I-30 Corridor Little Rock Metro

[AHTD]

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:



Remember, this is subject to change, but note that very little right of way will be required (we already had a lot).

Enjoy!

[mvak36]

Looks nice. How long is the design phase and when is construction tentatively scheduled to start? Thanks

[cjk374]

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.

[AHTD]

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.

[AHTD]

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.

[cjk374]

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?

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. 

[Grzrd]

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 thread)

This Commentary from a regular columnist with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette suggests that AHTD might be ramming this expansion to ten lanes down Little Rock's throat:

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 ..........

[cjk374]

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 ....

Isn't that the biggest job of any highway department?    

[Road Hog]

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.

[Wayward Memphian]

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 thread)

This Commentary from a regular columnist with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette suggests that AHTD might be ramming this expansion to ten lanes down Little Rock's throat:

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. 

[Grzrd]

Now, a proposal for the boulevardization of I-30 through North Little Rock/ Little Rock; technological advances such as self-driving cars are presented as part of the justification:

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.

[noelbotevera]

Now, a proposal for the boulevardization of I-30 through North Little Rock/ Little Rock; technological advances such as self-driving cars are presented as part of the justification:

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.)

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[silverback1065]

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. 

[Rothman]

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.

[AHTD]

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.

[froggie]

Remember - 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...

The 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...

The 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.

And 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.

[The Ghostbuster]

Could they add some toll lanes to Little Rock's freeway system? Or would that be impractical?

[US71]

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

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[silverback1065]

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?

[galador]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[silverback1065]

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

[The Ghostbuster]

I hope they remember their "no's" when their highways come crashing down on their heads.