Jump to content

NLR Projects that Dissappear

vbfl85

Recommended Posts

theman Hamlet

theman

Posted
Posted
At the time they widened the bridges they also repaved the current 4-lane interstate. I couldn't figure out for the life of me why they didn't widen it to 6-lanes then. Construction traffic on that road was awful in the late 90s and early 00s, I can't imagine what it will be like in the mid 10s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
cozmosis Whistle-Stop

cozmosis

Posted
Posted
At the time they widened the bridges they also repaved the current 4-lane interstate. I couldn't figure out for the life of me why they didn't widen it to 6-lanes then. Construction traffic on that road was awful in the late 90s and early 00s, I can't imagine what it will be like in the mid 10s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
North Pulaski Player Unincorporated Area

North Pulaski Player

Posted
Posted
The Highway and Transportation Department has approved the alignment for the North Belt Freeway. There will be no money for construction until 2012 but design work and purchase of some right-of-way could begin by the end of the year. The only way to start construction before 2012 is to develop the highway as a toll road.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Aporkalypse City

Aporkalypse

Posted
Posted
Yes. The potential is there. If the plaintiffs make a strong enough case to a judge, he/she may decide to issue an injunction. Once an injunction is issued, any additional development to the site would be at the risk of contempt of court.

I haven't paid too close attention to this development, but I think the first lawsuit was thrown out because it was filed by business owners who probably feel threatened by this development. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs couldn't bring the case because they were not the appropriate stakeholders to make the claim they were making. (I'm no lawyer. This is my gross interpretation). So, the case was dismissed without it ever being tried.

The new case is essentially the same as the first one except the plaintiffs are different. The judge is not likely to dismiss this case for the same reason as before.

I don't believe any of this is all that unusual for Arkansas or many other areas. For example, Wal Mart finds this sort of difficulty in California and most New England states. Wal Mart usually has to make concessions in order to develop.

You may feel upset towards the folks filling the case. However, the developer could always submit to the environmental impact and traffic study that have been requested. During the Summit Mall saga, Simon Properties dug their heels in over not paying for a couple of additional traffic signals.

Developers are not required to do these thing unless the City tells them they have too in order to secure a permit. To the folks who were opposed to the Summit Mall, Simon's behavior was callous and cocky which just inflamed the opposition. Simon Properties no longer has substantive property (if any) in Little Rock. However, a new development exists where Summit Mall was once proposed. Also, their old University Mall property is about to undergo a substantial redevelopment. A new traffic signal is approximately 100K. You tell me, is it smart for a developer to refuse to make concessions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LRU1967 Whistle-Stop

LRU1967

Posted
Posted
Submit to an independent environmental impact study and maybe an independent traffic study.

If you go way back in this thread or one of these threads. There are some posts about our legislator's (Vic Snyder, Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, and Huckabee, i think) writing the Federal Highway Department about getting a new on/off ramp for this development. My interpretation of what the Federal Highway Department said is, "You're nuts!"

Their explanation for this reply is that there is too much going on for drivers in the area to add another decision for drivers to make. If you consider the number of lanes you have to cross from right to left when coming from Downtown LR to 167, an additional off ramp would force drivers to cross the same number of lanes from left to right. This would all take place in a very short distance for interstate speeds. Sounds like smash-m-up-derby.

You may disagree that this is too many decisions for drivers. However, they've been the most independent voice so far.

The developer's and NLR's solution is to exploit the Lakewood exit and create the remote entrance to the development that you have noticed. This solution has not been analyzed. A traffic study should be done.

Proponent's don't want either study because there is real potential to uncover severe problem's that would impact the area long term. If this happens, there will be more grass roots opposition to the development.

Our judges have the authority to rule a case to be without merit. Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aporkalypse City

Aporkalypse

Posted
Posted
Submit to an independent environmental impact study and maybe an independent traffic study.

If you go way back in this thread or one of these threads. There are some posts about our legislator's (Vic Snyder, Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, and Huckabee, i think) writing the Federal Highway Department about getting a new on/off ramp for this development. My interpretation of what the Federal Highway Department said is, "You're nuts!"

Their explanation for this reply is that there is too much going on for drivers in the area to add another decision for drivers to make. If you consider the number of lanes you have to cross from right to left when coming from Downtown LR to 167, an additional off ramp would force drivers to cross the same number of lanes from left to right. This would all take place in a very short distance for interstate speeds. Sounds like smash-m-up-derby.

You may disagree that this is too many decisions for drivers. However, they've been the most independent voice so far.

The developer's and NLR's solution is to exploit the Lakewood exit and create the remote entrance to the development that you have noticed. This solution has not been analyzed. A traffic study should be done.

Proponent's don't want either study because there is real potential to uncover severe problem's that would impact the area long term. If this happens, there will be more grass roots opposition to the development.

Our judges have the authority to rule a case to be without merit. Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RemusCal Whistle-Stop

RemusCal

Posted
Posted

Another note about McCain Mall in No. Little Rock. Eddie Bauer is closing. That is another sign that the mall is just continuing to decline. Someone needs to come in and totally renovate the entire mall. If I had enough money, this is what I would do. I would totally gut out MMCohns and replace with a 2 story Macys. On top of the Macys, would be a 10 story tower with residential condominiums. There are enough older people that live in NLR that these would sell really well. I would renovate the outside of the mall to look more aestheitically pleasing and possibly build a parking deck. That way, we could expand the mall and build more stores. We could have an outdoor component consisting of more restaurants and higher end stores. That would spruce things up for the mall and run off some of the "thugs" that might want to make this place their hang out spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Architect Town

Architect

Posted
Posted
Another note about McCain Mall in No. Little Rock. Eddie Bauer is closing. That is another sign that the mall is just continuing to decline. Someone needs to come in and totally renovate the entire mall. If I had enough money, this is what I would do. I would totally gut out MMCohns and replace with a 2 story Macys. On top of the Macys, would be a 10 story tower with residential condominiums. There are enough older people that live in NLR that these would sell really well. I would renovate the outside of the mall to look more aestheitically pleasing and possibly build a parking deck. That way, we could expand the mall and build more stores. We could have an outdoor component consisting of more restaurants and higher end stores. That would spruce things up for the mall and run off some of the "thugs" that might want to make this place their hang out spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.