89 replies to this topic

[flyfisher]

My wife told me that the Ark DemGaz ran an article a couple of weeks back about a study and proposed renovations to the current interchange. She said it had a rendering or map of what the study proposed. I missed the article. Does anyone have a link or perhaps the pic that was in the paper?

Edited by flyfisher, 29 May 2006 - 04:54 PM.

[Mith242]

flyfisher, on May 29 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

My wife told me that the Ark DemGaz ran an article a couple of weeks back about a study and proposed renovations to the current interchange. She said it had a rendering or map of what the study proposed. I missed the article. Does anyone have a link or perhaps the pic that was in the paper?

I do remember seeing an article talking about that.  But I don't recall seeing a picture, at least not in the northwest edition.

[Arkansawyer]

flyfisher, on May 29 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

My wife told me that the Ark DemGaz ran an article a couple of weeks back about a study and proposed renovations to the current interchange. She said it had a rendering or map of what the study proposed. I missed the article. Does anyone have a link or perhaps the pic that was in the paper?

There was, I believe, a full-page showing the proposed changes. Here's a link to the online article, but you have to log in.

The costs for all the changes are estimated around $70 million. Plans include the widening of several roads, overpass changes, etc.

[flyfisher]

Arkansawyer, on May 29 2006, 08:38 PM, said:

There was, I believe, a full-page showing the proposed changes. Here's a link to the online article, but you have to log in.

The costs for all the changes are estimated around $70 million. Plans include the widening of several roads, overpass changes, etc.

Thanks Arkansawyer. That was what I was looking for. I'm still looking for a pic if anyone finds one.

[Aporkalypse]

This interchange has been a huge problem for several years.  I'd say that's probably the biggest Central Arkansas road issue that needs to be addressed.  I always kind of thought it would wait until I-630 was 4-laned, though.

[CentralArkansas]

Aporkalypse, on May 30 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

This interchange has been a huge problem for several years.  I'd say that's probably the biggest Central Arkansas road issue that needs to be addressed.  I always kind of thought it would wait until I-630 was 4-laned, though.

They really need to go ahead and do this, pronto. If they were extremely forward looking, they'd five lane it and be done with 630 improvements for the next 100 years.

[itk]

CentralArkansas, on May 30 2006, 01:58 PM, said:

They really need to go ahead and do this, pronto. If they were extremely forward looking, they'd five lane it and be done with 630 improvements for the next 100 years.

Yes, but unfortunately that costs more money.  You can say that for just about any transportation improvement project anywhere.

Expect a public anouncement soon for time and location of the public meeting.  It'll be July at the earliest.  But this is near the very, very top of AHTD's priority list, so some sort of improvement (most likely a interim phase of the total improvement) will happen in the near future I bet.

[Aporkalypse]

itk, on May 30 2006, 05:27 PM, said:

Yes, but unfortunately that costs more money.  You can say that for just about any transportation improvement project anywhere.

Expect a public anouncement soon for time and location of the public meeting.  It'll be July at the earliest.  But this is near the very, very top of AHTD's priority list, so some sort of improvement (most likely a interim phase of the total improvement) will happen in the near future I bet.

Are they even considering 4-laning it yet as well?  I heard that would be a major problem because the current "trench" isn't wide enough to accomodate 8 lanes and the overpasses would all have to be rebuilt.

I missed the new designs for an interchange, they would be interesting to see.  That's one of the stranger interchanges I've seen in any city in its current form.

I read that the bottleneck on the initial segment of I-30 between I-40 and I-630 is a big problem as well and the 630/30 interchange needs redoing.  I also remember reading that the whole segment needs to be widened to at least 4 lanes but this is impossible because the whole I-30 bridge would have to be reconstructed to accomodate more lanes and it would be prohibitively expensive.  Widening everything but the bridge would cause bottlenecks that would be dangerous and make traffic just as bad as before.

This line of work seems like it would be very tough.

[itk]

Aporkalypse, on May 30 2006, 11:02 PM, said:

Are they even considering 4-laning it yet as well?  I heard that would be a major problem because the current "trench" isn't wide enough to accomodate 8 lanes and the overpasses would all have to be rebuilt.

I missed the new designs for an interchange, they would be interesting to see.  That's one of the stranger interchanges I've seen in any city in its current form.

I read that the bottleneck on the initial segment of I-30 between I-40 and I-630 is a big problem as well and the 630/30 interchange needs redoing.  I also remember reading that the whole segment needs to be widened to at least 4 lanes but this is impossible because the whole I-30 bridge would have to be reconstructed to accomodate more lanes and it would be prohibitively expensive.  Widening everything but the bridge would cause bottlenecks that would be dangerous and make traffic just as bad as before.

This line of work seems like it would be very tough.

It's wider from I-430 to University than it is from University to I-30, so it would be much cheaper to widen up to around University as far as I have heard.

As far as considering that option, I'm not at liberty to say since it's a sensitive topic right now with some local officials.  I don't even know if a final decision has been made right now about that, one way or the other.  But yes, there's talk about that.

But what you say about I-30 and I-30/630 is true- it could definitely use some relief.  And that improving everything but the I-30 bridge wouldn't do much in the grand scheme of things, since that's a bottleneck.

It's also true that if they were to widen that I-30 bridge, that it would definitely have major adverse impacts on commuters.  I think that's why AHTD has been hesitant to do anything about it-- not only would that cost a lot of money, but it would cost commuters and the environment a lot as well during construction.

I have to wonder if central arkansesians who live north of the river and commute to LR will just have to deal with it for the foreseeable future, unless money falls from the sky.  I don't know if it'll get to a point where that bottleneck will start to really change land use patterns or commuting behaviors.  I just can't imagine living somewhere like Cabot and working in downtown LR and dealing with that every day.  Not very fun.

[Mith242]

itk, on May 31 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

It's wider from I-430 to University than it is from University to I-30, so it would be much cheaper to widen up to around University as far as I have heard.

As far as considering that option, I'm not at liberty to say since it's a sensitive topic right now with some local officials.  I don't even know if a final decision has been made right now about that, one way or the other.  But yes, there's talk about that.

But what you say about I-30 and I-30/630 is true- it could definitely use some relief.  And that improving everything but the I-30 bridge wouldn't do much in the grand scheme of things, since that's a bottleneck.

It's also true that if they were to widen that I-30 bridge, that it would definitely have major adverse impacts on commuters.  I think that's why AHTD has been hesitant to do anything about it-- not only would that cost a lot of money, but it would cost commuters and the environment a lot as well during construction.

I have to wonder if central arkansesians who live north of the river and commute to LR will just have to deal with it for the foreseeable future, unless money falls from the sky.  I don't know if it'll get to a point where that bottleneck will start to really change land use patterns or commuting behaviors.  I just can't imagine living somewhere like Cabot and working in downtown LR and dealing with that every day.  Not very fun.

You do bring up a good point.  I have heard of people living in places like Cabot and driving to Little Rock every day to work.

[skirby]

Mith242, on May 31 2006, 06:39 PM, said:

You do bring up a good point.  I have heard of people living in places like Cabot and driving to Little Rock every day to work.

Cabot is a short drive when you think about people  from Beebe , Searcy and beyond driving not only to downtown LR but to west LR to work. Alot of them have found out what happens when highway construction goes bad. I-40 in NLR was to be finished with its rebuilding last year and now it will not be ready until 2007.

[vbfl85]

the north belt would come in handy for people in cabot, searcy, etc. who are traveling to west LR.  Someday maybe.

[Aporkalypse]

itk, on May 31 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

It's wider from I-430 to University than it is from University to I-30, so it would be much cheaper to widen up to around University as far as I have heard.

As far as considering that option, I'm not at liberty to say since it's a sensitive topic right now with some local officials.  I don't even know if a final decision has been made right now about that, one way or the other.  But yes, there's talk about that.

But what you say about I-30 and I-30/630 is true- it could definitely use some relief.  And that improving everything but the I-30 bridge wouldn't do much in the grand scheme of things, since that's a bottleneck.

It's also true that if they were to widen that I-30 bridge, that it would definitely have major adverse impacts on commuters.  I think that's why AHTD has been hesitant to do anything about it-- not only would that cost a lot of money, but it would cost commuters and the environment a lot as well during construction.

I have to wonder if central arkansesians who live north of the river and commute to LR will just have to deal with it for the foreseeable future, unless money falls from the sky.  I don't know if it'll get to a point where that bottleneck will start to really change land use patterns or commuting behaviors.  I just can't imagine living somewhere like Cabot and working in downtown LR and dealing with that every day.  Not very fun.

In all fairness, the people from Cabot and further out working in downtown should be using I-440 to circumvent that.  If they're not, I have to wonder why - it sure seems quicker.  I guess a lot of the Faulkner Co traffic comes in on I-40 eastbound to I-30 across the river.

Not trying to get you in trouble, only post what it's safe for you to.  You obviously are well in the loop on these issues and it's a rare opportunity to get an informed opinion.

That I-630 onto I-30 northbound ramp at 4-5 PM is the biggest nightmare in Arkansas traffic by a longshot.  That thing backs up as bad as anything down here in DFW.

[itk]

Aporkalypse, on Jun 1 2006, 12:56 AM, said:

In all fairness, the people from Cabot and further out working in downtown should be using I-440 to circumvent that.  If they're not, I have to wonder why - it sure seems quicker.  I guess a lot of the Faulkner Co traffic comes in on I-40 eastbound to I-30 across the river.

Not trying to get you in trouble, only post what it's safe for you to.  You obviously are well in the loop on these issues and it's a rare opportunity to get an informed opinion.

That I-630 onto I-30 northbound ramp at 4-5 PM is the biggest nightmare in Arkansas traffic by a longshot.  That thing backs up as bad as anything down here in DFW.

You know, after reading these posts it just occurred to me... I wonder if many of these commuters driving over the I-30 bridge are going to places like Faulkner County, which is obviously growing.  It's hard for me to tell when I've seen it during rush hour.  

But if that's the case, I wonder if those people would be helped out quite a bit once I-630/430 is done, because then they could go that route for their commute, instead of trying to get on I-30 then getting to I-40.

[Architect]

itk, on Jun 1 2006, 05:08 PM, said:

You know, after reading these posts it just occurred to me... I wonder if many of these commuters driving over the I-30 bridge are going to places like Faulkner County, which is obviously growing.  It's hard for me to tell when I've seen it during rush hour.  

But if that's the case, I wonder if those people would be helped out quite a bit once I-630/430 is done, because then they could go that route for their commute, instead of trying to get on I-30 then getting to I-40.

If you are working downtown, then the closest, most direct route to Conway/Faulkner County is across the river on I-30 to I-40.  To go straight west on I-630, then straight north on I-430 must be 3-4 miles further as I-40 has moved well north that far west (to simplify my explanation, the three highways form a triangle as it were - with I-40 being the hypotenuse, or the most direct route).  Of course, consideration of traffic at different peak hours might impact the "quickest" route!

[North Pulaski Player]

I know that I-440 is suppose to eventually be extended through the Sherwood/Jacksonville area and connect with I-430/I-40, but when are they going to start on this thing? With all of the growth to the north (especially Cabot) driving to work in West Little Rock has become a nightmare! Just completing that project alone should significantly reduce traffic at the I30/I40 split.

[SBCmetroguy]

Just curious here, but with Little Rock being so perfectly situated right in the center of Arkansas, why don't they just have one continuous beltway around the city like most cities, rather than 3 or 4 small loops? It looks like someone tied a bow in the freeways when you look at it on a map. Is it the terrain, or what? Or maybe because of the way the suburbs are situated, would a full beltway not have been feasible? When you go through Little Rock for the first time, it's confusing as heck because of all the small loops everywhere. This question has always intrigued me, so I figured this was the perfect time and place to finally ask it.

[Aporkalypse]

SBCmetroguy, on Jul 11 2006, 09:03 AM, said:

Just curious here, but with Little Rock being so perfectly situated right in the center of Arkansas, why don't they just have one continuous beltway around the city like most cities, rather than 3 or 4 small loops? It looks like someone tied a bow in the freeways when you look at it on a map. Is it the terrain, or what? Or maybe because of the way the suburbs are situated, would a full beltway not have been feasible? When you go through Little Rock for the first time, it's confusing as heck because of all the small loops everywhere. This question has always intrigued me, so I figured this was the perfect time and place to finally ask it.

Part of it, I think is the natural path of pre-existing freeways.  Instead of a cross, the major interstates of I-40 and I-30 actually traverse the city at odd angles as I-30 goes SW to NE from Texarkana to NLR and I-40 comes in south from Conway to NLR and then turns East towards Memphis.  I-630 was necessary to cut through the heart of the city because I-40 only goes through NLR and never crosses the river, which actually is useful in keeping that truck traffic out of the city.

There is a loop but it is currently incomplete.  One part of the loop is I-430 through West Little Rock, the southern part is I-30, the Eastern part is I-440.  A recent addition extended this freeway from I-40 to 67/167 near Jacksonville and Sherwood.  The remaining piece of the loop, the North Belt Freeway, has been federally funded but has been stalled somewhat in part because of difficulties determining the route.  It goes through already developed Sherwood and there will need to be a lot of demolition of existing buildings to complete it.



Hopefully this map will help you see where this fits in.



One obvious problem is that this plan does nothing to allow better access to rapidly growing far West LR which has poor interstate access.  It also obviously only encompasses LR, NLR, and Sherwood - the loop does not extend to include thriving suburbs of Conway, Benton, Bryant, or Cabot.  Also, using I-30 as part of the loop doesn't bypass anything in that segment as that is a very busy freeway with lots of through traffic.  The recent 440 extension and North Belt Freeway will do little to change LR itself but will open up new areas of NLR for retail and residential development. and allow traffic to bypass I-40 through NLR.

itk is the road and highway expert, I'd like to see what he says.

[itk]

In response to North Pulaski Player, I would say this: don't hold your breath.  Like Aporkalypse said, the major hold up are the neighborhoods in the Sherwood area which lay in the path of some of the proposed alternatives routes.  When that gets resolved, who knows.  

To see a timeline of the proposed North Belt, check out: http://www.metroplan.org/nbelt.php  (I like the last line!).

I'm not sure the funding status of this, but I would bet that this thing would move forward faster if there were large sums of $ secured.  Since this thing has been stuck in the current phase for multiple *decades*, it could definitely use a kick in the behind.  Also, I think that this is not the highest priority right now for AHTD in the Central Arkansas region (so much work lately has been widening existing freeways in the area, plus, of course, I-430/I-630).

[Aporkalypse]

itk, on Jul 11 2006, 05:17 PM, said:

In response to North Pulaski Player, I would say this: don't hold your breath.  Like Aporkalypse said, the major hold up are the neighborhoods in the Sherwood area which lay in the path of some of the proposed alternatives routes.  When that gets resolved, who knows.  

To see a timeline of the proposed North Belt, check out: http://www.metroplan.org/nbelt.php  (I like the last line!).

I'm not sure the funding status of this, but I would bet that this thing would move forward faster if there were large sums of $ secured.  Since this thing has been stuck in the current phase for multiple *decades*, it could definitely use a kick in the behind.  Also, I think that this is not the highest priority right now for AHTD in the Central Arkansas region (so much work lately has been widening existing freeways in the area, plus, of course, I-430/I-630).

I thought federal funding for it was secured, was I wrong about that?  I remember this coming up a couple of years ago when there was talk of making the North Belt a toll road and using that money to pay for I-49 through Western Arkansas and Central Arkansas leaders angrily rejected the idea on the grounds that the North Belt already had federal funding and making it a toll road to send the money to a different part of the state was unfair to Central Arkansans.