chance we won't be back at $3 per gallon and higher gasoline anytime very soon. Commodities have been routed in a pattern that looks like a pricing bubble finally burst.
Before the 9-11-01 attacks, wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and rampant globalism efforts last decade that hyper inflated China's economy gasoline prices were struggling to stay above $1 per gallon. Speculators ran up oil prices based on a whole lot of "what if" factors rather than factors based on demand fundamentals. High prices encouraged lots of people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Now that there seems to be more normalcy returning we have an unreal glut of oil. Sanctions being lifted on Iran adds more. If Iraq and Syria can get brought under control even more oil will be steadily entering supply.
I wouldn't be buying any SUVs though.
Quote from: Anthony_JKThis is typical New Urbanism at its worst: assume that people don't use freeways to access central core areas; visceral opposition to elevated highways as "ugly eyesores" which interfere with "development"; and of course, "road diets" designed to make auto use so offensive that their chosen mecca of rail-based transit becomes a more "attractive" alternative.
The new urbanism stuff only works in certain areas. It doesn't work everywhere. Stressing the use of rail is an even bigger problem. It's great if the city is big enough to gain the ridership numbers, but unfortunately rail is obscenely expensive. I don't understand why. But rail transit systems are extremely over-priced. It smells like graft and corruption when a single light rail line that looks only a few steps removed from a trolley car system costs in the billions of dollars.
Quote from: US71 on January 27, 2016, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2016, 06:00:02 PM
Could they add some toll lanes to Little Rock's freeway system? Or would that be impractical?
If memory serves correct, tolls are verboten along Arkansas highways
That's not good for Arkansas and road funding prospects. I'm assuming they have no toll roads at all then?
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 28, 2016, 07:23:51 AM
Quote from: US71 on January 27, 2016, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2016, 06:00:02 PM
Could they add some toll lanes to Little Rock's freeway system? Or would that be impractical?
If memory serves correct, tolls are verboten along Arkansas highways
That's not good for Arkansas and road funding prospects. I'm assuming they have no toll roads at all then?
No, there are no toll roads. I think there have been talks in the past to change the law to allow toll roads, but that hasn't really gotten anywhere.
They just say no to tolls, no to any income tax hikes, no to any sales tax hikes, no to any property tax hikes and hell no to any hikes in the gasoline tax. The roads will just magically build themselves with power of prayer. Maybe throw in some fairy pixie dust too. That will deal with the dangerous, sky high cost inflation going on with infrastructure.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2016, 12:01:37 PM
They just say no to tolls, no to any income tax hikes, no to any sales tax hikes, no to any property tax hikes and hell no to any hikes in the gasoline tax. The roads will just magically build themselves with power of prayer. Maybe throw in some fairy pixie dust too. That will deal with the dangerous, sky high cost inflation going on with infrastructure.
haha so true
I hope they remember their "no's" when their highways come crashing down on their heads.
"New Urbanism" and "Arkansas" is a Venn diagram that does not intersect. And that isn't a bad thing at all.
Quote from: froggie on January 27, 2016, 12:09:18 PM
Quote from: froggieUnless there is a state law or the state legislature has specified funding for this (and please elaborate/specify if so), this one is flat out false. At the Federal level, Congress did away with dedicated Interstate Maintenance funding with MAP-21, merging it with NHS funding to form the National Highway Performance Program. Checking the Little Rock NHS maps, this is funding that doesn't necessarily have to be used on an Interstate, but could also be used on Roosevelt Rd, Arch St (south of Roosevelt), Broadway St (both of them), La Harpe Blvd/Cantrell Rd, University Ave, or Pike Ave, amongst others...
See this link for a breakdown of funding for the project: https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/9/i-30-pulaski-county/#overlayOpen
Sure, some of the funds in this breakdown can be used off the Interstate - we were trying to convey these monies couldn't be used for transit, pedestrian, or city-owned local arterial development as has been proposed by some.
Quote from: galador on January 28, 2016, 09:04:07 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 28, 2016, 07:23:51 AM
Quote from: US71 on January 27, 2016, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2016, 06:00:02 PM
Could they add some toll lanes to Little Rock's freeway system? Or would that be impractical?
If memory serves correct, tolls are verboten along Arkansas highways
That's not good for Arkansas and road funding prospects. I'm assuming they have no toll roads at all then?
No, there are no toll roads. I think there have been talks in the past to change the law to allow toll roads, but that hasn't really gotten anywhere.
Actually the Arkansas Highway Commission already has tolling authority. Two recent toll studies have provided mixed-results.
The first was for the Bella Vista Bypass. An investment-grade study concluded tolls would not cover the cost of the highway and that by the time bonds were paid back, the interest would be more than what it would cost to build the two remaining lanes of what's there now.
The other toll study was an I-40 corridor study between central Arkansas and West Memphis to see if adding a third lane on this route could be funded by tolls. The study found that it wouldn't pay for the extra lane, however, if all three lanes were tolled, then it would pay for the new lane + the O&M for the original two. Sounds like a good deal, right?
One catch - the Feds won't allow states to toll existing interstates (at this time). There is, however, a pilot program in which 3-5 states are tolling (or have authority to toll) existing interstates. Our understanding is that at least one of these states may not be able to participate in the pilot program and drop out.
Arkansas has positioned itself to be eligible for the pilot program should the opportunity come along.
Stay tuned....
Quote from: AHTD on February 03, 2016, 02:00:38 PM
Quote from: galador on January 28, 2016, 09:04:07 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 28, 2016, 07:23:51 AM
Quote from: US71 on January 27, 2016, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2016, 06:00:02 PM
Could they add some toll lanes to Little Rock's freeway system? Or would that be impractical?
If memory serves correct, tolls are verboten along Arkansas highways
That's not good for Arkansas and road funding prospects. I'm assuming they have no toll roads at all then?
No, there are no toll roads. I think there have been talks in the past to change the law to allow toll roads, but that hasn't really gotten anywhere.
Actually the Arkansas Highway Commission already has tolling authority. Two recent toll studies have provided mixed-results.
The first was for the Bella Vista Bypass. An investment-grade study concluded tolls would not cover the cost of the highway and that by the time bonds were paid back, the interest would be more than what it would cost to build the two remaining lanes of what's there now.
The other toll study was an I-40 corridor study between central Arkansas and West Memphis to see if adding a third lane on this route could be funded by tolls. The study found that it wouldn't pay for the extra lane, however, if all three lanes were tolled, then it would pay for the new lane + the O&M for the original two. Sounds like a good deal, right?
One catch - the Feds won't allow states to toll existing interstates (at this time). There is, however, a pilot program in which 3-5 states are tolling (or have authority to toll) existing interstates. Our understanding is that at least one of these states may not be able to participate in the pilot program and drop out.
Arkansas has positioned itself to be eligible for the pilot program should the opportunity come along.
Stay tuned....
Are you sure about the existing interstate comment? They are floating an idea to toll 65 and 70 throughout the state here in Indiana.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 03, 2016, 02:04:30 PM
QuoteAre you sure about the existing interstate comment? They are floating an idea to toll 65 and 70 throughout the state here in Indiana.
Yes. See this link - the answer is found under "Question 6" - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/tolling_pricing/section_129_faqs.aspx
ALSO- the FAST Act places a time limit for pilot states to implement. If they don't, they will be required to relinquish that authority and allow other states to step up.
Perhaps your state is in the pilot program or like us, getting their ducks in a row so they're eligible if the opportunity presents.
I really feel like the feds are hamstringing states here, they won't fund roads, and when states want to toll to pay for them, they won't allow it, so what else can you do but raise taxes? Maybe we could just ignore it and hope it'll fix itself.
If there was ever an approval to toll eastern 40 in Arkansas, why not just make it 8 lanes or at a minimum, 8-10 lanes for the 40-55 overlap.
Quote from: AHTDSee this link for a breakdown of funding for the project: https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/9/i-30-pulaski-county/#overlayOpen
Sure, some of the funds in this breakdown can be used off the Interstate - we were trying to convey these monies couldn't be used for transit, pedestrian, or city-owned local arterial development as has been proposed by some.
Perhaps not as much as others would like, but to say none of it could be used for transit/pedestrian/local arterial is still false. The 5% coming from NHPP funding could be used on the arterial streets I mentioned upthread (which are all on the NHS), including pedestrian facilities along those streets. Depending on the source of Federal funding used to pay back the design-build, as well as that going to bridges (since there is no longer a dedicated Federal bridge funding pot), the funding may or may not be able to go to transit or other bike/ped facilities. If you're using Federal Surface Transportation Program funds to pay back the design-build part or the bridge part, then the answer is YES.
It does look like the majority of funding is coming from this "Connecting Arkansas Program". Do you have a link with more information on that program?
Also, I've read recently that this project will eliminate the Little Rock streetcar without replacing it. Is that true? If so, why is AHTD doing that? Sounds like something that could potentially open the department up to a lawsuit.
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2016, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: AHTDSee this link for a breakdown of funding for the project: https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/corridors/9/i-30-pulaski-county/#overlayOpen
Sure, some of the funds in this breakdown can be used off the Interstate - we were trying to convey these monies couldn't be used for transit, pedestrian, or city-owned local arterial development as has been proposed by some.
Perhaps not as much as others would like, but to say none of it could be used for transit/pedestrian/local arterial is still false. The 5% coming from NHPP funding could be used on the arterial streets I mentioned upthread (which are all on the NHS), including pedestrian facilities along those streets. Depending on the source of Federal funding used to pay back the design-build, as well as that going to bridges (since there is no longer a dedicated Federal bridge funding pot), the funding may or may not be able to go to transit or other bike/ped facilities. If you're using Federal Surface Transportation Program funds to pay back the design-build part or the bridge part, then the answer is YES.
It does look like the majority of funding is coming from this "Connecting Arkansas Program". Do you have a link with more information on that program?
Also, I've read recently that this project will eliminate the Little Rock streetcar without replacing it. Is that true? If so, why is AHTD doing that? Sounds like something that could potentially open the department up to a lawsuit.
Good place to reopen the thread. Last things first: The streetcar issue has been resolved. Earlier plans for 30 Crossing placed the replacement AR 10 (Cantrell/Clinton, fka Markham Street) interchange at Third Street, which would have killed the Clinton Presidential Center arm of the streetcar line; that was immediately challenged as AHTD would have had to repay the Federal funds used to build it. Current AHTD proposals would make AR 10 either a SPUI at Second Street (my preference) or a "split diamond" configuration spread across Fourth, Capitol & Sixth Streets (Little Rock's preference); neither would require any changes to the streetcar line.
An overview of the Connecting Arkansas Program is at https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/overview/ . It is state bond money funded by a temporary 1/2% state sales tax for 10 years. Per the text of the constitutional amendment authorizing it at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HJR1001.pdf , the money can only be used for "four-lane highway improvements", which presumably includes 30 Crossing even though it already has more than four lanes. (It was in CAP from the beginning; additional money was needed after AHTD realized the Arkansas River bridge needed replacement instead of widening.) That could include transit and/or pedestrian features on four-lane state highways; indeed 30 Crossing already includes shoulders designed for occasional use by Rock Region Metro (CAT) buses to avoid congestion. It presumably can NOT be used for city-owned facilities, stand-alone transit or pedestrian facilities, etc.; it has to be a "four-lane highway", presumably a state highway. (Allowing for greater than four lanes that would include I-30, I-40, US 67/167 and AR 10, all part of 30 Crossing.)
Of course, the main issue in Little Rock media seems to be the people who want to turn I-30 into a boulevard; but it seems the folks here understand "New Urbanism" won't work in Arkansas. (Besides, even Portland, OR -- the opponents' favorite example -- didn't close I-5 completely; they just moved it across the Willamette River from downtown, NOT an option for I-30.) The boulevard plan reminds me of the Martha Mitchell "Expressway", which only accelerated Pine Bluff's decline; you do NOT build a boulevard where a freeway is needed, no matter what you call it. :p I also like to remind folks that basically the same people used the same "Field of Dreams" traffic theory to oppose the widening of I-30 to Benton; that obviously didn't work.
Quote from: AHTD on February 03, 2016, 02:46:33 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 03, 2016, 02:04:30 PM
Are you sure about the existing interstate comment? They are floating an idea to toll 65 and 70 throughout the state here in Indiana.
Yes. See this link - the answer is found under "Question 6" - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/tolling_pricing/section_129_faqs.aspx
ALSO- the FAST Act places a time limit for pilot states to implement. If they don't, they will be required to relinquish that authority and allow other states to step up.
Perhaps your state is in the pilot program or like us, getting their ducks in a row so they're eligible if the opportunity presents.
However, the I-40 study missed the answer to Question 9 (bold per web page, italics added):
QuoteQuestion 9: May an existing toll-free bridge or tunnel be converted into a toll facility under 23 U.S.C. 129(a) if it is reconstructed or replaced?
Answer 9: Yes. Under 23 U.S.C. 129(a)(1)(E), an existing toll-free bridge or tunnel may be converted into a toll facility as part of a project to reconstruct or replace the existing facility. This authority applies to bridges and tunnels that are located both on and off the Interstate System.
Thus, the primary tollbooth for the I-40 project -- at the White River Bridge -- can be built as part of its replacement project
WITHOUT going thru the pilot program. (The other proposed tollbooths could be added later if we get into the pilot program.) Per Question 13 that authority includes
all lanes (both new and added), unlike Question 6; and per Question 15 toll proceeds after maintenance (and presumably debt service) can be used for
any lawful transportation program, including widening the rest of I-40.
I don't think it's too late to add a toll facility to the White River Bridge project; in fact, per Question 11 tolling apparently can start as soon as the contract for the replacement bridge is awarded. I would suggest AHTD enter into a contract with one or more of the Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas tolling authorities (preferably NTTA, which already has 100% ETC *and* full interoperability with Oklahoma, both IMO necessities for this plan to work) to get a toll facility on that bridge very quickly.
Thank you for the funding and streetcar clarification.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2016, 12:01:37 PM
They just say no to tolls, no to any income tax hikes, no to any sales tax hikes, no to any property tax hikes and hell no to any hikes in the gasoline tax. The roads will just magically build themselves with power of prayer. Maybe throw in some fairy pixie dust too. That will deal with the dangerous, sky high cost inflation going on with infrastructure.
That actually isn't true. Voters approved a half cent sales tax for Highway funding in 2012
Quote from: RBBrittain on July 11, 2016, 04:20:48 PM
Quote from: AHTD on February 03, 2016, 02:46:33 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 03, 2016, 02:04:30 PM
Are you sure about the existing interstate comment? They are floating an idea to toll 65 and 70 throughout the state here in Indiana.
Yes. See this link - the answer is found under "Question 6" - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/tolling_pricing/section_129_faqs.aspx
ALSO- the FAST Act places a time limit for pilot states to implement. If they don't, they will be required to relinquish that authority and allow other states to step up.
Perhaps your state is in the pilot program or like us, getting their ducks in a row so they're eligible if the opportunity presents.
However, the I-40 study missed the answer to Question 9 (bold per web page, italics added):
QuoteQuestion 9: May an existing toll-free bridge or tunnel be converted into a toll facility under 23 U.S.C. 129(a) if it is reconstructed or replaced?
Answer 9: Yes. Under 23 U.S.C. 129(a)(1)(E), an existing toll-free bridge or tunnel may be converted into a toll facility as part of a project to reconstruct or replace the existing facility. This authority applies to bridges and tunnels that are located both on and off the Interstate System.
Thus, the primary tollbooth for the I-40 project -- at the White River Bridge -- can be built as part of its replacement project WITHOUT going thru the pilot program. (The other proposed tollbooths could be added later if we get into the pilot program.) Per Question 13 that authority includes all lanes (both new and added), unlike Question 6; and per Question 15 toll proceeds after maintenance (and presumably debt service) can be used for any lawful transportation program, including widening the rest of I-40.
I don't think it's too late to add a toll facility to the White River Bridge project; in fact, per Question 11 tolling apparently can start as soon as the contract for the replacement bridge is awarded. I would suggest AHTD enter into a contract with one or more of the Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas tolling authorities (preferably NTTA, which already has 100% ETC *and* full interoperability with Oklahoma, both IMO necessities for this plan to work) to get a toll facility on that bridge very quickly.
Good idea.
Quote from: bjrush on July 14, 2016, 07:43:32 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2016, 12:01:37 PM
They just say no to tolls, no to any income tax hikes, no to any sales tax hikes, no to any property tax hikes and hell no to any hikes in the gasoline tax. The roads will just magically build themselves with power of prayer. Maybe throw in some fairy pixie dust too. That will deal with the dangerous, sky high cost inflation going on with infrastructure.
That actually isn't true. Voters approved a half cent sales tax for Highway funding in 2012
I believe that was voting to continue one already in place, but set to expire.