1070 replies to this topic

[zman9810]

I certainly agree that NWA hasn't gotten the attention it deserves when it comes to interstate funding although the rest of the state still points to I540 between Fayetteville and Alma as proof that the area has received funding. The fact that I540 was completed over a decade ago doesn't seem to enter into the discussion. Also, I think the I40 is a higher profile road because of it's cross country nature so that fact and also because that project is close to Little Rock means it will get more attention.

Hopefully, with the political balance shifting more to the urban areas of the state and the fact that NWA has picked up some seats in the state legislature it means that the area will have more say in future highway funding. The only downside is that the State Highway Commission and it's antiquated district-based funding mechanism is still in place. Until that changes the money will not go where to the need is greatest but to where politics says it will go.

Another factor is that federal money for highway improvements is probably going to dry up and any funding will have to come from local sources for years to come. It will be interesting to see if NWA is willing to tax itself in order to fund better roads.

[Mith242]

Yeah I might also point out that the Little Rock is a bigger metro and also the capitol of the state so it's got more pull.  I am familiar with that stretch of I-40.  I certainly can't argue that they don't need an extra lane there.  But I've got to admit I wish I-540 would at least get a little more consideration as well.  As zman pointed out, I-540 is a much more recent development and I think some tend to overlook it because of that.

[strmchsr77]

I-540 will also eventually change to I-49 and be a major North-South,cross-country interstate as well.  Once that is complete traffic will increase quite a bit.  That is still years away but it would be nice to have additional lanes already in place.

[thewizard16]

I still can't quote with this software, but I agree with Mith.

Although I think 540 definitely needs improvements and widening, I disagree that it is worse than the stretch between Conway and North Little Rock, but not because 540's not just as, if not more, overloaded. 540 is busy most of the time, but doesn't shut down during the commute hours quite like 40 does. That stretch turns into crawling gridlock during the morning and evening "rushes" and what should be a 20 minute drive has taken me over an hour on several occasions. 540 from Fayetteville to Rogers does get pretty bad during the rush times too, but I've never had it take me as much longer to get from Fayetteville to Rogers as it has from NLR to Conway. I wish I had time/traffic load data, because just based off observation, I would think that 540 is more consistently busy than 40, but 40 has worse load peaks in the morning and evening. The other (probably more important) consideration is that 40 is a major interstate freight route. I can't think of any part of 40 in Arkansas that isn't normally quite busy and most sections could justify an extra lane based off the average traffic alone, but when a 20+ mile section of it essentially comes to a crawl for a couple/few hours a day, that has a significant impact on the truck traffic as well. I imagine that the shipping companies have made noise about I-40 needing widened along with the commuters, and I don't doubt that the highway department pays more attention to it for that reason.

Having lived in both areas now, I think the state has their work cut out for them with our interstates. Most of the interstates in Little Rock need serious improvements and 630, 30, 430, and although not an actual interstate 67/167 get very congested during peak times, but are also always pretty busy just during regular hours. They finally got the 630/430 project underway (apparently it has been needed for 15-20 years, but it's a big project and finding money was difficult), but the 630/30 is just as bad a bottleneck if not worse (and just a bad general design) and the 30/40, 430/40, and 30/530/440 interchanges all need improvements for the traffic they carry. In Northwest Arkansas, 540 also has design issued that need major reworking- the 540/Fulbright Expressway interchange is a mess as is the Fulbright Expressway/71 joining. They finally made some progress with some of the worst/most dangerous interchanges in Fayetteville, but there's still work to be done there, and I don't think there's any doubt that it needs to be widened in most places, probably along the entire length from Fayetteville to Rogers, but certainly within each of the major cities on its route. I just think if it took them that long to get funding for one of the one of the busiest interchanges in the state (630/30 and 30/40 are higher count), we're going to be waiting until things are a lot worse before 540 gets the widening it needs, or LR gets some of the interchange improvements it needs.

Traffic count comparisons give some good insight into how the roads compare to each other- at its busiest points, I-540 in NWA has 58,000-70,000 cars per day on a 4 lane interstate- 17,500 average per lane if you use the worst points. I-630 at it's busiest points has 109,000-116,000 cars on a 6 lane road- 19,333 per lane. I-30 has 91,000 to 124,000 on a 6 lane- 20,667 per lane. I-40's count is comparable to 540. I-430 and 67/167 are a bit higher load than 540, but also have more lanes so I'd consider them in better shape overall.

[Mith242]

That's probably a good assessment.  Both I-540 and that stretch of I-40 are both very bad.  I'd also have to say that during rush hour that stretch of I-40 is worse.  But I do seem to have more problems with traffic on I-540 during non peak hours as compared to that stretch of I-40.  Another point to make is that I-40 is also a major interstate corridor as well.  Probably another reason why I-40 might have an easier time getting some funding compared to I-540.

[iowhogs]

Quote

They finally made some progress with some of the worst/most dangerous interchanges in Fayetteville, but there's still work to be done there, and I don't think there's any doubt that it needs to be widened in most places, probably along the entire length from Fayetteville to Rogers, but certainly within each of the major cities on its route.

The argument can be made that if you remove the trucks with a Western Bypass the four lane facility becomes more manageable. Removing trucks would help with wearing the pavement of I-540/US 71 as well, since a single 18-wheeler does the damage of 9600 cars. I have looked at the projections from the NWARPC through 2030 and such and they project ridiculous overloads in some areas. With the completion of I-49, more trucks yet will be using I-540/US 71 and the problem will worsen without a facility to remove the through traffic. (Yes I already know the funding isn't there, but its what NWA needs)

Edited by iowhogs, 20 August 2011 - 09:52 PM.

[zman9810]

I have to respectfully disagree- the western bypass idea is a horrible non-solution to a non-existant problem. I540's congestion problems are not because of through traffic but because of local traffic due to NWA's configuration. The metro is a series of small cities strung out along a narrow corridor and I540 is the only limited access freeway serving that area. The western bypass would do nothing to solve the I540 congestion and would create an urban sprawl problem that would dwarf what we have now. Imnproving I540 with additional lanes and better interchanges is what is needed.

I49 as a major north-south interstate is a pipe dream that has little chance of becoming a reality. If one looks at a national map one can see that the highway would not lead to a major destination for freight or travelers. The likely choice for future traffic is US69 through OK leading to Tx. and Mexico. That route is already heavily used and has seen many improvements over the last few years.

The western bypass is being strongly promoted by investors who have bought land around the XNA airport and have seen their investments languish due to the lack of development in that area. Taxpayer funds should not be used to rescue their bad investments- any money available should be used to improve I540 and benefit the entire area population.

[iowhogs]

zman9810, on 20 August 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

I49 as a major north-south interstate is a pipe dream that has little chance of becoming a reality. If one looks at a national map one can see that the highway would not lead to a major destination for freight or travelers. The likely choice for future traffic is US69 through OK leading to Tx. and Mexico. That route is already heavily used and has seen many improvements over the last few years.

US 71 in Missouri is essentially to interstate standards and KDOT has stated that US 71 in Missouri is "20 to 30 years ahead of US 69" and they intend to keep it that way because US 71 has already been anointed as High Priority Corridor #1 in Washington (aka I-49). The term "High Priority Corridor" generally indicates it's not a "pipe dream". MoDOT doesn't consider it a "pipe dream" either considering the millions of dollars they have pumped into upgrading the road even if it only leads to "non major destinations".

Truck percentages (from 2008, thanks to the "up-to-date" AHTD) along US 71 in West Arkansas shows 30%+ of traffic is trucks. That's a lot of shipping to "non major destinations" such as I-44, Kansas City, I-29, etc.

[zman9810]

It is the 180 mile section between Texarkana and Fort Smith that I believe is a pipe dream. Arkansas hasn't been able to come up with the money to build the Bella Vista bypass and that is a very small project compared to the 180 mile road. The bridge over the Arkansas River alone will cost several times more than the Bella Vista construction. In this time of budget deficits and a huge federal debt there is little chance of the federal government funding I49 through Arkansas.

Highway 69 is used now by traffic from US71 in Missouri- they simply cut over on I44 to connect to it. 69 is also being improved through Oklahoma and will be described as a much cheaper and already built alternative to I49.

[zman9810]

I should add that what is likely to happen is that Hwy 71 will be improved piecemeal like Hwy 412 is being done across northern Arkansas. It won't be built to interstate standards but will be a multi-lane divided highway that will be much safer and quicker to travel.

[Mith242]

I guess the bond issue voters approved back in 1999 to improve the condition of the interstate system in the state is officially over.  Although to be honest I thought they had finished up a while back.  They worked on 350 miles worth in the first bond issue and the state is looking for the voters to extend it to work on some other sections of the interstate system.  They say we still have 650 miles of interstate that needs 'modernizing'.  Looks like a big section of that 650 miles is on I-540.  A little weird for me to think about that because to me it still seems like I-540 isn't that old.  Although to be honest some sections of I-540 were completed years before the interstate was ever open.  So some sections are actually older than what it may seem.  And I'm sure there's been a good amount of wear and tear put onto it.  I think I have noticed some sections where you can start to tell sections of concrete are slowly pulling away from each other and becoming a bit bumpy.  Guess we'll just have to see which way the voters go.

http://1999map.com/

[zman9810]

The November 8 special election for the bond issue is a no brainer to vote yes on. It will not involve a tax increase and voting no will not lower anyone's taxes. The money is needed in order to continue the work on the interstate system in Arkansas. Unlike the 2005 election it doesn't give the state a blank check to renew the bond issue without a vote. This election certainly should not be confused with the election next year that would increase the state sales tax in order to build a 4 lane grid all over the state- that is a horrible idea that will surely go down to defeat.

[Mith242]

zman9810, on 31 August 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

The November 8 special election for the bond issue is a no brainer to vote yes on. It will not involve a tax increase and voting no will not lower anyone's taxes. The money is needed in order to continue the work on the interstate system in Arkansas. Unlike the 2005 election it doesn't give the state a blank check to renew the bond issue without a vote. This election certainly should not be confused with the election next year that would increase the state sales tax in order to build a 4 lane grid all over the state- that is a horrible idea that will surely go down to defeat.

Yes good point.  Bond issues like this that are just basically extending an already existing bond do tend to get passed.  But with the current economy I wasn't going to just assume this will get passed as easily as it tends to be.  But yes on the issue for next year it's harder to see that getting passed.  I suppose some will give it support saying these additional four lane roads will create economic and job growth.  But I am really curious to see what all of that is expected to cost.  I think that price tag is going to scare some away.  But I'm with you, I really hope this doesn't get passed.  Arkansas needs to focus on high priority areas.  Not keep building a bigger more expensive road network through out too many rural areas, when it doesn't even really have the money to maintain what's already out there now.

[zman9810]

You are right about I540- it doesn't seem that old at all. I have seen some spots that are wearing badly though. I think the idea is that if they repair them sooner rather than later it is less costly and the repair holds up better. There are some spots that never got touched during the earlier bond issue. I haven't been over it in a while but down by Russellville there was a very noticeable stretch on I40 that was still very rough. Hopefully the voting public will see that the bond issue is a good investment and it passes.

[zman9810]

The NWA Times had an article today about an attempt by the Northwest Arkansas Council to prevent Washington County voters from voting on the Ozark Regional Transit sales tax question. This is the 1/4 cent sales tax increase that ORT needs to support and expand it's system in the wake of federal government funding cuts coming in 2013. The NWA Council wants the Quorum Court to cancel the election that the court has already said they support. This comes after the Benton County Quorum Court rejected giving Benton County voters the chance to decide whether they wanted to support public transit in an election. The NWA Council says that because it isn't a two county plan now that Washington County voters shouldn't get the chance to decide either. Their reasoning is that the NWA Regional Mobility Authority should handle public transit funding for NWA.

It appears the NWA Council wants ORT to fade away and take with it the only semblance of public transit in the metro. The only other choice is Razorback Transit and it is aimed primarily at university students in Fayetteville. The idea that the NWA Regional Mobility Authority is going to come up with a funding solution by 2013 is laughable- the authority has been in existance since 2008 and accomplished nothing at all. I wonder if the NWA Council didn't kill the BenCo election before it ever got a chance to be voted on. Considering that Washington County seems to be a much bigger user and proponent of public transit and the Quorum court has already given support for an election it would be wrong to now take away the chance for voters to make the decision themselves.

[aerotive]

The pres gave away the game:  "some of the great highway needs..."

[Mith242]

zman9810, on 11 January 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

The NWA Times had an article today about an attempt by the Northwest Arkansas Council to prevent Washington County voters from voting on the Ozark Regional Transit sales tax question. This is the 1/4 cent sales tax increase that ORT needs to support and expand it's system in the wake of federal government funding cuts coming in 2013. The NWA Council wants the Quorum Court to cancel the election that the court has already said they support. This comes after the Benton County Quorum Court rejected giving Benton County voters the chance to decide whether they wanted to support public transit in an election. The NWA Council says that because it isn't a two county plan now that Washington County voters shouldn't get the chance to decide either. Their reasoning is that the NWA Regional Mobility Authority should handle public transit funding for NWA.

It appears the NWA Council wants ORT to fade away and take with it the only semblance of public transit in the metro. The only other choice is Razorback Transit and it is aimed primarily at university students in Fayetteville. The idea that the NWA Regional Mobility Authority is going to come up with a funding solution by 2013 is laughable- the authority has been in existence since 2008 and accomplished nothing at all. I wonder if the NWA Council didn't kill the BenCo election before it ever got a chance to be voted on. Considering that Washington County seems to be a much bigger user and proponent of public transit and the Quorum court has already given support for an election it would be wrong to now take away the chance for voters to make the decision themselves.

I don't get why everyone doesn't seem to want to let the voters make this decision.  I believe I read somewhere that ORT has been bringing this subject up since 2006 and everybody keeps wanting to push the issue back.  But as aerotive pointed out.  I think the NWA Regional Authority is worried that if voters approve this then they may later vote down the other measure later in the year.  I think we can all agree highway needs are certainly important.  But it seems silly to me that we almost seem to be pushing away most public transportation away.

[zman9810]

Mith242, on 12 January 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

I don't get why everyone doesn't seem to want to let the voters make this decision.  I believe I read somewhere that ORT has been bringing this subject up since 2006 and everybody keeps wanting to push the issue back.  But as aerotive pointed out.  I think the NWA Regional Authority is worried that if voters approve this then they may later vote down the other measure later in the year.  I think we can all agree highway needs are certainly important.  But it seems silly to me that we almost seem to be pushing away most public transportation away.

Yes, I did read where the 1/2 cent statewide sales tax election later this year was used as a justification to not have the Washington County election but that doesn't ring true. The relatively small number of voters in Washington County is not going to get the 1/2 cent increase passed- it has a very small chance of passing regardless. Holding funding for public transist here hostage for a statewide vote is wrong. The ORT 1/4 cent increase is needed now and should be passed.  Even if the 1/2 cent increase passes it doesn't mean that ORT or any mode of public transit will receive any funding from it. For that matter- it doesn't even mean any of the projects that the Highway Department is using as bait to get it passed will be built.

One thing voters need to remember about the 1/2 cent sales tax increase election next November is that the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department that is pushing it does not decide how that money would be allocated around the state. It is the independent Arkansas State Highway Commission that decides where the money is actually spent. This is the group that is pushing for a 4 lane grid connecting all the small cities in the state. They want to use transportation funding as stimulus money for economic development in depressed areas. Transportation money should be used to fix transportation problems- not try to solve far-reaching economic problems.The Commission is the same group that said it would reform how it operates after legislative pressure was applied and then when the pressure was removed went straight back to their normal way of doing business. The 1/2 cent sales tax increase should not be passed unless it is specified in the ballot question exactly what the money will be spent on. A complete list of projects that can be examined needs to be published and be law so that the Commission has no say over how the money is spent.

The best path in the long run would be to abolish the Commission and set up population based districts for funding purposes with a special funding category for large inter-district projects. We don't have the corrupt political environment that led to the establishment of the Commission many decades ago  so there isn't a need for it. Let our elected legislators do their job when it comes to transportation issues.

Edited by zman9810, 12 January 2012 - 09:41 PM.

[Mith242]

zman9810, on 12 January 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Yes, I did read where the 1/2 cent statewide sales tax election later this year was used as a justification to not have the Washington County election but that doesn't ring true. The relatively small number of voters in Washington County is not going to get the 1/2 cent increase passed- it has a very small chance of passing regardless. Holding funding for public transist here hostage for a statewide vote is wrong. The ORT 1/4 cent increase is needed now and should be passed.  Even if the 1/2 cent increase passes it doesn't mean that ORT or any mode of public transit will receive any funding from it. For that matter- it doesn't even mean any of the projects that the Highway Department is using as bait to get it passed will be built.

One thing voters need to remember about the 1/2 cent sales tax increase election next November is that the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department that is pushing it does not decide how that money would be allocated around the state. It is the independent Arkansas State Highway Commission that decides where the money is actually spent. This is the group that is pushing for a 4 lane grid connecting all the small cities in the state. They want to use transportation funding as stimulus money for economic development in depressed areas. Transportation money should be used to fix transportation problems- not try to solve far-reaching economic problems.The Commission is the same group that said it would reform how it operates after legislative pressure was applied and then when the pressure was removed went straight back to their normal way of doing business. The 1/2 cent sales tax increase should not be passed unless it is specified in the ballot question exactly what the money will be spent on. A complete list of projects that can be examined needs to be published and be law so that the Commission has no say over how the money is spent.

The best path in the long run would be to abolish the Commission and set up population based districts for funding purposes with a special funding category for large inter-district projects. We don't have the corrupt political environment that led to the establishment of the Commission many decades ago  so there isn't a need for it. Let our elected legislators do their job when it comes to transportation issues.

So far it seems the Washington County Quorum Court seem to prefer letting the residents of Washington County decide for themselves thankfully.  And I certainly agree with you on the Arkansas State Highway Commission.  The group certainly seems to have their thinking stuck back in the 50's and 60's on what needs to be done.

[zman9810]

As we all have heard, the State Highway Department is in the process of spending millions of dollars to install cable in the medians of divided multilane highways in the state in order to make them safer and reduce fatalities. This is a great idea and a very efficient use of taxpayer money. Now, the State Highway Commission has come up with the idea to raise the speed limit to 65 mph on undivided multilane highways in the state, whether they be 4 lane or 5 lane. This would include highways such as 412 east of Springdale to Sonora, 71 south of Greenland to West Fork and 167 south of El Dorado.

This is another example of the Commission being totally out of touch with the the real needs of the state. Why on earth would they want to spend millions to increase safety on one type of road and then decrease safety on another type? Raising the speed limit on undivided multilane roads has been shown to increase fatalities. Such roads are already inherently dangerous by design- you have vehicles passing each other just feet away at high speeds. Why would you want to increase that speed? The argument that drivers are already driving over the speed limit so the limit should be raised is false- if drivers are going 10 miles mph over now they will do the same at the new higher speed limit. 65 mph speeds will become 75 mph and accidents will be more deadly. It almost feels like the Commission sees an average number of fatalties as acceptable and because divided multilanes will be safer with the cables they can afford to let the number of fatalities on undivided multilanes rise- it will average out in the end. I can't imagine that actually is the case- the Commission is just clueless on how administer the state's highway network. It is another reason to do away with the Commssion and let the elected legislators and professionals at the highway department do their jobs.