77 replies to this topic

[cmatthews40510]

Two highway projects in North Little Rock/Sherwood wrap up this week - the noise barrier wall on I-40 and the widening of US 67/167 between Kiehl and Redmond Road will be complete.

http://www.todaysthv...losed-for-work-

[cmatthews40510]

Short write up about the North Belt Freeway/I-440 extension in today's DemGaz:

Quote

DRIVETIME MAHATMA: I-440 loop sorting out suit, access

LITTLE ROCK — Dear Mahatma: What happened to the planned northwest loop through north Pulaski County from U.S. 67/167 to Interstate 40?
- Horseshoe Bend.

Dear Horseshoe: The project is still active, reports the Arkansas  Highway and Transportation Department. The agency is acquiring the right  of way for the crossing point at Arkansas 107. After which more right  of way acquisition. After which design and build.
The highway was approved in 2008 by the Federal Highway  Administration. The cost, as previously reported in this newspaper, is  $300 million for the 12.7-mile, four-lane divided route.
Complicating matters is a lawsuit filed two years ago, March 25,  2009. The lawsuit - Sherwood Land Company and Deere Properties v. the  City of Sherwood - was filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court. It alleges  an illegal taking of land by the city.
The lawsuit seeks just compensation. About 600 acres owned by the plaintiffs are in the path of the proposed highway.
A check of the court docket shows no trial date.

What's questionable to me is the plans to construct this is a 4 lane highway instead of a 6 lane.  
Why?  Every other freeway in Central Ark is 6 lanes.  Is this a tactic by Metroplan to halt any additional widening of freeways in Little Rock and force greener alternatives because of their policy of no expansion beyond 6 lanes until "ALL" freeways are 6 lanes?  

Since this will be built 4 lanes ... there would never be any hope, within their current policy, of seeing I-30 through downtown or the remainder of 630 or portions of 430 widened to 8 lanes... .at least for another 20 or so years.   If you're going to build it ... BUILD IT.

[ryanaw]

Wow! I didn't know it was going to be just 4 lanes. I thought it would continue as 6 lanes from 67 to 40 like it is in the opposite direction on 440 headed toward the airport. It's kind of a waste of time, but a least it's going to be built. It'll cut travel time and traffic congestion probably by half (wild guess).

[cmatthews40510]

Metroplan "expands" to parts of Faulkner, Saline and Lonoke counties and wants light rail from LR to Benton and Cabot.  

http://www.todaysthv...oves-expansion-

[hogwash]

Am I the only that gets annoyed by Pam Baccam? The other night she called the State Fire Prevention Code the Prevention Code, and now she is saying "The study includes a light rail."

Edited by hogwash, 27 May 2011 - 08:58 AM.

[cmatthews40510]

From todays (6/18) DemGaz:

Quote

A couple of grumpy letters have poured in about Interstate 530 between Little Rock and Pine Bluff.  We’ll paraphrase: Gosh, but I-530 sure has lots of potholes and  ridges and rough edges. Any chance of getting it fixed? May the wind be  at your back.

  The answer comes from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation  Department. A project is planned to reconstruct 7.5 miles of I-530 near  Redfield. The job is programmed, which means a date has not yet been  set. Estimated cost is $31 million.

  When? At the end of 2011. But that’s not set in concrete. Ha-ha!

http://www.arkansaso...hatma-20110618/

[bchris02]

ryanaw, on 16 April 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

Wow! I didn't know it was going to be just 4 lanes. I thought it would continue as 6 lanes from 67 to 40 like it is in the opposite direction on 440 headed toward the airport. It's kind of a waste of time, but a least it's going to be built. It'll cut travel time and traffic congestion probably by half (wild guess).

It seems to me there is not enough density on that side of the metro to really support a 6-lane highway.  It surprises me they are even building it at all, considering the shape the economy is in.  The only advantage I can see to a North Belt freeway is it will shorten the commute from Jacksonville to West Little Rock.

[Arkanzin]

bchris02, on 25 June 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

It seems to me there is not enough density on that side of the metro to really support a 6-lane highway.  It surprises me they are even building it at all, considering the shape the economy is in.  The only advantage I can see to a North Belt freeway is it will shorten the commute from Jacksonville to West Little Rock.

Maybe not now but wouldn't it make financial sense to go ahead and build six lanes now rather than wait 10 years and have to expand it from four lanes?

[Snaple4]

http://www.todaysthv...-Rock-to-Conway

Any chance they will make the expansion a carpool lane? I still can't believe that NWA or Central Arkansas is void of carpool/bus lanes. Makes me sad.

[cmatthews40510]

Snaple4, on 17 August 2011 - 10:40 PM, said:

http://www.todaysthv...-Rock-to-Conway

Any chance they will make the expansion a carpool lane? I still can't believe that NWA or Central Arkansas is void of carpool/bus lanes. Makes me sad.

I hope not.  I can see the need for an HOV lane during peak travel times if it were expanded to 8 lanes.. but this is designed to reduce congestion and placing HOV restrictions on a new third lane would not do that.  The only restriction we need is the same as I-30; keep trucks to 2 right lanes.

[thewizard16]

I agree. HOV lanes are an inefficient use of expensive highway space unless you're in a dense enough market that the lane is justifiable all the time. In NWA and Central AR, there's simply too little justification for it at this point. When the highways are only 2-3 lanes on each side, adding an HOV lane isn't going to impact traffic flow near as much as adding another full flow (car only) lane. I don't know of any metro this small with HOV lanes on roads as small as these interstates- when I think HOV I think Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc. You've got 6-8 lanes in each direction that are gridlocked/very congested already, so the HOV lane is a pretty big incentive to carpool if possible but I don't see it being a good use of money here (yet).

[cmatthews40510]

Website supporting the proposed bond program to 'modernize' another 300+miles of Arkansas Interstates...  http://1999map.com/

[Arkanzin]

It seems like there are places where the HOV lane is used only during the 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. peak periods but the lane is otherwise open to all at any other time.   Add a third lane from Conway to Little Rock and make it the HOV lane during peak periods.  Designate one of the lanes from Benton as an HOV lane during the peak time.  I don't see how something like that would not work here.  I'm all for HOV lanes...even in a "small market" like this.

[thewizard16]

Arkanzin, on 31 August 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:

It seems like there are places where the HOV lane is used only during the 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. peak periods but the lane is otherwise open to all at any other time.   Add a third lane from Conway to Little Rock and make it the HOV lane during peak periods.  Designate one of the lanes from Benton as an HOV lane during the peak time.  I don't see how something like that would not work here.  I'm all for HOV lanes...even in a "small market" like this.

Enforcing it is the difficult part. Most HOV lanes are physically divided from the regular flow of traffic, which is effective at keeping people stuck in traffic that don't see a cop around from jumping in and out of the HOV lanes, but without the expense of a physically separated lane with the infrastructure problems that come along with that related to exits and interchanges, all you're really doing is adding paint to the 3rd lane of interstate designating it as HOV and adding signs saying what hours it is in effect. I'm not saying that's a bad option necessarily, but it'd be nearly unenforceable and would likely do more to confuse people passing through on 40 than anything. I think an extra lane that is labeled not to be open to truck traffic is the easiest solution for a metro this small, especially since the HOV lane would only be useful (and I somewhat doubt it'd even be useful then) at very narrow time windows. HOV lanes are great when it encourages people to carpool in crowded metros with traffic problems, but I don't see it helping much of anything here.

[Architect]

thewizard16, on 31 August 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Enforcing it is the difficult part. Most HOV lanes are physically divided from the regular flow of traffic, which is effective at keeping people stuck in traffic that don't see a cop around from jumping in and out of the HOV lanes, but without the expense of a physically separated lane with the infrastructure problems that come along with that related to exits and interchanges, all you're really doing is adding paint to the 3rd lane of interstate designating it as HOV and adding signs saying what hours it is in effect. I'm not saying that's a bad option necessarily, but it'd be nearly unenforceable and would likely do more to confuse people passing through on 40 than anything. I think an extra lane that is labeled not to be open to truck traffic is the easiest solution for a metro this small, especially since the HOV lane would only be useful (and I somewhat doubt it'd even be useful then) at very narrow time windows. HOV lanes are great when it encourages people to carpool in crowded metros with traffic problems, but I don't see it helping much of anything here.

Actually, most HOV lanes I've seen in SoCal and Atlanta are just open lanes with double-white line designations (meaning do NOT cross except where dashed)...in fact, my father-in-law got a ticket in LA for crossing the double-white line.  So yes, it's enforced.

[thewizard16]

Architect, on 31 August 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

Actually, most HOV lanes I've seen in SoCal and Atlanta are just open lanes with double-white line designations (meaning do NOT cross except where dashed)...in fact, my father-in-law got a ticket in LA for crossing the double-white line.  So yes, it's enforced.

I'm not saying it's not enforced in other places, of course it is, but I do see it being difficult to enforce on a stretch that long on I-40 as is being suggested by other members. In an urban/in-city interstate loop HOV is pretty easy to monitor, but that's a long, relatively rural stretch of 40 and it's in the middle of a big cross-country freight route. I can't say I've ever seen a stretch like that done with an HOV lane and I still don't think it's the most efficient use of funds/pavement. In the Houston/Dallas layouts they have the physically divided lanes (to make it harder to abuse I guess), I've not driven the open format in Atlanta in a while so I guess I don't remember it as clearly. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone's ideas, it is an interesting suggestion, I just don't think it would be well utilized and would therefore be a somewhat impractical/just-for-looks solution to the traffic problem. In the future as the population grows I can see it being more justifiable.

[Architect]

thewizard16, on 01 September 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

I'm not saying it's not enforced in other places, of course it is, but I do see it being difficult to enforce on a stretch that long on I-40 as is being suggested by other members. In an urban/in-city interstate loop HOV is pretty easy to monitor, but that's a long, relatively rural stretch of 40 and it's in the middle of a big cross-country freight route. I can't say I've ever seen a stretch like that done with an HOV lane and I still don't think it's the most efficient use of funds/pavement. In the Houston/Dallas layouts they have the physically divided lanes (to make it harder to abuse I guess), I've not driven the open format in Atlanta in a while so I guess I don't remember it as clearly. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone's ideas, it is an interesting suggestion, I just don't think it would be well utilized and would therefore be a somewhat impractical/just-for-looks solution to the traffic problem. In the future as the population grows I can see it being more justifiable.

Oh, don't get me wrong...I agree, there's really no justification (yet) for HOV lanes in central Arkansas.  I was just pointing out that that format is quite common.

[cozmosis]

Considering the influx of traffic from the suburbs into Little Rock, I'd love to have local and express lanes divided by a some sort of barrier. I use I-40 East between Maumelle and North Little Rock quite a bit in the mornings and it would be great if the people coming in from Faulkner County didn't have to slow down until I-430. I realize there's no justification to spend that kind of money... but if we're talking about how we'd like to see things in a perfect world, that's my two cents.

I do look forward to the expansion of I-40 to six lanes one of these days...