Dear AHTD, What is up with your roadway lighting policy?

[M86]

So, for any state roads, and Interstates in urban areas, the responsibility is left up to the local city/county/etc? 
How would a local city/county/etc in an urban area know what kind of roadway lighting is needed on an Interstate?
I'm talking about I-540 between Bentonville and Fayetteville.  Clearly an urban area. 

So, the local city/county/etc are supposed to be familiar with high mast lighting?  Or, you could look at Missouri... and their roadway lighting... Or look at any other metro the size of NWA.  It's simply unacceptable to be driving in the dark in an urban area on an Interstate, or highly traveled state highway.

[AHTD]

 We are happy to work with the local jurisdiction to illuminate areas of the state highway system. When improvements are made in a given area, we communicate with local officials about illumination and discuss in general whether or not they would like to illuminate that area.

This gives the locals an opportunity to have a say in the matter and many of them are happy to have that opportunity so they can specify the types and quantities of fixtures that work best for their community. Examples of this include the city of North Little Rock — they have gone from high-mast overhead lighting at the I-30/I-40 interchange (and their part of the I-30 river bridge) to lower-mast LED lighting. Also recently the city of Siloam Springs dedicated a new highway bridge that includes illumination that blends with the rest of their downtown area.

If a jurisdiction does not want to illuminate at the time of construction, we do ask if they would like us to run conduit and install pedestals in case they change their mind. If yes, this is included in the improvements contract and the work is paid for by AHTD. An example- we are about to replace the U.S. Highway 70 viaduct in Little Rock at the Arkansas State Fair Grounds. The city of Little Rock isn't ready to illuminate the new bridge, but has asked that we install conduit and pedestals at the time of construction so they can go back at a later time and illuminate.

At any time a jurisdiction is more than welcome to approach AHTD with an illumination request. Our engineers will work with the locals (who usually don't have experience in highway lighting) to help them determine the best solution.

The purchase, maintenance and operation of lights are costs incurred by the local jurisdiction. Queries should be directed to these entities about why specific interchanges and stretches of highway are not illuminated.

[Scott5114]

The purchase, maintenance and operation of lights are costs incurred by the local jurisdiction. Queries should be directed to these entities about why specific interchanges and stretches of highway are not illuminated.

Is there any particular reason why this is so? I believe in most states Interstate lighting is the responsibility of the state DOT. The DOT must still be responsive to local officials and citizens like they are any other aspect of a project. In Missouri, for instance, MoDOT is even responsible for traffic signals and street name signing on state highways that pass through cities.

Having the local governments responsible for lighting seems like it could lead to a situation where lighting is required to mitigate a serious safety concern, but doesn't get done due to a lack of money on the locals' part. (What if this situation took place in a town of under 1,000, which probably doesn't have the tax base to spend millions on lighting?)

[Alps]

I would argue that if the state knows a section of highway needs to be lit for safety reasons, and the municipality doesn't light it because they don't have jurisdiction, that the state would be liable for any accidents.

[M86]

Not acceptable, AHTD... Update your antiquated policies. 

I have contacted the cities of Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville regarding lighting on I-540, and I can't get a response from anyone... Probably because it should be up to AHTD!  It's an Interstate, not a local road.  Update your policy, install the lighting that your department feels should be needed, and if it's not high-mast lighting, install it, and turn it over to local control.

It's not rocket science here.

And, Steve said it right... Lawsuits.

So, with the current widening of I-540 in NWA between Wagon Wheel Road and Monroe Avenue, did AHTD contact Benton County, the City of Lowell, and the City of Springdale about roadway lighting on I-540?  If so, can you provide the documents via the Freedom of Information Act, since I-540 is a federal highway?

Can you point us to the engineer that has control over this?

[M86]

Waiting on your reply, AHTD.

[AHTD]

Checking into your questioin, prelminary findings suggest no specific "sit-down" regarding illumination has taken place for this road widening project. The local jurisdictions in NWA are well aware that if they desire illumination, they are welcome to contact us at any time. As we stated - we discuss in general - illumination.... and other aspects of the project too. And typically stretches of interstate aren't illuminated, usually just interchanges. There are exceptions, but at this time there are no plans to illuminate the project you referenced.


HOWEVER - while checking into questions about the Bella Vista Bypass, it was mentioned that Bella Vista has asked about lighting the new interchange. Don't know if it's on paper, phone conversation or what. However we will have a public information meeting in Feb/March in NWA regarding this project and we should have more information for you there if you care to attend.

In fact, you and anyone else in this forum should make plans to attend said meeting because everyone you will want to ask questions of will be there and hopefully we can help you find the information you want.

[US71]

Checking into your questioin, prelminary findings suggest no specific "sit-down" regarding illumination has taken place for this road widening project. The local jurisdictions in NWA are well aware that if they desire illumination, they are welcome to contact us at any time. As we stated - we discuss in general - illumination.... and other aspects of the project too. And typically stretches of interstate aren't illuminated, usually just interchanges. There are exceptions, but at this time there are no plans to illuminate the project you referenced.


HOWEVER - while checking into questions about the Bella Vista Bypass, it was mentioned that Bella Vista has asked about lighting the new interchange. Don't know if it's on paper, phone conversation or what. However we will have a public information meeting in Feb/March in NWA regarding this project and we should have more information for you there if you care to attend.

In fact, you and anyone else in this forum should make plans to attend said meeting because everyone you will want to ask questions of will be there and hopefully we can help you find the information you want.

When/where is the meeting?

[AHTD]

Either Bella Vista or Bentonville.

We will DEFINITELY post details in advance on this forum so everyone has a chance to adjust their schedules!

[M86]

Checking into your questioin, prelminary findings suggest no specific "sit-down" regarding illumination has taken place for this road widening project. The local jurisdictions in NWA are well aware that if they desire illumination, they are welcome to contact us at any time. As we stated - we discuss in general - illumination.... and other aspects of the project too. And typically stretches of interstate aren't illuminated, usually just interchanges. There are exceptions, but at this time there are no plans to illuminate the project you referenced.


HOWEVER - while checking into questions about the Bella Vista Bypass, it was mentioned that Bella Vista has asked about lighting the new interchange. Don't know if it's on paper, phone conversation or what. However we will have a public information meeting in Feb/March in NWA regarding this project and we should have more information for you there if you care to attend.

In fact, you and anyone else in this forum should make plans to attend said meeting because everyone you will want to ask questions of will be there and hopefully we can help you find the information you want.

Bella Vista asked about roadway lighting at the SPUI that is proposed there?  Highly doubt that.  And why should Bella Vista provide that?

So, a new type of interchange, a SPUI, that isn't present in AR currently, will not have lighting from the state?

Holy crap... We have some serious issues here, AHTD.

[codyg1985]

Having the local governments responsible for lighting seems like it could lead to a situation where lighting is required to mitigate a serious safety concern, but doesn't get done due to a lack of money on the locals' part. (What if this situation took place in a town of under 1,000, which probably doesn't have the tax base to spend millions on lighting?)

This is the way Alabama does it, and in the Birmingham area, there used to be a lot of areas where there were lights installed but the bulbs burned out and so the interstates were dark anyway. No one had the money to maintain the lighting system. It is a cost-sharing agreement with the local jurisdictions. I'm not saying by any means it is the correct way to do things, but it's another example of this practice.

[M86]

This is the way Alabama does it, and in the Birmingham area, there used to be a lot of areas where there were lights installed but the bulbs burned out and so the interstates were dark anyway. No one had the money to maintain the lighting system. It is a cost-sharing agreement with the local jurisdictions. I'm not saying by any means it is the correct way to do things, but it's another example of this practice.

My concern is Interstates in urban areas in NW Arkansas (I-540/Future I-49 & the US 412 Bypass for Springdale)
Most states will install the lighting, and the local jurisdiction will maintain it.

This isn't rocket science.

It just boggles my mind that a local municipality would have to request lighting along an Interstate highway, in an urban area.

** We want to love you AHTD...  Here's your chance!

[M86]

Checking into your questioin, prelminary findings suggest no specific "sit-down" regarding illumination has taken place for this road widening project. The local jurisdictions in NWA are well aware that if they desire illumination, they are welcome to contact us at any time.

And typically stretches of interstate aren't illuminated, usually just interchanges. There are exceptions, but at this time there are no plans to illuminate the project you referenced.

Is AHTD able to read the minds of public works/transportation departments in the counties and cities of AR?  What about small towns like Johnson along I-540?  I-540 is classified as an urban interstate.  Should Johnson, population under 3,000, provide lighting at anywhere along the I-540 urban corridor?  Is their mayor aware of AHTD's Roadway Lighting Policy?  You said there was no communication about it.

What about the widening of AR 102 in Centerton?  Did AHTD discuss lighting options for AR 102 with the city of Centerton, during that project?  As you stated, every local municipality is aware of AHTD's roadway lighting policy.  Did Centerton end up declining it?

The responses I've seen from AHTD on this antiquated policy state that I should contact the local towns/cities/counties.  It's ridiculous.  There is no reason why a city/county should provide roadway lighting on any part of an Interstate in an urban area.

Also, stretches of Interstate aren't illuminated?  I've seen stretches in Little Rock.  What are those exceptions?

It's an antiquated policy that needs to be revisited... Not acceptable and puts the safety of Arkansas motorists at a higher risk of accidents.

I'm not trying to be annoying, but it's something that I feel strongly about (other posters/Admins on this thread seem to feel the same way).

[AHTD]

No worries. You are not being annoying. It's good to see so many people passionate about the highway system in Arkansas.


As stated previously in this forum, we will soon announce a public meeting in NWA to discuss the Bella Vista Bypass modified connector. Most, if not all, of the people you would want to discuss our illumination policy with will be in attendance.


If you like, we can arrange a meeting for you with Director Scott Bennett next time he is in NWA or the next time you are in Central Arkansas. Send us a direct message and we'll hook you up.

[M86]

No worries. You are not being annoying. It's good to see so many people passionate about the highway system in Arkansas.


As stated previously in this forum, we will soon announce a public meeting in NWA to discuss the Bella Vista Bypass modified connector. Most, if not all, of the people you would want to discuss our illumination policy with will be in attendance.


If you like, we can arrange a meeting for you with Director Scott Bennett next time he is in NWA or the next time you are in Central Arkansas. Send us a direct message and we'll hook you up.

Thank you... I'd love to chat with Scott Bennett.

Not sure how to direct message you...  If he is ever in NWA, then yes... Or through email, preferred.

[bjrush]

This is sweet

I'm pretty damn proud of my highway department...they don't just pay lip service to listening to the public, they are on a roadgeek forum explaining and debating things

This is awesome

[M86]

This is sweet

I'm pretty damn proud of my highway department...they don't just pay lip service to listening to the public, they are on a roadgeek forum explaining and debating things

This is awesome

You said "I'm pretty damn proud of my highway department"

What is your highway department?

Lots of us on the forum have great ideas.  This current thread is one of them.

One of AHTD's priorities should be safety.  And I thought I heard that one of their campaigns is the "Toward Zero Deaths". 
You can't follow that campaign with a ridiculous roadway lighting policy.

Hopefully your highway department can adopt this, and apply it.

[agentsteel53]

"Toward Zero Deaths". 

I do appreciate that they gave the campaign a reasonable name.

lots of states claim that their goal is not to minimize deaths, but that absolute zero is the target.

if you want zero road-related facilities, have zero roads.

[M86]

"Toward Zero Deaths". 

I do appreciate that they gave the campaign a reasonable name.

lots of states claim that their goal is not to minimize deaths, but that absolute zero is the target.

if you want zero road-related facilities, have zero roads.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tzd/

It's a multi-state campaign.  It's a great initiative... I've reviewed it, and Arkansas has some work to do.  It highlights simple things, like rumble strips, wide shoulders, and lighting at intersections (including merge/diverge points on access controlled roadways), and lighting in general.

Some states have their own webpages concerning it, like Minnesota, Michigan, Idaho, New Hampshire, etc... It's not a bad thing!

[AHTD]

And the one in Arkansas is about to be live next week: www.tzdarkansas.org/

Had a press conference about the program in Arkansas earlier this week on Tuesday. Below are links to media hits on the subject:

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/story/d/story/safety-matters-toward-zero-deaths/34367/6FmD0VofO0eNLQLghGZrAA

http://www.arkansasonline.com/videos/2014/jan/28/9899/


A sneak peek at the first commercial to begin airing soon is here: http://vimeo.com/jonesfilmvideo/review/84992530/7360dceb9e

[Arkansastravelguy]

This is sweet

I'm pretty damn proud of my highway department...they don't just pay lip service to listening to the public, they are on a roadgeek forum explaining and debating things

This is awesome

I agree that it's awesome that an employee of AHTD is on this site communicating with us.


iPhone