I-630 / I-430 Interchange

[Aporkalypse]

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.

I wouldn't mind seeing HOV lanes, the problem is you really have to have an 8-lane freeway to make that work.

The problem is the way things would work in LR you'd probably triple your commute times just to use the light rail, which makes no sense.

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

So by that logic west Little Rock would develop into its own close knit community where nobody would have to drive downtown or to midtown to work, shop, or eat. That was kind of my point.

[itk]

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 don't remember, but you are right that widening of 630 from 430 eastward to around University would not be that difficult, and thus not that expensive. That's always been a factor in that thinking I believe.

It's not like widening of I-30 over the river, for example. Even though that is sorely needed, it would be extremely disruptive and expensive, and because of that I think there has been little talk about that (just using this as a contrasting example).

I would think widening this portion of 630 would not require much extra right of way, and may require little structural work. The pavement seems to be in very decent shape. Probably would re-do the pavement on the shoulders, construct new shoulders, most likely would have to build retaining walls and such... some structural work, little environmental impacts. Very cost effective compared to many other urban freeways.

[itk]

My attitude has been that transportation congestion is a part of a healthy urban area. Whether that be passenger cars, hov/hot, heavy/light rail, bus/brt, etc. There is never enough capacity in big cities. If you add capacity to a single highway route, sure, more traffic will be drawn there. If you added capacity to a subway line in a congested dense urban area, a similar phenomenon would also occur.

With that, my view is that with very limited transportation funds, decision makers should make wise decisions to get the most "bang for your buck" if at all possible. Cost effectiveness. That's the name of the game-- almost all states, not just Arkansas, is playing major catch up, and is falling further and further behind.

It would certainly would be nice in the perfect world to spend money on light rail. However, this project has tens of millions of dollars of ear-marked federal money tied to it. If it isn't used, it's lost for good. Also, construction inflation is increasing dramatically. It would, in a perfect world, be nice to discuss things and conduct studies above and beyond the federal and state requirements and discuss them so that everyone is happy, but there's a time where if you don't act, you can fall further behind.

[EJC]

Looks like the 630 plans got the "go-ahead".

[Hyacinth]

After reading the article it sounds as if they plan on implementing both lane expansion and light rail.

If they expand the interstate from the Financial Center on Chenal to University, what will become of the homes that sit within so many yards of the interstate? Eminent Domain?

[turboturtle]

After reading the article it sounds as if they plan on implementing both lane expansion and light rail.

If they expand the interstate from the Financial Center on Chenal to University, what will become of the homes that sit within so many yards of the interstate? Eminent Domain?

Eminent Domain would be an appropriate mechanism, but I can't think of too many places where house sit that close. My guess is that there maybe a handful of house that become 10-15 feet closer to the interstate.

[EJC]

After reading the article it sounds as if they plan on implementing both lane expansion and light rail.

If they expand the interstate from the Financial Center on Chenal to University, what will become of the homes that sit within so many yards of the interstate? Eminent Domain?

Sounds as if the "plan" will allow for light rail, but execution could possibly be another matter. It will be interesting to see what and when any redevelopment comes on this.

[Hyacinth]

The light rail aspect sounds quite interesting. I look forward to seeing the proposed execution of this. Just where would they construct such transit?

[jcaruth]

Light rail usually runs in the median of interstates.

[Aporkalypse]

After reading the article it sounds as if they plan on implementing both lane expansion and light rail.

If they expand the interstate from the Financial Center on Chenal to University, what will become of the homes that sit within so many yards of the interstate? Eminent Domain?

They won't have to, you can add an extra lane on each side without actually widening it. This part of the construction actually won't be that expensive or difficult compared to the flyovers and elevation of I-630 into Financial Center, which will be where most of the cost lies.

From University to downtown you could not do this, there is no way to widen without expanding the gulley the interstate runs through.

[Aporkalypse]

Light rail usually runs in the median of interstates.

I would think in LR it would be modeled after the DART in Dallas, which generally runs alongside but not in the median. There won't be room for light rail in the median without extensive widening of I-630, there would have to be room for two tracks side by side.

Besides if you did it that way, where would the rail stops go?

I still say light rail in LR is a pipedream, though (aside from the downtown trolley).

[EJC]

I still say light rail in LR is a pipedream, though (aside from the downtown trolley).

In the near future, it needs to stay that way. This has boondoggle written all over it. High cost, low usage/low benefit.

[theman]

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported that the I-630/I-430 interchange redo will now cost $130 million. The AHTD wants Metroplan to designate this a high priority project so that it can get the most funds possible from the federal government. With that, it is estimated that local authorities will have to pitch in $10 - $15 million because some of the work will be done on local roads.

[schwilj]

So the road work around the 430/630 interchange area - anyone know what is going on? Is it the beginning of some improvements there?

[ndark]

So the road work around the 430/630 interchange area - anyone know what is going on? Is it the beginning of some improvements there?

430 southbound has the entire left lane blocked by a concrete wall now and there are orange barrels everywhere. On the off and on ramps, the grooves on the shoulder have been paved over.

Does anyone have a link to the proposal and/or a rendering showing what they plan on changing? I went back in this thread to look for some but most of the links are now dead.

EDIT:

I was able to find a THV report that has video showing what the proposed changes will look like and how they will help.

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story....mp;provider=top

[arkansas_buff]

This is the first phase of that master plan. They are working to add a second lane to the ramp from 630W to 430N.

Here's the follow-up KTHV story.

[Architect]

I was able to find a THV report that has video showing what the proposed changes will look like and how they will help.

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story....mp;provider=top

Wow....admittedly, I had not really kept up with the extent of the rework, but those are some pretty massive (and impressive) changes that will really transform both the traffic flow and the look of that interchange. I did not realize how many overpasses were being built...it will truly be an impressive sight.

Note: If I heard correctly in the video report per the link, when the interchange was built, it handled 5,000 cars per day - it's now over 250,000 cars per day. Whoa.

[slyder1]

I didn't know where to post this question so I hope this topic is OK. I was wondering if there has ever been any talk about widening US 65 to four lanes from Conway to Harrison? I know this is most likely 15 years away, but I can never find any traffic counts or anything about that stretch of 65. It would make travel a lot easier for people heading up to Branson/Springfield. I'm sure this seems like an odd question but I just really hate that drive, and widening that portion to four lanes would probably shave and hour off the 4hr. 30 min. treck from Springfield to Little Rock.

[Architect]

I didn't know where to post this question so I hope this topic is OK. I was wondering if there has ever been any talk about widening US 65 to four lanes from Conway to Harrison? I know this is most likely 15 years away, but I can never find any traffic counts or anything about that stretch of 65. It would make travel a lot easier for people heading up to Branson/Springfield. I'm sure this seems like an odd question but I just really hate that drive, and widening that portion to four lanes would probably shave and hour off the 4hr. 30 min. treck from Springfield to Little Rock.

Slyder - good question. I travel 65 quite a bit doing business in that part of the state. I believe - per my observations - that they are in fact in an on-going process of widening this to four lanes all the way to the state line. Many parts already are...but the pace is slow. I can't see it being completed this side of 10 years. Minimum.

[skirby]

Slyder - good question. I travel 65 quite a bit doing business in that part of the state. I believe - per my observations - that they are in fact in an on-going process of widening this to four lanes all the way to the state line. Many parts already are...but the pace is slow. I can't see it being completed this side of 10 years. Minimum.

That's the problem I have with the way highway funds are spent in Arkansas. Arkansas is getting over $300 million in stimulus funds and it is being split up with a project here and an project there. It takes forever to complete a highway project in this state, 65 is one along with 67 through northeast Arkansas. Finally 65 south will award the last contract this fall to complete it to Lake Village. Regular highway funding is done the same way with major highways taking forever to complete. Take five major highways and put them in a hat and draw them out and spend the funds to complete one before going on to the next. Or the state could set up a system where the first one to be worked on would be the one that would take the least to finish and select it first. After fiver years spend money on smaller project around the state for two years before going back to the major highway program. There is no need to take 20 plus years to build a highway.

I-630/I-430 interchange will receive $18 million for its share of the stimulus funds.

[Mith242]

That's the problem I have with the way highway funds are spent in Arkansas. Arkansas is getting over $300 million in stimulus funds and it is being split up with a project here and an project there. It takes forever to complete a highway project in this state, 65 is one along with 67 through northeast Arkansas. Finally 65 south will award the last contract this fall to complete it to Lake Village. Regular highway funding is done the same way with major highways taking forever to complete. Take five major highways and put them in a hat and draw them out and spend the funds to complete one before going on to the next. Or the state could set up a system where the first one to be worked on would be the one that would take the least to finish and select it first. After five years spend money on smaller project around the state for two years before going back to the major highway program. There is no need to take 20 plus years to build a highway.

I-630/I-430 interchange will receive $18 million for its share of the stimulus funds.

Yeah it does take forever to get road projects done in Arkansas. It does get pretty frustrating. For a small state it has a lot of roads to maintain. That doesn't help either. But even just picking one project at a time will still take a long time. Some of our neighboring states are quite a bit better off. While some parts of Arkansas do pretty well for themselves as a whole the state is pretty poor. It's also rather small on the population size as well. Arkansas just can't tackle road projects the way states like Texas or Missouri can. Even if you drew one project out of a hat you'd still have people mad. Everybody believes the road project in their area is more important. Or people would rather see a lot of small projects achieved than to spend all one one big project in one area of the state.

[skirby]

Yeah it does take forever to get road projects done in Arkansas. It does get pretty frustrating. For a small state it has a lot of roads to maintain. That doesn't help either. But even just picking one project at a time will still take a long time. Some of our neighboring states are quite a bit better off. While some parts of Arkansas do pretty well for themselves as a whole the state is pretty poor. It's also rather small on the population size as well. Arkansas just can't tackle road projects the way states like Texas or Missouri can. Even if you drew one project out of a hat you'd still have people mad. Everybody believes the road project in their area is more important. Or people would rather see a lot of small projects achieved than to spend all one one big project in one area of the state.

Maybe that is the problem the state has too many roads to maintain. The state needs a vision besides the outlook it has now. People live out in the country to get away from the city but at the same time they want the state to pay for nice roads to provide them access. The same goes for the stimulus money to fund broadband to rural areas. More money is being spent on rural broadband access than on transit.

Look at it this way, a guy goes and buys a farm out in the country. The farm is located on a gravel road. He gets with his neighbors and they talk the county judge into paving the road. Who paid for this? The farmer will never pay enough taxes to pay for this because farm land is taxed at such a low rate. He doesn't pay for the roads or the schools but he gets to live out in the country away from the problems of city life. By the way this farmer makes an agreement with the government not to grow any crops on part of his land and he gets money from the government to do so. Talk about people being on welfare.

[Mith242]

Maybe that is the problem the state has too many roads to maintain. The state needs a vision besides the outlook it has now. People live out in the country to get away from the city but at the same time they want the state to pay for nice roads to provide them access. The same goes for the stimulus money to fund broadband to rural areas. More money is being spent on rural broadband access than on transit.

Look at it this way, a guy goes and buys a farm out in the country. The farm is located on a gravel road. He gets with his neighbors and they talk the county judge into paving the road. Who paid for this? The farmer will never pay enough taxes to pay for this because farm land is taxed at such a low rate. He doesn't pay for the roads or the schools but he gets to live out in the country away from the problems of city life. By the way this farmer makes an agreement with the government not to grow any crops on part of his land and he gets money from the government to do so. Talk about people being on welfare.

Yeah that is a problem. For being such a small state we have a lot of roads to maintain. It doesn't help were a relatively low populated poor state as well. It does make you wish they could just let some roads be converted back to gravel roads in parts of the state that just don't really need it.

[cozmosis]

Yeah that is a problem. For being such a small state we have a lot of roads to maintain. It doesn't help were a relatively low populated poor state as well. It does make you wish they could just let some roads be converted back to gravel roads in parts of the state that just don't really need it.

I read somewhere that Arkansas is near the top of the list in miles of highway per capita -- if not at the top of the list. As has been said in this thread, there are a good number of highways that should be maintained locally. However, many of the counties and cities lack the funding to take care of the roads they have now -- let alone new "highways" turned over to them.

When the state finished the AR 530 extension between US 278 and AR 35 in Drew County a few years ago... The new road practically paralleled AR 133 a few miles to the west. The AHTD did the right thing and turned AR 133 over to county officials to maintain... but the county didn't want it. Their money was already stretched thin maintaining local roads -- which is understandable. If the state doesn't have the money to maintain highways properly, the counties and cities certainly don't either without a sizable increase in local taxes.

[akahogfan]

The best thing would be to focus on the arteries mush more than the smaller highways and roads. Get people to the arteries as easily as possible and let the traffic on the other roads drop, easing some of the need for maintenance. Also, the state itself is not growing at a very high rate, but the cities are growing at a rate that is above average for most places in the U.S. That makes the most important economic roadways the ones that are the major ones already. In the end, the best way that the state can help its transportation needs overall is to only focus on some of them at the moment.