I-630 / I-430 Interchange

[jcaruth]

sorry, didnt notice this was already posted

[Mith242]

There's supposed to be a meeting soon at Immanuel Baptist regarding plans for the I-630/430 interchange. Supposedly there will be two flyover ramps and the I-630-->Financial Center Pkwy interchange is to be elevated over Shackleford where there is currently a stoplight. If anyone attends the meeting (itk?) let us know what's said.

Getting rid of the 4-way stoplight where Shackleford meets I-630/Financial Center will be a huge help. I-630 really backs up and it can sometimes take 2-3 changes of the stoplight to get through that intersection.

I hope this is done with some panache. Even smaller urban areas of Texas like Tyler, Texarkana, and New Braunfels are glossing up their interstates a bit.

Yeah is this becoming a big thing now? I've noticed states like Texas and New Mexico getting aesthetic on their interstates, especially New Mexico. I've been wondering how New Mexico can get all this money to make their interstates rather deacorative while Arkansas struggles just to get money for a road in the first place. Although I can probably answer part of my question. For such a small state Arkansas has a lot of roads compared to other states.

[Aporkalypse]

Yeah is this becoming a big thing now? I've noticed states like Texas and New Mexico getting aesthetic on their interstates, especially New Mexico. I've been wondering how New Mexico can get all this money to make their interstates rather deacorative while Arkansas struggles just to get money for a road in the first place. Although I can probably answer part of my question. For such a small state Arkansas has a lot of roads compared to other states.

True, but it doesn't take a lot of money to put a design into the concrete or to paint the metal in a colorful fashion (they have done a bit of this in the River Market). I don't think we should go overboard but I think when the most urban sections are redone (including I-540 through NWA - especially Fayetteville, and the core LR interstates) we could add the extra 5% in cost to do it. I don't expect the degree of expense that US 71 in KC and NCX in Dallas cost.

[Aporkalypse]

Today's ADG had an article about this what was pretty unrevealing - most of what we know is already posted. The big news is that they currently have $15 mil of the $70 mil the AHTD will need to build it and that the reconstruction may happen in pieces, hopefully beginning as early as one year from now.

[itk]

Today's ADG had an article about this what was pretty unrevealing - most of what we know is already posted. The big news is that they currently have $15 mil of the $70 mil the AHTD will need to build it and that the reconstruction may happen in pieces, hopefully beginning as early as one year from now.

From what I understand, there were only a few critical comments regarding the proposed design (property owners near Financial Centre area worried about ROW and access). Most everybody was apparently satisfied with it, but, as usual, people just want it done asap.

[Aporkalypse]

Per this morning's ADG Metroplan officials have noticed a conflict that could potentially cause problems. The metroplan states that no widening of major freeways beyond 6 lanes should occur until all current freeways are widened to 6. Part of the new interchange plan includes widening I-630 to 10 lanes west of Barrow and 8 lanes West of University.

The cost of the project is supposed to be around $70 million, of which $15 million is allocated and ready to being early phase construction.

Little Rock Mayor Dailey states that improving this intersection is the city's most important transportation priority. Pulaski Co judge Buddy Villines, however, is advocating studying light rail and resisting widening of existing roads. 180,000 cars a day use the interchange. Projections have that increasing to more than a quarter million within 20 years.

Personally, I have to side with Dailey over Villines. As a matter of fact, I'm about ready to see Villines ousted. Nobody trusts his management of the county anymore and his inability to fund the jails is embarassing.

One concern I would have is that the widening could cause dangerous bottlenecks in the morning when most traffic is Eastbound and it will merge from 10 to 8 lanes and then 8 to 6 as travelers head downtown. Eventually the whole freeway needs to be widened to 8 but I understand that will mean complete reconstruction.

[skirby]

Per this morning's ADG Metroplan officials have noticed a conflict that could potentially cause problems. The metroplan states that no widening of major freeways beyond 6 lanes should occur until all current freeways are widened to 6. Part of the new interchange plan includes widening I-630 to 10 lanes west of Barrow and 8 lanes West of University.

The cost of the project is supposed to be around $70 million, of which $15 million is allocated and ready to being early phase construction.

Little Rock Mayor Dailey states that improving this intersection is the city's most important transportation priority. Pulaski Co judge Buddy Villines, however, is advocating studying light rail and resisting widening of existing roads. 180,000 cars a day use the interchange. Projections have that increasing to more than a quarter million within 20 years.

Personally, I have to side with Dailey over Villines. As a matter of fact, I'm about ready to see Villines ousted. Nobody trusts his management of the county anymore and his inability to fund the jails is embarassing.

One concern I would have is that the widening could cause dangerous bottlenecks in the morning when most traffic is Eastbound and it will merge from 10 to 8 lanes and then 8 to 6 as travelers head downtown. Eventually the whole freeway needs to be widened to 8 but I understand that will mean complete reconstruction.

On this one I will have to side with Judge Villines. The jail is just as much a problem of the cities in Pulaski County as the county itself. Also. I think Villines is more forward thinking by bringing up the use of light rail. Next year Pulaski County will probably be out of EPA compliance for ozone. Promoting the use of more autos will not do anything to clear up this problem.

[Aporkalypse]

On this one I will have to side with Judge Villines. The jail is just as much a problem of the cities in Pulaski County as the county itself. Also. I think Villines is more forward thinking by bringing up the use of light rail. Next year Pulaski County will probably be out of EPA compliance for ozone. Promoting the use of more autos will not do anything to clear up this problem.

Metroplan makes a huge deal of the ozone compliance but central Arkansas doesn't approach what most major cities do. We're not even to the point you have to get required auto inspections like the 4 largest Texas metros do.

I would love to see light rail but call me a realist. People expecting a commuter light rail system that would have a meaningful impact on reducing traffic in the state of Arkansas are just being completely unrealistic. NWA and LR have zero chance of obtaining federal funding to support that type of uber-expensive project and once built it would require funding that would cripple the county's already rocky budget. Regardless, it's not going to happen because it's cost-prohibitive and Little Rock is not a priority for federal funding for mass transit, so there's really not a debate here.

I use light rail on occasion in Dallas. Even in this metro of 6 million there are only a handful of places you can get by rail, it really just links key points to the bus system. The same is true of MARTA in Atlanta. Funding is scarce and only allows modest expansion every decade.

For the small percentage of the metro living in Central LR or near downtown it's not that important, sure. However, much if not most of the metro's population lives in the West and SW parts of the city/county, Faulkner Co, and Saline Co that have to pass that interchange often and this shift will only continue whether Villines likes it or not.

In addition, making road improvements and light rail aren't mutually exclusive. It's not as if rebuilding the interchange now would interfere with light rail later. In fact if properly done it could help accomodate it in the future. I-630 would probably have to be rebuilt to add space for light rail anyway.

I think Pulaski Co government is obsolete, in part because of the funding issues of city vs county you mentioned. That's why I think one government for the city and county the way Louisville and Nashville have done is the answer.

[North Pulaski Player]

That's why I think one government for the city and county the way Louisville and Nashville have done is the answer.

Anyone with a bit of sense knows that this is what would be best for Pulaski County, but you know how Arkansas is

[Aporkalypse]

There's an article in today's ADG about this, apparently federal funding could be lost if Metroplan doesn't come up with some sort of plan soon.

Part of the issue is that the plan will widen I-630 to 8 lanes between the interchange and Fair Park. Apparently there are some disencentives to widening freeways beyond 6 lanes.

Villines again is advocating rail and states that widening the freeway won't improve traffic flow. I think he's missing the fact that it would vastly improve congestion on Rodney Parham, Cantrell and Kanis by making using the freeway a more reasonable alternative. Congestion on Cantrell in particular is becoming a serious problem.

The whole project is to cost around $70 million, there is already federal funding for $17 million. The state expects to spend $4 billion in the next decade on highway projects with needs estimated to be three times that. Of all the projects I can think of in the state, this is the one I think is of the highest priority. Stopping an interstate at a stoplight is incredibly dangerous and has led to accidents, not to mention inefficient. Ramps back up for blocks onto the interstate between the northern portion of I-430 and I-630 in the mornings and afternoons.

[skirby]

There's an article in today's ADG about this, apparently federal funding could be lost if Metroplan doesn't come up with some sort of plan soon.

Part of the issue is that the plan will widen I-630 to 8 lanes between the interchange and Fair Park. Apparently there are some disencentives to widening freeways beyond 6 lanes.

Villines again is advocating rail and states that widening the freeway won't improve traffic flow. I think he's missing the fact that it would vastly improve congestion on Rodney Parham, Cantrell and Kanis by making using the freeway a more reasonable alternative. Congestion on Cantrell in particular is becoming a serious problem.

The whole project is to cost around $70 million, there is already federal funding for $17 million. The state expects to spend $4 billion in the next decade on highway projects with needs estimated to be three times that. Of all the projects I can think of in the state, this is the one I think is of the highest priority. Stopping an interstate at a stoplight is incredibly dangerous and has led to accidents, not to mention inefficient. Ramps back up for blocks onto the interstate between the northern portion of I-430 and I-630 in the mornings and afternoons.

The problem with going to 8 lanes has do to with Metroplan. Sometime ago they decided that before a highway in the area could be expanded to 8 lanes all others would have to be 6 lanes first. This is a problem I have with Metroplan. All towns have a single vote and can override what Little Rock thinks is best for itself. The design of I-630 was ill conceived in the first place with it ending at I-430 and Shackleford Rd. within spitting distance.

[Aporkalypse]

The problem with going to 8 lanes has do to with Metroplan. Sometime ago they decided that before a highway in the area could be expanded to 8 lanes all others would have to be 6 lanes first. This is a problem I have with Metroplan. All towns have a single vote and can override what Little Rock thinks is best for itself. The design of I-630 was ill conceived in the first place with it ending at I-430 and Shackleford Rd. within spitting distance.

I wasn't around back when I-630 ended in the woods, as I've been told it did. I also can't remember the days before I-430 was built, my grandparents watched the construction from their home in Walton Heights, then far from the city core.

I think nobody saw how busy Financial Center Parkway and Shackleford would eventually become decades ago and thus the awkward design.

Metroplan needs to remove that lane restriction anyway, particularly if they really plan on building the North Belt as a 4-lane freeway. That said, the last mile of so of I-430 at its southern terminus needs to be 6-laned. It's never made sense to me why that was left as 4 lanes.

[turboturtle]

The problem with going to 8 lanes has do to with Metroplan. Sometime ago they decided that before a highway in the area could be expanded to 8 lanes all others would have to be 6 lanes first. This is a problem I have with Metroplan. All towns have a single vote and can override what Little Rock thinks is best for itself. The design of I-630 was ill conceived in the first place with it ending at I-430 and Shackleford Rd. within spitting distance.

Despite the fact that I was rear-ended at the end of I-630 and my vehicle was totaled as a result of the accident, I don't share your conclusions about this issue. I'd support a rail on I-630 before widening it. To bring other transportation routes up to 6 lanes first seems like a plan that balances the needs of western growth with the fight against urban sprawl. The constraint makes living in or closer to CBD a more appealing option. Introducing light rail on I-630 in lieu of two additional lanes is progressive.

[db909]

Despite the fact that I was rear-ended at the end of I-630 and my vehicle was totaled as a result of the accident, I don't share your conclusions about this issue. I'd support a rail on I-630 before widening it. To bring other transportation routes up to 6 lanes first seems like a plan that balances the needs of western growth with the fight against urban sprawl. The constraint makes living in or closer to CBD a more appealing option. Introducing light rail on I-630 in lieu of two additional lanes is progressive.

I agree whole-heartedly. Widening I-630 will benefit the outlying areas, not Little Rock proper. I think the interchange could stand to be redesigned, but certainly not widened. We should be encouraging infill housing and denser population of Little Rock, not rewarding the emigrant populations of Saline and Faulkner counties.

[Aporkalypse]

Despite the fact that I was rear-ended at the end of I-630 and my vehicle was totaled as a result of the accident, I don't share your conclusions about this issue. I'd support a rail on I-630 before widening it. To bring other transportation routes up to 6 lanes first seems like a plan that balances the needs of western growth with the fight against urban sprawl. The constraint makes living in or closer to CBD a more appealing option. Introducing light rail on I-630 in lieu of two additional lanes is progressive.

Progressive is just a catchphrase. You don't do things because they are progressive, you do things because they make sense. Sixty years ago it was progressive to tear out all of the trolley lines and replace them with buses that run on gasoline. Where did that land us?

Widened or not, the interchange has to be redesigned. It can't end in a stoplight. I think everyone would agree with that.

Would people use light rail in the area? I don't think it would effectively serve much residential but I do think it would serve a large number of places of employment - downtown, the Capital, Children's, UAMS, Park Plaza, St Vincent's, and Baptist.

The vast majority of commuters coming from West LR and Maumelle, Saline and Faulkner Cos using that stretch would probably never set foot on a train. Would impact traffic some? No doubt. Enough to notice? I'm not sure.

How much would it cost? Far, far more than widening the freeway. That's the real issue, the widening portion of this should be small - itk may be able to help. $20-25 mil or so? Most of the cost is going to be the elevation of the lanes and flyovers. I've never seen cost estimates for light rail but I would guess we're talking about $100 million as a starting point, probably significant more plus huge amounts of annual subsidies to keep it going. NLR and Pulaski Co won't want to foot it unless it goes to the other side of the river as well, so you might as well double the cost and add a loop to downtown NLR and McCain/Baptist NLR. CAT's current bus system would have to be vastly expanded (at least doubled) to provide access to the rail. Little of the city's residential would be within walking distance of a rail stop.

I like the idea of light rail, I do. I use it in Dallas to get to the zoo, though the rest of the time it's pretty useless as it doesn't usually go where I want to go and doesn't stop near my house, which is in Dallas's inner loop. You can't use it to go to games or concerts at the arena because it has insufficient capacity. You can't get around the fact that LR's metro is 1/8 to 1/10 the size of the DFW and Atlanta metros that have modest success with light rail. You can still get anywhere in 20 minutes or less by car in LR, that's the problem.

[db909]

Progressive is just a catchphrase. You don't do things because they are progressive, you do things because they make sense. Sixty years ago it was progressive to tear out all of the trolley lines and replace them with buses that run on gasoline. Where did that land us?

Widened or not, the interchange has to be redesigned. It can't end in a stoplight. I think everyone would agree with that.

Would people use light rail in the area? I don't think it would effectively serve much residential but I do think it would serve a large number of places of employment - downtown, the Capital, Children's, UAMS, Park Plaza, St Vincent's, and Baptist.

The vast majority of commuters coming from West LR and Maumelle, Saline and Faulkner Cos using that stretch would probably never set foot on a train. Would impact traffic some? No doubt. Enough to notice? I'm not sure.

How much would it cost? Far, far more than widening the freeway. That's the real issue, the widening portion of this should be small - itk may be able to help. $20-25 mil or so? Most of the cost is going to be the elevation of the lanes and flyovers. I've never seen cost estimates for light rail but I would guess we're talking about $100 million as a starting point, probably significant more plus huge amounts of annual subsidies to keep it going. NLR and Pulaski Co won't want to foot it unless it goes to the other side of the river as well, so you might as well double the cost and add a loop to downtown NLR and McCain/Baptist NLR. CAT's current bus system would have to be vastly expanded (at least doubled) to provide access to the rail. Little of the city's residential would be within walking distance of a rail stop.

I like the idea of light rail, I do. I use it in Dallas to get to the zoo, though the rest of the time it's pretty useless as it doesn't usually go where I want to go and doesn't stop near my house, which is in Dallas's inner loop. You can't use it to go to games or concerts at the arena because it has insufficient capacity. You can't get around the fact that LR's metro is 1/8 to 1/10 the size of the DFW and Atlanta metros that have modest success with light rail. <i>You can still get anywhere in 20 minutes or less by car in LR, that's the problem.</i>

That really is the problem, and that's one good reason why 630 should not be widened. Another reason is that widening it won't reduce traffic, merely dilute it with more pavement until those lanes fill as well. De-incentivizing long car-based commutes is a better way to reduce overall problems with car culture. It'll take a long time to break whole populations of bad habits though. As for alternatives, I'd favor more buses, including extending the more flexible para-transit system to the able-bodied as well, albeit at a rate where it pays in full for their impact on the system. Also easing licensing for taxis, jitneys, and other private transit options. Once you establish points which people will frequently travel between, then you set up trolleys, subways, and other fixed-route systems.

[skirby]

What happens after you widen the 430/630 interchange? Projections show an increase of 50,000 vehicles a day will use the interchange. How many more streets will need to be expanded to feed the interchange? Little Rock cannot solve it's traffic problems by expanding streets. This will only push the problem further into the future.

[turboturtle]

"Progressive is just a catchphrase. "

I wasn't aware that progressive had become a catch phrase. My intended meaning for the use of the word is...

Progressive - making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

progressive. (n.d.). The American Heritage

[Aporkalypse]

That really is the problem, and that's one good reason why 630 should not be widened. Another reason is that widening it won't reduce traffic, merely dilute it with more pavement until those lanes fill as well. De-incentivizing long car-based commutes is a better way to reduce overall problems with car culture. It'll take a long time to break whole populations of bad habits though. As for alternatives, I'd favor more buses, including extending the more flexible para-transit system to the able-bodied as well, albeit at a rate where it pays in full for their impact on the system. Also easing licensing for taxis, jitneys, and other private transit options. Once you establish points which people will frequently travel between, then you set up trolleys, subways, and other fixed-route systems.

I think it's easy to extrapolate general comments about how society should work to our little corner of it but I think you have to take LR/NLR as a specific and independent case and look at what makes it different. Fpr instance, it has a linear, fairly dense and fully developed corridor (I-630) amenable to light rail. That's the pro. There are lots of cons.

We've been through this a few times here before but the idea that widening freeways doesn't improve traffic is fallacy. It's based on the observation that when you add lanes traffic counts on that freeway go up. This phenomenon definitely occurs, as itk can tell you. However, the cars aren't synthesized from thin air and they aren't people who were otherwise at home, frightened to leave because of the traffic. These are people who were taking parallel roads through the city that now use the interstate because traffic is more reasonable. In fact, traffic counts on major collaterals IMPROVE when a freeway is expanded.

In Little Rock, for instance, due to poor planning there are few East-West corridors and these are far too narrow, despite the fact that 90-95% of the city lives west of downtown. Cantrell, Markham, Rodney Parham, and Kanis all are fairly traffic-plagued - particularly Markham and Cantrell which are the city's primary East-West arterials and are currently well over capacity. These roads will continue to become more congested, even if you live in the Heights, Midtown, Riverdale, etc as they carry large amounts of through traffic. These roads would be great candidates for widening but lack right of way to do so. The proposal to widen I-630 and to create another route by extending Riverfront Dr is aimed at reducing traffic on these two roads as much as to improve it on I-630. Give people in the suburbs a better way out and get them off of Cantrell at 5PM so those of us living in town don't have to sit through lights for 2-3 cycles or give up on making a left turn into Damgoode Pies or Casa Manana and go elsewhere.

[skirby]

I think it's easy to extrapolate general comments about how society should work to our little corner of it but I think you have to take LR/NLR as a specific and independent case and look at what makes it different. Fpr instance, it has a linear, fairly dense and fully developed corridor (I-630) amenable to light rail. That's the pro. There are lots of cons.

We've been through this a few times here before but the idea that widening freeways doesn't improve traffic is fallacy. It's based on the observation that when you add lanes traffic counts on that freeway go up. This phenomenon definitely occurs, as itk can tell you. However, the cars aren't synthesized from thin air and they aren't people who were otherwise at home, frightened to leave because of the traffic. These are people who were taking parallel roads through the city that now use the interstate because traffic is more reasonable. In fact, traffic counts on major collaterals IMPROVE when a freeway is expanded.

In Little Rock, for instance, due to poor planning there are few East-West corridors and these are far too narrow, despite the fact that 90-95% of the city lives west of downtown. Cantrell, Markham, Rodney Parham, and Kanis all are fairly traffic-plagued - particularly Markham and Cantrell which are the city's primary East-West arterials and are currently well over capacity. These roads will continue to become more congested, even if you live in the Heights, Midtown, Riverdale, etc as they carry large amounts of through traffic. These roads would be great candidates for widening but lack right of way to do so. The proposal to widen I-630 and to create another route by extending Riverfront Dr is aimed at reducing traffic on these two roads as much as to improve it on I-630. Give people in the suburbs a better way out and get them off of Cantrell at 5PM so those of us living in town don't have to sit through lights for 2-3 cycles or give up on making a left turn into Damgoode Pies or Casa Manana and go elsewhere.

That's all well and good if the number of cars stays the same in the future but it will not. I doubt that within five years of the expansion of 630 the traffic would be any less on the other arterials in the city.

[db909]

I think it's easy to extrapolate general comments about how society should work to our little corner of it but I think you have to take LR/NLR as a specific and independent case and look at what makes it different. Fpr instance, it has a linear, fairly dense and fully developed corridor (I-630) amenable to light rail. That's the pro. There are lots of cons.

We've been through this a few times here before but the idea that widening freeways doesn't improve traffic is fallacy. It's based on the observation that when you add lanes traffic counts on that freeway go up. This phenomenon definitely occurs, as itk can tell you. However, the cars aren't synthesized from thin air and they aren't people who were otherwise at home, frightened to leave because of the traffic. These are people who were taking parallel roads through the city that now use the interstate because traffic is more reasonable. In fact, traffic counts on major collaterals IMPROVE when a freeway is expanded.

In Little Rock, for instance, due to poor planning there are few East-West corridors and these are far too narrow, despite the fact that 90-95% of the city lives west of downtown. Cantrell, Markham, Rodney Parham, and Kanis all are fairly traffic-plagued - particularly Markham and Cantrell which are the city's primary East-West arterials and are currently well over capacity. These roads will continue to become more congested, even if you live in the Heights, Midtown, Riverdale, etc as they carry large amounts of through traffic. These roads would be great candidates for widening but lack right of way to do so. The proposal to widen I-630 and to create another route by extending Riverfront Dr is aimed at reducing traffic on these two roads as much as to improve it on I-630. Give people in the suburbs a better way out and get them off of Cantrell at 5PM so those of us living in town don't have to sit through lights for 2-3 cycles or give up on making a left turn into Damgoode Pies or Casa Manana and go elsewhere.

I don't think we'll be able to agree on this one. It's been an established fact since the '50s that wider roads don't reduce traffic. As for "improving," like i said before they certainly will dilute the cars for a little while, but it doesn't last. The cars don't spawn out of thin air, but rather are driven by people who would have otherwise taken an ancillary street, rode the bus, walked, car pooled, gone to a nearby establishment, or stayed home (not out of fear but because it wasn't worth it). Over time, this bargaining shapes development. People by homes or rent apartments with the local area in mind. Businesses develop to serve the local neighborhood, not counting on money from afar.

Dense, well-regulated, steady traffic, is healthy for a city, both as a sign and function. In the same respect, roads and freeway that you can't cross on foot are not.

Here are some links:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=146821

http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/traffic%20expands.htm

[Aporkalypse]

That's all well and good if the number of cars stays the same in the future but it will not. I doubt that within five years of the expansion of 630 the traffic would be any less on the other arterials in the city.

Perhaps not, but it would be less than it would've been otherwise. Otherwise expect traffic on these roads (ESPECIALLY Cantrell) to increase big time, especially as the Hwy 10 corridor expands. Hwy 10, Kanis, Denny Road, and that area is going to urbanize as the city marches west and that traffic will commute to the midtown and downtown areas. Highway 10/Cantrell is THE major traffic problem the city of Little Rock will have to contend with over the next two decades.

That said, the common solution of not widening roads because traffic will become so bad it will force people to stay in the city is something that has an obvious solution. There's plenty of land zone for office buildings in far West LR that would make it possible for companies to make commutes much easier on their employees. LR has been fortunate thus far that with a few exceptions such as companies like Delta Dental most major companies based in the region are located in or near downtown LR. Make traffic too much of a headache and you might have more companies joining Bank of the Ozarks along Chenal.

Don't believe me? Take a look at how many of DFW's Fortune 1000 companies are based downtown. It wasn't always that way. Look at a more comparable example in terms of city size, Jackson. Virtually all of its office space is in office parks far from downtown.

[turboturtle]

Perhaps not, but it would be less than it would've been otherwise. Otherwise expect traffic on these roads (ESPECIALLY Cantrell) to increase big time, especially as the Hwy 10 corridor expands. Hwy 10, Kanis, Denny Road, and that area is going to urbanize as the city marches west and that traffic will commute to the midtown and downtown areas. Highway 10/Cantrell is THE major traffic problem the city of Little Rock will have to contend with over the next two decades.

That said, the common solution of not widening roads because traffic will become so bad it will force people to stay in the city is something that has an obvious solution. There's plenty of land zone for office buildings in far West LR that would make it possible for companies to make commutes much easier on their employees. LR has been fortunate thus far that with a few exceptions such as companies like Delta Dental most major companies based in the region are located in or near downtown LR. Make traffic too much of a headache and you might have more companies joining Bank of the Ozarks along Chenal.

Don't believe me? Take a look at how many of DFW's Fortune 1000 companies are based downtown. It wasn't always that way. Look at a more comparable example in terms of city size, Jackson. Virtually all of its office space is in office parks far from downtown.

Let me see if I understand your position...

If I add 6-lane I-630 + 4-lane Cantell/Highway 10 = Dallas, OR

8-lane I-630 + 6-lane Cantrell/Highway 10 = Dallas?

[Aporkalypse]

Let me see if I understand your position...

If I add 6-lane I-630 + 4-lane Cantell/Highway 10 = Dallas, OR

8-lane I-630 + 6-lane Cantrell/Highway 10 = Dallas?

If you want to get technical 10-lane I-630 + 6-lane Cantrell/Highway 10+Light Rail = Dallas

My analogy wasn't literal, the point was obvious. Make traffic too much of a problem and the employers move to the suburbs. St Louis is a nice example of this. I firmly believe that if you make it harder to get downtown it will hurt downtown more, not help it because a handful of people will choose to live there instead because of traffic alone.

[EJC]

This is really an absurd argument. Light rail on 630??? As other posters have noted, the problem is that we simply don't have enough of a traffic jam to warrant something else. So, if we're going to encourage ANYTHING, it should be HOV traffic and buses, NOT a half-billion $ rail system that would connect to......what?

If you want progressive, then take the bus.