Jump to content

Metroplan 2030


Recommended Posts

From Arkansas Business:

"Metroplan Releases 5-year Transportation Plan, Sets Hearings

6/21/05 11:54:33 AM

By Arkansas Business staff, Arkansasbusiness.com Daily Report

Metroplan and the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce this week set two hearings to take feedback on its proposed Metro 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan for central Arkansas."

You can read the plan here: http://metroplan-metro2030.org/plan.htm

I'll add my thoughts later, and see if there is anything actually significant in the plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And the bad news: In order for this mass transit to be realized, it would mean getting ten times the actual predicted funds (predicted $350 million to $4189). Well, more than ten times. In fact, the $350 would only be enough for maintaining the mass transit already in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so I think the second plan is interesting also. But yeah I don't see any stepping forward to pay for the project and I don't think the rest of the state, or even people in central Arkansas being too keen on an additional 3 cent tax. It's a shame but I still wish we could get something similar going on up here in northwest Arkansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I would like to see them change their focus. In fact I would like to see LR/NLR drop out of MetroPlan. Why encourage sprawl? The plan does nothing to provide a central transit system for the downtown area. The River Cities Travel Center does not even connect with the trolley system. What good does it do to transport people into an area if there is no way to travel when you are there? If you had a good central system then you could construct park and ride areas in SW, West, Midtown and North of the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I would like to see them change their focus. In fact I would like to see LR/NLR drop out of MetroPlan. Why encourage sprawl? The plan does nothing to provide a central transit system for the downtown area. The River Cities Travel Center does not even connect with the trolley system. What good does it do to transport people into an area if there is no way to travel when you are there? If you had a good central system then you could construct park and ride areas in SW, West, Midtown and North of the river.

- Metroplan is what is known in the planning field as a Council of Governments (an organization designed to bring together leaders and planners of regional communities). Metropolitan Areas are required to create these in order to receive federal funding for most transportation and urban redevelopment projects. Thus, if LR/NLR drop out of Metroplan, they lose federal money and things become that much more expensive for local governments.

-The trolley system is not designed to be a "people mover" in its current state. It is a tourist attraction, unless or until it is expanded. Metroplan does not focus only on transportation issues, it is concerned with controlling growth and economic development, even if those issues are minor compared to transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say plan 2 looks like it's the winner here. I can't ever see Little Rock getting another Light Rail System.

The first plan is clearly modeled after Dallas' DART system and for light rail the pictures he showed were for DART. The setup is much better in LR than in a lot of places, it could really help along the 67/167 and I-30 corridors which are fairly high density and similar to the radial freeways coming from Dallas on a smaller scale. I don't see any reason to extend transportation networks to Conway and pass 15 miles of farmland in doing so. I don't think regional shuttles make sense for distant suburbs not participating in CAT but I would like to see CAT extended to interested suburbs willing to share costs.

The money's not there for light rail in Arkansas, I think it would be a tremendous tax burden on LR/NLR as much as it would be on NWA. I think its' a great idea if the federal gov't were backing the whole thing but there are too many larger metros than NWA and LR vying for funding for us to get a slice.

I do like the idea of expanding River Rail and I think it will help downtown residential development as it will make people in multiple areas (including apparently the Quapaw Quarter) able to go carless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

- Metroplan is what is known in the planning field as a Council of Governments (an organization designed to bring together leaders and planners of regional communities). Metropolitan Areas are required to create these in order to receive federal funding for most transportation and urban redevelopment projects. Thus, if LR/NLR drop out of Metroplan, they lose federal money and things become that much more expensive for local governments.

-The trolley system is not designed to be a "people mover" in its current state. It is a tourist attraction, unless or until it is expanded. Metroplan does not focus only on transportation issues, it is concerned with controlling growth and economic development, even if those issues are minor compared to transportation.

At one time Metroplan was over a number of projects but its main concern now is transportation(road building). It doesn"t do a very good job at this. The North Belt Freeway is a prime example. Why was a no build zone for this route put in force years ago. Is it not true that all members have one vote from the smallest town up to Little Rock? Another example: Metroplan recommended a bypass around Vilonia but the voters in Vilonia voted to widen Hwy 64 at it's current location. That will do nothing to speed traffic when done. Some years ago Saline County withdrew from Metroplan because it was a communist organization according to Saline County officials.

Little Rock needs a better planning organization than what it now has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 months later...

An article in the Leader newspaper quietly slipped passed us on September 2, 2006 regarding the North Belt Freeway. According to the article, there could be a decision on the route through Sherwood by early next year. There were still looming questions over funding. Does anyone know if AHTD is planning a 6-lane interstate? I think I heard at one time they were only considering 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article in the Leader newspaper quietly slipped passed us on September 2, 2006 regarding the North Belt Freeway. According to the article, there could be a decision on the route through Sherwood by early next year. There were still looming questions over funding. Does anyone know if AHTD is planning a 6-lane interstate? I think I heard at one time they were only considering 4.

I think they were planning on a 6 lane facility, though I could be mistaken (I-440 and I-430 were built as 6 lanes after all). That's a good question. I'll ask someone there next time I get a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think they were planning on a 6 lane facility, though I could be mistaken (I-440 and I-430 were built as 6 lanes after all). That's a good question. I'll ask someone there next time I get a chance.

Are there any plans to widen the southernmost part of I-430 to 6 lanes? That's a small segment but its' picking up traffic and the bottleneck will be a problem before long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
An article in the Leader newspaper quietly slipped passed us on September 2, 2006 regarding the North Belt Freeway. According to the article, there could be a decision on the route through Sherwood by early next year. There were still looming questions over funding. Does anyone know if AHTD is planning a 6-lane interstate? I think I heard at one time they were only considering 4.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.