Transportation Projects, Roads, Light Rail, etc

[zman9810]

Sounds like Block Ave will be closed next week while they make improvements. To access businesses along Block you're supposed to use Meadow St.

I was also curious to see what others thought of the idea of the Bella Vista bypass being a two lane road. Any thoughts?

The 2 lane idea seems like a really desperate attempt to get funding for anything and that may be what is needed to do it. It would be a very inefficent way to build the bypass and would probably create some problems if was built that way but at least it would get it started. It would be a priority for future improvements when the funds became available.

We need to do whatever is possible to get the grants that are being given out now because it is almost a certainty that there will be no federal money for transportation improvements in this area for many years or decades to come. I don't mean to make this a political discussion but for all those wishing to get big government out of local affairs this will be the chance to back it up- the time will come to vote for a local tax to fund local transportation needs. By local, I don't mean city specific but NWA wide. I wonder if it will pass or not....

Edited June 5, 2010 by zman9810

[thewizard16]

The 2 lane idea seems like a really desperate attempt to get funding for anything and that may be what is needed to do it. It would be a very inefficent way to build the bypass and would probably create some problems if was built that way but at least it would get it started. It would be a priority for future improvements when the funds became available.

We need to do whatever is possible to get the grants that are being given out now because it is almost a certainty that there will be no federal money for transportation improvements in this area for many years or decades to come. I don't mean to make this a political discussion but for all those wishing to get big government out of local affairs this will be the chance to back it up- the time will come to vote for a local tax to fund local transportation needs. By local, I don't mean city specific but NWA wide. I wonder if it will pass or not....

The 2 lane does seem like a desperate attempt to get the ball at least rolling on a 71 bypass. I won't say it's pointless since it'll be easier to get the 4 lane completed once it at least looks like there is some progress being made on the bypass, but a 2 lane isn't going to accomplish much other than moving some truck and some non-local traffic off of the main 71. I have a feeling that 2 lane would be really congested even without stop lights. However, if that's what it takes to get some federal money to support the project and give people the vision of what the bypass (and in the long-run, I-49) will do for the area, then it's definitely a step in the right direction.

[Mith242]

Well so far seems like everybody feels the same way on the Bella Vista bypass. A two lane highway isn't great, but it is at least a step closer. In the long run I imagine doing it this way would cost more. But seeing how long we've been talking about this it would be nice to have at least something going. I do still have some worries over whether the AHTD might conveniently forget about widening to four lanes. Or basically put it off for other projects in the state for an additional decade or so.

[thewizard16]

Well so far seems like everybody feels the same way on the Bella Vista bypass. A two lane highway isn't great, but it is at least a step closer. In the long run I imagine doing it this way would cost more. But seeing how long we've been talking about this it would be nice to have at least something going. I do still have some worries over whether the AHTD might conveniently forget about widening to four lanes. Or basically put it off for other projects in the state for an additional decade or so.

What concerns me about this is that bypassing Bella Vista is the most significant problem in making the future of I-49 a reality, at least the segment from Fort Smith to Kansas City. Missouri has been saying since 2007 that they're ready to work on the SEMO section of 71 in McDonald county (past that it's supposedly already up to interstate grade with some slight exit modifications) as soon as Arkansas gets the ball rolling, and both AHTD and MODOT have said they'll rename US 71 and 540 to I-49 immediately following completion of that section, while Missouri is working on N US 71 from Joplin to Kansas City (which, having driven it recently, only needs some exit modifications and maybe a couple new interchanges). You would think the federal government would recognize that and want to put some effort (money) into making it a reality. A 2 lane "start" to the bypass won't do much (if anything) to promote the long term interstate plans, so I have to hope that if they move forward with that plan they'll plan to add the other 2 lane section within 5 years of completing the first one, but I just don't know where that money would come from.

[Mith242]

What concerns me about this is that bypassing Bella Vista is the most significant problem in making the future of I-49 a reality, at least the segment from Fort Smith to Kansas City. Missouri has been saying since 2007 that they're ready to work on the SEMO section of 71 in McDonald county (past that it's supposedly already up to interstate grade with some slight exit modifications) as soon as Arkansas gets the ball rolling, and both AHTD and MODOT have said they'll rename US 71 and 540 to I-49 immediately following completion of that section, while Missouri is working on N US 71 from Joplin to Kansas City (which, having driven it recently, only needs some exit modifications and maybe a couple new interchanges). You would think the federal government would recognize that and want to put some effort (money) into making it a reality. A 2 lane "start" to the bypass won't do much (if anything) to promote the long term interstate plans, so I have to hope that if they move forward with that plan they'll plan to add the other 2 lane section within 5 years of completing the first one, but I just don't know where that money would come from.

I also wonder if the fact we don't quite have a regional transportation entity set up as well. Although I should restate that, we do have one but at the moment it doesn't have a lot of power behind it. After the census results NWA should pass the point where we get to have a little more say about transportation in our area. Instead of having to basically rely on AHTD to tell us what we can have.

[Mith242]

I finally heard mention again about future work on Garland. I had been wondering what's going on with the expansion. KNWA didn't have many details but apparently there's going to be a public meeting about it sometime on Thursday. KNWA unfortunately focused more on people arguing against garland being widened. Which overall seemed to basically just be NIMBYism. I know people who live on Garland probably aren't looking forward to the construction but I still think Garland needs widening. Especially with that odd intersection with Sycamore and Deane, I just have a hard time believe Garland should be left as it is now. But anyway hopefully we can eventually move forward on this. The way this has dragged out, I'm not sure if we've lost that funding that was mentioned last year. So if they have lost out on some of the funding maybe this project is being pushed back.

[zman9810]

I finally heard mention again about future work on Garland. I had been wondering what's going on with the expansion. KNWA didn't have many details but apparently there's going to be a public meeting about it sometime on Thursday. KNWA unfortunately focused more on people arguing against garland being widened. Which overall seemed to basically just be NIMBYism. I know people who live on Garland probably aren't looking forward to the construction but I still think Garland needs widening. Especially with that odd intersection with Sycamore and Deane, I just have a hard time believe Garland should be left as it is now. But anyway hopefully we can eventually move forward on this. The way this has dragged out, I'm not sure if we've lost that funding that was mentioned last year. So if they have lost out on some of the funding maybe this project is being pushed back.

It's from 4 to 7 p.m. Thursday at Trinity United Methodist Church, 1021 W. Sycamore St. The mutiple island design is where it is right now and likely that will be built. The state is conducucting the meeting and is still paying for a big chunk of it. I'd like to have seen a full median with a few turn lanes but this is much better than a continuous turn lane. No doubt that it needs to be widened for the good of the entire city- it is still a major corridor that directly connects to the only controlled access highway for the entire metro and will be a major connector to the tax revenue producing mall area.

[Mith242]

It's from 4 to 7 p.m. Thursday at Trinity United Methodist Church, 1021 W. Sycamore St. The multiple island design is where it is right now and likely that will be built. The state is conducting the meeting and is still paying for a big chunk of it. I'd like to have seen a full median with a few turn lanes but this is much better than a continuous turn lane. No doubt that it needs to be widened for the good of the entire city- it is still a major corridor that directly connects to the only controlled access highway for the entire metro and will be a major connector to the tax revenue producing mall area.

Thanks for the info. If I have time I might try to stop by. You're probably right in this will end up being built as they mentioned. I guess I was just frustrated how KNWA covered the story yesterday. Making sure they went out and found the 'zero growth' people. If I'm able to go maybe I can finally find out a timetable on this project.

[Mith242]

Okay I stopped by and gathered some info. Unfortunately I didn't feel like getting my camera out in the rain so I didn't take any pictures of the maps they had out. They gave us a small map we could take home but now getting around to looking at it, it has rather limited details. From what I heard overall unless the city complains and won't agree to it this current plan from the AHTD this is the pretty much what's going to happen. There aren't as many medians as I originally thought. Looks like they've cut back a bit on that. Especially on the southern end around the Oak Plaza Shopping Center area. But I think that makes sense. As much as I do want the medians I think trying to extend it that far south would cause problems. If I remember correctly the first median would happen till your past (going northbound) Holly St. Mt Comfort is being realigned so that it will be directly across Holly. That intersection will probably have the biggest changes. Realigning the road and also looks like most if not all of Tony C's businesses along there will have to come down. From what I could see other than that I don't know if there's hardly any houses that will have to come down. I'm sure some will be closer to the road than they want to be. But I guess they will be far enough away by AHTD standards that they won't have to come down. I couldn't find anyone who could definitively say if any houses would have to come down. I was there a little over an hour so I got to see both sides. I think some medians were cut back to allow more access from people accessing intersecting streets. Funny to see a lot of people falling into two groups there. Some apparently really hated the whole median/bicycle lane idea and thought it simply needed to be five lanes. Or at least get rid of the median and bicycle lanes and have it three lanes. Then there was the group who liked the medians and bicycle lanes. Those people seemed overall to be pretty happy with the plan. If anything maybe they wanted even more median. One of the biggest complaints was the whole Sycamore/Deane intersection area. I actually felt sorta sorry for the AHTD guys who kept getting grilled on that. But a lot of people just couldn't see why they wouldn't take down some houses around Deane and curve the street down to Sycamore. But right now there's going to be two lights there that will be synced up. Honestly I think that will fix a lot of the problems in that area. But apparently not everyone thinks so. There was also confusion on just how far north this project was extending. Some still thought this was the original plan and that it was going all the way to I-540. But right now Poplar seems to be the cut off. But that's if nothing happens and the funding gets it all the way there. Sounds like they'll start at the South end and work northward till the money runs out. The AHTD mentioned that it's possible that it may not quite reach all the way to Poplar. I thought I had heard that this was going to Melmar. So that might come about if the money runs out before Poplar. One more thing before I forget there will also be a light at the Holly/Mt Comfort intersection area. Other than that it's basically a 4 lane road with inter spaced medians with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. On northbound traffic near the end of the project the right hand lane will turn into a right turn only lane onto Melmar or Poplar.

If anyone has any questions I might be able to remember and answer it. There is a small map they gave out but as I said before it's a bit limited on details. But if anyone wants to to try to post a picture of it let me know.

[zman9810]

I stopped by, also. I also thought Melmar was the where this project would stop. I guess instead it will be where the money runs out but that seems hard to plan for- roads are built in long stretches- not a few feet at a time. I did ask what was planned for the rest of Garland out to I540 but no one wanted to talk about that.

The Mt. Comfort fix looks great with the traffic light and new intersection. I thought a continuous turn lane south of there was a good idea but mostly median would have been better north of there. Like you say, they left a lot of space for the intersecting streets, although there was still oppostion to the median. I guess this plan is a good compromise as it is still 4 lanes with some median. The north half of the project is mostly median. It was interesting how that moved the rightaway aquisition from one side of the road to the other along the length- the north section is all from the west side.

The AHTD people have a lot of patience- answering the same questions over and over and sometimes from upset residents seems like a thankless job.

[Mith242]

I stopped by, also. I also thought Melmar was the where this project would stop. I guess instead it will be where the money runs out but that seems hard to plan for- roads are built in long stretches- not a few feet at a time. I did ask what was planned for the rest of Garland out to I540 but no one wanted to talk about that.

The Mt. Comfort fix looks great with the traffic light and new intersection. I thought a continuous turn lane south of there was a good idea but mostly median would have been better north of there. Like you say, they left a lot of space for the intersecting streets, although there was still opposition to the median. I guess this plan is a good compromise as it is still 4 lanes with some median. The north half of the project is mostly median. It was interesting how that moved the right away acquisition from one side of the road to the other along the length- the north section is all from the west side.

The AHTD people have a lot of patience- answering the same questions over and over and sometimes from upset residents seems like a thankless job.

Yeah as I said before I was pretty happy with the plan. And the at least some of the AHTD people there didn't have a lot do actually do with the plan. But of course some people were giving them a hard time. I'm not sure if people can complain enough to derail this plan or not. I got the impression this plan might have some minor tweaks. If for some reason there was enough opposition from people and the city I suppose they might start all over. But at the same time this is a state highway and the AHTD can actually do what it wants. I don't the AHTD really pushes matter like that. Generally if there's enough opposition from a city they generally allow that stretch of road to be turned over to the city so they can do whatever they want with it so they don't have to deal with the headache. It was hard to get them to give me any type of time line. But they acted like if the city signed on things could start quickly. Starting with buy all the affected property out and that construction could actually start later this year.

[aerotive]

Are the bikes lanes on Garland going to be actual lanes, ie have some separation and/or barriers separating them from the car lanes? The city recently painted some bike lane markers on Sycamore, between College and Leverett, that're unworthy of being called lanes.

[Mith242]

Are the bikes lanes on Garland going to be actual lanes, ie have some separation and/or barriers separating them from the car lanes? The city recently painted some bike lane markers on Sycamore, between College and Leverett, that're unworthy of being called lanes.

The markers on Sycamore are referred to as Sharrow signage. Basically it's more a reminder to vehicular traffic to share the road with bicycles. The bicycle lanes on Garland will be actual bike lanes but I don't think there will be barriers. I think they will be like what's on Zion or Vantage up by Lake Fayetteville. There will be a 4-5 ft section on both sides of the road for bicycle lanes on Garland. The sharrow signage is basically going up on roads where they want to help encourage or think there will be some bicycle usage on the road but there's not enough room to put in actual bicycle lanes.

[aerotive]

Ok...if they're meant to be reminders I think they should be centered in the lane, to be clearer that bicyclists are allowed take up the whole lane...as is, I think most people will look at them as to-the-side lanes. Better would be to widen the road and put in a proper lane, course that's much more expensive.

Edited July 11, 2010 by aerotive

[Mith242]

Ok...if they're meant to be reminders I think they should be centered in the lane, to be clearer that bicyclists are allowed take up the whole lane...as is, I think most people will look at them as to-the-side lanes. Better would be to widen the road and put in a proper lane, course that's much more expensive.

I think part of the whole idea, is that yeah the city doesn't have enough money to put in bike lanes all over to make everything interconnected. They also realize there's not way to interconnect everything with trails either. I know the Sharrow program has been done in other cities. I imagine Fayetteville implemented it after looking into some of those cities. Technically maybe bicycles should be allowed to take the whole lane. But I think we all know realistically vehicles are not going to want to wait and are going to pass as soon as they can. When I'm on the streets I stay over to the side to allow traffic to go around me. I try to be as courteous as I can to everyone else on the roads and make room so vehicles can pass me.

[zman9810]

The I540/ MLK Blvd. interchange in Fayetteville is getting $4 million worth of work by the state.

From the AHTD website "THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA SURROUNDING THE I-540/HWY.62/180 INTERCHANGE IN FAYETTEVILLE. THESE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE WIDENING FOR THE ADDITION OF AUXILIARY LANES, RELOCATION OF FREEWAY ENTRANCE RAMP, AND INTERSECTION RADIUS IMPROVEMENTS. " It would be interesting to see a map of what is planned but anything that helps traffic flow is welcome.

[Mith242]

The I540/ MLK Blvd. interchange in Fayetteville is getting $4 million worth of work by the state.

From the AHTD website "THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA SURROUNDING THE I-540/HWY.62/180 INTERCHANGE IN FAYETTEVILLE. THESE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE WIDENING FOR THE ADDITION OF AUXILIARY LANES, RELOCATION OF FREEWAY ENTRANCE RAMP, AND INTERSECTION RADIUS IMPROVEMENTS. " It would be interesting to see a map of what is planned but anything that helps traffic flow is welcome.

Seems like I had heard a while back ago, that several interchanges were in works this year. They've already been working on the Weddington interchange. Seems like there was also at least one outside of Fayetteville. I'm with you in that I wish there was a little more info out there.

[Mith242]

The I540/ MLK Blvd. interchange in Fayetteville is getting $4 million worth of work by the state.

From the AHTD website "THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA SURROUNDING THE I-540/HWY.62/180 INTERCHANGE IN FAYETTEVILLE. THESE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE WIDENING FOR THE ADDITION OF AUXILIARY LANES, RELOCATION OF FREEWAY ENTRANCE RAMP, AND INTERSECTION RADIUS IMPROVEMENTS. " It would be interesting to see a map of what is planned but anything that helps traffic flow is welcome.

Saw a few more details about this. MLK/6th is being widened from five lanes to six from an area west of Shiloh to Futrall. A section of Futrall north of MLK to the on ramp will be widened from three to four lanes. Also the on ramp entrance to I-540 from Futrall is being moved a bit north as well. And then they'll also make some changes to the off ramp from I-540 onto MLK.

[zman9810]

Saw a few more details about this. MLK/6th is being widened from five lanes to six from an area west of Shiloh to Futrall. A section of Futrall north of MLK to the on ramp will be widened from three to four lanes. Also the on ramp entrance to I-540 from Futrall is being moved a bit north as well. And then they'll also make some changes to the off ramp from I-540 onto MLK.

Yes, I saw that, too. Sounds great especially moving the on ramp further north and redesigning the off ramp. I'm a little confused about the widening of Futrall though- right now there are two left turn lanes off MLK with one leading to the on ramp while the other has to continue on north on Futrall. I guess I'm not sure how widening Futrall is going to help. I would hope they would put signage so people will be sure to get in their correct lane sooner.

Maybe I'll go to the Ward 4 meeting in August and hear about the plan first hand.

[Mith242]

Yes, I saw that, too. Sounds great especially moving the on ramp further north and redesigning the off ramp. I'm a little confused about the widening of Futrall though- right now there are two left turn lanes off MLK with one leading to the on ramp while the other has to continue on north on Futrall. I guess I'm not sure how widening Futrall is going to help. I would hope they would put signage so people will be sure to get in their correct lane sooner.

Maybe I'll go to the Ward 4 meeting in August and hear about the plan first hand.

Yeah I'm trying to get all of this laid out in my mind. I'm wondering if they'll initially have two lanes turning off from Futrall to I-540 that will eventually merge before they actually make it to I-540. Seems like I've seen that design used on other interstate roads. But like you said, we might just have to wait till the actual meeting.

[zman9810]

Yeah I'm trying to get all of this laid out in my mind. I'm wondering if they'll initially have two lanes turning off from Futrall to I-540 that will eventually merge before they actually make it to I-540. Seems like I've seen that design used on other interstate roads. But like you said, we might just have to wait till the actual meeting.

I've seen that design myself- it always makes be cringe when I see it. Its sort of like the area where Fulbright Expressway southbound meets I540- invariably there will be someone who drives in the right lane all the way to the end of it before they merge over. So many drivers don't seem to realize that merging traffic has to yield- through traffic has the rightaway. To construct an onramp like that doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Mith242]

I've seen that design myself- it always makes be cringe when I see it. Its sort of like the area where Fulbright Expressway southbound meets I540- invariably there will be someone who drives in the right lane all the way to the end of it before they merge over. So many drivers don't seem to realize that merging traffic has to yield- through traffic has the rightaway. To construct an onramp like that doesn't seem like a good idea.

That was just a guess on my part. But maybe that third lane will be a dedicated on ramp leaving the other two lanes dedicated for Futrall. But I'm not sure Futurall gets enough traffic to deserve that. It would seem to me they'd add an extra lane that has something to do with accessing I-540. I've seen that design around the Albuquerque area a number of times. Maybe I'll have to ask family members what they think of theirs out there.

[Mith242]

Been reading about the new US 82 bridge over the Mississippi River down in southeast Arkansas. It's an interesting bridge and I was curious to find out more about it. But as I kept reading I started to think about something else. This bridge ranks as one of the higher public works projects in Arkansas history. The current bridge sees daily traffic of 7,500 vehicles and they think by 2020 it could reach 16,000 vehicles a day. I understand that sometimes states need to work together to get projects like these done. But this once again seems to typify the political mindset of Arkansas. I suppose maybe something had to be done because the old bridge was getting too old. But I can't help but wonder was this bridge really necessary. I'm sure people in that area of the state love the idea. But to an area that is losing population and really isn't contributing as much as other parts of the state. I really just think the money could have been used for other road projects. I certainly think NWA would be the best candidate. But even Little Rock would have been a better choice. I know this has been mentioned before and I'm probably just preaching to the choir. But this is another example of why I want to see NWA and central Arkansas working together to take more control over the state. No offense to other areas of the state. Some areas contribute as well like Jonesboro and Texarkana. But let's face it, NWA and central Arkansas is where a large chunk of money is generated for the state. You'd think the state would try to take better care of these two areas rather than throw money at problems in some areas of the state. A better investment and return to the state if the money was spent in the two areas that actually contribute the most money for the state. I just can't help but think what that money on that bridge could have bought us in NWA. Maybe an expanded and improved I-540, at least for some sections of NWA.

[zman9810]

Been reading about the new US 82 bridge over the Mississippi River down in southeast Arkansas. It's an interesting bridge and I was curious to find out more about it. But as I kept reading I started to think about something else. This bridge ranks as one of the higher public works projects in Arkansas history. The current bridge sees daily traffic of 7,500 vehicles and they think by 2020 it could reach 16,000 vehicles a day. I understand that sometimes states need to work together to get projects like these done. But this once again seems to typify the political mindset of Arkansas. I suppose maybe something had to be done because the old bridge was getting too old. But I can't help but wonder was this bridge really necessary. I'm sure people in that area of the state love the idea. But to an area that is losing population and really isn't contributing as much as other parts of the state. I really just think the money could have been used for other road projects. I certainly think NWA would be the best candidate. But even Little Rock would have been a better choice. I know this has been mentioned before and I'm probably just preaching to the choir. But this is another example of why I want to see NWA and central Arkansas working together to take more control over the state. No offense to other areas of the state. Some areas contribute as well like Jonesboro and Texarkana. But let's face it, NWA and central Arkansas is where a large chunk of money is generated for the state. You'd think the state would try to take better care of these two areas rather than throw money at problems in some areas of the state. A better investment and return to the state if the money was spent in the two areas that actually contribute the most money for the state. I just can't help but think what that money on that bridge could have bought us in NWA. Maybe an expanded and improved I-540, at least for some sections of NWA.

Oh yeah, that $341 million could have built the Bella Vista bypass and had plenty of cash left over to improve I540. The $100 million earmark probably was received because former Sen. Trent Lott of MS. was the top dog Senator at that time. I looked on a map and there are no towns of size anywhere near there in Arkansas- the closest is El Dorado and its at least 50 miles away. Transportation funding needs a major changes in the state.

[zman9810]

Here's a bummer- Missouri pulled most of the money they had saved for the Bella Vista bypass to use elsewhere. Becuase Arkansas hasn't been able to come up with their's and doesn't look like they will anytime soon Missouri decided to use the cash to improve Hwy 71 between Joplin and KC to interstate status. That is still the same corridor that will be I49 someday so that is good. Arkansas is still talking about building 2 lanes of the bypass now and the other 2 later but that is no definite. The 2 lanes would not be a toll road so it will still take some serious upfront cash to build them.

The Blue Ribbon panel didn't come up with any workable solutions to increase funding for Arkansas roads by the July 2 deadline to no one's surprise. Until the entire transportation funding mechanism is changed I think it will be gridlock for future improvements for highways in the state. Removing the independent Highway Commission should be the first step. That commission is not an effcient or productive way to deal with transportation issues in the state. The idea of funding a statewide grid of 4 lane highways without an established need for them is a huge waste of money and time- funding should go where the biggest need is and not just because its where a commission member lives.

Edited August 6, 2010 by zman9810