PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment Preferred Preferred Name or Submission Response Comments Date Number Lanes Interchange Organization Method Code(s)
I'm a huge fan of the 6-lane/split diamond interchange. Downtown is in desperate need of both green space and more pedestrian areas. A very large portion of the Little Rock youth are in favor of a plan that Comment 1 6 C/D Split Diamond Lone, Binish 4/26/2016 I-11 makes downtown an accessible and vibrant place. The deck park is by far the best plan. Please work with Form Studio Main closely. I believe they have the City's best interest at heart. Thanks for listening!!
Taxes will go up due to how close my house is. Comment 2 6 C/D SPUI 4/26/2016 M Chris Schooley was very helpful in identifying and ensuring that the new highway does not affect my Form home. Thanks. Yea!
Comment 3 Good Job. I think you get it. Thanks for all your hard work. Campbell, George 4/26/2016 M Form
Beachboard, Comment 4 Split Diamond proposed by Studio Main presents the best alternative and design option. 4/26/2016 C, I-11 Matthew Form
SPUI Comment 5 6 C/D Improved safety, connectivity and a picture of what could be. Hines, Lance 4/26/2016 G-1 Split Diamond Form
1) Fix bridge for river traffic. 2) Divert I-30 around airport. 3) Keep 3+3 interstate feeder and [unclear] from I-30 to exchange type. 4) Divert 30 traffic to east of Hwy 67. Comment 6 Other Holt, J.S. 4/26/2016 F-7, F-4, F-2 5) East Capitol Ave. is residential -- keep it that way. Form AHTD civil engineers cannot develop an alternative plan?? Start from beginning their way or no way. They never gave other options, just gerrymandering original plan. This is a flim flam -- no [unclear] to [unclear] to circumvent traffic around the city.
Other: Rebuild the bridge, 4 lanes + shoulders--fix interchange I-30 & I-40 in NLR. Comment F-3, F-4, I- 7 Other Chambers, Susan 4/26/2016 We need strong arterial alternatives -- Chester St. Bridge, Roosevelt, South loop, North loop. We also Form 11 need transportation alternatives -- light rail, increased bus service. Deck parks also.
D - 1
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I really liked the 6-lane Split Diamond Interchange as it was presented by Chris East of Cromwell / Studio Main. Though I think neglecting any of the addition changes he/they suggested would make this much less appealing than "no build." I think there is a serious danger in reversing progress that has been made toward making downtown Little Rock a pleasant place to live if this project's singular goal is to increase throughput. There is serious danger to increasing the east-west divide. Comment 8 6 C/D Split Diamond Cerrato, Zac 4/26/2016 I-11, I-4, I-9 Form I do think there is huge potential to continue the progress downtown and the progress in connecting east- west if a holistic plan -- like what was presented by Chris East & Studio Main -- is implemented.
I am a young father of two that lives and works downtown. Most of my family (my parents, my grandmother) live downtown.
“No Build” but repairs to the existing highway… The presentation sponsored by the Highway Dept. was impressive. The contracting firm presented interesting exhibits with simulations of imagined future scenarios (all of which are tidy). However, there are a few assumptions that ground the whole thing that are completely unfounded.
The presentation is all imaginary and is to be subsidized to the tune of at least $631.7 million - paid for by Comment 9 Other the tax payers of Arkansas. What is entirely absent is consideration of the following: A light rail system; Newkirk, Anthony 4/26/2016 I-1, I-5, J Form Economic development in downtown Little Rock; The question that more lanes will invite more congestion (and that lead to) The question that more lanes (6, 8, and 10, whatever) will bring more pollution.
It seems that all of the contracting firms are presuming that an empty city will need parks and green spaces. How will such plans (6, 8, 10 lanes, etc.) benefit a dying city? Heavy commuting on I-530, to I-430 wasn't really discussed in meeting. Please do not forget about those who have a lengthy commute and cannot afford to spend extra "construction" hours in traffic per day. I see a lot of plans from architects for the younger and wealthier people, but those who live on the east side of NLR aren't getting any improvements. Why are they being left out?
Please don't change downtown LR too much! We do not need a ton of additional green space. We need 6 C/D Comment 10 SPUI parking and ease to families visiting the area. Babb, Rachel 4/26/2016 G-6, I-4 8 GP Form
We need a congestion relief on I-30 during peak hours, such as a non-passing fast lane. There should be no other construction projects (I-430, I-440, I-630, etc.) during the construction of the 30 Crossing.
Why can we not implement additional lanes on the river bridge without causing major traffic delays?
Comment 11 8 GP SPUI Any plan that includes the split diamond defeats the purpose of traffic flow. Condrey, Dale 4/26/2016 D Form
I would strongly suggest that before improving the areas between the you make "parking" space that is Comment 12 convenient to Discovery Museum and other parts of the proposed parks areas, make sure parking is Condrey, Vicki 4/26/2016 I-7 Form added to make access convenient to all museums, parks, etc.
Comment 13 8 GP Split Diamond Great partnering w/ stake holders and others. Parker, H. 4/26/2016 L-2 Form D - 2
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment 14 6 C/D SPUI Why are I-30 study plans available on internet while highway 67 (Jacksonville) improvements are not? Richter, Wayne 4/26/2016 P-1 Form
On the ramp from 30 to 40 eastbound, for the 8-lane alternative, would it be possible to add an extra lane Comment 15 6 C/D Split Diamond to the ramp to alleviate congestion? I am supportive of exploring development of the split boulevard Pekar, Matthew 4/26/2016 C Form option developed by Studio Main.
Shearman, No Build Comment 16 True boulevard with bridge replacement only. Carolyn (Sierra 4/26/2016 F-1 Other Form Club)
I really like this plan. It is the best thing you have come up with so far. It restores much needed green space and pedestrian areas to downtown. Please make your plan compatible with the deck park. Most Comment 17 6 C/D Split Diamond young people, myself included, would love the added space and vibrancy that these parks would add to Henry, James 4/26/2016 A-1, C Form downtown. Please work with Studio Main and the city to implement their ideas. Thank you for compromising and helping to minimize negative impacts of this highway project on downtown.
Comment 18 6 C/D Split Diamond I appreciate the openness of this project. Great public involvement. Good job! Hodge, Jerry 4/26/2016 L-2 Form
The presentation was informative and added value in resolving some of the concerns raised unto the Cantrell interchange. Reviewing the animations for future traffic, the 6 lane with CD addresses the transportation need effectively and without stacking, similar to how I-30 operates now in particular between 630 and Broadway. It would also seem reasonable that the 6 lane with CD better addresses SPUI Comment 19 6 C/D future growth north of Little Rock and I-40. The split diamond option provides multiple potential values of Janes, Greg 4/26/2016 C, I-11, M Split Diamond Form land use, however the operation at Cantrell would be substantially changed and would drive new traffic operations that may affect current and future development on the east and west. If the locality can raise funding for the deck park, the options for future development on the east would have great potential. Excellent effort by AHTD and their team.
I believe it is in the best interest of the city of Little Rock to improve the efficiency of traffic in the metro Comment 20 6 C/D Split Diamond Wise, Charles 4/26/2016 I-4, I-9, M area. The 6 lane w/ CD option allows for efficient traffic flow and maintains east-west connectivity. Form
I feel the 6-lane w/ Collector/Distributor Lanes & Split Diamond Interchange are the best options to alleviate the traffic/transportation issues. I feel this design is a happy median to satisfy those opposed to Comment 21 6 C/D Split Diamond the improvements & those who are for it. I really liked the idea of added green space & removing of Rodgers, Jessica 4/26/2016 I-11, L-2, M Form concrete. I also like the aspect of the design that removed the loops around Cantrell. Great job on the presentation & informing the public.
D - 3
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Need more information meetings to get overall view. Interested in developmental outlay of 9th & Welch Barbes, Lafonz & Comment 22 8 GP SPUI Street. How will traffic affect it? Traffic at this time exit 630 to Barber, impeding through traffic in those 4/26/2016 L-2, P-2 Dorothy Form areas and re-entering the 6th street on-ramp. Very difficult of residents living in those areas.
Can something be done to help the congestion where I-40 and 67/167 meet there is a bottleneck Comment 23 8 GP Split Diamond Brown, Victory 4/26/2016 G-5 problem. Can something be done to release or ease the traffic congestion at that point? Form
Divide traffic using existing I-30 River Bridge between two bridges 6+ lanes each. One at current location and one two or three miles downstream near Bond St. (LR) and Palm St. (NLR) crossing the hump yards to cross I-40 at 67-167 interchange and intersecting the current I-30 between 630 and Hwy 10. My initial idea had the corridor to this bridge crossing I-30 at the east end of 630, but I've become convinced that that would take too much residential property. I do like having exits on the right and eliminating existing F-3, F-4, F- left exist as will be done under proposed plans. Comment 24 Other Other Blanchard, Warren 4/26/2016 1, F-7, I-11, Form I-3 I realize that the additional bridge I suggested may not be fiscally feasible in the short run, but decisions should be made with the realization that it will be needed eventually; decisions that would make it less feasible should be avoided. Flyovers should enable traffic between bridge and the heights to pass downtown and the river. I don't really like the split diamond and parks built on top of tunnels, but if that makes it possible to get right-of-way through existing parks, that could be a good trade-off.
Studio Main - Kris East. As a long-time (40+) Little Rock resident, my comments may seem prejudiced. As a bicyclist, walker and runner, there is potential in the 6-lane split-diamond interchange. I'm really not interested in getting in/out of Little Rock quickly because I live here. (In LR) People that are interested in getting in/out of LR don't pay taxes in our community, aren't interested in schools or businesses here. They have chosen to move to surrounding communities for whatever reasons, and it shouldn't be of interest to us to get them out of town quickly -- it is their problem. They made the choice to live outside of Comment 25 Other our beautiful community! Let's make our community livable, walkable and give us more green space and Frasier, Coreen 4/26/2016 J, F-2, I-11 Form less concrete. If Studio Main (volunteers from our community will do the work) let's pay them instead of consultants from other places that really don't know what the people from here (in the city) want. Build the new bridge. Improve the navigation system and do what is necessary to make river traffic better, but listen to the people that live here--not the people that want to get in/out quickly. Imagine Central Arkansas- Perfect.
Comment 26 6 or 8 is good. My house is safe. I think it would be good for the cities. 4/26/2016 M Form
D - 4
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane with C/D lanes and split diamond interchange seems to have several positive impacts. In particular, it’s potential to split incoming traffic onto several streets.
The potential for increased green space compared to the other proposals is also nice. However, I hope AHTD & the City of Little Rock will work together to mitigate its negative impacts on those city streets, such as Capitol, that will see increased traffic. I am particularly concerned that many east-west streets downtown will no longer be safe for bikes unless bike lanes are added on the impacted streets or on A-1, C, H- Comment 27 6 C/D Split Diamond nearby east-west streets. Rogers, Jordan 4/26/2016 2,I-11, J, I-2, Form L-2 I also hope AHTD will plan to reduce noise levels along I-30 in LR, not just prevent noise level increases. Noise levels beside I-30 at 9th Street are very high already and need to be significantly reduced, not allowed to stay the same.
It seems AHTD is trying to address some concerns of downtown residents. Thank you for that. Keep it up and make the plans even better.
Both the SPUI & Split Diamond plans have many pros & cons. From a personal standpoint, I prefer the SPUI.
6 C/D Comment 28 SPUI I live on Capitol Ave, near Sherman St. so the split diamond plan would funnel a lot of traffic onto Capitol, Martin, Garth 4/26/2016 D, L-2 8 GP Form which would restrict access to my residence.
I appreciate all the thought and planning that is going into this project.
D - 5
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
My comments on the proposed expansion of Interstate 30
1. It will not solve traffic congestion. Additional lanes will draw more traffic. This has been shown in large cities throughout this nation. Houston has an urban freeway with 22 lanes. It is very congested during rush hours. Expansion of lanes will not improve the situation.
2. Expansion of I-30 will be the beginning of a journey in the wrong direction. It will produce traffic jams on other parts of the urban freeway system of Little Rock. The highway department will propose more widening of other parts resulting in a 4 billion dollar expansion of a system which will not result in a decrease in traffic congestion. Traffic will appear if lanes are poured.
3. The proposed expansion financing will result in the diversion of funds from improving arterials, notably Roosevelt Road which sorely needs improvement.
4. I-30 was constructed when tetraethyl lead was still put into automobile gasoline. The ground around I- 30 absorbed this lead for decades. Construction as proposed will disturb this lead getting it into the environment. Low levels of lead has been documented to decrease full development in children and increased crime. The proposed expansion will maximize disturbance of the surface layer of soil where the lead is concentrated. Putting I-30 into a trench will minimize the amount of lead disturbed. No environmental impact statement on this project will be complete without the amount of lead being assayed and methods proposed to decrease the disturbance of the surface layers of soil near I-30.
5. Expansion of I-30 will result in traffic backups and noise in other parts of the urban freeway system. No G-1, F-1, F- environmental impact statement for this project will be complete without a complete survey of the 3, F-5, F-7, 29 freeway noise in all parts of the city adjacent to freeways. The present method of noise abatement used Sims, Kenneth Post G-5, G-6, I- by the highway department is inadequate. The highway department should add a second protocol for 2, J, L-2 assessing damage to neighborhoods and mitigating this before any new construction is begun. Freeway noise in neighborhoods decreases property values. GIS techniques should be used to determine the decreased property value of housing near urban freeways using topographic features such as freeway elevations, reflecting hillsides, and the channeling effect of hills into neighborhoods. Property values can be determined using online data available from Pulaski County. Crime adjacent to urban freeways can be determined by using online data from the City of Little Rock. No environmental impact statement will be complete without the assessment of the noise, property values, and crime rates.
6. Restricting verbal comments: The highway department is required to hold public presentations. Holding these without taking verbal comments denies the First Amendment rights of citizens by a public agency charged with spending Federal Funds. This meeting should not qualify as a public meeting without taking verbal comments.
7. I am opposed to the proposed expansion of I 30 by the Arkansas Highway Department. It should not proceed without thorough assessment of the dangers to the children, the community, and property values.
I - 30 Corridor through Little Rock Intent: Provide relief for traffic traveling on I - 30 between I - 40 and I - 440. In addition, improve traffic between Little Rock and North Little Rock, especially during rush hours.
Major issues with traffic flow:
D - 6
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Merger of I - 630 onto I - 30 North. B. Merger of traffic at the ramp from River Market Area and Hwy. 10 onto I - 30 North. Proposed: A. Construct new 2 lane highway immediately east of I - 30 on or adjacent to Collins Street. All traffic from I-630 East will no longer be reduced to one lane and will not merge into I-30 at this location. This new highway will be partially at grade and partially elevated. It will continue north, providing access to Little Rock by exiting onto East 5th Street (a one way street to the west) for the access to downtown Little Rock or continue west to the State Capitol and Children's Hospital. West Side of I-30 Eliminate parking on 6th Street and replace with landscaping - as this will be the access for many, traveling north or south, to downtown Little Rock. B. As the new 2 lane highway passes the existing on-ramps from the River Market, it will expand to 4 lanes (2 lanes continue north, 1 lane north for traffic from downtown Little Rock to North Little Rock (Riverside Drive) and 1 lane south, to provide one lane for traffic from North Little to Little Rock). These additional 2 lanes will merge and utilize the existing ramps to provide access to the River Market Area and Hwy. 10 west. West Side of I-30. To ease the flow of the traffic into Little Rock, the traffic signals would be adjusted during rush hours. Traffic fuming right into Clinton Avenue would be relocated. Access would be through the parking lot to the north. Much of the delay into Little Rock from I-30 to La Harpe / Hwy. 10 is caused by traffic making a right hand tum at this light.
ACROSS THE ARKANSAS RIVER C. A new bridge, with 4 lanes of traffic, will cross the river. 2 lanes would ramp down to grade to provide access to and from Riverside Drive in North Little Rock. D. The other two lanes will remain elevated will continue north, above Locust Street, providing access ramps to I - 30. At some point, these elevated lanes will ramp down to merge with the existing frontage road, providing access to the Lakewood area, or to the east (Memphis) or northeast (Hwy. 67/ 167). Advantages: 1. Existing I - 30 remains in use during the entire construction period. 2. Cost. A fraction of previous estimates. 3. No fly-overs. Use existing ramps. 4. Impact on Little Rock: Relocate entrance to East Markham (River Market) and adjust traffic lights to ease traffic flow during rush hours, to' provide better access to Hwy. 10. The first block east of Hwy. 10 will be pedestrian and trolley only. 5. Do not utilize 4th Street to provide egress from I-30 South. Majority of traffic from I-30 South will remain on Highway 10 (Cantrell Road). 6. Modifications to existing entrance I exit ramps to and from River Market. 7. Eliminate parking on East 5th Street for a few blocks and provide landscaping. 8. Impact on North Little Rock: Construction of entrance and exit ramps south of Riverside Drive (minimal). During construction of elevated highway above or adjacent to Locust Street. Improvements to Broadway Street exit from I - 30 South. 9. Impact on Existing I - 30 and Bridge over Arkansas River: None, other than eliminating a couple of access ramps. When the existing I - 30 Bridge is demolished and before it is replaced, how does traffic move north and south? Do we need 10 lanes of traffic? The Golden State Bridge appears to be adequate with 6 lanes, yet we need 10 lanes?
D - 7
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Will the new Arkansas River Bridge have a unique design or will it be similar to the design now? Will it General 30 Kevin 4/26/2016 I-5, L-2 have an attraction to it or light up at night so show off our beautiful city? Web Form
I live and work downtown, raise my family downtown. I'm also in tourism and I'm extremely concerned that this project will isolate our states largest tourism draw, the Clinton Library, from the rest of the City. I have been adamantly opposed to the project from the beginning when it would widen I-30 to the size of football field to cross. That said, I do like the second version of the plans with the 8-lane Split Diamond Interchange. I think it's very important to get rid of the 2nd street exit ramp that is very dangerous at Cumberland and instead very smart to utilize the City's grid system. I was happy to see that alternative plan come to fruition. While I realize your models show that in 2041 at rush hour the model works best with 6 lanes with 4 Collectors, I still like the 8 lanes as the footprint is lighter and that is important to B, C, I-11, I- Web - PM 6 31 8 GP Split Diamond downtown. I would like to make sure AHTD really makes sure the President Clinton underpass feels very Lewno, Jeremy 4/26/2016 2, I-3, I-4, I- Form safe and inviting to cross, as it benefits the entire state to have visitors walking easily between the Clinton 6, I-9 Library and the River Market. And I would like to see some noise mitigation through the River Market area and really along the entire stretch through Little Rock. Lastly, if you're going to turn the 2nd street off ramp into a park, I love that idea. We have to make the east/west connection very appealing as I do believe the growth of East Little Rock will have a VERY BIG impact on the growth of downtown LR, which I think the entire state will see the rewards from in years to come. Good luck to you and if this project doesn't work then I've made a written note to hold all of you accountable in 2041. So make sure it works :)
Studio Main design or something similar routing I-30 through traffic along the I-440 corridor. The split diamond interchange option and to a certain extent the SPUI options appear to overload the city street network with traffic. Also there will be large negative consequences to the majority residential area along 6th from I-30 to Cumberland where large amounts of street parking are needed. Routing of large amounts of traffic down Capitol will also result in bottlenecks around the River Cities Transit Plaza where there is a large bus presence and also leaves no room for future light rail which has identified Capitol as the preferred corridor from the Capitol to east of I-30 per the previously conducted alignment study. A design Web - PM 6 C, D, F-1, F- 32 Other similar to what is proposed by Studio Main will go much further towards the redevelopment goals of the Fisher, Todd 4/27/2016 Form 4, G-5 city while accomplishing needed safety improvements to traffic and river navigation. Video models were also very obviously skewed to the 10 lane option (aka 6 lane with C/D lanes) and not realistic. As someone who commutes in to downtown LR from Saline county, I see no need for massive lane increases that will only result in bottlenecks further down the line west of the south interchange and west of the 30/630 interchange. Big Rock is a prime example. While there are now massive flyover ramps to collect some of the bottlenecks and keep them off of 430 for the most part, the bottlenecks still remain and the morning commutes down the 630 corridor are just as long.
Other - Tom Fennell's Boulevard lanes for local access and 6-lanes TOTAL for moving cars, including collector/distributor lanes. Web - PM 6 33 Other Redden, Laura 4/27/2016 F-1 Form Laura Redden
D - 8
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Good Morning, I wanted to see if you had any of the newly presented drawings available online yet? Specifically, there Collins, Will / 34 4/27/2016 Email L-2, G-4 was a change made to a section of North Hills/Calvary Road in North Little Rock that I am interested in Cypress Properties reviewing.
LR has a lot of greenway under the new bridge. NLR has MSE walls almost the entire length of new bridge. General 35 Hart, Charlie 4/27/2016 I-4, I-9 Does this seem fair to block off East from West in NLR, but not in LR? Web Form
General 36 6 C/D I like the 6 lane c/d alternative. But add more bridge in NLR, not more MSE walls. Thanks Hart, Charles 4/27/2016 F-3, M Web Form SPUI - Other, Modify the SPUI alternative to include a cut-and- cover tunnel for I will submit more extensive comments later, but I completely reject the split-diamond alternative as 6 C/D Web - PM 6 37 Highway 10 under currently presented because it does NOT provide adequate traffic flow for Highway 10 (Cantrell / Brittain, Richelle 4/27/2016 D Other Form Markham just LaHarpe) traffic to west of Cumberland (thru the Chamber of Commerce
My 2 cents: as a life-long resident of Little Rock and active member of the community and advocate for downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock, I'd like to offer a few thoughts. First, thanks for not rushing on this project. It's important for community planning that a methodical approach is taken in making a plan that works for not just road travelers, but residents and folks looking to enjoy downtown and spend money downtown. I will say that of the options available for consideration I prefer the "6-Lane with C/D Lanes Alternatives (Split Diamond Interchange)," as I like its green space that connects the library etc. to river market and downtown. I do think that a second U land should be added to reach 3rd street for southbound travelers wanting to get close to river on either side of the interstate. I think this plan overall Grobmyer, General A-1, C, I-11, 38 6 C/D Split Diamond 4/27/2016 helps drive people to consider getting to both downtown areas without simply rushing through the city. I Andrew Web Form L-2 think that as downtown continues to develop, it will be a major destination for drivers. And it should be. It's important that we keep traffic moving while also directing people to stop - or at least encouraging them to stop. Having a green space is also important, and I like that feature. I would encourage more beautification where applicable in the build within the infrastructure. Arkansas is known as the natural state, and Little Rock is a beautiful place. I'd like to keep it that way and incorporate trees and grass to match the concrete and steel as much as possible. Thanks again for considering the thoughts of this community!
D - 9
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
SPUI - Note that you could also do a mix -- As I have said in past comments, one of the most basic principles of urban planning is that major arteries have both the should be as easily connected as possible. That principle should only be violated in the most extreme of Cantrell point of circumstances. Such circumstances are not in existence here. Thus, any of the split diamond approaches entry and the later absolutely should not be done. It simply makes no sense here to reduce the connection between Cantrell points of entry. That and I30. As the Arkansas Democrat Gazette rightfully editorialized a few months back, of all the general would both limit the Web - PM 6 39 6 C/D and specific proposals, the one that is easily the worst is reducing or eliminating the ease of connection Silverstein, Joshua 4/27/2016 D, F-1, F-7 traffic going through Form between Cantrell and I30. I'm fine adding more entrances and exits, but please do nothing that reduces the River Market the ease of access between Cantrell and I30. Today's Dem Gaz suggested there was growing support for while preserving the the split diamond. Sorry I couldn't be at the meeting last night -- I had a conflict. Know that there are absolutely many people out here who vigorously oppose the split diamond. As I said, it just makes no sense as essential ease of proposed. connection between Cantrell and I30
The Executive Committee of the Downtown Little Rock Partnership (DLRP) wants to thank you for your planning team's willingness to listen to the public as the planning process on the "30 Crossing" project has unfolded. While we had concerns about the preliminary design of the project, the most recent "split diamond" plan shows the planners have listened to the DLRP and other stakeholders and made changes to accommodate. The Executive Committee supports the updated plan.
Our concerns were threefold: the 2nd Street interchange and use of 2nd Street as a westward thoroughfare, maintaining the viability of the streetcar, especially to the east of I-30, and the number of lanes on the bridge and corresponding increased width of the right of way. We feel that the current plan Holmstrom, Gabe of "six-lanes, with dedicated local lanes" will help to increase mobility in our downtown, increase the C, L-2, I-1, I- 40 - Downtown Little 4/27/2016 Email safety of our bikers, drivers and pedestrians, and only minimally increase the right of way. It eliminates 4, I-9, I-11 Rock Partnership the 2nd Street interchange and replaces it with a new interchange between 4th and 9th Streets, which seems to be a much more viable alternative and improves safety in the River Market District. We are also pleased to see the streetcar remain on the existing route, as well as the increased East-West connectivity.
In addition, the Executive Committee appreciates the new plan adding approximately 17 acres of green space, portions of which may be used as park land, and will serve as a connection between the River Market and East Village areas.
In conclusion, the Executive Committee of the Downtown Little Rock Partnership supports this plan.
D - 10
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Studio Main plan was really beautiful, but it still featured too many lanes. I do not believe it is necessary to have 8 lanes on the through interstate in downtown. Most people are exiting into downtown, so I think maybe directing the through traffic to the left 2 lanes and having people merge off into downtown on 2 lanes would be more appropriate - also the correct definition of 8 lanes - 4 on each side.
The names that you gave to your plans are still very misleading. There are times when you have 10 lanes Web - PM 6 A-2, F-1, F- 41 Other of interstate PLUS lanes for your exit ramp/frontage road system. I think my favorite is the 6-lane with c/d Moore, Lindsey 4/27/2016 Form 7, G-3 lanes (split diamond) in section C that runs through downtown... 4 Main Lanes in each direction (unlike the 3 that the subtitle says) as well as a total of 7 lanes in the exit ramp/frontage road situation. That's 15 lanes of traffic!! (And also includes the demolition of buildings which does not sound like a plan that wants to foster growth in downtown.) Please consider making something that is not so monstrous. I think the improvement that you will be making to the interchange of I-40/I-30 and I-40/67-167 will help tremendously with the flow of traffic. If you can then just tackle the actual problem of the exits in downtown, I think you will find people much happier with a design.
I love that the loop ramps at Highway 10 are gone! The split diamond will spread out the traffic getting off Mayfield-Hart, Web - PM 6 42 6 C/D Split Diamond of I-30 and will help with pedestrian safety and will probably make people find new ways to get to 4/27/2016 C Elizabeth Form Cantrell!
This seems to be the best solution to opening up downtown and connecting east west across I-30. I'm also Mayfield-Hart, Web - PM 6 43 6 C/D Split Diamond really glad that the loop ramps are gone! Can something be done about the elevation of I-30 through 4/27/2016 I-4, I-5 Elizabeth Form North Little Rock? I would love for it not to be such a "great wall"
I applaud AHTD and others who have had the vision to tear down the viaduct on/off ramp running between 2nd and 3rd and replacing it with green space. The added aesthetic value and the shift in traffic Web - PM 6 44 6 C/D Split Diamond O'Mell, Buckley 4/27/2016 I-5, I-6 patterns away from Clinton Ave will be truly transformative for downtown. Additionally, the use of c/d Form lanes versus general purpose lanes will increase safety and reduce congestion.
The I-30 Corridor Project is one of the most important public works projects for our community in years. It will profoundly impact many of our day to day lives. I live and work in downtown Little Rock, so to say I have a keen interest in the project is an understatement. The 6-lane split diamond design recently unveiled by the AHTD is a winner. It hits the sweet spot balancing safety, mobility, connectivity and Morgan, Charles aesthetics, which will make travel through the corridor much safer. The dedicated access lanes will A-1, C, H-2, 45 6 C/D Split Diamond D. - First 4/28/2016 Email eliminate the death defying entrance and exit on to the freeway for local commuters. The parking space J, I-4, I-6, I-9 Orion/Privacy Star that will emerge when the Cantrell/2nd street interchange is removed will be transformative. A huge barrier between the River Market, downtown and East Village will vanish. Mobility for pedestrians and bikers will improve, bringing about a more connected community. I encourage all to take a close look at the split diamond design and dream about the possibilities for our city.
Web - PM 6 46 6 C/D Split Diamond Kuddos to Scott Bennett and his folks at AHTD. Stowers, Phil 4/28/2016 L-2 Form D - 11
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
How does the 30 crossing proposal impact the current exit at Curtis Sykes in NLR? I have a business that I G-3, G-4, L- 47 operate that’s at the bottom of the existing ramp and the traffic flow on that ramp and ease of access to White, Donald 4/28/2016 Email 2 both north and south interstate lanes impacts my business daily.
I think the 6 + 4 with Split Diamond is by far the best alternative and that it specifically addresses all of the legitimate concerns expressed over the past year, while still achieving the purposes of congestion relief Web - PM 6 A-1, C, I-6, 48 6 C/D Split Diamond and safety that I find very appropriate and necessary. I'm particularly pleased with how this alternative Hathaway, Jeff 4/28/2016 Form I-11, can go hand in hand with the kind of aesthetic improvements and urban development that will allow our downtown areas to thrive for decades.
Other - Widen the interstate. That's what an interstate is for - traffic. It's too congested now. Making it harder to get on and off will just make the traffic problem worse. I drive it every day.
I think it is totally ludicrous to use 4th, Capitol, 6th and 9th Streets as access for the interstate. I drive these roads every day and the congestion is bad enough. It takes 20 minutes to get out of downtown now. Web - PM 6 49 Other Adding more traffic to city streets is not the answer. We already have few options to hit the interstate. Kahley, Reta 4/28/2016 C, F-4 Form Using downtown streets as access points to the interstate will only worsen traffic for downtown commuters. Anyone who works in downtown Little Rock can see that we need more access, not less, and we certainly don't need more congestion downtown. The River Market is not sacred. Unless you can get truck traffic and I-30 traffic to bypass downtown by going out I-440, making the lanes smaller will only exacerbate the traffic problems in the early morning and early evening. Web - PM 6 50 6 C/D Split Diamond Excellent work. Martin, Wes 4/28/2016 M Form
D - 12
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
This solution seems to address many of the earlier concerns of the River Market. There are some other minor issues that we would like to be addressed.
1) Better traffic flow and pedestrian safety on Collector/Distributors. Is it possible to replace the signaled intersections at 4th and 6th with roundabouts, which would be tucked more under I-30. This would improve flow, hopefully would place the traffic under the freeway to reduce the overall width of the roadway and increase pedestrian safety.
2) Increase distribution of freeway traffic into the City street grid. Could 4th and 6th have a flex center lane that allows both streets to handle 2 lanes of west flowing traffic in the am and 2 lanes of east flowing traffic in the pm. This would provide 3 sources of access and egress for traffic both coming and going rather than 2 under the current proposal.
Web - PM 6 F-1, F-7, J, I- 51 6 C/D Split Diamond 3) The loss of parking in the River Market. Rather that large expanses of grass that won't grow under the Heiple, Tim 4/29/2016 Form 7, I-11, I-2 freeway, would it be possible to install porous paving pads that could be used for recreation, special events, etc., as well as overflow parking during certain times. We would only suggest a few areas of this to make up the spots lost in the eyeball lot, the spaces under the freeway and ramps and those lost on Capitol Avenue. These would be small areas distributed throughout the length of the elevated freeway form Clinton to 6th.
Will the elevated freeway be constructed of concrete, or some material that will reduce noise under the elevated sections? Are there other strategies to reduce freeway noise in elevated roads? This is important if recreation activities are going to take place there. Can the sections (north/south and C/Ds in both directions) of the freeway be separated physically from each other? If the north 3 lanes were separated from the south 3 lanes and the C/D lanes in both directions could be separated from the freeway lanes, there would be light, water and air that can penetrate the 150' wide tunnel that will be created by the new freeway. This will allow the plantings that you show in you visualization to actually exist.
Don't let the voices of a few drown out the critical need for this widening project. Central Arkansas and Web - PM 6 52 6 C/D Split Diamond Andrews, Will 4/29/2016 M downtown LR and NLR need this project ASAP! Form
Higginbotham, Web - PM 6 53 6 C/D Split Diamond Much needed improvement for Central Arkansas! 4/29/2016 M Sherry Form
D - 13
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I am for 1) Rebuild bridge (6 lanes); 2) Keep 6-lane roads; 3) improve arterials - include Chester St. Bridge - (we need more than "one way" here to move traffic; 4) Cease thinking/talking about "improving" or thinking of solving congestion. No one has done this, not here, not China, not Europe - except briefly - by building more roads; 5) improve/use what we've got Statewide-not just LR; 6) The logic of present thinking/planning will lead to paving over most of America if we continue this way.
Comment F-2, F-3, H- 54 Plea: All future transportation should include alternate forms of transportation - bus, trolley, and bike - Payne, Harold 4/29/2016 Form 2, I-1, L-1 what have you. These must be funded - not just automobiles. The next oil crisis (yes, it will happen) will solve highway congestion. It always has. Change from highway building our chief preoccupation to transporting folk as economically as possible. Job descriptions matter too.
October 2007 I sold my car. I recommend everyone trim down the number of cars used per household. I love being carless. No congestion.
Replace the bridge and leave everything as is. Do NOT add more lanes to I-30. Revamp the Web - PM 6 55 No build connectors as needed to flow traffic around downtown via 440 and 430. Do not create even more of a Brooks, Kerry 5/1/2016 F-2 Form wall blocking east Little Rock.
I wish people would take a look at the Big Rock interchange and realize that the Highway department knows what it is doing. I feel that the idea to dump the Highway 10 traffic into downtown Little Rock is flawed. Too many stop lights and intersections. If pedestrian traffic in the river market is a concern pedestrian walk overs (bridges) should be the answer. General 56 Hall, John 5/1/2016 H-2, G-4, M Web Form Most of the current congestion during rush hour is the Broadway on ramp westbound. It is a terrible design and east bound it is the 2nd street on ramp. People in Arkansas have the urge to merge but most seem to have no clue how to.
We need more traffic lanes thru the greater LR area. During rush hour the traffic backup is a nightmare. Compared to our sister states we are arcade with the existing interstate. Texas makes us look like a third world country. Granted they have a larger tax base. Is it because they attracted growth because of their transportation system. I submit that it is. Please don't allow this project to linger like the Wilbur Mills Web - PM 6 57 8 GP SPUI project did. The planners should be looking not for the next 20 years but the next 50 years. The naysayers Gardner, Harvey S. 5/1/2016 M Form don't drive the I-30 corridor daily, if they did they would be carrying banners at your meetings to speed up this vital project.
Press on as quickly as possible!!
6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). I feel the Web - PM 6 58 6 C/D SPUI interchange will minimize traffic build up and provide a safer driving experience. It will also give drivers Guzman, Willie 5/2/2016 A-1, D Form sufficient amount of time to negotiate lane changes when required.
D - 14
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 59 6 C/D Split Diamond I prefer the option that maximizes the speed of traffic and greenspace available to the public. Davis, Bryan 5/2/2016 I-11, M Form
The Highway Department deserves applause for its management of the community involvement for redesign of the I-30 corridor through the CBD. The plan alternatives being presented demonstrate the responsive of the Highway Department and its willingness to consider community attitudes.
In my opinion, the 6-lane with C/D lanes and the split diamond interchange is the superior plan. I join the other members of the Little Rock Tech Park Authority Board in requesting one modification, that being to maintain the character of Capitol Avenue and reduce its appeal as a major connector to the C/D lanes. Web - PM 6 A-1, C, F-1, 60 6 C/D Split Diamond Flake, Dickson 5/2/2016 This modification will involve: Form F-7, L-2
1. Retaining parking on both sides of Capitol Avenue and the current single lane traffic in each direction;
2. Reducing the turning radius at the intersection with the C/D lanes, making this a hard corner to discourage its heavy use and increasing the turning radius for the 4th Street and 6th Street intersections to make these the preferred connectors.
Re: 10-lane freeway, I-30 through downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock going??? Traffic going west from 440 Conway plus backs up at 67-167. At least 2 lanes traffic from Cabot Jacksonville to I-30 or west 430 plus I-440 to I-430 plan was on a book when I came here in 1969; Kiehk 61 then further north. Seems like that would help 430 south plus 40 west once in a while, we hear about Norman, Richard 5/2/2016 Post F-4 freeways should be as Houston and Dallas. The 630 @ 430 is a mess plus a third overpass like Houston. We have freeways that need repair, state highways and bridges. My sight not the best. Thank you for your time.
D - 15
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I have been driving this interstate system for 30 years. I am 52 years old. I do not believe working on the main artery of the city is a good idea. I've seen you do it in Jacksonville, and it has made my life miserable. I propose that you build a new road connecting the end of Interstate 630 with 67/167 at McCain. It would require a new bridge, but it would also not interfere with traffic flow. It would solve the downtown River Market dilemma and would allow for more options when leaving the city. You have created a bridge with two merge lanes at the start of the bridge? And no merge lane???? I can't imagine how horrible it would Web - PM 6 62 Other Gibson, Mark 5/3/2016 F-3, F-4 be for all of us if you decided to build around all this mess..... Expand 630 take that traffic out of the mix. Form The old bridge would be perfect with the traffic coming off of Cantrell and downtown. If you don't consider this idea, I vote no for any other expansion... You just can't do it.
I think the best solution would be to connect 630 with 67/167 by a new bridge, no construction on the old one. Jacksonville construction has been horrible!!! Thank you
It is still hard to decide, but with the alternatives listed I would have to go with the 6-lane SPUI. I still believe adding more lanes will not improve the traffic congestion, but maybe having better exit and entrance ramps will help.
Since my mother still lives in this area, 1019 Barber Street, it is very important to me that there vitalization of the downtown, river park, and surrounding areas will not be affected. Web - PM 6 A-1, D, J, I- 63 6 C/D SPUI Smith, Margaret 5/5/2016 Form 4, I-11 As shown in many of the meetings, make this an area where people can walk, bike, and enjoy the outdoors.
Do not fill it up with parking lots and parking decks, but more green space. Do not destroy what has just started to become a livable area again.
I can't understand why the artery through the center of Little Rock must be maintained as an artery. Why not let I-440 become I-30? Then re-designate the section of I-30 from the south junction as I-530? This General 64 Harris, Skip 5/5/2016 F-4 would route the heavy interstate traffic out of the center of the city obviating the need to widen that Web Form section. The modifications then would be far less expensive, would they not? Thank you.
Re-designate I-440 as I-30. Make the portion of I-30 through the city I-530. This would route the heavy Web - PM 6 65 Other Harris, Skip 5/5/2016 F-4 interstate traffic away from the center of the city obviating the need to widen the corridor. Form
D - 16
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6 lane with C/D lanes and split diamond presents the best option for moving traffic through Little Rock, and providing the best mobility for local traffic. This option also provides an aesthetically pleasing Web - PM 6 66 6 C/D Split Diamond Wilhite, Jamey 5/5/2016 A-1, C, H-2 facility to improve downtown Little Rock. Finally, this option offers safety for pedestrians and bicycles. Form This is the best option for not just downtown Little Rock, but all of Central Arkansas.
We wanted to let you know that Cromwell supports the Split Diamond C/D option that was developed by AHTD for the 30 Crossing project presented on 4/26/16. The solution addresses many concerns that were raised earlier in the process: better connectivity between east and west sides of the corridor, increased park space, accommodates multimodal transportation, connects cultural institutions, and activates the park/streetscape below the new interstate. A great deal of credit should go to the various community groups and citizens that have had an active voice in improving the design: studio MAIN, Improve 30 Crossing, Mayor and the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, and countless others. Although initially opposed to the concepts presented last fall, the 4/26/16 Schematic Presentation revealed a much improved 1-30 design with many decisions and improvements to come as the design progresses, a normal design process protocol. Studio MAIN, an inspired group of designers who live & A-1, C, I-11, work downtown, volunteered their talent to envision a better downtown. The wonderful images Penix, Charles / 67 6 C/D Split Diamond 5/5/2016 Post I-4, I-5, I-9, presented should help secure funding to complete the vision. Others who have taken a different approach Cromwell L-2 have contributed as well.
We believe that this solution provides the very best option available to us. It is now time to turn our attention to engaging stakeholders to help pay for the enhancements that have been developed by studio MAIN. Those include: active and passive park space, aesthetic enhancements along the corridor, and a deck park between 6th and 8th Streets. This will require the support of state, county, and local governments, corporate and private individuals.
Congratulations to all who have worked for a much improved design, and to AHTD for working with the community.
The 3rd Street Merchants Association recently met with your engineers to review proposed highway designs for the 30 Corridor Project. While there is no perfect design that will satisfy everyone, our organization finds the 6 + 4 split diamond design to be the one that improves traffic flow in downtown/River Market, opens up green space that will attract people to the area and creates a more pedestrian friendly, livable city. Additionally, the split diamond design will be the quickest one to construct resulting in less disruption for our day-to-day business. Dugan, Don / A-1, C, I-11, Dugan's Pub / 3rd 68 6 C/D Split Diamond The 30 Corridor through Little Rock has long been in need of improvement and repair, the 6+4 split 5/5/2016 Post G-5, G-6, L- Street Merchants diamond design is the best alternative to accomplish that goal in a timely fashion. In short, it will make 2 Association travel less hazardous, disperse traffic throughout the downtown grid, open up green space and better connect our neighborhoods.
We appreciate your willingness to meet with us and hear our thoughts and concerns about the project. Getting the 30 Corridor project right is critically important to downtown and River Market business owners.
D - 17
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 69 6 C/D Split Diamond It flows so well. Wilhite, Bonnie 5/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 70 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks! Bymaster, Jared 5/6/2016 M Form I am opposed to all iterations so far of the I-30 Crossing project. Below are some of my general objections.
1. The project violates the spirit of the Imagine Central Arkansas, Long Range Transportation Plan, plus long-standing Metro plan policy, the intent of which is to develop viable alternatives to travel by single person automobile. There is a particular preference for light rail in the Central Arkansas region, which you will find stated by all types of people, not just the planner/granola-types. We will never be able to build a successful transit system if we keep building more roadways.
You will notice that I say the plans violates the spirit of Metroplan policy--whether you label the project a 10 or 8 lane alternative or a 6+2 or 4, it is still the same--a huge slab of ugly concrete that will destroy all the progress Downtown Little Rock has made over the past 20 years.
2. The Plan presumes even more spending on widening more roadways. This is what AHTD has not made clear to the public, but more widening will have to take place to keep from pushing the bottlenecks on down the road. This is what I have experienced with the Big Rock Interchange already. I see widening I- 630 from Baptist Hospital to University is in the TIP next. When will the construction stop? Furthermore, I don't see that much of an improvement from a traffic standpoint. The westbound interchange is more convoluted than it was before.
3. The Plan presumes that the demand for cars will continue at the same rate, but most studies say that A-2, F-6, H- 71 the younger people do not want to drive. Additionally, the older people won't be able to drive and need Guffey, Marsha Post 1, I-2, J, K an alternative system so they can get around. Who are we building these big slabs of concrete for?
4. We do not have enough money to maintain the highway system we have now. I have heard Scott Bennett say numerous times "without more money, all I can do is preside over the demise of the Arkansas highway system." Why are we adding more concrete to the system?
5. I would prefer the massive money this project would require to be spent on widening I-40 to 6 lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. If ever a project were needed in the state, it is that one! Speaking of crumbling--we barely get through fixing that stretch before it needs fixing again. We need to use money on maintenance!
6. On a personal note, it is unlikely that in my lifetime I will ever reap the time savings benefits from the I-30 widening. Over the next 5-10 years the whole corridor will be in turmoil. Having lived through the I-30 widening from Little Rock to Benton, I say NO. This Little Rock to Benton stretch proves the whole induced demand idea--this area is already re-congested and not just during rush hour!
7. Let's also talk about the loss of life to construction workers and drivers during construction, and the noise from the freeway. I live ¾ a mile from I-30 in Bryant--I hear the roar of the Interstate every night. What will it be like for people downtown with 10 lanes'?!
D - 18
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
8. AND, will there only be 10 lanes'? The new rendering I just looked at shows 8 interstate lanes south of 4th street, plus 4 lanes on the Collector-Distributor Road going south and 3 C-D lanes going North. By my count that is 15 lanes! I do not want Little Rock to be one big slab of concrete. What will happen with all the stormwater from the project?
9. And if we build this, Arkansas will once again be BEHIND the CURVE. Cities everywhere are taking out their urban freeways and having good results, and we would be putting in the GREAT GRAND-DADDY of all urban freeways. Do we always have to be last and stupid?!
I could go on.
Please, please, please--I LOVE Downtown Little Rock--I have lived there and worked there and WALKED every inch. I intend to move back Downtown as soon as I can. Please don't destroy it with this massive building project. Fix the I-30 Bridge, fix some of the interchanges, and leave the rest alone!
Better plan: Connect 67 directly to 630, removing that traffic from the 30 corridor altogether! 72 Other Now that's a better, safer, smarter plan. Copher, Brian 5/7/2016 Email F-4 And they were both originally designed to connect, yet?
I'm for the 10 lane build, but I also believe we should consider extending I-30 around the Clinton Library as a bypass connecting directly to Highway 67/167, this would involve building another bridge over the Arkansas river east of the city. This bypass would most definitely eliminate traffic congestion during rush hour. The bypass would allow all traffic going north to 67/167 Sherwood, Cabot, Beebe and Searcy to have Web - PM 6 73 8 GP Split Diamond OC 5/7/2016 F-3, F-4 their own route therefore this would ease all congestion both coming and going out of the city at the I-30 Form / I-40 merge, rush hour traffic going west to I-40 going out of the city to Maumelle, Mayflower, Conway, Villonia, etc. will not have to merge with traffic heading north on 67/167, they will have their own bypass. This could also serve as another option out of town in case of major traffic issues such as accidents.
D - 19
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Out of the options that were presented, the 6 lane and split diamond was the best alternative, however, the idea of taking street parking off of 4th and Capitol Avenue, and 6th Street is not needed and should be left out. Once vehicles exit off I-30, there are 4 alternatives for distributing traffic and removing parking only minimizes the opportunity to develop along these streets and makes them more dangerous for pedestrians.
Instead of the 6 lane with collector distributor, keeping the I-30 bridge 6 lanes and incorporating the additional 4 lanes that would have been a part of this bridge on a new bridge linking Pike Avenue/Riverfront Drive over to Chester Street really needs to be looked at. This would take a lot of traffic A-1, C, F-3, 6 C/D of this section of I-30 and would provide another connection across the river. Also, working with UP on a Web - PM 6 74 Split Diamond Nabholz, Greg 5/9/2016 F-1, F-7, I-5, Other public private partnership which could incorporate rail as a part of this new structure that could alleviate Form I-7, F-2, H-2 this issue of having to raise rail bridge for barge traffic at Baring Cross.
For the portion of I-30 that comes through NLR, I like the incorporation of Cypress Street being extended over the UP railroad yard which provides connecting opportunity for the parts of NLR north of that to Argenta. Another very important thing is that at all points where Broadway Street, Bishop Lindsey, and 9th Street intersect with I-30, that these intersections and underpasses are made to be extremely pedestrian friendly and attractive by adding streetscape, bike lanes, decorative lighting, public art, etc. which would transform these barriers into true gateways connecting the neighborhoods on either side that have been separated ever since I-30 was built.
Comment Form 75 6 C/D SPUI 6 Lane with C/D lanes is a much better option for anyone traveling 67/167. Elliott, Kenny 5/9/2016 A-1, M (Jacksonvill e)
Comment Stringfellow, Form 76 6 C/D Split Diamond Presentation was presented in a professional manner. 5/9/2016 M Harold (Jacksonvill e)
Comment Form 77 6 C/D Split Diamond Pearson, Bobbilyn 5/9/2016 M (Jacksonvill e)
Comment My concern living in Jacksonville and driving to 65th Street is all this construction at once. Is 1 part going Form 78 6 C/D Split Diamond Brown, Mark 5/9/2016 G-5, G-6, K to be completed? I drive an RT truck daily through these roads now. How is it going to affect my business? (Jacksonvill e)
Comment Form 79 6 C/D Split Diamond Simpson, Johnny 5/9/2016 M (Jacksonvill e) After seeing all the options presented last night I feel that this option to be the safest Web - PM 6 80 6 C/D Split Diamond and most usable solution to the very dangerous interchange of 167/40/30. Safety should trump any Hiser, Daniel 5/10/2016 G-1, M Form consideration.
D - 20
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Thx John I do need to clarify, The bypass would actually be a continuation connecting I-630 to Hwy 67/167 around the Clinton library an this would allow all traffic heading north and east out of the city to have 81 their own bypass, this would eliminate the bog down of traffic trying to merge onto to I-30 from I -630 I OC 5/10/2016 Email F-1, F-4, F-7 can draw a sketch if needed, this wound truly work, in more ways than one, can draw a sketch if needed, thx.
Web - PM 6 82 6 C/D SPUI I drive this every day to and from work. Milam, Debbie 5/11/2016 M Form
I like the park-like setting of the 6-Lane C/D option, but would ultimately like to see it extended to Tom Web - PM 6 83 6 C/D Split Diamond Fennell's (sp?) vision of the park setting extending through the McArthur park area. As a resident of the Heeter, Jeff 5/11/2016 F-1, I-11 Form River Market, facing East and a frequent biker
Other - Take the No-Build Alternative as a basis. Do what can be done to reduce accidents without increasing the overall capacity of the roadway. Lower the posted speed to 45 mph. Replace the bridge with a structure that does not interfere with the navigation channel. Provide covers over the new bridge and over all elevated roadways to reduce icing. Re-designate this corridor at I-30 Business or I-30 Downtown or I-30 Congested or I-30 SLOW. Relabel I-430 as I-30W and I-530 as I-30E and increase their speed limits to 70 mph. Build the Chester Street Bridge.
Because the reader may understand the current labeling to mean the C/D Lanes are included in the 6- Lane designation, relabel the 6-Lane alternatives as follows: A-2, E, F-3, FROM: Web - PM 6 84 Other Pekar, Dale 5/12/2016 F-4, G-5, F- 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Form 1, F-7, L-1 TO: 6-Lanes plus 4 Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) FROM: 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange TO: 6-Lanes plus 4 Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange The 3D videos need to be identified as to what they represent. Are they the worse-case scenario for each alternative at some future point in time? Do they represent the same time-of-day for both alternatives? Do they represent conditions on the roadways 90% of the time, or 3% of the time? Are they rush-hour representative?
D - 21
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
America has a 19 trillion dollar debt and it's growing. While I believe in liberal socials issues, I’ve recently been looking to republicans for answers on how to be fiscally conservative. Only to find out conservatives are just as fiscally irresponsible as democrats. As a country, as a state, and as a community we must not double down on the broken systems of the past. Instead look to new and innovative ways to solve our most pressing of issues if we truly want to get ourselves out of this hole we’ve buried ourselves in. And that goes for road building. It’s important to note that we, as a country, did not get to 19 trillion dollars in debt over night. And it didn’t happen from one particular political party. It happened because of excess on both sides. Not just by elected officials, but by the very people who voted them in. Stuff like building additional schools, fire stations, police kiosks for a population SHIFT, as opposed to significant population growth. And spending $650 million to make sure folks can drive home at 5pm rush hour as fast as they want to. Why not instead discuss alternatives such as incentivizing businesses that promote carpooling, working non-traditional hours, or alas, invest in a solid, dependable transit system? What makes sense about spending 650 million dollars so people can drive as fast as they want to the far outreaches of our community? Especially considering the disruption it causes to the very heart of our F-7, F-1, F- newly revitalized downtown. And the state is currently scrapping together the money to make it happen, General 85 Lewno, Jeremy 5/12/2016 3, F-4, H-1, based off of already shaky funds. And what’s worse, Metroplan (Central Arkansas’ regional planning Web Form J authority) has stated that widening I-30 only shifts the congestion and has stated we’re only opening a Pandora’s Box that will eventually cost 4 billion dollars to truly fix. At what point, do we as an educated society, realize how expensive our infrastructure is to maintain? It’s easy to build when the money is flowing like it was in the 50s and 60s, but much harder to maintain when the money is dry as it is today. Yet we keep doubling down on a broken system, a broken system that we are gifting over to our children unbeknownst to them. What are we doing?!?!? So before you jump up and go along with widening roads just because that's how it's always been done, consider this: There are other alternatives on the table, alternatives that should be looked at carefully. Alternatives that are far less costly to our state and federal gov’t, alternatives that invite people to our downtown, instead of divide the very fabric of our core. Alternatives that include boulevards, new bridges, alternative routes, carpooling, and transit. The next time any of us rails on the government for its debt problem, or for its lack of getting things done, please remember this: We, as a society, are what is creating this ridiculous debt for our kids to figure out. Our habits, our wants, our ridiculous needs. And the I-30 expansion couldn’t be a better example.
Web - PM 6 86 6 C/D Split Diamond Do it!!! Browning, Alli 5/13/2016 M Form
D - 22
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Other-Ref. and implement research done by Norman Marshall with Smart Mobility. Web - PM 6 87 Other Finn, L. 5/15/2016 F-7 Form None of the proposed plans presented by AHTD has a net positive impact. Other - Or alternative plan I do not wish to see this HWY enlarged. It will increase traffic hazards for those living, Other Web - PM 6 G-2, G-3, G- 88 offered by urban working, and visiting the downtown area. It goes the opposite direction the city has Day, Susan 5/15/2016 No Build Form 4 planner, featured in been working for over 25 years. AR Times.
When one considers the traffic flow and congestion between the 6 lanes and 8 lanes which is what the average driver is concerned about the 6 Lane is the obvious choice and less construction cost as well is a great selling point. I along with the other Web - PM 6 89 6 C/D Split Diamond Fletcher, Gary 5/16/2016 A-1, M 100,000 daily drivers on 67/167 to 30 want a safer and less congestion drive Form with as little interaction with 40 as possible. This is a much needed part of the total project and for sure needs to be done.
13th St. Alternative. I believe this idea could be done fairly easy in a short period of time with little or no buying of (Right of ways.) 90 Other The biggest expense coming from the 67/13th Street exit to the I-40 overpass. This street is used every Goodsell, Odes K. 5/17/2016 Post F-4, F-1, F-7 day. I believe a heavy layer of asphalt might be able to last a few years while this other work is being done. On this route the traffic could go to Locust St. or on to Main St. I am sure the engineers can come up with other ideas for the area.
4-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes ad Split Diamond Interchange. I am not an expert, just a concerned citizen. Having said that, I want you to know that I've tried very hard to understand the nuances of this project. I like the SPUI and consider this a true improvement. I also like elimination of the 2nd street/I-30 Web - PM 6 D, G-2, I-1, 91 Other Split Diamond connection. We have out grown that access ramp and it has become more of a Collins, Somers 5/17/2016 Form I-2, I-5, L-2 nuisance than convenience. This adjustment is probably the single greatest improvement for Downtown/River Market Areas. Thank you for responding to public feedback. At this point, my concern is the massive I-30 foot print. I appreciate the fact that we all hate traffic, concrete, noisy motors.
4 Lane C/D Split Diamond Interchange. There is a lot of positive adjustments to the original plan. For me, the last remnant of dissatisfaction is the actual footprint of the I-30 expansion. I do not believe that we need a 400 foot wide 6 mile segment of Hwy barreling across the River and over Downtown Little Rock. I look at this patch of I-30 every day and Web - PM 6 F-7, G-2, I- 92 Other Split Diamond Collins, Somers 5/17/2016 every night from my home. Although rush hour traffic can be slow and cumbersome, generally, traffic Form 1, I-5 runs smoothly. I wonder why this expansion has to be so wide. Are we trying to use a crowbar to remove a splinter? Why are our only choices reasonable choices 6-lane CD or 8-lane? I would like to suggest a 4- lane CD instead.
D - 23
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
After attending last night's meeting, we are very concerned about traffic being routed down through downtown residential streets. 3rd and 4th Streets are lined with probably more than a thousand individual condos and apartments, as well as hotels, restaurants, and the bus terminal. This is a very busy Engstrom, General 93 pedestrian area. Your plan to increase traffic here will be dangerous and detrimental to businesses. Your 5/17/2016 C, H-1, F-7 Rebecca Web Form representative said this plan is the best because it's the easiest and least expensive. You say the railroad people are too hard to deal with. But it is doable; it's been done before. Let's slow down, make the best plan and work to do what is best for Little Rock.
Are we considering disruptive factors that may be game changers in the way that we may not anticipate at this time? Considering the time line we may be over building capacity and may be stuck with an 6 C/D Budhraja, Web - PM 6 94 Split Diamond un-needed redundant ugly structure that we may never get rid of. 5/17/2016 I-10, M Other Meenakshi Form See link in comment section
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-robo-ubers-kill-car-ownership/
Construct an alternative that adds no further through lanes, builds a new bridge that does not impede the navigation channel, adds an I-30W label to I-430, adds an I-30E label to I-440, and re-designates the I-30 corridor through the downtown area as I-30 Business. Construct a permanent sign flashing CONGESTION at both ends of the I-30 Business corridor. Cover all the elevated portions of the I-30 Business corridor with solar panels. Web - PM 6 F-4, G-1, F- 95 Other Pekar, Dale 5/18/2016 Form 1, F-7, F-2 None of the alternatives developed-to-date focus on improving safety. They're all about increasing average speed during the rush hour. They also ignore the need to address the congestion associated with accidents. The worse congestion is that associated with accidents. Build an alternative whose primary focus is safety rather than increasing rush hour speed.
The 6 lane C/D SPUI appears to be the best solution to ease traffic across the I30 bridge while maintaining Web - PM 6 96 6 C/D SPUI access to downtown Little Rock and Cantrell road. The c/d lanes have to be safer than the current access McKenna, Evelyn 5/18/2016 A-1, D Form to the bridge.
D - 24
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I suggest improving the access to 440 from 40 and redirecting all through traffic of 3 axle vehicles to 440 and 430 and changing the transition of cars from 167 to the 40/30 interchange.
In my experience, 3 axle vehicles traveling through LR on 1-30are the cause of the majority of slow-downs, Web - PM 6 97 Other congestion and accidents. A distribution point for near the airport seems a logical way to eliminate most Hudson, Diane 5/18/2016 F-4, G-5 Form semi traffic from surface streets downtown.
Additionally, drivers don't seem to realize the distance available to transfer lanes between 167 and 40. I like the ideas you show on your proposals to cure the madness that currently exists.
Consider having the South lane of 4th no parking from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday, with parking allowed during the other 21 hours and on weekends. We have seen this in Washington, DC. The Web - PM 6 98 6 C/D Split Diamond district has a fleet of tow trucks that will clear the street before the rush hour 'No Parking' time but the Rucker, Steve 5/18/2016 I-7 Form space is available the rest of the day. Little Rock could tow with a heavy fine for parking during the 3-6 time. This would help ease the downtown parking shortage.
My husband likes the downtown boulevard but I don't think that would help traffic at all. Trying to Web - PM 6 99 6 C/D Split Diamond Year, Liz 5/18/2016 M negotiate but not taking I30 around downtown at 5:00 is a joke. Form
Studio Main proposal. We are not in support of the 10-Lane proposals. 6 + 4 = 10 lanes (stop the deception). The 8-lane general purpose lanes and split diamond interchange is only palatable to us if all or some of Studio Main's proposal is incorporated into the final AHTD design. We attended the April 26th hearing. None of what we heard or saw from AHTD makes us believe that pedestrians or the people who live in downtown LR are a priority. It is all about moving large numbers of vehicles through LR at high rates of speed. As someone who travels I-40 from LR to Conway quite frequently, I can tell you that the addition of the third lane has Hoffman, Steve A-2, F-7, I-5, 100 Other 5/19/2016 Post done nothing but make people drive 80-85 mph through that stretch of I-40. and Kim I-11, J
We say No to more cars, more pollution, and more concrete. There is no AHTD design or proposal for landscaping or making the underside of the freeway designs aesthetically pleasing or developing the park space. We are told by AHTD reps that there is no money for these things. I don't buy this. We have smart people inside and outside of AHTD who can come up with a design that is not all concrete. Unless serious attention is paid to Studio Main's proposal, we are not in support of any of the AHTD proposals.
D - 25
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
101 6 C/D SPUI I think that is a better plan. Anything to keep people using 67/167 from crossing over two lanes of traffic. Johnson, Dolores 5/19/2016 Post M
2 lane CD SDI (Split Diamond Interchange), 4-Lane CD SDI, or 6 lane general purpose SDI. Everyone I've spoken to hates that segment of I-30 and wants something done about it. I look at I-30 every day and the rush hour does not seem to be that bad, IMHO. Mostly, this segment is just outdated C, F-7, G-2, Web - PM 6 102 Other Split Diamond and dangerous. It desperately needs shoulders for emergency vehicles and better merging and exiting Collins, Somers 5/19/2016 G-5, G-1, I- Form ramps. Personally, I like the split diamond interchange and eliminating 2nd Street access. However, the 1, I-5 10-14 lane I-30 Crossing just seems insane. In the spirit of compromise, I'd like to consider a smaller footprint....2-lane CD or 4-lane CD.
Any alternative that minimizes the size of the I-30 footprint in downtown Little Rock. There is great fear among those of us who live or work downtown that the massive footprint that is being Web - PM 6 F-7, I-1, I- 103 Other planned will discourage pedestrians while encouraging crime. There is no guarantee that the area under Woodyard, Betsy 5/19/2016 Form 11, I-5, I-6 the interstate will be maintained, no guarantee that the traffic won't come barreling down our residential streets, and no guarantee that this won't be the death of what we love and hold dear about downtown.
This message is submitted as an official comment on the proposed I-30 widening plan Web - PM 6 104 Other Lynch, Jim 5/19/16 M as submitted by the Arkansas Highway. Form
Continuing bad idea per original connection west of Hwy 67 will exacerbate traffic problems. Extend I-30 down present I-440 and re-designate downtown part of I-30 for internal traffic and fix bridge. Your plans Web - PM 6 105 No Build Holt, Steve 5/19/16 F-4, F-2 are damaging to residential Little Rock and the expansion of the River Market area and the oldest Form residential area in the Capitol City.
Do not build the I-30 crossing projects. Repair the bridge to its current configuration only. Do not expand Web - PM 6 106 No Build Smith, Daniel 5/19/16 F-2 that project Form
Web - PM 6 107 No Build I think rerouting around downtown on 440 is better. Get rid of Interstate in downtown. Delacey, Martha 5/19/16 F-4 Form
Web - PM 6 108 No Build No build Wills, Andrea 5/19/16 E Form
I feel the planned expansion is unnecessary. All plans are too big in scope. Our city is beginning to thrive and this project will destroy all the work that has been done. All proposed projects will add steel and concrete to historic areas, pedestrian thoroughfares and communities. Your intentions may be good but your proposed execution will be detrimental. The citizens of Little Rock do not want this project Web - PM 6 109 No Build completed as proposed. Anecdotally: I can see the 630 corridor from my home and often utilize the space Heuck, Darrel 5/19/16 F-7, I-1, I-5 Form to travel during the busiest times. It should be noted that heavy traffic only exists for a small portion of the day. Even then, traffic flow is not beyond what can be expected during high volume. In my opinion adding shoulders to the bridge will greatly reduce traffic if/when an accident occurs. Please consider the future of this city and do not build a concrete barrier through the heart of our heart.
D - 26
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Building more lanes only creates an incentive for more drivers to use the bridge rather than alternatives and will quickly fill up with traffic jams again (simple supply and demand). Please evaluate transportation solutions at a more intelligent, systems-thinking level, such as "is the current layout of lanes and exits confusing or causing unnecessary lane changes, break tapping, or slowdowns?" "Where is traffic coming Web - PM 6 110 No Build Foster, Devin 5/19/16 G-5, H-1 from, where is it going, and could offering timely and consistent park-and-ride options between those Form areas do a better job of relieving traffic congestion?" There are so many resources out there that can be consulted on livable urban design. Please consult them rather than repeating the mistakes of the past which have quite literally divided this city.
Web - PM 6 111 No Build No build Rogers, Elizabeth 5/19/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 112 No Build I would like to see a complete redesign that does not expand the interstate beyond its current size. Leyenberger, Kyle 5/19/16 E, F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 113 No Build No build Rogers, Elizabeth 5/19/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 114 No Build I believe the giant freeway would be detrimental to the progress of area. Bailey, Richard 5/19/16 I-1, I-5 Form
Choate, Katie Web - PM 6 115 No Build No build 5/19/16 E Kirkpatrick Form
Web - PM 6 116 No Build Do not damage downtown for the sake of some impatient suburban commuters. There are better options. Lile, Ward 5/19/16 F-7 Form
There are so many problems with this project, it does not take a holistic approach to urban planning. I would rather see the AHTD take a step back and actually work with people from Little Rock to design Web - PM 6 117 No build Neumeier, Kyle 5/20/2016 E, F-7 something that improves Little Rock. At the end of the day, traffic is generally not that bad, even during Form rush hour to necessitate such a huge increase in pavement.
It would be helpful if more reasonable alternatives could be offered. With the choices above being so Web - PM 6 118 No Build Sanders, Regena 5/20/16 E, F-7 unacceptable. NO BUILD is the only choice. Form
Web - PM 6 119 No Build Sadly, none of the options are desirable. King, Betty 5/20/16 F-7 Form
D - 27
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
There is no need to build this monstrosity downtown. After all the money that has been spent to revitalize the River Market area, South Main, Main St, Clinton Library neighborhood, your options presented above Web - PM 6 120 No Build will cripple any future growth. I doubt anyone who is presenting this even lives downtown. Do you think Roberts, Aaron 5/20/16 F-7 Form anyone wants to walk under 10 lanes of interstate butted up against the River Market and causing a greater divider to access to the Clinton Library?
Web - PM 6 121 No Build No build Butler, Elizabeth 5/20/16 E Form
Fleming, Francis Web - PM 6 122 No Build Please listen to citizen plans 5/20/16 E, F-7, L-2 Allen Form
Web - PM 6 123 No Build Reroute suburb traffic outside of downtown to alleviate congestion. Newman, Jason 5/20/16 E, F-4 Form
Web - PM 6 124 No Build Try again Jacobs, Joe 5/20/16 E, F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 125 No Build Do not build. Not necessary. Not good for community. Do not build. Campbell, Graham 5/20/16 E, M Form
Web - PM 6 126 Other Expanding one area does not make it better. Create other routes to get to same destination. Petty, Dani 5/20/16 F-4 Form
Web - PM 6 127 No Build I do NOT want a new highway crushing the beautiful downtown we have made so much progress on. Miners, Christy 5/20/16 E. I-6 Form
The obsession with LOS leads to monster roads. The small amount of rush hour in Little Rock does not Web - PM 6 128 No Build Walker, Kent 5/20/16 E, M justify covering up more of downtown. Form
Web - PM 6 129 No Build Stop building terrible freeways thru our city West, Katherine 5/20/16 M Form
Any plan that threatens to expand the damage done to Downtown Little Rock by the existing highway is a non-starter. More high speed lanes ripping through a short downtown corridor does not solve anything. Cooney, Nathaniel Web - PM 6 130 No Build Any future plan must reconnect the street grid and move high speed traffic elsewhere (around 5/20/16 F-7, F-4, I-6 John Form downtown, below grade with street level Blvd., etc.) Until such plans are advanced Central AR is better served with no-build at all.
Waste of money for regressive design that will negatively impact progressive growth of a walkable Web - PM 6 131 No Build community. Does not take into account environmental impact on downtown and historic structures that Chambers, Susan 5/20/16 I-3, I-6 Form are unique to state history.
Web - PM 6 132 No Build You will ruin downtown with the current plans. Listen to the public opinion from Little Rock residents. Hall, Noel 5/20/16 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 133 No Build Do not expand I 30. A boulevard approach to traffic flow is a better option. Linn, Sandra 5/20/16 F-1 Form D - 28
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Frankenstein, Web - PM 6 134 No Build We have the opportunity 5/20/16 M Laura Form
The options are not good for the cities of LR/NLR. We have our own climate and personality and want to keep it that way. I am unmoved by the plans as they shift focus in an unconvincing way. No reason to Web - PM 6 135 No Build Babb, Rachel 5/20/16 F-7 spend money we do not have for a project that will cause hardship on motorists with the end result being Form of no significant value.
Web - PM 6 136 No Build Not acceptable - need to be sure design incorporates features that will reflect the wisdom. Mengel, Mark B. 5/20/16 F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 137 No Build Project is too large and destructive to the downtown area. Sullivan, David 5/20/16 I-1, I-5, I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 138 No Build No build Snyder, Catherine 5/20/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 139 No Build No build Stratton, Tay 5/20/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 140 No Build Don't build Naylor, A.B. 5/20/16 E Form
Continue with design work. Web - PM 6 141 No Build Smith, Margaret 5/20/16 F-7 More designs are need Form
Web - PM 6 142 No Build No other alternative Colburn, Jerry 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 143 No Build This is one of the most biased polls I've seen. Smith, F. 5/20/16 M Form
Davenport, Web - PM 6 144 No Build Finish the North Belt Freeway! 5/20/16 F-4 Janette Form
There is no way this freeway needs to be any bigger than it already is. The bridges and overpasses are already too loud in the River Market District. We do not need a freeway looming any more than it is, nor tearing up the revitalization of East Little Rock or hurting the Clinton Library. Folks that commute from Web - PM 6 145 No Build points north need to take I-40 to 430 or 440 to I-30 if they don't want to deal with the bridge traffic. One Louvring, Matilda 5/20/16 F-4, I-2, I-6, Form solution that would not require any new building is re-striping the on-ramps from 630 to I-30. The merge lane causes a bottle neck. If it were two lanes merging 630 would not get backed up. We have lost too much in downtown LR to freeways over the years. Enough is enough.
Web - PM 6 146 No Build Hughes, Robert 5/20/16 E Form
D - 29
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 147 No Build X Turley, Kim 5/20/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 148 No Build No build Mathisen, Holly 5/20/16 E Form
McFarlin, Web - PM 6 149 No Build None 5/20/16 E Matthew Form
We do not need to expand this huge interstate downtown. This is backward thinking at its finest. We need to think about the future, protect our thriving downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. We need Web - PM 6 150 No Build Mitchell, Alicia 5/20/16 I-1, I-5, I-6, J to fix the existing infrastructure before we create more infrastructure that will be costly to maintain. Our Form resources are limited. Let's use them wisely.
I have lived in and visited cities all over the United States and Europe, and Little Rock does NOT have a traffic problem. We live in Hillcrest and work downtown, choices we made because we chose to pay more per square foot in order to avoid a commute. It's a tradeoff people make, and if you live in the suburbs you just have to factor in that there will be time spent in the car. I believe strongly in the revitalization of Web - PM 6 151 No Build Chenault, Vera 5/20/16 I-6 downtown Little Rock and have been a part of it with the start of my business on Main Street, and I Form believe that the I-30 project would greatly damage downtown. We have made so much progress to make downtown more walkable and more of a community, please don't set things back for Little Rock to fix a problem that doesn't exist!
I am completely against the expansion of I-30. This will be detrimental to downtown and surrounding areas. Expanding interstates thru metropolitan areas is an outdated way of thinking. We need to be Web - PM 6 152 No Build Livingston, Rose 5/20/16 I-6 considering long range plans that will move Little Rock and Central Arkansas forward into the 21st Form century.
Web - PM 6 153 No Build This will destroy our downtown progress and growth. Kirkman, Donna 5/20/16 I-6 Form
I understand that AHTD is not considering "other" as a vote to continue entertaining options other than the 8 or 10 raised lane options. As a driver who navigates i-630 through the Big Rock Interchange from Web - PM 6 F-1, F-7, I-1, 154 No Build Barrow Rd to I-430 each day, I feel the mess that has been created there, not to mention the 80 mph Mullis, Lisa 5/20/16 Form I-5 speedway that is designated as 55 mph and not enforced at all, gives me reason to doubt AHTD's ability to solve on and off ramp issues downtown by building yet another monstrous pile of concrete.
Web - PM 6 155 No Build This is not good for Little Rock. Goldman, Barry 5/20/16 M Form
D - 30
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I just don't understand why nobody is listening to the amazing alternative plans being proposed. Look at other major cities (assuming you want LR to eventually grow) and realize that this is a bad idea. There are Web - PM 6 156 No Build Rice, Logan 5/20/16 F-7 FACTS and EVIDENCE that PROVE this is a bad idea. And there are other viable solutions. Stop being so Form narrow minded and listen to the citizens of downtown Little Rock.
No build! I live and work downtown Little Rock. Do not build the 30 Crossing Project in any of the forms. Web - PM 6 157 No Build Cooney, Anna 5/20/16 E No build! Form
This is not the way to ease traffic congestion. All studies show that adding lanes does not ease traffic at all Web - PM 6 158 No Build and often will add to it. Why destroy the downtown area and not even fix the problem you claim to want Kittrell, Carl Adam 5/20/16 G-5, G-6, I-6 Form to fix.
Gardner, Jerry and Web - PM 6 159 No Build We believe the plan as submitted has no regard for the population of downtown Little Rock. 5/20/16 M Gayle Form
This is the worst idea possible in all of its forms. I hope the citizens unite and defeat this I'll conceived plan Web - PM 6 160 No Build Cole, William 5/20/16 M that is more about money than improving our community. Form
Web - PM 6 161 No Build Please don't turn Little Rock into an overpass mess. Thank you. Hadley, Jean 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 162 No Build No Build Doyle, John 5/20/16 E Form
I strongly oppose the proposed extraordinary widening of I-30 to 10 lanes and/or beyond. I stand with the recommendation of the professional planning staff and the approved Imagine Arkansas Plan. I believe the 'no build' option is the best choice. I participated in the Imagine Arkansas planning process. Its many month process was instructive, involved Web - PM 6 163 No Build Tyson, Cary 5/20/16 L-1, L-2, M and thorough. To alter it at this point only continues to undermine the already waning public trust. It Form undermines the innumerable staff hours and public funds placed in the process. Why will anyone want to participate in future planning exercises (or other publicly-led events, for that matter) when time, sweat, thought, tears and more are swept away with ease
Web - PM 6 164 No Build XXXXXXXXXX Fennell, Ellen M 5/20/16 M Form
D - 31
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Building will create problems, not solve them. Better yet: transform into a boulevard and direct through Web - PM 6 165 No Build Posey, Michele 5/20/16 E, F-1, F-4 traffic around the downtown area. Form
Web - PM 6 166 No Build No build Stephanie 5/20/16 E Form
I would prefer to see an effort to curtail through-traffic via an outer loop, .I-40 to I-540 to I-30 to I-440 to I-40. The loop will serve drivers from satellite municipalities. The I-30 stretch under discussion is not solely commercially zoned. Residential areas should continue to develop away from the gentrification that Web - PM 6 F-4, G-2, G- 167 No Build occurred since last bypass was implemented. Perhaps 30 can be a little more like Danny Thomas Blvd in Evans, Daniel 5/20/16 Form 3, G-4 Memphis. Re-gentrification is not a beneficial consequence for these local neighborhoods and communities. I would prefer to see improvements made to existing roads, improvement to existing exit ramps and off ramp intersections,
Newberry, Web - PM 6 168 No Build If you will not accept the boulevard plan, don't do anything at all! 5/20/16 F-1 Rebecca Form
Web - PM 6 169 No Build We need a more integrated design that responds to the area’s needs. Ladner, Chris 5/20/16 F-7 Form
Spending lots of time driving north of Washington DC…. A better beltway AROUND the city is needed…… Web - PM 6 170 No Build Mitchell, Katina 5/20/16 F-4 Not through it. Form
Web - PM 6 171 No Build Prefer the Tom Fennell Boulevard proposal Patterson, Ralph B 5/20/16 F-1 Form
Web - PM 6 172 No Build Let's not destroy downtown Little Rock McNee, Valerie 5/20/16 I-6 Form
There are better solutions than 10 lanes (or whatever name you want to call it.) Why does AHTD have to Web - PM 6 173 No Build Marratt, Laura 5/20/16 F-7, I-6 destroy beauty to make something ugly that ultimately will not solve the problem? Form
Web - PM 6 174 No Build Terrible plan Clark, Lindsey 5/20/16 M Form
D - 32
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I live downtown and would be directly affected by the 10-lane monstrosity. Creating it will make traffic Web - PM 6 175 No Build worse in the long run. People are returning downtown in droves - traffic needs to be routed elsewhere to Hardy, Laura 5/20/16 F-4 Form preserve the resurgence in downtown. I remember before I630 bisected the city and killed downtown.
This Soviet style monstrosity will ruin downtown development. More people live in Little Rock than in Web - PM 6 176 No Build Dobbins, William 5/20/16 I-6 Cabot or Bryant. Form
Please don't kill the resurgence in downtown Little Rock by using outdated methods to move temporary Web - PM 6 177 No Build Hardy, John 5/20/16 I-6 traffic. Traffic twice a day, during rush hours, doesn't justify destroying something great. Form
Chamberlin, Web - PM 6 178 No Build Boulevard 5/20/16 F-1 Shannon Form
Web - PM 6 179 No Build xxx Miller, Beth 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 G-5, G-6, F- 180 No Build Expansion creates more congestion. The solution will require investments in public transit. Miller, Beth 5/20/16 Form 6
Web - PM 6 181 6 C/D Split Diamond Orvis, Missy 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 182 No Build xxx Colburn, Jerry 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 183 No Build No build Loesch, Susan 5/20/16 E Form
Would like to see more alternatives. Want to continue with revitalization of downtown. More Web - PM 6 184 No Build Barclay, Judy 5/20/16 F-7, H-2 opportunities for bike and pedestrians. Form
Downtown needs to expand east/west and not be cut off and become more divided by more highway and Mansfield, Mary Web - PM 6 185 No Build 5/20/16 I-4, I-9 more access. I live in a building right on the west side of I-30 Ann Form
D - 33
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tom Fennell's boulevard proposal should be given serious consideration. The River Market area is such a positive addition to the city. Little Rock (and all of Arkansas) should be proud. I do not think putting a huge concrete mass through the market area is a good idea. Almost everyone I know who actually lives in Little Patterson, Web - PM 6 E, F-7, F-1, 186 No Build 5/20/16 Rock is not in favor of any of the options offered. This area is now a neighborhood to many people. That Elizabeth Form I-1, I-5, needs to be remembered. Would you like this running through the middle of your neighborhood? I hope our leaders have enough forward thinking vision to get this right.
My first choice would be the true boulevard plan (NOT the split diamond that some at AHTD have called a Web - PM 6 187 No Build McKuin, Vanessa 5/20/16 E, F-1 "boulevard", but that is not something AHTD is willing to really look at, the no build option is best. Form
As a homeowner in Downtown LR I am against this project and all the pollution and noise it will bring. I'm also concerned about property values and the negative impact it will have on revitalization efforts and Web - PM 6 188 No Build local community. This whole project has been shady from the start. I'm beginning to believe the Williams, Jessica 5/20/16 I-2, I-6, I-8 Form motivation is for the financial benefit of a few with complete disregard for how it will affect Downtown residents and businesses.
Of course, the Boulevard Plan plus a Chester Street Bridge and Central Park would be the ideal option for us. I wish I was wrong, but I don't think our City is ready to make that kind of investment. Meanwhile, a smaller footprint for I-30 is most appealing to me. Everyone I've spoken to hates that segment of I-30 and C, E, F-7, F- wants something done about it. I look at I-30 every day and the rush hour does not seem to be that bad, Web - PM 6 189 No Build Collins, Somers 5/20/16 1, F-3, I-1, I- IMHO. Mostly, this segment is just outdated and dangerous. It desperately needs shoulders for Form 5 emergency vehicles and better merging and exiting ramps. Personally, I like the split diamond interchange and eliminating 2nd Street access. However, the 10-14 lane I-30 Crossing just seems insane. In the spirit of compromise, I'd like to consider a smaller footprint.... 2-lane CD or 4 lane CD
The Study by Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility should be taken into consideration. Your ten lanes of interstate will move downtown Little Rock backwards not forwards. Why is the answer always more lanes, No Build more pavement. Trying looking for new answers other than repeating the same mistakes from the fifties Web - PM 6 190 Roberts, Aaron 5/20/16 E, F-7, F-1 Other and sixties. If you lived downtown, if you walked South Main, River Market, and the new development by Form the Clinton Library, you would work to find a solution that does not devalue the property and halts the progress of revitalizing downtown
Web - PM 6 191 No Build Due to the impact of the downtown area I request that the idea be taken back to the drawing board. Kinsey, Spencer 5/20/16 F-7 Form
D - 34
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
As a homeowner in Downtown LR I am against this project and all the pollution and noise it will bring. I'm also concerned about property values and the negative impact it will have on revitalization efforts and Web - PM 6 192 No Build local community. This whole project has been shady from the start. I'm beginning to believe the Williams, Jessica 5/20/16 I-2, I-8, I-6 Form motivation is for the financial benefit of a few with complete disregard for how it will affect Downtown residents and businesses.
Web - PM 6 193 No Build NO BUILD!!!! Beaird, Pat 5/20/16 E Form
Don't build this. The Big Rock interchange has created more bottlenecks than it solved and this will do the Web - PM 6 194 No Build Lee, James 5/20/16 E same. Form
If the aim is to move people from the south side of the city to the north side of the city (and vice versa) as quickly as possible with the least amount of congestion (and this does indeed seem to be the aim), then using I-440 seems like a much more viable option. Why is this not being considered as a serious option? Sure, rebuild the I-30 bridge as needed to make it safe, but then focus on improving and maybe even enlarging the I-440 loop route. There are countless vibrant cities throughout the world that use loop Web - PM 6 195 No Build Biggers, Lance 5/20/16 E, F-7, F-4 systems to great effect, keeping their downtowns whole and intact. It just seems that there are many Form sustainable and economically beneficial alternatives being offered (as well as examples throughout the US), but none of those are presented here. Please, for the love of Arkansas, Little Rock, and ALL the citizens who inhabit this great place, consider another option that doesn't involve widening I-30 through the middle of an area of Little Rock that is just beginning to show some urban renewal.
Web - PM 6 196 No Build Listen to groups and planners presenting alternatives to destroying the downtown. Walls, Karen 5/20/16 E, F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 197 No Build None Cloar, Ralph 5/20/16 M Form
D - 35
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any of these options would be a travesty to what downtown Little Rock has worked so hard to grow into. Adding any of these plans only encourages people to move out of Little Rock, which is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. The commute to and from Little Rock may be a little inconvenient during rush hour (I personally lived in Jacksonville for 2 years and drove to work every day in that traffic), but it still is nothing compared to larger cities. And study after study has shown that adding traffic lanes does not fix the problem, it only leads to more people commuting, which in turn gets us back to the same Web - PM 6 198 No Build Admire, Holly 5/20/16 F-7, I-1 traffic "problem" that we currently have. We need to encourage people to live in Little Rock, because if Form more people did, there would not be as many commuters during these high traffic times. Buildings these extra lanes would be a slap to the face for anyone that lives in this wonderful city. I currently rent downtown and am saving to buy in the area. If one of these plans goes through, I will definitely rethink my plans of living here, and I know the same is true for many other young professionals as myself. We need to keep revitalizing Little Rock, not make it easier for people to live in the surrounding areas. Thank you
Redesign and include downtown residents Web - PM 6 199 No Build Deaton, Donald 5/20/16 E, F-7, F-4 Build a loop around city Form
Where are the other alternatives that have been put forth? You know…. The ones that the PEOPLE want, Web - PM 6 200 No Build Collins, Jamie 5/20/16 E, F-7 not these that only bureaucrats want. Form
Web - PM 6 201 No Build No Rocs, Lisa 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 202 No Build None Miller, Heather 5/20/16 M Form
Weatherford, Web - PM 6 203 No Build xxxxxxxxxx 5/20/16 M Michael Form
Web - PM 6 204 No Build All alternatives need to be seriously considered. Butler, Frank 5/20/16 E, F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 205 No Build none Cason, Julia 5/20/16 M Form
D - 36
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 206 No Build No build Gough, Stephanie 5/20/16 M Form
Anything but building a crazy big scar through our beautiful thriving downtown. No more exhaust next to our public schools. I seriously worry about my child's health next to the 30/630 interchange as-is. She Web - PM 6 207 Other attends Rockefeller. Kittrell, Adelia 5/20/16 F-7, F-1, F-4 Form This interstate should go AROUND downtown, not through it. Make a boulevard that can be enjoyed and add to the area instead of a way to leave. If people need to leave, they should go around the city.
Web - PM 6 208 No Build XXXXXXXXXX Looney, Jonathan 5/20/16 E, M Form
Web - PM 6 209 No Build Thank you Garner, Lee 5/20/16 M Form
None of the options are palatable or beneficial. Please reconsider implementation of any of the current Web - PM 6 210 No Build Metz, Keith 5/20/16 F-7 plans. Form
Web - PM 6 211 No Build This is a terrible idea that will destroy downtown Little Rock. Lancaster, Guy 5/20/16 M Form
I hate the idea of downtown being chopped up by this river of pavement to resolve an issue that does not Web - PM 6 212 Other exist. Fix the bridge and the on-off ramps but divert traffic around downtown with existing freeways like Lindsey, Bev 5/20/16 F-4, F-2 Form other more progressive cities are doing.
The I-30 Bridge must be replaced, but I do not agree with the proposition of adding lanes to I-30. We've seen that region of our downtown flourish over the past few years and to widen the interstate would Web - PM 6 213 Other Maddox, Harrison 5/20/16 F-2, I-6 disrupt that positive growth, perhaps permanently damaging it. It is not a benefit to the people of Little Form Rock.
Web - PM 6 214 No Build Oakley, Erin 5/20/16 M Form
D - 37
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
In favor of conversion to a boulevard and rerouting this section of I-30 out along I-440. It is my understanding that responses of Other Alternative will be counted as in favor of slight modification of one of AHTD's (horrible) suggestions. That is not an accurate way to interpret that choice and I Web - PM 6 215 No Build Chamberlin, John 5/20/16 F-1, F-4, F-7 encourage/request that you report that more accurately and take the time to read and categorize them. Form At a minimum that should involve looking for and counting any mentions of "boulevard", freeway removal, or rerouting the interstate. Thank you for your time.
Please explore alternatives to expanding 630. Re-routing traffic and supporting downtown is also an Web - PM 6 216 No Build Deen, Tisha 5/20/16 F-4 option. Form
Web - PM 6 217 No Build Please do not put more concrete in downtown Little Rock. Shipley, Mary Gay 5/20/16 I-1, I-5 Form
Web - PM 6 218 No Build Not needed. Melvin, Jack 5/20/16 M Form
There have been many alternative plans and community centered ideas that expand road access without creating what appears to be a monstrosity of 6-8 lane highway expansion. Web - PM 6 219 Other As a concerned citizen I believe that this expansion as planned currently would make a beautiful area of Townsend, Rachel 5/20/16 F-7, I-6 Form little rock unattractive to visitors and citizens and hurt small business who count on the atmosphere of downtown Little Rock to support the businesses they have created.
No Build Bridge at Chester and re-designate 440 as the main interstate route through town. Please don't destroy Web - PM 6 220 Gordon, Jennifer 5/20/16 E, F-3, F-4 Other downtown. That is my playground! Form
Boulevard Plan. Web - PM 6 221 Other All of the plans that involve expanding I30 are disasters. Fix the bridge. Leave the rest along, or even Webb, Roger, A 5/20/16 F-1, F-2 Form better, decommission I30 and build a network of grade level streets - the boulevard. Web - PM 6 222 No Build This needs to go back to the drawing board. Building big will have NO positive impacts to the area. Chiechi, Claibanne 5/20/16 F-7, I-5 Form
Web - PM 6 223 No Build Do not build this please! Keith, Noel 5/20/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 224 No Build Please do not build this! Keith, Noel 5/20/16 E Form
I commute to Falcon Jet and ride my bike on the River Trail. I do not want to see the work put into the Web - PM 6 225 No Build Adcock, Jerry 5/20/16 I-6 downtown area ruined by this project. Form
D - 38
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 226 No Build Please consider other alternatives Franklin, Nathan 5/20/16 F-7 Form
Replace the bridge, direct through traffic in the outer loop instead of through Little Rock downtown. I had Mock, Nell Web - PM 6 227 No Build 5/20/16 F-3, F-4 to travel North Little Rock recently at 5pm. It took an extra 10 minutes. Big whoop. Matthews Form
In my opinion, the AHTD plan is a very expensive short term band aid (at best, if at all) that is based on outdated transportation planning that will do more harm than good for future congestion and Web - PM 6 228 No Build Allen, Gail E. 5/20/16 M maintenance expenditures. We need to enter the 21st century and not continue to pursue ideas based Form small group of special interests who will profit from this ill-conceived plan. Thank you.
Please do not disrupt the progress that has been made to the downtown area in the last few years! It is Web - PM 6 229 No Build again a place to go and enjoy. Find a way to take the major traffic away from the area rather than build Schapp, Lavern 5/20/16 F-7, F-4, I-6 Form more lanes to add more congestion and neighborhood disruption.
Web - PM 6 230 No Build In case first one I sent did not go through Chambers, Susan 5/20/16 M Form
Route traffic to the East of the City on 440. Web - PM 6 231 No Build Stewart, Gale 5/20/16 F-4, E Do not build Form
The other alternatives are too massive, too expensive. They will not ease the slight congestion of the Web - PM 6 232 No Build mornings and afternoons. And will cause great harm to the downtown areas we worked so hard to rehab. India 5/20/16 I-1, I-5, I-6 Form They reflect the insensitivity of AHTD to the people inside the cars.
I prefer I-30 to go away, but if it is to remain I support bridging it through the downtown with a land Robertson, Mark A Web - PM 6 233 Other bridge to physically reconnect the neighborhoods. Address the bridge and ingress and egress issues but 5/20/16 F-1, F-7 FASLA Form put it underground.
I prefer I-30 to be removed, but if it is to remain address the bridge and correct the on off ramp but put Robertson, Mark A Web - PM 6 234 No Build 5/20/16 E, F-1, F-7 interstate underground with a land bridge/park over the top and reconnect the neighborhoods. FASLA Form
Web - PM 6 235 No Build I'm a home owner in MacArthur Park, downtown. I don't want this monster highway built near my home. Stotts, Henry 5/20/16 I-1, I-3, I-5 Form
If Little Rock wants to improve the flow of traffic, then it should consider a ring road encircling Web - PM 6 236 No Build Roberts, Chantal 5/20/16 F-4 Benton/Bryant, West Little Rock, Maumelle, and Cabot. Do NOT build a 10 lane highway. Form
D - 39
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The unique way Little rock and NLR have handled revitalizing downtown areas and keeping them Web - PM 6 237 No Build charming as well as upbeat and modern is a huge part of its appeal. Repair and repair the roads intact and Ritchie, Monica 5/20/16 I-1, I-5 Form leave the rest alone.
Web - PM 6 238 No Build Bumpers, Lea Ann 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 239 No Build Please do not undo all the progress of our wonderful downtown Kent, Brenda 5/20/16 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 240 No Build I drive this way every day for work and none of these plans are suitable in my opinion. Breech, Ashley 5/20/16 F-7 Form
As a homeowner in Downtown LR I am against this project and all the pollution and noise it will bring. I'm also concerned about property values and the negative impact it will have on revitalization efforts and Web - PM 6 I-2, I-4, I-6, 241 No Build local community. This whole project has been shady from the start. I'm beginning to believe the Jones, Amber 5/20/16 Form I-8 motivation is for the financial benefit of a few with complete disregard for how it will affect Downtown residents and businesses.
Web - PM 6 242 No Build A real city is a walking city Eric 5/20/16 H-2 Form
Web - PM 6 243 No Build None Redden, Laura 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 244 No Build Better options must be considered Fletcher, Don 5/20/16 F-7 Form
It is far to late in the game to look at other alternatives to relieve the congestion now. It should have been 6 C/D Web - PM 6 245 Split Diamond done more than 20 years ago. This state always waits until it's long overdue to fix a problem or have vision BWS 5/20/16 M 8 GP Form for what the future will bring.
None of the proposed plans are acceptable, suggest looking at completing the 440 ring road rather than Web - PM 6 246 No Build Bethards, Andrew 5/20/16 F-7, F-4 plowing through downtown. Form
Web - PM 6 247 No Build xx Felton, Denise 5/20/16 M Form
D - 40
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I like the proposed Boulevard plan, but I would be open to other solutions for a more comprehensive approach. F-7, F-1, G- I understand the on ramps and off ramps downtown are problematic, I do not, however want to see a Web - PM 6 248 Other Blain, Sylivia 5/20/16 2, G-3, G-4, widening of the interstate. This is a backward looking solution to a traffic problem that does not exist. We Form I-10 need a more progressive vision that takes into account the surrounding areas and the reduction of car ownership in the coming decades.
Web - PM 6 249 No Build No Build DeLamar, Nancy 5/20/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 250 No Build Don't mess it up and destroy a huge swath of downtown Ellwood, Jon 5/20/16 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 251 No Build No Build Davison, Cate 5/20/16 E Form
This proposal is bad for Little Rock, bad for downtown, bad for regional transportation, and a huge waste Web - PM 6 252 No Build Smith, Keaton 5/20/16 I-6 of limited resources. Form
Web - PM 6 253 No Build X Crowley, Karen 5/20/16 M Form
I live in North Little Rock and work in Little Rock. I use I-30 most days to get to and from work. I expect the commute to take about 25 minutes during high-traffic times. I do not believe that a marginal increase in convenience for those people who choose to live in places other than downtown Little Rock should cause Web - PM 6 254 No Build such destruction to a revitalizing downtown. This project needs to go back to the drawing board so that Alexander, Alice 5/20/16 F-1, F-7, I-6 Form other options can be explored. Note that I deliberately did not choose "other alternative" because of a concern that those choices would be interpreted as endorsing another one of AHTD's current plans rather than demonstrating my concerns about how this project would impact downtown Little Rock.
Marshall plan to "...convert the section of I-30 in downtown Little Rock into a boulevard and build another bridge over the Arkansas River at Chester Street would divert a significant amount of traffic to Interstate Web - PM 6 F-1, F-3, F- 255 Other 440 and Interstate 430, which also have bridges crossing the river, and spread downtown traffic across Bearden, Terry 5/20/16 Form 4, I-4, I-6 the downtown street grid and avoid bottlenecks." I say no to the downtown-life-destroying, corporate-preferred 10-lane proposals.
Web - PM 6 256 No Build Not needed and will further divide neighborhoods Jones, Kandy 5/20/16 M Form
D - 41
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Marshall plan to "...convert the section of I-30 in downtown Little Rock into a boulevard and build another bridge over the Arkansas River at Chester Street would divert a significant amount of traffic to Interstate Web - PM 6 257 Other 440 and Interstate 430, which also have bridges crossing the river, and spread downtown traffic across Bearden, Joel N. 5/20/16 F-1, F-3, F-4 Form the downtown street grid and avoid bottlenecks." NO 10-LANE MONSTROSITY!
Web - PM 6 258 No Build Money, Ash 5/20/16 M Form
Web - PM 6 259 No Build This project would hinder downtown development and ruin progress in the area. Jones, Alanna 5/20/16 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 260 No Build No Build. Save our downtown development. McCook, Patty 5/20/16 E, I-6 Form
Build a new bridge over the river connecting south Pike Avenue to Highway 10. This will pull NLR traffic off the interstate and reduce volume overall. I have commuted in from Conway to downtown Little Rock since 2002. There is nothing wrong with the bridge and downtown exits as they are. Adding more lanes to the interstate wouldn't help traffic volume Web - PM 6 261 Other McGraw, Rebecca 5/20/16 F-3, because if there is a wreck in one lane, ALL the lanes ALWAYS slow way down to rubberneck or wait on Form emergency vehicles. If you increase to 6 lanes, you have 6 lanes backed up due to rubbernecking. Same with 8 lanes. What we REALLY need is another bridge entirely, to aid in getting local folks in and out of downtown. Thanks!
Web - PM 6 262 No Build NO BUILD! Killing Downtown LR is not an option. Owens, Carol 5/20/16 E, I-6 Form
This is the wrong approach. Even the best possible positive impacts of this project also inherently have Web - PM 6 263 No Build Hall, Roger 5/20/16 M negative impacts. Just say no. Form
Web - PM 6 264 No Build Please do not destroy downtown little rock. Fleming, Lee 5/20/16 I-6 Form
Improvements at the interchanges of the major interstates are needed. Traffic could then flow Smoothly Web - PM 6 G-2, G-3, G- 265 No Build Wright, James 5/20/16 through the middle of town without having to build new highways across the river. Form 4
Web - PM 6 266 No Build No build! Beck, Ginger 5/20/16 E Form
D - 42
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 267 No Build I do not support the I-30 expansion. Gentry, Courtney 5/20/16 M Form
I do not support the proposed interchange. It would have a huge impact on residents and businesses in Web - PM 6 268 No Build Browning, Melanie 5/20/16 M, I-6 the area. Form
Web - PM 6 269 No Build No build, stop trying to further segregate our city! Smith, Liz 5/20/16 E Form
Web - PM 6 270 No Build There has got to be a better way to direct traffic than what is currently proposed. Find another way. Fullbright, Trent 5/20/16 F-7 Form
In the short term, a wider highway will benefit only those who do not live in Little Rock. In the long term, Web - PM 6 271 No Build Baggett, Jeffrey 5/20/016 I-1, I-5 it will benefit nobody. Form
Web - PM 6 272 No Build No Build Smith, Liz 5/20/16 E Form
I see no need to widen this thoroughfare to the detriment of an improving downtown business and entertainment sector. Have heard nothing in the details about improving the quality of life for Web - PM 6 273 No Build Newberg, Kelly 5/20/16 F-4, I-6 residents/tax payers, only options for speeding people through LR. I feel this could be done with adding Form infrastructure outside of the heart of downtown.
Web - PM 6 274 No Build No build Roell, Ginger 5/20/16 E Form
As a downtown resident, I do not see the need to add additional lanes to that corridor. All things being relative, Little Rock's "rush hour" is shorter than most cities. Simply adding more lanes will only increase Web - PM 6 E, F-7, G-2, 275 No Build the traffic flow to a particular area. I would implore the committee to seek a better alternative to the six DeCastro, Taylor 5/20/16 Form G-3, G-4 or eight-lane bridge with C/D lanes, and instead find a solution that will improve infrastructure, and be beneficial to the downtown Little Rock area. Thank you.
Web - PM 6 276 No Build Please do not build this. Please do not destroy our city. James, Thaddeus 5/20/2016 M Form
D - 43
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Boulevard. Web - PM 6 277 Other Martin, Rebecca 5/20/2016 I-6, F-1 The addition of lanes will ruin the revitalization of downtown Little Rock. Form
Web - PM 6 278 No Build Please do no build the proposed huge interstate. Sallings, Deborah 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 279 No build No build Hathcock, Stephen 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 280 No build NO BUILD Hathcock, Sam 5/20/2016 E Form
Boulevards. This could have been resolved by open communication in the first place. Nothing works when Web - PM 6 281 No Build Cowling, Rebecca 5/20/2016 F-1, L-2 no other voices are heard. Form
Several more efficient and creative uses for that space have been mentioned. Why are those options not being explored further? 6-8 lanes does not mean traffic will lessen. We have an opportunity to do Web - PM 6 282 No Build Simmons, Katy 5/20/2016 F-7 something really great for our city, be original, and be open to doing something really meaningful. Why Form would we go with the same old way of doing things? Why can't we be better than the norm?
Web - PM 6 283 8 GP Split Diamond Sounds great - sorely needed! Steck, Robert 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 G-2, G-3, G- 284 No Build No additional lanes on the I-30 bridge, please. Showers, Bruno 5/20/2016 Form 4
Any "improvement" will threaten the still fragile redevelopment and revitalization of downtown Little Web - PM 6 285 No Build Rock. Other major cities have realized the negative consequences of mega-freeways in their downtowns Williams, Roger D. 5/20/2016 M Form and are working to correct the problem. Little Rock and Arkansas needs to come into the 21st Century!
Web - PM 6 286 No Build No McCune, Wade 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 287 No Build No comment Dunaway, Beverly 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 288 No Build N/a Bradley, Taylor 5/20/2016 M Form
D - 44
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bigger is not always better. And Little Rock deserves better. Be creative and come up with a solution that Web - PM 6 289 No Build Fitzgerald, Bill 5/20/2016 F-7 doesn't just mean "more roads". Form
Web - PM 6 290 No Build Why not route traffic around the city via 430 or 440 Miller, Jason 5/20/2016 F-4 Form
Building ever larger stretches of concrete will not resolve traffic issues. It's been tried many times and Web - PM 6 291 No Build Cannon, Corbin 5/20/2016 F-7 failed. There are better options. Form
Web - PM 6 292 No Build I've worked downtown for 10 years and lived downtown for more than six. Wiest, Jason 5/20/2016 M Form
We don't need to make is easier for people to commute to our city. We need to improve the conditions of Web - PM 6 293 No Build Maneiro, Joe 5/20/2016 M our city to make it easier for people to live in our city. Form
There are better options being presented that will provide Little Rock with better development potential Web - PM 6 294 No Build Joblin, Nathan 5/20/2016 F-7 while still assisting with traffic. Form
Web - PM 6 295 No Build Please don't destroy the heart of Downtown. It took too many years to get it where it is. Burrows, Lori 5/20/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 296 No Build Boulevard Plan should be considered seriously by City officials. Don't screw this up. Malone, Sally 5/20/2016 E, F-1 Form Conversion to Boulevard. Again and again, studies have shown that adding capacity adds to traffic and does nothing to detract from Web - PM 6 F-1, G-5, G- 297 Other Roberson, Emily 5/20/2016 it. Why would Little Rock take an area that is seeing so much great change and growth and pour concrete Form 6, I-6 over it? All versions of the plan to expand I-30 downtown are ultimately destructive of the kind of city we want to Web - PM 6 F-7, G-2, G- 298 No Build Kuralt, Karen 5/20/2016 have. I want the city to consider options that do not include expanding the freeway. Form 3, G-4
Web - PM 6 299 No build Please do not sever Little Rock further. Barnett, Lindsey 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 300 No Build No build Roell, Ginger 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 301 No Build I wish the AHTD to abandon the current plan Caleb 5/20/2016 M Form
Are there other alternatives? The answer to downtown is not more concrete and asphalt. If you build this I-30 "improvement" it will only bottleneck in other areas forcing you to "improve" those areas as well. Web - PM 6 302 Other Scherling, Travis 5/20/2016 F-7, H-2, I-6 This is not the solution to improving downtown. This is not the way to make it a live able/walkable city. Form Please decide wisely.
D - 45
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I believe in this instance the AHTD should start over with planning. This is an area going through Web - PM 6 303 No Build revitalization. While I30 does need improvements, I believe local interests have been given a disservice by Guthridge, James 5/20/2016 F-7 Form this process.
Web - PM 6 304 No Build Please do not waste our monies. We do not want it Gibbs, Saundra 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 305 No Build I lived in Los Angeles for 21yrs. Each time freeways were expanded, traffic never improved. Rackley, Alan 5/20/2016 G-5, G-6 Form
I did not receive your email confirmation so I am submitting this again. I am opposed to all options thus presented by AHTD because they will not achieve the desired result and the cost is too high for a few Web - PM 6 306 No Build minutes saved (if that) of commute time at the expense of the community. Please go back to the drawing Allen, Gail E. 5/20/2016 F-7 Form board and find a plan that does not "induce" demand for repeated continued expansion programs which will bankrupt our grandchild.
Boulevard Plan. Web - PM 6 307 Other Please bring some thoughtful consideration to city planning in order to keep our city unique and beautiful. Dix, Belynda 5/20/2016 F-1, F-7 Form Money does not have to be the deciding factor, nor should it be.
Eisenhower, Web - PM 6 308 No Build I have yet to see an alternative that is acceptable. 5/20/2016 M Katherine A Form
Web - PM 6 309 No Build No Build McCarron, Vickie 5/20/2016 E Form
The money spent to rebuild downtown will be for nothing…. What a waste of tax payer’s money. No to Web - PM 6 310 No Build Lowe, Lessa 5/20/2016 I-3, M mention historical values. If torn down you can't ever replace! Form
Web - PM 6 311 No Build Thank you Bethea, Jennifer 5/20/2016 M Form
Road construction and traffic patterns in Downtown LR shouldn't benefit those living and paying taxes in Web - PM 6 312 No Build Fendley, Josh 5/20/2016 M LR (Pulaski County) not commuters or thru-traffic Form
Web - PM 6 313 No build NO BUILD Bethea, Tristan 5/20/2016 E Form
D - 46
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 314 No Build no comment Bethea, Tommy 5/20/2016 M Form
Williams, Web - PM 6 315 No Build Please don't build. We're afraid will bring unwanted traffic to our neighborhood. 5/20/2016 G-6 Anderson Form
Web - PM 6 316 No Build No Build Douglas, Elissa 5/20/2016 E Form
I believe a boulevard option with green space would provide the greatest positive impact. A boulevard option would allow valuable urban space to be utilized for homes and businesses and make our downtown more inviting. The east end of I-30 can be diverted to I-440 to reduce non-local traffic through Web - PM 6 F-1, F-4, I- 317 Other the city. A comprehensive beltway system would further divert traffic from the I-30 corridor downtown. Hall, Kayce 5/20/2016 Form 11
I want my tax dollars used to benefit my city, not to create a massive freeway through the middle of downtown that will only encourage future congestion on a larger scale. Web - PM 6 318 No Build No Build Valley, Anthony 5/20/2016 E Form
I've been reading articles from the mid 1970's and have been reminded how awful I-630 has been for our Web - PM 6 319 No Build Key, Barclay 5/20/2016 I-6 city. Please stop the highway-building madness. Form
Please consider a bypass plan with a boulevard corridor through the city. This project is detrimental to the hard-earned walkability aspect of the River market area of Little Rock and to the Argenta area of North Little Rock. It will undo years of development geared toward an easily navigable and enjoyable downtown Web - PM 6 E, F-1, F-4,J, 320 No Build Rea, Kathleen 5/20/2016 area conjoined by walkable bridges over the river. Please reconsider your plans with an eye toward what Form I-6 is best for the community as a whole and the survival and growth of the business in both our downtown areas.
Web - PM 6 321 No Build Spend the money on schools Wingfield, Tristan 5/20/2016 J Form
Web - PM 6 322 No Build This monstrosity will only increase traffic and damage downtown. Ford, Karen 5/20/2016 I-6 Form
Nickol, Bonnie and Web - PM 6 323 No Build As long as this highway has become a "railroad," we urge that this be "No Build" 5/20/2016 E Dr. Sam Form
D - 47
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 324 No Build No build Wohlleb, Mary 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 325 No Build No Build Douglas, Kimberly 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 326 No build NO BUILD Collins, Lila 5/20/2016 E Form
No Build Subway/light rail. Web - PM 6 327 Walsh, John H. 5/20/2016 F-6, M Other Please don't ruin Little Rock Form
I was born in Little Rock in 1980; my father served the city on its police force for 21 years; I spent most of my childhood laying my head down at night in Benton but doing most everything else in Little Rock; I moved back here after going away to college; I'm a homeowner, living near the I-430/I-630 interchange. I'm frustrated by past decisions that have left our city fractured and disconnected across racial, socioeconomic and cultural lines. Decisions like abandoning southwest Little Rock as an avenue of commercial expansion in the '70s and '80s. Decisions like splitting the city in two with a freeway (I- 630) in the '60s.But I still love my city. I love that we have embraced downtown and in the past 15 years have Web - PM 6 328 No Build seen a near complete transformation from a place I was afraid to go as a child to a place my children are LeMaster, Jeff 5/20/2016 I-4, I-9, I-6 Form very familiar with and enjoy. I love that we have options of dining, entertainment, history and culture. The improvements to downtown inspire me and my neighbors to work to make our part of the city, what we like to call "old west Little Rock," a better place to live. Building the I-30 Crossing in the name of improved traffic flow will negate much of the good work that has been done downtown. It will only serve to enable more people to see Little Rock as a place to work, not a place to live. I truly believe we will regret this decision for many generations to come. Please consider the voices like mine that plead with you to reconsider this project.
Web - PM 6 329 No Build Boulevard or nothing Hughes, Harold 5/20/2016 F-1 Form
Web - PM 6 330 No Build Prefer the Boulevard alternative as proposed by Tom Fennell Anderson, Jane 5/20/2016 F-1 Form
Web - PM 6 331 No Build NO BUILD!!! Padilla, Tiffany 5/20/2016 E Form
D - 48
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The boulevard idea present by Mr. Marshall and the architects design for downtown by Tom Fennell's group Please don't build this monster you've come up with AHTD. We have a beautiful River Market Web - PM 6 332 No Build Ward, Barbara 5/20/2016 F-1, I-6 district and a wonderful Downtown district. Visitors who I talk with everyday compliments our city on the Form great downtown area.
Web - PM 6 333 No Build You need to find a better plan for Little Rock. Best, Judith 5/20/2016 F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 334 No Build More highway in downtown is a bad idea. Dobson, Andrea 5/20/2016 I-1, I-5 Form
Web - PM 6 335 No Build We shouldn't be enabling people to bypass the city to the detriment of the city. This is the 21st century. Hall, Elizabeth 5/20/2016 M Form
Continuing to improve the downtown area will increase the want for people to live downtown therefore Web - PM 6 336 No Build Norris, Melanl 5/20/2016 M eliminating a need for expanding the freeway. Form
Web - PM 6 337 No Build I am not in favor of the I-30 expansion being pushed by some of the city directors. Holzer, Linda 5/20/2016 M Form
What about making a dual level starting before Roosevelt Road coming toward river and continuing it just Web - PM 6 338 Other Renard, Kelley 5/20/2016 F-1, F-7 past the connection to I40. Top level would be for express traffic only. Form
Traffic would be better alleviated by dispersing it rather than concentrating it, build a bridge connecting Web - PM 6 339 No Build Chester Street in Little Rock to Pike Avenue in North Little Rock, and finish the North Belt Freeway Morgan, Randall 5/20/2016 F-3, F-4 Form connecting Jacksonville to I-430.
Repair current bridge or rebuild with the same footprint and no new ramps. The proposals that take Engstrom, Web - PM 6 340 No Build 5/20/2016 F-2, H-2 traffic down 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th would create a danger for pedestrians on these residential streets. Rebecca Form
D - 49
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I am amending a previous comment form that I mailed to AHTD. The reason for this amended form is twofold: 1) I previously selected "Other Alternative" indicating that the AHTD needed to review Studio Main's proposal and find funding to make sure that whatever is done is aesthetically pleasing. However, I do not want AHTD to think that I am for any kind of concrete monster through Little Rock. I've now Web - PM 6 A-2, E, F-1, 341 No Build selected "No build" to indicate that more study and analysis should be done. We need to slow down and Hoffman, Kim 5/20/2016 Form F-7 study other alternatives. My previous selection of "Other Alternative" should not be interpreted as endorsing any of the AHTD proposals. 2) This form is misleading. Many people are choosing the 6-lane option because they think it is the "Smaller" of the options. AHTD is trying to deceive people. The 6 lane options are 10 and 12 lanes. This form is deceptive.
Web - PM 6 342 No Build [ The plans represent increased traffic and congestion for downtown by attracting more high speed use. Fennell, Tom 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 343 No Build None Barr, Jason 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 344 No Build No Build selected. Do it right or don't do it. Warren, Van 5/20/2016 E Form
Follow advice of Norm Marshall Use at least 90% of the tax money that was stolen by you for what it was Web - PM 6 345 Other intended, city improvements not wasted on bloated corrupt plans like this, we need pools, small business Cains, Andrew T 5/20/2016 J Form districts, business incubators, community job centers, city gardens, not a $600 million dollar pig trough
Unless this turned to something that enhances our state Capital, it is nothing more than a continuation of Web - PM 6 346 No Build Burton, Larry 5/20/2016 M the city destruction of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Form
Please do not undo all the work revitalizing a vibrant downtown by placing a monstrous freeway in it. I Web - PM 6 347 No Build Vandiver, Julie 5/20/2016 I-1, I-5, I-6 live, work, and send my kids to school downtown and am against the freeway expansion. Form
Web - PM 6 F-6, H-1, H- 348 No Build Bus rapid transit, public transit, bike lanes Halsell, Michele 5/20/2016 Form 2
D - 50
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
This an awful idea from the start. NO ONE that lives in downtown Little Rock in his or her right mind would support this project. The only people in favor of it are those who live out of town. And while I am glad of their right to live where they please and commute, it doesn't give the AHTD or anyone else the right to Web - PM 6 349 No Build ruin the flower of urban renewal steadily expanding in the downtown area. Quite frankly I am far, far less Smith, Jason 5/20/2016 I-6 Form concerned with anyone's commute time taking 15 minutes longer, than I am with the quality of life in the downtown neighborhoods. A quality of life that the City of Little Rock, the State of Arkansas, the local businesses and the residents have spent millions of dollars and over two decades improving.
I prefer the boulevard approach. You should review it. Building more highways doesn't solve traffic Web - PM 6 350 No Build Baker, Susan 5/20/2016 E, F-1 problems. Form
Web - PM 6 351 No Build Kish, Kelly 5/20/2016 M Form
Carpenter, Web - PM 6 352 No Build No build!!!!!! 5/20/2016 E Chandle Form
Web - PM 6 353 No Build The AHTD plan would be a disaster for downtown LR. Webb, Dale G. 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 354 8 GP Split Diamond Arkansas has the worst highways of any state I have been through, by far. Green, John 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 355 No build No build! Save the River Market! Mangum, Yael 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 356 No Build Please don't build!!!! Wills, Carrie 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 357 No Build Please don't build! Wills, Nathanael 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 358 No Build None Kwendeche 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 359 No Build No Build Hicks, Jeffrey 5/20/2016 E Form
D - 51
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Short cut to airport an alternative access to downtown from US 67-167 from the east: extend US 67-167 from I-40 across the UP yard to an at-grade intersection with East Broadway and Buckeye St, North Little Rock, adding a new 4-lane bridge with pedestrian lanes crossing the river to Fletcher, Townsend, or Calhoun Streets at East 6th Street Little Rock. Designate 9th Street extension and Bond Street as US 167, thence to E Roosevelt and I-30 and I-530. Alternatively, rebuild E 15th Street to extend to Crisp and Bond and tie in to I-630 at the existing 15th Street ramps. 6 C/D Web - PM 6 F-3, F-4, F- 360 SPUI 2. Create an I-30 connection to Arch Street. Ramps could be built across Fourche Creek and UPRR toward Bryan, James MD 5/20/2016 Other Form 1, F-7 65th Street BETWEEN the existing elevated portions of I-30. New ramps for I-30 East exiting to Arch St and Arch St to enter I-30 West, inside lanes. Oval-shape Traffic Circle at W Roosevelt and Arch to (Federal roadway) Broadway. Extend E 33rd St along UPRR to S Main Street to bleed some of the traffic 5 blocks farther east to thriving South Main enclave. Downtown resident for 20 years. I envision completing my medical career practicing at a bike and pedestrian friendly location on Broadway or Main St south of I-630 in the next 20 years.
I support the AR Highway Department's plans to widen the I-30 corridor to 12 lanes. Additional lanes will allow "through" traffic to maintain appropriate highway speeds and not have to slow to 40 MPH for local Web - PM 6 361 6 C/D SPUI Oliver, Sara 5/20/2016 A-1, G-6 traffic. I am concerned about the resulting increased traffic on 6th street as 6th Street is not suitable for Form interstate traffic due to pedestrian traffic and parking on both sides of 6th Street.
McCallum, Web - PM 6 362 No Build Destroys our downtown fabric. 5/20/2016 I-6 Michael Form
Web - PM 6 363 No Build Ruins downtown McCallum, Alison 5/20/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 364 No Build Expansion will destroy the downtown riverfront area. Kidd, Kristy 5/20/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 365 No Build No build Jorgensen, Eve 5/20/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 366 No Build Please don't ruin our community! Farrell, Kelly 5/20/2016 I-4, M Form
Web - PM 6 367 No Build No build Jennings, Jay 5/20/2016 E Form
D - 52
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Standing in solidarity with numerous downtown residents and other supporters. I am requesting a No Build course of action. Downtown has and is continuing to enjoy a bustling revitalization. More green Web - PM 6 G-1, J, I-1, I- 368 No Build space is needed as well as improved public transit and walking areas. Highway safety should be of primary Tyler, Sylvia 5/20/2016 Form 5, I-6 importance followed by the stance of those who reside in the area. To steamroll the current development plan is complete and utter disrespect to the numerous residents and supporters who oppose the plan.
Web - PM 6 369 No Build Grynwald, Kirk 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 370 No Build I say no to any increased lanes on the freeway. Minyard, Brain 5/20/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 371 No Build I don't think the increased lanes is going to solve the big problem! Smith, James 5/20/2016 M Form
Grunden, Web - PM 6 372 No Build N/A 5/20/2016 M Catherine Form
Web - PM 6 373 No Build I oppose building the monster highway through downtown LR. Kenward, Tami 5/20/2016 I-1, I-5 Form
Web - PM 6 374 No Build More lanes are not needed and would hurt down town little rock. Jones, Scott 5/20/2016 G-2, I-6 Form
Please consider seriously that alternative plan developed by Tom Fennell. This is what is best for our city Web - PM 6 375 No Build Koonce, Gerald 5/20/2016 E, F-1 and our future. Form
Woodyard, Web - PM 6 376 No Build None 5/20/2016 E, M Elizabeth Form
Start Over Web - PM 6 377 No Build Frazier, Lorraine 5/20/2016 E, M None Form
Web - PM 6 378 No Build This will ruin the progress that is taking place in the Main St and downtown area. Such a bad idea. Hogan, Brenda 5/20/2016 I-6 Form
D - 53
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 379 No Build K Hrappe, Cheryl 5/20/2016 M Form
Please have the vision to implement the Boulevard option, and route I 30 through traffic on alternate Web - PM 6 380 Other Brown, Linda 5/21/2016 F-1, F-4 routes. I 430, I 630 and I-440 already exist. It would cost less and be a much preferred long term plan. Form
Better plan to connect 67/167 to 630 directly or connect 67/167 to 440 with turns to Broadway in NLR, Web - PM 6 381 No Build 9th street and to a 630 continuation connection and a connection to 530. But instead your real men of Brian 5/21/2016 F-4 Form genius……
Web - PM 6 382 No Build The only option is not building. We do not need this. It will permanently damage downtown Little Rock. McAbee, Kris 5/21/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 383 No Build What we need to relieve congestion on the I-30 bridge is another river crossing. Not more lanes. Irwin, Lee 5/21/2016 F-3 Form
Web - PM 6 384 No Build None Anderson, Anna 5/21/2016 M Form
Maintenance is necessary, true. As someone with a significant investment in downtown and in its revitalization however, I feel our objective has to be more than just moving traffic through it. Community leaders and residents with the most at stake have come up with solid alternatives that promise to Web - PM 6 385 No Build enhance the forward momentum rather than destroy it. We are at a crossroads where forward thinking Melkovitz, Doug 5/21/2016 G-2, I-6 Form will enable us to move into the future confident that we made the right decisions and didn't squander the opportunities before us. Go to any city with large freeways running through their downtown and then tell me that's what you want for Little Rock. Please don't do this.
I moved my family to Little Rock from Atlanta. We were tired of spending large chunks of our day sitting on congested mega-freeways. We decided Little Rock would be a more pleasant place to start a business. I thought that Little Rock would look to all the other failed urban freeway systems and learn from their Chapin-Critz, Web - PM 6 386 No Build 5/21/2016 F-6, F-7 mistakes. I hope it's not too late. Please abandon this plan, which will NOT solve commuter problems. Melanie Form Please put your minds and money into public transportation, as most big cities wish in hindsight they had done.
McCumber, Web - PM 6 387 No Build Please don't set back the downtown/River Market 50 years. 5/21/2016 I-6, M William Form
D - 54
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 388 No Build A satisfactory alternative has not been presented thus far Kenward, Tami 5/21/2016 F-7 Form
McDonald, Web - PM 6 389 No Build Keep downtown great!! 5/21/2016 M Melissa Form
I oppose this plan for many reasons and feel that if you truly are trying to "connect" Arkansas, this is not a Protiva-Brown, Web - PM 6 390 No Build viable solution. Actions have consequences, and the results of your proposed plan will be truly 5/21/2016 I-6 Tara Form devastating to the residents of Downtown Little Rock
Web - PM 6 391 No Build Don't Build!! Irvin, Andrew 5/21/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 392 No Build I believe we need to revisit the entire issue and its impact on the revitalization of the Downtown area. Moore, Mike 5/21/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 393 No Build Did we learn anything from Robert Moses in New York City last Century? No build! Griffin, Craig 5/21/2016 E Form
No this is a very bad idea. It is not needed and will only work towards urban decay and racial separation of Web - PM 6 394 No Build Gwatney, Anita 5/21/2016 I-3, I-4, M the city. Form
Web - PM 6 395 No Build XXX Cannon, M 5/21/2016 M Form
The current plan should be abandoned and more community friendly options, like a boulevard, should be Web - PM 6 396 No Build Cato, Rebecca 5/21/2016 F-7, F-1 explored. Form
Web - PM 6 397 No Build No build!!! Flakes, A L 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 398 No Build None Dix, Belynda 5/21/2016 M Form
D - 55
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 399 No Build Totally Against! Jones, Sarabeth 5/21/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 400 No Build No build Vancura, Mary 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 401 No Build Do not build this unneeded monstrosity. Brockway, Tim 5/21/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 402 No Build It should be left as is Simmons, Kirt 5/21/2016 E, M Form
Web - PM 6 403 No Build I have seen no plans presented that are not overwhelmingly negative in their impacts. Beard, Ian 5/21/2016 M Form
Your ideas will hurt downtown Little Rock - and it is obvious that you don't care about that but many of us do. Traffic needs to be routed around the city and new Boulevard needs to be seriously considered for Taylor, Ann Web - PM 6 E, F-1, F-4, 404 No Build downtown. Give Little Rock a chance to be something positive for the future instead of padding the 5/21/2016 Suzette Form I-6 pockets of a few who only care about themselves. We have come too far to go completely backwards now. Signed, Lifetime resident of Little Rock.
Web - PM 6 405 No Build N/A Parkerson, Becky 5/21/2016 M Form
There appears to be a great deal of conflicting information currently floating around about the scope of the proposed changes to the I-30 corridor. It is becoming increasing difficult to discern what information is reliable and what is misinformation being put out to move opinion for or against the project by various groups. Some claims are so extreme that they sound highly implausible, but I have been unable to locate factual source information either to substantiate or to refute them. Despite searching the AHTD and CAP websites, I have not been able to locate the kinds of transparent facts that would help to correct the misinformation and develop truly informed opinions.
Is it possible to get information that would detail how wide the expanded freeway would be at various (as 406 Cooney, Nathaniel 5/21/2016 Email L-2, P-3 many as possible) points along the expansion corridor (especially over the river and through downtown LR), including width in feet and lanes (with breakdown of all traffic lanes, ramps, shoulders, etc.)? It would also be helpful to have data on the current freeway along the study area, and any information available pertaining to additional anticipated property/easement that would be required to accomplish the proposed expansions?
If this information is already publicly somewhere, I would be very grateful if you could assist in directing me to it. If it is not published online, any information you can send via email would be very much appreciated. Nathaniel Cooney
D - 56
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 407 No Build I am a frequent visitor to Little Rock. This is a terrible idea. It would be devastating to the downtown area Blanchard, Donna 5/21/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 408 No Build Cunningham, John 5/21/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 409 No Build No to 8. No to 10. No to 12. Replace existing structure only. Franklin, Cindy 5/21/2016 F-2 Form
Web - PM 6 410 No Build No build Franklin, Cindy 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 411 No Build No build Burnham, Bill 5/21/2016 E Form
Develop alternative routes, especially to direct through-traffic toward Conway and Jacksonville/Searcy/Memphis, build another bridge(s) over the AR River, be willing to invest in the environment. Web - PM 6 412 Other White, Judy 5/21/2016 F-3, F-4, F-7 We have invested so much to build up the downtown area, and present plans will only degrade it. We Form need more imagination, more commitment to beauty and community, and public will to spend the money that it takes to make decisions that are healthy and sound, not just expedient.
Web - PM 6 413 No Build Save downtown Little Rock Felton, Beth 5/21/2016 M Form
No Build 4 lane boulevard with businesses, parking, pedestrian and biking, and green spaces. Web - PM 6 E, F-1, F-7, 414 Barry, Larissa 5/21/2016 Other More freeways means more congestion and less community. Form H-2, I-4
Web - PM 6 415 No Build Don't screw it up. Burnham, Don 5/21/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 416 No Build Please do not build. Carlock, Kerrie 5/21/2016 E, M Form
Web - PM 6 417 No Build There must be a better option! Larkin, Erin 5/21/2016 F-7 Form
D - 57
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 418 No Build No build Heil, Michael 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 419 No Build No Build Li, Yan 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 420 No Build No Build Heil, Michael 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 421 No Build No Build Hubbard, Austin 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 422 No Build Do not destroy our downtown with concrete! Odena, Lisa 5/21/2016 I-1, I-5 Form
Web - PM 6 423 No Build No build Kelly, Frank 5/21/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 424 No Build We do not need more interstate through downtown LR!! Barber, Brenda 5/22/2016 I-1, I-5 Form
Please do not build this through our city. There are alternative routes that would work just the same and Web - PM 6 425 No Build Strause, Katherine 5/22/2016 F-4, F-7, I-6 you wouldn't destroy all that we have created downtown and mid-town. Form
Web - PM 6 426 No Build Please save our downtown from this plan of action. It would destroy our city center and mid-town. Jukes, David 5/22/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 427 No Build Do not destroy downtown Little Rock. Dunaway, Nancy 5/22/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 428 No Build Until there is a good plan, let’s try to implement no bad plans Stanley, Laura 5/22/2016 F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 429 No Build NO BUILD Shera, Sarah 5/22/2016 E Form
D - 58
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 430 No Build NO BUILD!!!! Smith, Terri 5/22/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 431 8 GP Split Diamond These current roads are in horrible condition! Build for the future! McWilliams, Sue 5/22/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 432 No Build No other comments Bean, Robert 5/22/2016 M Form
Repair current highway. No Build Web - PM 6 F-2, I-3, I-6, 433 When I moved here in 1993 no one went to the River market/downtown area. There has been such an Clifton, Thomas 5/22/2016 Other Form I-11 incredible revitalization, to do anything to alter that is unconscionable. My family goes there weekly.
Web - PM 6 434 No Build We don't need more freeway cutting through the heart of our city. We need less. Lensing, Blake 5/22/2016 I-1, I-5, I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 435 No Build No Build Noel, Kayla 5/22/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 436 No Build No Build Staton, Lynda 5/22/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 437 No Build No build Odena, Scott 5/22/2016 E Form
Encouraging further growth of single-occupancy vehicle, rush-hour traffic detrimental to the health of downtown Little Rock and the region as a whole. Induced demand is a real thing; just look at the Katy Freeway in Houston. After $2.8 billion dollars to widen the interstate to 23 lanes, congestion has only Web - PM 6 438 No Build Bridgeman, Jeffrey 5/22/2016 F-7, J gotten worse. The proposed I-30 is an irresponsible use of public funds. We must stop wasting massive Form amounts of money on solutions that don't work. We demand something better than more pavements, more congestion, more pollution, and more traffic deaths.
Web - PM 6 439 No Build None Fricks, Debi 5/22/2016 M Form
D - 59
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 440 No Build I would rather see light rail than more freeway. Get with the times!! Bellomy, Lauren 5/22/2016 F-6 Form
Web - PM 6 441 No Build No other alternative Colburn, Jerry 5/22/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 442 6 C/D Split Diamond NA Wall, Curtis 5/22/2016 M Form
Would prefer smaller expansions on multiple routes. Web - PM 6 443 Other The options presented by AHTD are too big in scope, too expensive, and will not ease congestion for Glenn, Aimee 5/22/2016 I-1, I-5, J Form central Arkansas drivers.
When I-30 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes it was nice for about three years. Then it started getting 6 C/D Web - PM 6 444 Split Diamond congested, and now getting out of LR. At rush hour is stop and go like it used to be. I-30 needs to be 8 Robert 5/22/2016 A-1, G-6 8 GP Form lanes to Bryant.
Web - PM 6 445 No build No build. Improve public transportation. Barrett, Amanda 5/22/2016 E, H-1 Form
Web - PM 6 446 No Build No freeway through downtown please. Shepherd, Karen 5/22/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 447 6 C/D Split Diamond I trust the transportation experts at AHTD to offer the best solutions possible for this corridor. Nichols, Don 5/23/2016 M Form
Own our home, and my husband moved his office here, both just 1.5 blocks from this proposed project Web - PM 6 448 No Build Mason, Janell 5/23/2016 E site. Beg you not to do this. No Build. Form
Web - PM 6 449 No Build Go back to the drawing board in collaboration with citizens and local government. Grunden, Thomas 5/23/2016 F-7, L-2 Form
We drove from our house in downtown NLR to Judsonia yesterday. The section through Dark Hollow is Mayfield-Hart, Web - PM 6 450 6 C/D Split Diamond 5/23/2016 G-1 incredibly dangerous. We need to improve that ASAP. Elizabeth Form
6-lane with collector/distributor lanes and split diamond interchange will best serve the downtown community wishing to commute out to the suburbs and the suburban community wishing to commute in Web - PM 6 A-1, C, I-5, 451 6 C/D Split Diamond Stewart, Bryan 5/23/2016 to the downtown area. The split diamond interchanges more aesthetically pleasing and provides the Form I-11 greenest space for those living downtown.
D - 60
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
6 C/D SPUI I love all the green, community spaces available with the highway designs. I feel that parking would be an Web - PM 6 452 Gifford, Valerie 5/23/2016 I-7, I-11 8 GP Split Diamond issue that would need to be addressed if the on street parking was eliminated. Form
I do not know the best alternative, however, I do know this has been studied by traffic flow specialists for Web - PM 6 453 8 GP Split Diamond Covay, Jeff 5/23/2016 M some time and am happy to defer to their recommendations. Form
North Belt Freeway. New bridge and Commuting transit. You should go back to the drawing board because this is project is too much for a small city like Little Rock. This bridge looks like the I-95/495 bridge in Washington D.C. which should not be in an inner city. If you can find money for this then you can find money for other projects like finishing the North Belt Freeway Loop and building a new river bridge. Start thinking like a citizen and not a dumb politician by F-7, F-3, F- No Build getting what you want by not thinking about the taxpayers. If you think in 2040 that (commuting) traffic is Web - PM 6 454 Morgan, Alex 5/23/2016 4, F-6, I-1, I- Other going to worse especially by the time we might have flying cars and transit options then consider those Form 5, I-10 alternatives. Think about not only the River Market area but think about how it would affect other projects across the state as well. You always complaining about funding everyday but yet you found money for a project that is not needed that badly. Don't study on the alternatives just build them like you are trying to do with this project, start using common sense more often instead of relying on your bull crap studies who don't pay taxes.
The construction of the shortsighted project as planned will have an extremely negative economic, social, Web - PM 6 455 No Build cultural, and aesthetic impact on the quality of life in Little Rock, far beyond the downtown areas most Jones, William B. 5/23/2016 I-4, I-9, I-6 Form directly affected and for years beyond our lifetimes.
All AHTD proposals thus far would be a huge detriment to a city that has been working hard toward revitalization. There are other options available, an especially exciting one being the boulevard proposed Web - PM 6 456 No Build Cerrato, Sasha 5/23/2016 E, F-1, L-2 by Smart Mobility. For the simple sake of honesty and transparency, please also read and accurately Form interpret the "Other" responses, which will most likely be opposed to any AHTD proposals thus far.
Web - PM 6 457 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A DeMoss, Robert 5/23/2016 M Form
D - 61
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
AHTD needs to get their ideas out to the non-downtown Arkansan who expects to replace this very central and essential connector and has no idea there is a downtown element seeking to have everyone else pay for their lifestyle while they shove everyone else out of 'their' downtown. Last I checked, most of the city, county and state buildings located in downtown were supposed to be accessible to ALL the PUBLIC, not just the downtown dwellers. There are many elderly and disable folks who do not have the ability to bike and hike everywhere, yet need to be able to park close and access OUR public buildings. This is NOT just about downtown; it's about ALL the Public. AHTD has presented a fantastic plan for Web - PM 6 458 6 C/D Split Diamond Braithwaite, Dori 5/23/2016 I-7 Arkansas, though downtown naysayers would prefer an interstate for bicycles only. Would be nice to Form incorporate a waterpark UNDER the bridge, similar to Nashville's Cumberland Park. But it won't matter unless there are parking areas so ALL the PUBLIC has access. Most downtown dwellers are single, working age and able-bodied, with no use for children's areas or benches for the elderly-- parking areas are irrelevant to them, but not to the rest of us. Yes, preserving and protecting downtown is important, but not at the expense of accessibility for the elderly, the handicapped, children, and families. Most of us do not want a downtown that is inaccessible to the public.
Web - PM 6 459 No Build Do not expand into a super highway. Keep LR beautiful. McFarlan, Dwayne 5/23/2016 I-1, I-5 Form
An article by the consulting group up for the Little Rock Board. Limit the freeway and people will make Web - PM 6 460 No Build more efficient responses! False assumptions determined the I-30 crossing plan. Holt, John 5/23/2016 M Form Http://nelsonnygaard>com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ITE-Journal_Tumlin.pdf
Web - PM 6 461 No Build NO COMMENTS Blair, Robert 5/24/2016 M Form
The alternative I have selected fixes the issues of I-30 river crossing while opening up additional green Sichmeller, Web - PM 6 462 6 C/D SPUI space for the River Market. The SPUI alternative maintains the existing traffic flow to alleviate driver 5/24/2016 A-1, D, I-11 Stephen Form confusion at the completion of the project.
While I appreciate the planning strides made in a positive direction. I still feel that all options are an over Web - PM 6 463 No Build Davis, Heather 5/24/2016 F-7, I-1, I-5 build. The goal of smoothly flowing interstate traffic at rush hour is simply unreasonable and unnecessary. Form
Web - PM 6 464 6 C/D Split Diamond A Jones, Chuck 5/24/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 465 6 C/D Split Diamond Move the connector between 3rd Cruce, Martin 5/24/2016 F-1, F-7 Form D - 62
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
10-Lane Multi-Level Bridge (6 upper and 4 lower) and Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). A multi-level bridge would appease all stakeholders. The proposed structure would support both through and local traffic by separating the two via grade/elevation differences. This eliminates speed discrepancies Web - PM 6 466 Other SPUI Ball, Jonathan 5/24/2016 M and traffic weaves that currently plague this area. The overall width of the structure would be minimized Form as well. The Queensboro Bridge and Manhattan Bridge (both in NYC) are good examples of this type of structure.
Hello, I just wanted to write the program and show my support for the idea of a Split Diamond Interchange for the new I-30 project. I am originally from Georgia and have seen firsthand the benefits of the Split Diamond Interchange. They were implemented in Metro Atlanta where they were desperately needed and have been successful from what I could see while using them. I want to also show my support for expanding the lanes on I-30. I could not conceive how a boulevard would ever function in replacement of Web - PM 6 467 8 GP Split Diamond I-30. This is just a mere suggestion, but when planning the visual appeal of the structures of the new I-30, Dobbins, Rushton 5/24/2016 B, C, M Form it might be helpful to make it appealing to pedestrians. As it stands now it is very dirty and downtrodden under the I-30 ramps of Little Rock. Lighting, public art, cleaner designs would go a long way in making this transition easy for the people of Little Rock. These are just my thoughts and I know you are all very capable of making these decisions on your own. Thank you for your time, Ruston Dobbins Central Arkansas Library System - Main Library
Although I live in Cave City I travel to Little Rock fairly often since I was born and raised there. I like closing the 2nd street exit and moving it to 4-6th streets utilizing the split diamond alternatives. I would go ahead 6 C/D Web - PM 6 468 Split Diamond and build the 8-lane alt. because traffic is going to do nothing but increase over the years (or at least Trantham, Joe 5/24/2016 B, C, I-11 8 GP Form reconstruct the River Bridge to this width). I like the additional green space provided for in these alternatives.
Web - PM 6 469 No Build No Build. The proposed plans are not economically viable for Little Rock's growth or sustainability. Dillaha, Jennifer 5/24/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 470 6 C/D SPUI Improvements are needed. Please don't choose the no build option Dail, Nick 5/24/2016 D, M Form
I think that separating the thru traffic from the local traffic through this corridor will be much more effective at increasing capacity. Therefore, I think the 6-lane alternative with the C/D lanes would be most Web - PM 6 471 6 C/D SPUI Mashburn, Keith 5/25/2016 A-1, C, D beneficial. I also think that either the SPUI or Diamond Interchange would equally ease congestion in the Form area, with the SPUI taking less right-of-way; therefore, the SPUI should be implemented in my opinion.
Web - PM 6 472 No Build So far no AHTD-generated alternatives are expensive--too wide, bulky, invasive, and expensive. Guffey, Marsha 5/25/2016 F-7, J Form
D - 63
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 473 6 C/D Split Diamond Please keep Arkansas moving in the right direction David 5/25/2016 M Form
While in college I interned with our local planning department and am conversant with the issues involved. AHTD has a proverbial hammer in its toolkit, and to it everything looks like a nail. It is inconceivable to me that this region is putting such a large portion of its budget into this one single project. And that said project represents an approach that does not take into account the accumulated evidence of forty years’ worth of failure by highway agencies to achieve their stated aims. This has been pointed out by others elsewhere and I will not repeat their specific objections here. There is no such thing as a city, at least not a thriving city, without some congestion. This project is an attempt to achieve something about as likely to happen as catching a Unicorn. It is an extravagant project for a metro area of this size and does not represent good value for money. It has already been demonstrated that, though this is a two-digit "mainline" I.S. segment, the vast majority of through traffic Web - PM 6 474 No Build bypasses this route and what is being addressed by this project is congestion generated locally. This is not Gaudin, Andrew L. 5/25/2016 I-10, J Form an appropriate use of federal-aid funding. Further, during the construction phase of this project of our limited budget being dedicated to the proposed expansion, it is not likely that monies will be found by either the city or the state to mitigate these impacts. It is also inconceivable to me that hundreds of millions are being spent on one highway segment when this city doesn't have a networked and fully automated traffic signal control system on its extensive network of surface streets. In short, no investment in smart technologies; hundreds of millions for the policies of the past. Speaking of Policies, I believe that Little Rock has adopted a complete streets ordinance. If so, any action by the City in connection with this project must, therefore, conform to say policy. The city should not lend its resources to the advancement of this project unless the criteria set out by its existing policies are met.
The width of the bridge should remain the same. There should be NO highway running through the Web - PM 6 475 Other Baldwin, Leslie 5/25/2016 F-2, F-7 downtown. Thank you. Form
Please provide for future ITS abilities, corridor incident management and maintenance, and data collection and dissemination needs. I commute along this corridor daily. The interstate facility is important to daily lives of many people and should be retained and improved. Traffic operations would be greatly SPUI improved by separating interstate traffic from local traffic (C-D roads). Traffic operations both during Web - PM 6 476 6 C/D Romano, Kim 5/26/2016 G-5, G-6, K Split Diamond construction and for future maintenance should be considered in the design. Closing lanes on I-30 creates Form tremendous delays through the CBD that impact all river crossings very quickly. I hope that the I-30 alternative that is selected will incorporate measures for future operations and maintenance of Central Arkansas' highway system.
D - 64
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
As an AHTD employee, I recognize the political realities at play. For the record, I believe that widening the bridge this much (plus the other widening throughout the region that will be required) is an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and completely unnecessary for a metro area of our size. I believe that more creative solutions exist that still fit the Department's criteria. As a proud resident of Little Rock who very rarely uses the I30 bridge at rush hour, my natural priority is the continued growth of downtown Little Rock (and NLR). However, I realize that this must be balanced with the needs of commuters. My primary concern, therefore, is that the City of Little Rock benefits from this project as much as the commuters who do not pay taxes here but nevertheless rely on our jobs and infrastructure. That means: Web - PM 6 F-7, I-11, I- 477 6 C/D Split Diamond Davies, Sam 5/26/2016 - Improved east-west connectivity Form 4, I-9 - Improved interchanges that better utilize the downtown grid - Measures to slow traffic down when in the downtown grid - Aesthetic improvements such as lights, parks, and greenery that lessen crime and improve the downtown landscape in the face of such a massive bridge. Ideally I would like a deck park but will settle for the capacity for the City to add one in the future. My concern is that these goals, particularly the aesthetic improvements, will be cut from the project for the sake of cost. I believe this would be a mistake. These goals will be a very small percentage of the project cost and will have the greatest value to the city the project is located in. I would like to see an official agreement with the City stating that its needs will be met.
Citizens not living in downtown need better access to downtown, and parking when we get there, for those disabled and elderly. Not everyone can walk blocks or ride bikes. Web - PM 6 478 6 C/D Split Diamond Hamner, Jerome 5/26/2016 A-1, C, I-7 Please replace the I-30 bridge and ensure access to downtown for those who do not live there. Form I like the current 6-lane with C/D lanes and Split Diamond Interchange, fitting for the Diamond state.
I think it would be unwise to spend so much money on the 8-lane alternatives and still have bottlenecks to have to deal with. So they should not go forward as the preferred alternative. Regarding the SPUI or the Split Diamond, I think the SPUI would handle the traffic better. Also, a lot of commuters who use the Cantrell interchange might not like having to go through many more traffic signals than they would normally. I use this corridor to get to Murray Park and I would have to go through 9 intersections (many of them signalized) with the Split Diamond just to get to LaHarpe Blvd, as opposed Web - PM 6 479 6 C/D SPUI Whatley, Ben 5/27/2016 A-1, D, I-11 to only 2 signals with the SPUI. I feel like many who commute to work in downtown will be in the same Form boat. Hwy 10/ LaHarpe / Cantrell is classified as a principal arterial; it seems odd to cut of access to a principal arterial, but that is what the Split Diamond does. The SPUI will keep the access open to LaHarpe, while still giving the City some green space to do what they please. I think the 6-lane w/CD roads SPUI is the best alternative.
D - 65
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Construct the previously-studied new I-30 crossing corridor to the east and convert the existing I-30 downtown corridor into an I-30 Business corridor using the Collector/Distributor format with lower speed limits and a new, properly-designed Arkansas River bridge. Establish continually updated signage showing the travel times to various destinations using I-430, I-440, I-30 Business, and the new I-30. Develop an option for this alternative and other alternatives which would cover all elevated sections with solar panels which would be designed to reduce rain/ice/snow on the surface, provide electricity, shade traffic, and reduce noise. Reducing the congestion associated with weather-related accidents would do more than anything else to reduce the worst incidents of congestion in the corridor. Web - PM 6 A-2, F-1, F- 480 Other You need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement because the project is controversial, because Pekar, Dale 5/29/2016 Form 7, L-1, M, J the expenditure of such a large amount of money on this project prevents other needed road improvements, because this project will further exacerbate the problems associated with urban sprawl such as promoting distant development of previously undeveloped areas and reducing the desirability of living in the downtown area, and because the alternatives reduce accessibility to I-30 in the downtown area. It's misleading to label the 10-Lane Alternative as being 6-Lane Alternatives with C/D Lanes as people can't tell whether the 6-Lanes descriptor includes the C/D Lanes or not. They're 10-Lanes in some areas and 6- Lanes plus 4 C/D Lanes in some areas.
Web - PM 6 481 No Build Do not build Roell, Ginger 5/30/2016 M Form
After reviewing the simulations, it appears that the improvement checked above would be the best Web - PM 6 482 6 C/D Split Diamond Chadwick, Kevin 5/31/2016 M option. The 8-lane options do not appear to show much improvement in the current traffic conditions. Form
Fine w/ whichever 6 lane w/ distributor lanes that the designers. Web - PM 6 483 6 C/D Split Diamond Anders, Patrick 5/31/2016 M I am in favor of the I-30 project. I am concerned about the changes to E. Broadway in NLR on the East. Form
D - 66
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Change the corridor into a 6-Lane C/D configuration and relabel is at I-30 Downtown. Add an I-30W label to I-430 and an I-30E label to I-440. Add a right exit followed by a flyover ramp from I-40 east to northbound Hwy. 67. Add a right exit followed by a flyover ramp from I-40 west onto I-30. Replace the Arkansas River Bridge. Expand the ramp from northbound I-30 to westbound I-40 to 2 lanes. North Cypress Street, which serves as a frontage road on the west side of I-30 north of the Arkansas River, currently dead-ends on either side of the Union Pacific Railroad, making the frontage road system discontinuous. Add a new connection spanning the railroad tracks. Convert the two-way section of North Locust Street on the east side of I-30 to one-way traffic so as to complete a one-way frontage road system north of the Arkansas River. F-1, F-2, F- Web - PM 6 484 Other Add Texas U-Turns near Bishop Lindsey Avenue and 19th Street. Pekar, Dale 5/31/2016 7, G-3, G-4, Form Provide access from North Little Rock to I-40 eastbound via a slip ramp from the I-30/I-40 frontage road L-1 onto the ramp leading from I-30 to I-40 eastbound. Expand the 1 lane section of I-530 northbound leading into I-30 to 2 lanes. Improve the interchanges at Broadway Street, I-630 and Roosevelt Street to facilitate the expected increase in traffic through the year 2041. Cost out an option for all alternatives which would cover all elevated portions of the corridor so as to reduce accidents and congestion associated with precipitation events, provide shading to traffic, and reduce noise. Downtown Little Rock has blossomed with increased highway congestion. As you indicate in your PEL Level 3 Screening Methodology, increasing congestion can be expected to attract increased transit use. This alternative would not contribute to urban sprawl and its associated ills.
Route the through traffic out the I-440 with expansion on it and signs to direct traffic to and from. Web - PM 6 485 No Build Memphis to use it not staying on I-30 through downtown. Improve connection from east end of I-630 to Britt, James 5/31/2016 F-4 Form 440
D - 67
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
There is an easy entrance and excellent alternative for North East bound traffic on I-30 to enter downtown LR without damaging the Historic MacArthur Park Residential District nor River Market District. Those of us living there have difficulty as pedestrians crossing 9th, 6th, and Capitol with present traffic, especially during rush hours. Roosevelt is an AHTD neglected State Highway with easy access to Broadway and Main, both 4 lane No Build Web - PM 6 486 Boulevards, until Main was changed for unused bicycle lanes. Also, Main Street could come back as a Holt, John S 6/1/2016 F-1, F-7 Other Form major commercial success; something already beginning! AHTD engineers could easily design vastly superior exits for connection to Main and Broadway which go straight downtown. I am an avid bicycle rider and bike routes could be better routed through lower volume traffic areas. Another neglected state highway entrance that could be used and enhanced is via the I-39 Highway 65th exit leading to Arch Street which could connect to downtown via Chester Street too.
12 to 14 lanes will create a monster footprint through the River Market, which is now a pedestrian- Web - PM 6 487 No Build Lyford, Nell 6/1/2016 H-2, I-1, I-5 friendly neighborhood. Form
Web - PM 6 488 6 C/D Split Diamond This project is long overdue. Jones, Jessie 6/2/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 489 6 C/D Split Diamond No additional comments Fleming, John T 6/2/2016 M Form
I believe the 6-lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) lanes and Split Diamond Interchange shows the best Web - PM 6 490 6 C/D Split Diamond Cusick, Thomas 6/2/2016 A-1, C results and will be best for the surrounding communities. Form
Web - PM 6 491 6 C/D SPUI This option provides the best solution to the traffic problems on I-30 through downtown LR and NLR. McKinney, Claire 6/2/2016 M Form
The 6-lane CD and Split Diamond Interchange addresses the traffic congestion while minimizing the impacts on the downtown River Market area. This seems to be a good compromise between improving Web - PM 6 492 6 C/D Split Diamond Ruddell, John 6/2/2016 A-1, C the highway capacity while leaving opportunities for future development and connectivity of the Form downtown area.
I believe that the 6-lane with CD and SPUI will operate the best, providing safer and more efficient transportation to/from downtown. Providing more capacity and improving deficient geometric conditions Web - PM 6 493 6 C/D SPUI Smalley, Annette 6/2/2016 A-1, D, G-1 will resolve much of the current issues and allow the downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock areas to Form thrive.
Web - PM 6 494 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you McPherson, Betty 6/2/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 495 This is a great idea that will have a positive impact on downtown Little Rock. Roberson, Blake 6/2/2016 M Form D - 68
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 496 6 C/D SPUI The boulevard is a terrible idea. Let the engineers do what they do best. Atkinson, Mason 6/2/2016 M Form
I prefer the SPUI over the split diamond alternative because it allows more access points to downtown LR. Web - PM 6 497 6 C/D SPUI I also like the CD lanes. It is difficult entering, weaving, or entering, the interstate with the high speed McKinney, Laura 6/2/2016 A-1, D Form main lane traffic.
Web - PM 6 498 6 C/D Split Diamond Making no repairs is just asking for trouble. The bridge is old and seriously in need of attention. Lansden, Mavis 6/2/2016 F-2 Form
No build is my choice. This will discourage more downtown traffic, nurture the well-established growth Comment 499 No Build development of our downtown in a gentle, ecological - wise way. I especially would like to see efforts to Arent, Lenore 6/3/2016 E, H-2, I-6 Form enhance pedestrian and bicycle friendly traffic.
The plans presented do not follow the best models for controlled city growth and they are anathema to Comment 500 No Build the Little Rock that has been developing. It is NOT in the best interest of Little Rock, and are expected to Arent, Rodney 6/3/2016 I-6 Form kill the positive changes Little Rock is finally seeing.
Mass transit expansion. Constantly expanding highways is not a sustainable solution. Building viable mass transit and encouraging Web - PM 6 501 Other its use would eliminate the need for this kind of expansion, reduce pollution, save natural resources and Williams, Fred 6/3/2016 F-6, H-1 Form could be designed to scale up as needed as the population grows. This approach is working quite well in the Northeast sections of this country.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Woodward, Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 502 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. 6/3/2016 Rebecca Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 503 6 C/D Split Diamond I support the 6-lane, split-diamond interchange plan. Robbins, Kelly 6/3/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 504 6 C/D SPUI The improvements are greatly needed. Perkins, Brooke 6/5/2016 M Form
D - 69
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 505 6 C/D SPUI The improvements are greatly needed. Perkins, Philip 6/5/2016 M Form
May I suggest that you talk with the company that rebuilt the bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis when the bridge collapsed? It did not take very long to replace. Arkansas takes way too long Web - PM 6 506 Swaim, Kathleen 6/5/2016 G-5, G-6 to repair any roads or build any bridges. I also think that you should finish 167/67 before you start a new Form project.
The collector/distributor lanes will keep through traffic moving much better, and the split diamond Web - PM 6 507 6 C/D Split Diamond Gervasini, Chase 6/6/2016 I-11 interchange will allow for a substantial amount of green space that is not currently there. Form
I am all for improvements; however, I do not want the improvements to take away from the downtown Web - PM 6 508 6 C/D SPUI Pendarvis, JoAnn 6/6/2016 I-6 areas or not have an impact like the I630 project. The I-630 project did not change the peak travel times. Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 509 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Drury, Paul 6/6/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 510 No Build Build the Parkway Clarke, David 6/6/2016 E, F-1 Form
D - 70
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 511 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Gorman, Tim 6/6/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 512 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you Holstrom, Gabe 6/6/2016 M Form
In order for communities to grow and succeed, we have to have the necessary infrastructure to support it. The wellbeing of this region is important to me and I was proud to serve as recent past president of the North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce whose goal is to help people and businesses thrive. Our roads and bridges are tasked with the job of moving both commuters and commerce safely and efficiently from point A to point B. For decades Interstate 30 accomplished this, but its design and function is now past its prime and is more taxed and dangerous than it needs to be. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and Metroplan commissioned a study that concluded I-30 warranted improvements, including lane expansion to accommodate projected growth. This is a good thing. The latest AHTD I-30 Web - PM 6 513 6 C/D Split Diamond Winchester, Steve 6/6/2016 M Crossing design referred to as the 6-Lane with Collector/Distribution Lanes has three through lanes in Form each direction with two additional lanes feeding traffic across the River Bridge into the downtown areas. This plan addresses the need for increased vehicular capacity and improves safety. It also maintains six lanes of traffic across the river bridge throughout the construction phase to facilitate the movement of people and goods through the corridor and into our city centers. Investment in our region’s transportation infrastructure will do more than improve traffic flow; it will better connect us to the places we want to be, and the goods and services we need. A better-connected community – sure sounds like a place I’d like to live.
D - 71
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 514 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. McClafferty, Ryan 6/6/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 515 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Day, Greg 6/6/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 516 6 C/D Split Diamond project is greatly needed, it would be a great improvement to central AR McDougal, Ronnei 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 517 6 C/D Split Diamond the project is greatly needed, it would be a great improvement to central AR McDougal, Ann 6/6/2016 M Form
I would like to add my name to the ever-increasing list of people who oppose the expansion plans for I-30. I both live and work in downtown Little Rock. I am old enough to remember when there was no River Market, no SOMA, and certainly when no one would have thought of the "East Village" area as a feasible 518 spot for a microbrewery. This revival will be choked off if not undone by the proposed expansion. I feel we Files, Jason 6/6/2016 Email F-4, I-6 should not have a goal of increasing traffic through the heart of the city, which this expansion will almost certainly do. Why not instead provide alternate routes for those who simply want to get past the city and down the road?
I am OPPOSED to the current plans for I‐30. The op‐ed in the Democrat Gazette tells you why: 519 http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/jun/06/let‐s‐build‐a‐gem‐20160606/?f=opinion Garrison, Debra 6/6/2016 Email M PLEASE STOP THIS BOONDOGGLE!
D - 72
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 520 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Harris, Darrell 6/6/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
We must have a more efficient way for high density traffic to cross the river. I-430 and I-30 are the only two high density crossings for miles. I-30 in the downtown area is I antiquated at best. It was not designed Web - PM 6 521 6 C/D Split Diamond Bulmanski, Mike 6/6/2016 G-1, M for the amount of traffic it gets on a daily basis. Not only is it inefficient but it can be dangerous, especially Form at the entry access points.
Include the ability for an elevated bridge, reversible, all-electronic, elevated express like the one in Hillsborough County, Florida (toll). As a divorced working mother who is also quite active in many community endeavors, I find it frustrating the amount of time it takes to exit the downtown area. Moreover, there appears to be a war on the working mom, the single parent, the two working parent families, and those who choose to live in the safest areas away from crime and in the better school districts despite efforts to become more tolerant. Bike lanes do nothing to aide in parents trying to get their kids to school as many parents are in two Web - PM 6 522 6 C/D SPUI households, meaning two different school districts, while others simply cannot afford to be late to work. McKinnon, Kristi 6/6/2016 L-2, H-2 Form That is a luxury we do not have. This war on the working family is quite apparent in this effort to quash any ability to alleviate traffic for those in the suburbs who cannot afford the Heights nor desire to have their children living in crime infested neighborhoods. We simply desire to work hard, drive home, and live life to the fullest. Every minute wasted in unnecessary traffic is a minute simply wasted. These plans are not causing a great imposition; they are simply making life easier in an area that is already a major thoroughfare and would now have the ability for noise barriers as well as a cleaner appeal. On a side note to the cities: If you desire to add bike lanes, please add a shelter to the bus stops.
Web - PM 6 523 6 C/D Split Diamond Build it! Doramus, Mark 6/6/2016 M Form
D - 73
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I have been following the news of the potential widening of I-30 in Little Rock with considerable interest. Although I currently reside in Fort Smith, I do make regular trips to Little Rock for recreation and medical reasons, have at least on dependent planning to attend UALR in the near future, and have lived through major freeway widening efforts in a large urban area. Hence, you might say I have legitimate interest in whatever decisions are made regarding the future of I-30. To me the biggest concern is the lack of consideration for how a major widening effort will affect the lives of those who reside near, work, or own businesses in the vicinity. These projects tend to impact neighborhoods in any of a number of ways, from increased congestion, to quashing revitalization efforts. That may not necessarily be of concern to those most in favor of the project, so here is the bottom line: if I-2, J, I-4, I- 524 the argument is that widening the freeway from six lanes to ten or twelve will end congestion, it is an Benjamin, James 6/6/2016 Email 9, I-6, H-2, K argument doomed to failure. Even without knowing a bit about the data on congestion, I've lived in the Orange County area of California during its major expansion around the so-called Orange Crush area. That project was supposed to relieve traffic jams during rush hours. However, quite the opposite occurred. I was living there before the project, during construction, and after completion of the project. It actually managed to make things worse for commuters. In an era when cheap oil and gasoline can no longer be taken for granted, I wonder if it would be a better investment if alternative means of transport (e.g., public transport improvements, dedicated bike lanes, etc.) were developed instead. How about in the interim investing in improvements to arterial roads in a manner that won't detract from the fabric of affected neighborhoods and business areas? That would strike me as a better investment. Best Regards,
Web - PM 6 525 6 C/D Split Diamond Love it Smith, Kim L 6/6/2016 M Form
I continue to be shocked at the lack of foresight and responsibility from those in charge of the 30 Crossing plan. Little Rock is a good city that's getting better every day. This plan will set us back by decades. At the very least, it is your responsibility to honestly look into other options, something that hasn't been done as of yet. F-7, L-1, L-2, 526 Woods, Jason 6/6/2016 Email A good start would be addressing the disturbing shortcomings mentioned in this P-4 report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LEZxZcx29w4jxYke6Dva2gQau- zUWwKy77YYqpuhd00/pub. How did these oversights happen? How will they be fixed? I look forward to your response.
D - 74
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-6, I- 527 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Stillman, Spencer 6/6/2016 Form 11, M The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 528 Other 630 from downtown could by pass 30 straight to 67/167 Jon 6/6/2016 F-4 Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 529 8 GP Split Diamond important area. Dickinson, Thomas 6/6/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 530 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Kerr, Alison 6/6/2016 M Form
The 6 lane "split diamond' design is best in my opinion. We cannot afford to over build this area as the development of the River market and surrounding areas is the most prosperous development to occur in Web - PM 6 531 6 C/D Split Diamond our city and county in decades. Keeping the green space, and continuing the "park like atmosphere is far Miller, Pat 6/6/2016 I-11, I-6, L-2 Form more important and best attraction for continued growth in 30 years. Thanks for asking the public for our opinions.
D - 75
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
No, I don't travel daily to and from Little Rock using the I30 route. I travel frequently, though. I do get slowed down if I travel between 4:30 and 6 PM. Yeah, it takes an extra 10 minutes. Traffic slows. I try to go earlier or later, but sometimes, I just wait it out in my car. No big deal. I have suffered through Houston, Chicago, and California Bay Area traffic. We don't have that kind of volume. We don't need that F-2, F-7, I-3, 532 Matthews, Nell 6/6/2016 Email kind of expanse of pavement, either. Please do not expand the I30 road to a massive project that will take I-4 years to complete and then encourage ever more dispersion of people to suburbs. Replace the aging infrastructure with a safe and sane design that does not destroy the quality of the city of Little Rock and the downtown area.
This section of I-30 needs improvement. It's a nightmare to travers. I don't think redoing this portion will Web - PM 6 533 6 C/D Split Diamond inhibit growth in downtown. It's undergoing a revitalization now and making it easier to get to East Little Larson, Tricia 6/6/2016 I-6 Form Rock will only encourage growth.
Web - PM 6 534 6 C/D Split Diamond None Poole, Mary Carol 6/6/2016 M Form
If we have the resources to actually improve our failing infrastructure, we should do it. It's my understanding the bridge needs work and is dangerous - for drivers and river traffic alike. We don't always Web - PM 6 535 6 C/D Split Diamond New, Christopher 6/6/2016 F-2, J have the opportunity to make lasting investments. Enhancing the bridge and improving traffic for decades Form to come seems like a no-brainer.
Thank you for your time. Please do not approve the proposed plans to widen I30. Let's learn from other Web - PM 6 536 Gadberry, Jennifer 6/6/2016 I-6, M cities and not make the same mistakes that will be detrimental to our city. Thank you. Form
Web - PM 6 537 6 C/D Split Diamond Build it Phillips, Kari 6/6/2016 M Form
Pennington, Web - PM 6 538 6 C/D Split Diamond Build the thing now 6/6/2016 M Roland Form
Web - PM 6 539 6 C/D Split Diamond Got to do this Johnson, Johnny 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 540 6 C/D Split Diamond Drive through here every day, fix it! Davis, Scott 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 541 6 C/D Split Diamond Need it done. Tucker, Ray 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 542 6 C/D Split Diamond Needs to be widened. Meziere, Tom 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 543 6 C/D Split Diamond Support project. Foley, Chris 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 544 6 C/D Split Diamond Support project. Foley, Joe 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 545 6 C/D Split Diamond Build it please. Johnson, Robin 6/6/2016 M Form D - 76
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Boulevard Plan. I have lived in central Arkansas for 25 of the past 38 years, and I have also lived in cites including Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and London. I think that widening the I-30 crossing would be a disgrace to a city that is FINALLY seeing a resurgence of its urban core in the heart of downtown. Little Rock doesn't have "real traffic" when compared to any other city. I plead for alternatives such as the Boulevard to be Web - PM 6 F-7, F-1, I-4, 546 Other explored with an open mind. When we are poised to spend so much money to funnel cars*through (not Carman, Jennifer 6/6/2016 Form I-9, I-6 *to) downtown, that is problematic. We should be forward-thinking, and aim to spend any monies available to enhance our city and state so that we will be an example of admirable planning with an eye toward encouraging beauty in our downtown. Little Rock has a long history of being divided by highways that were poorly planned and poorly placed, and the effects of that choice seem to last forever. Please don't allow another mistake in this vein. Let's work toward alternatives that we can all be proud of.
You (We) have only one chance to get this right. Those who rush through will forever be held responsible for the huge impact, positive or negative, to our city. I think there is a timeline for obtaining Federal funds, Web - PM 6 547 Other Johnson, Kathy 6/6/2016 F-7, J but should this really be the most important factor for a decision that could be a possible irreversible Form mistake that will take decades to correct?
The 6-lane "split-diamond" design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 548 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Foster, Jonathan 6/6/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Please consider alternatives. As it stands, this project will have such a negative impact on the surrounding Web - PM 6 549 6 C/D Split Diamond communities. And downtown has had such an amazing revitalization that it would be such a tragedy to Joslin, Mary 6/6/2016 F-7, I-4, I-6 Form undo all the work that has been done.
I am vehemently opposed to all the alternatives proposed by the AHTD. The scope of the project is outrageously too big, it will not solve the congestion issue, and the indices used to justify the cost are Web - PM 6 550 No Build outdated. The cost is inappropriate, we cannot afford it and it will put our children and grandchildren in Watts, Elizabeth 6/7/2016 I-1, I-5, J Form debt for a project that will not only make Little Rock a less pleasant place to live but only benefits the people who have the contracts to build it.
I am absolutely opposed to the AHTD proposal to expand I-30 downtown. I drive that route almost every day at rush hour and your proposal is disproportionate to the slowdown of traffic. I might support a scaled 551 K, Kay 6/7/2016 Email F-7, I-3 down proposal but it would have to show proof that you are maintaining the integrity of our downtown neighborhoods.
D - 77
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Boulevard and improved arterial streets, green spaces, connectors for pedestrians and bikes - human Web - PM 6 F-1, J, I-11, 552 Other scaled; emphasis of producing capitol, rather than the commuters. Thom, Ellen 6/7/2016 Form I-6 Please do no degrade progress made in Little Rock or increase segregation.
Web - PM 6 553 8 GP SPUI Works the best Price, Brenda 6/7/2016 M Form
Dear Sir, I have read the proposed plan to expand I30 through Downtown. 554 McCoy, Julia M 6/7/2016 Email F-7, I-6 Please make alternative plans. Downtown Little Rock is the last bastion of taste/culture/history that exists in our City. Please preserve her dignity! I am not in favor of the expansion. Thanks for your time,
The 6 lane with C/D lanes and split diamond interchange will result in a positive change for the river Web - PM 6 555 6 C/D Split Diamond market and riverfront areas while effectively responding to the traffic needs of downtown LR, downtown Burgess, Johnny 6/7/2016 M Form NLR and through traffic.
I am writing to tell you that I oppose all current I-30 crossing plans. All current plans: Will be destructive to the downtown area - many of these sites are either historical or in the process of improvement. Will not significantly improve travel times. Do not take into account a multitude of factors - i.e. induced demand, which is a PROVEN phenomenon. Building our way out of congestion does not work. Do not accurately present future costs of this expansion, from maintenance to additional future I-3, I-4, I-9, 556 Rogers, Elizabeth 6/7/2016 Email construction that will be required in an attempt to relieve bottle necks that this expansion, and its I-10, H-1, J induced demand, will create. More progressive cities that have tried, and failed, to build their way out congestion are moving AWAY from freeway expansion, toward more forward thinking models. What if we decreased the traffic demand? What if people moved closer to where they work? What if there were more options for moving around the city? Through traffic that is not invested in this area need not dictate its development or destruction. Sincerely
Web - PM 6 557 6 C/D Split Diamond Looks like this will be a great long-term solution for our city. Chaffin, Michael 6/7/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 558 6 C/D Split Diamond None Gordon, Clay 6/7/2016 M Form
D - 78
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Of the presented alternative, the 6-lane with C/D lanes is preferred. Safety is much improved, with many Web - PM 6 559 6 C/D Split Diamond of the difficult weaving and merging trouble spots removed. In addition, it allows for additional area for Wierciak, Adam 6/7/2016 G-1, I-6 Form the River Market to be expanded with new development or parkland.
To all those involved, Thank you in advance for your consideration and your willingness to listen to we, homeowners and true champions of the revitalization of our Historic Downtown. We hope getting more detail will persuade you Taylor, Susie 560 to call for caution, and against proceeding until questions are answered. 6/7/2016 Email L-2, F-7 Dohner Once convinced, we hope you will also raise the point with the Downtown Partnership, as well as the LR Regional Chamber of Commerce, so they may also call for more study resolve these important questions. best wishes,
Central Arkansas cannot afford the impact of the expansion and the strain it will cause on our connecting roads, our local budgets, and the State budget. AHTD has not done a thorough study of the impact the expansion will have on the connecting road systems, which Metroplan estimates will cost $4 billion in additional improvements to correct the bottlenecks that will be created up and down the corridor and additional maintenance costs. What is worse, the proposals made to date may not be what is built. AHTD Web - PM 6 561 No Build is embarking on a new "design/build" model for the largest project they have ever undertaken. AHTD has Beck, Daniel 6/7/2016 J Form raised $631 million ($100 million which will be borrowed) and will ask contractors to bid to see if they can even build the project proposed. We have no idea how the plan will deviate once contractors start biding. Now the Governor is set to change highway funding to general revenue sources. This will draw much needed funds for State services, such as education, and funnel those funds into the AHTD. Arkansas cannot afford this expansion.
D - 79
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nix the interstate and replace it with a good boulevard like Chenal Parkway. The long-distance traffic can skirt the city on ring freeways. The freeway is adequate most of the time for traffic now. Yes, there are rush hour jams. Yes, some interchange and exit designs aren't so hot. But I drove to the airport during rush hour yesterday going the speed limit. These highway engineers want to be busy for years spending billions helping people from Texarkana to Memphis or from Pine Bluff to Cabot through the heart of the city. (Or to arrive and flee the city more quickly for suburbs, always a high priority in Arkansas.) Been to Rome, London, Paris, Vancouver or San Francisco, to name some of the most beautiful cities in the world? They share an absence of freeways in their cores. They have little of the mountainous concrete structures that uglify every place they pass; divide neighborhoods and impede calm foot, bike, mass transit and private vehicle traffic. I've written before about Vancouver - no freeways, broad boulevards, Web - PM 6 F-1, F-4, I-4, 562 Other multiple neighborhood nodes, great diversity, and high housing prices. People LOVE to live there. San Graham, Alex 6/7/2016 Form I-9, I-6 Francisco? Citizens there rose up to stop a Bayfront freeway project that would have ruined what is now a burgeoning and beautiful stretch of the city connected by chugging vintage streetcars. In Little Rock, we want to pour concrete high and wide. You think that attracts the kind of young thinkers who have made San Francisco ground zero of the tech explosion? I don't. This freeway project imperils, among others, the reawakening of Hanger Hill, an ideal infill neighborhood on the east side of the freeway, where three new $200,000 homes overlook a road that could be pushed up to their front porch. It impedes traffic to the Clinton Library, Heifer, the awakening warehouse district with its brewery, distillery and, soon, a new eStem school campus. This plan will absolutely destroy Second Street from I-30 to State Street, by making it a state highway connector to LaHarpe/Cantrell Road and end the funnel along Cumberland to LaHarpe. If tradition holds, it will work as well as the Highway Department's fine use of Broadway for a similar purpose.
The 6 lane options look to move traffic along with the least mount of delays. Just choose the option that SPUI Web - PM 6 563 6 C/D will get people to where they want to go the fastest. I have yet to meet anyone that likes to sit in traffic Roberson, Shaun 6/7/2016 M Split Diamond Form wasting time and gas.
6-Lane with Collector/Distributor Lanes Alternative shows to be the best!! I was able to speak with some General 564 6 C/D nice people that was able to explain all of the information and boards with future layout. I also spoke with Long, Dee 6/7/2016 M Web Form very nice the folks.
Web - PM 6 565 6 C/D Split Diamond I think this is the best choice Carter, Lorrie 6/7/2016 M Form
D - 80
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I was able to speak with some very nice people that work for AHTD and explained a lot of info regarding the future and changes. I would like to ask as a tax payer… the BASSPRO exit construction needs a sign that would advise when the project will be complete. It appears no work is being done but I was told that project should be complete OCTOBER 2016. There are a lot of 18 wheeler trucks that use that exit and it is Web - PM 6 566 6 C/D Split Diamond Long, Dee 6/7/2016 G-6, P-5 tight. The orange barrier are not lined up and has caused trucks to hit them and cars to dodge. The Form evening traffic for the residence off of the Vimy Ridge Rd. is so bad (Carrington and Emerald Mountain subdivision). In addition I have heard some people that live West Little Rock say they would not visit the Outlet Mall because for the traffic. I don't want the Mall to lose customers because of the traffic.
I think the 6-lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange would be the best Web - PM 6 567 6 C/D Split Diamond Smith, Judy K 6/7/2016 M plan.. Form
Web - PM 6 568 8-lane Split Diamond Thank you Faubel, Melinda 6/7/2016 M Form
The 6-lane "split-diamond" design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-6, I- 569 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Schueck, Patrick 6/7/2016 Form 11 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
The 6-lane "split diamond" design is hands down the best among those offered to bring LR into the modern age. Our existing infrastructure is clunky, slow, and inefficient. Safety concerns are best addressed in this proposal as well. This proposal connects downtown with the rest of the city and Web - PM 6 570 6 C/D Split Diamond removes current barriers that impede efficient flow. Noble, Ben 6/7/2016 G-1, I-11 Form I am also impressed by the "split diamond" plan's incorporation of the park space. Little Rock has been expanding "out" far too long in search of green space and quality of life opportunity. This proposal strikes the right balance and puts resources where they are needed.
D - 81
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane "split -diamond" design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 571 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Miller, Robin 6/7/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
D - 82
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Boulevard Plan. I urge the Highway Department consider better alternatives to the I30 crossing proposals, which it has worked so assiduously to sell to the public. This oversized and unnecessary expansion will cause major damage to downtown Little Rock. I endorse the comments provided by Dale Pekar, which can be found in Google Docs (see footnote).* I also fully endorse the concerns raised by Norm Marshall in his two reports that can be found online at the Arkansas Public Policy Panel web site at Marshall in his two reports that can be found online at the Arkansas Public Policy Panel web site at Marshall Links (see footnote **). As a resident of, and an investor in, the Central High National Historic District, I am extremely concerned that this expansion will cause the kind of damage to Hangar Hill and downtown that the Highway Department already caused by its prior interstate projects. We do not need more concrete barriers to encourage white flight and downtown disinvestment. We need attractive, walkable, human scale urban areas that are protected from too much traffic and huge highways. These horrible plans go directly against current good thinking about how highways and cities can co-exist, and ensure that the city will, yet again, lose out to the suburbs. F-7, F-1, F- I was especially disturbed by the public hearing at the Windham Hotel, where the department presented Web - PM 6 572 Other Dodds, Paul 6/7/2016 3, I-11, I-1, Studio Main as a "partner". Studio Main presented a careful vision of how the Department's plans could Form I-5, I-3, I-6 be made to work with human life. When Boston planned the Big Dig, the ribbon of public park through downtown was an integral part of getting approval for the project. I assumed that was the case here, and was stunned at the end of Studio Main's presentation to learn that not a penny is allocated for the public aesthetic or environmental improvements they described. While I consider the boulevard and Chester St. bridge plans far preferable to the huge highway build out, if there is to be a build out of this scale, it must be accompanied by real measures to soften its impact. While I am sure that Studio Main has the best of intentions, I feel that the highway department intentionally misled the public by not making clear in its largest open hearing that it was not allocating any funds whatsoever to support them. This is sadly consistent with the departments' entire approach to this boondoggle. We deserve better planning and more honesty from an important agency entrusted with our safety, which can have such negative impacts on our shared environment. We can and must do better. *Pekar Comments at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LEZxZcx29w4jxYke6Dva2gQauzUWwKy77YYqpuhd00/pub **Norm Marshall at http://www.arpanel.org/improve30crossing/
Web - PM 6 573 6 C/D Split Diamond Enhanced public safety and new green space will attract more urban home owners. Cook, Chuck 6/7/2016 G-1, I-11 Form
McDonough, Web - PM 6 574 6 C/D Split Diamond Wholehearted support of by far the best alternative. 6/7/2016 M Russell Jr Form
D - 83
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 575 6 C/D Split Diamond Only concern is about parking downtown which is already difficult. Olson, Kristina 6/7/2016 I-7 Form
True on-grade boulevard. I oppose the freeway expansion currently proposed by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) for the following reasons: AHTD's expansion plan for the I-30 through downtown will not succeed in relieving congestion in the long term, the primary stated reason for expansion. Traffic studies and modeling by experts show that the AHTD plan does not perform even as well as a "no build" scenario and definitely not as well as a true boulevard that incorporates a new bridge arterial connection west of Broadway. AHTD refuses to acknowledge the reality of "induced demand" as the main driver of future freeway expansion. We know from experience that the only way to keep induced demand in check is by not expanding freeways. The immense cost of the project is not justified for other reasons. From experience in other cities, we know that if I-30 downtown is expanded, additional freeways where new bottlenecks will occur throughout central Arkansas will need to be expanded, magnifying the project costs greatly. AHTD has accounted for a very narrow part of the full project. It knows and is planning for future expansions to result from this freeway expansion, but coyly, acts as if they are unrelated. This is disingenuous on their part. AHTD has stated that not expanding the freeway will have a negative impact downtown economic growth. This is patently untrue. It has been long documented that real estate adjacent to urban freeways has its value drastically reduced long term. One only has to drive along I-30 and I-630 in the downtown area to see the results first hand. For 60 years, abandoned houses, condemned buildings, empty lots and industrial sites have lined Little Rock's Freeways. The damage done by the construction of I-30 and I-630 to historic neighborhoods throughout downtown G-1, F-7, F- Little Rock remains unacknowledged and unmitigated. Many of these neighborhoods are gone. A few are Web - PM 6 1, F-3, I-11, 576 Other only now recovering. Expanding I-30 through downtown will once again harm numerous historic Fennell, Tom 6/7/2016 Form I-1, I-5, I-3, neighborhoods, (e.g. hangar Hill), but AHTD has no plan to address this degradation. Indeed, they do not I-4, I-9, I-6, J acknowledge it. The negative environmental and economic impacts of the expanded freeway beyond AHTD's study area (barely beyond the freeway right of way) have not been addressed by AHTD or by the City. According to extensive studies by Smart Mobility, an independent traffic consultant engaged by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel to model and evaluate the consequences of the freeway expansion and alternatives, a boulevard with an additional arterial bridge west of the Broadway addresses congestion most efficiently. In the boulevard plan, traffic is dispersed across the city via a traditional street grid. Managing traffic through downtown via the grid provides multiple paths and options for drivers at speeds safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. This is in contrast to an expanded freeway that concentrates traffic on one route and traps drivers in traffic with no options when any vehicle malfunction occurs. An expanded freeway encourages suburban growth and sprawl. Sprawl means less money for fewer city services, greater dependence on automobiles, to the detriment of the environment and individual's pocketbooks, more pollution and greater infrastructure maintenance costs. Alternatively, a boulevard will tap the enormous potential of developable downtown real estate to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. based on statistics from Dallas, Portland< San Francisco and other cities that have eschewed freeways in lieu of city streets, on-grade property fronting a major urban street has value well beyond that of suburban locations. Density in cities is a huge boon to city budgets. Yet AHTD and the City of Little Rock have not even completed any economic studies on their proposal. We believe there will be enormous value lost to the city through this freeway expansion plan. Why has no one studied this very important aspect of the project? AHTD has indicated that safety is one of the key reasons to expand the freeway. A simple phrase from D - 84
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
childhood applies: Speed Kills. We have known for many years that the higher the speed the more likely one is likely to be killed in an accident. Additional, combining freeway speeds and urban traffic is a safety hazard in itself; one that remains unaddressed by AHTD. According to our independent traffic consultant's modeling, there is not enough distance in the I-30 corridor to do all the weaving and exiting that AHTD shows on their plans. To accomplish all this at freeway speeds is simply unsafe. Alternatively, urban traffic at city street speeds, e.g. on a boulevard, is far safer and allows for safely blending transportation such as pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. (Nelson/Nygaurd, the consultants hired by the city to address impacts highlighted this as a concern and an opportunity.) Finally, we do not live in a bubble. If we simply survey what is happening nationwide, it is clear the age of expanding freeways has passed. Competitive cities the ones sought after Millennials are looking for ways to become more walkable as well as more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Cities are seeking ways to renew their infrastructures, without burdening future generations with huge construction debt, unsupportable sprawl and endless highway maintenance costs. By opposing the expansion of this freeway. Little Rock is embracing its best future. However, abandoning the freeway expansion for a sensible boulevard alternative will make the entire region more livable, more competitive and more economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor to these goals and represents an outdated, expensive and ineffective solution.
D - 85
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane "split-diamond" design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 577 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Rodgers, Kelly 6/7/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Being a businessman, a General Contractor, and an engineer by schooling, I join many in the business Web - PM 6 578 6 C/D Split Diamond community to heartily endorse the 6-lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and split Diamond Vrastsinas, Gus 6/7/2016 M Form Interchange concept for the "30 Crossing Project". Thank you.
The proposed split diamond interchange option has incorporated the input of many concerned parties especially improves the impact to downtown, better distributes traffic downtown and improves the livability of downtown Little Rock. There is no one perfect option for all parties but I applaud the AHTD's Web - PM 6 579 6 C/D Split Diamond willingness to address real concerns on the impact to downtown LR. I would also encourage for the AHTD McDonald, Hugh 6/7/2016 I-6, L-2 Form to consider as it addresses ongoing issues on this project, in the design and construction , that it err on the side of making downtown more livable place and being a city where residents want to enjoy and attract prospective citizens as a city they want to live. Thank you
Web - PM 6 580 6 C/D Split Diamond None Gusblass 6/7/2016 M Form
The 6-lane "split-diamond" design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 581 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Yuan, Pete 6/7/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
D - 86
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
This alternative eliminates the 2nd street issue and turns it into 17 acres available for a park, and best Web - PM 6 582 6 C/D Split Diamond Bridges, Lunsford 6/7/2016 I-11 solves the various traffic issues. Form
Web - PM 6 583 6 C/D Split Diamond Good job Bogoslavsky, Abe 6/7/2016 M Form
McDonough, Web - PM 6 584 6 C/D Split Diamond Clearly the best alternative for Little Rock. 6/7/2016 M Russell Jr Form
Alternatives in current widening plans are damaging to downtown residential and historical buildings. I Comment 585 No Build believe new city leadership is needed to work with AHTD for genuine community highways and Holt, Susan 6/8/2016 F-7 Form transportation improvement.
586 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks Tappan, Phillip 6/8/2016 Email M
The project costs too much and will not bring improvements worth the price paid. Future maintenance has been excluded from projections. Congestion will be shoved down the route causing expensive fixes in future years at an estimated $4 billion. Metroplan analysts say. The rest of central Arkansas would lose funding for their street projects as 587 Warriner, Erika 6/8/2016 Email I-1, I-5, I-6, J their dollars get sucked into this money pit. Hold to the Imagine Central Arkansas plan for area transportation instead. We are way too small to need such a monstrosity. It would plow through an area that is thriving and bringing in a lot money from conventions and entertainment. I oppose!
Web - PM 6 588 No Build The highway department has been a complete fiasco. You need to plan for 2030, not for 1950 Harrod, Jennifer 6/8/2016 M Form
This is the best option for the safety of drivers and pedestrians while improving downtown connectivity. I Hubbard, Pamela Web - PM 6 589 6 C/D Split Diamond 6/8/2016 I-11 also like the idea of a park space for those who live, work, and visit the downtown area. Faye Form
It makes the most sense as I understand your presentations. Hopefully you can get this done in a timely Web - PM 6 590 6 C/D Split Diamond fashion and least amount of our tax dollars. Will the project have a third party audit responsibility to Fanning, Tim 6/8/2016 J, P-6 Form remove potential fraud during the project?
D - 87
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 591 6 C/D Split Diamond Appreciate AHTD listening and coming up with this proposal. It is the best solution. Smith, Gary 6/8/2016 L-2, M Form
The 6 lane with C/D lands and a split diamond interchange without closing LaHarpe is the best solution to Web - PM 6 592 6 C/D Split Diamond Oliver, Kelley 6/8/2016 M this problem. Form
Web - PM 6 593 6 C/D Split Diamond I drive this way every day. Shinn, Constance 6/8/2016 M Form
I would like to express my support of the 6-lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond interchange option. As a downtown business location I feel this is diffidently the best option that will serve our community the best. I really like the 17 acre green space incorporated in the new design. This Web - PM 6 594 6 C/D Split Diamond Womack, John T 6/8/2016 I-11, I-6, L-2 green space could be converted to a down town park which would improve the quality of place of our Form community. I appreciate everyone's hard work and efforts concerning this project. It's time for our community to unite and move on to the next phase of this project.
I join the Highway Department and the Chamber of Commerce in support of this project. Specifically, I Web - PM 6 595 6 C/D Split Diamond agree with the "6-lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange" option. Brogdon, Jay 6/8/2016 M Form Thank you.
Web - PM 6 596 6 C/D Split Diamond Please build the split diamond Keisler, Bill 6/8/2016 M Form
As a tax paying citizen of LR for 40 years, I am in favor of the 6 lane Collector/Distributor Lanes and split Moix, David Web - PM 6 597 6 C/D Split Diamond 6/8/2016 L-2 Diamond Interchange. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Joseph Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 598 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Cargill, Jim 6/8/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
The 6-lane with 4-access/exits seems that it will relieve the much needed congestion on I-30 bridge and Web - PM 6 599 6 C/D Split Diamond Coker, Lisa 6/8/2016 G-1, M improve the safety of drivers, and make the bridge itself stronger/safer. I am in favor of this project. Form
Web - PM 6 600 No Build Why do something that has been proven to fail in other cities? Ingalsbe, Andrea 6/8/2016 M Form
D - 88
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 601 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Stephens, Witt 6/8/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 602 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Givens, Gena 6/8/2016 M Form
Make it easy and safe to enter and exit downtown. Be able to see thru under or over I30 from west to Web - PM 6 G-1, I-4, I-9, 603 6 C/D Split Diamond Levy, Gene 6/8/2016 east, joining east side with west visually and with cross traffic. Form M
D - 89
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Boulevard design provided by Fennell Purifoy architects Tom Fennell, Ben Hartter and Baxter Reecer The state of Arkansas has to borrow money to pay for the construction of this short stretch of mega freeway, because it doesn't have the money to pay for it now. There is no absolute source of funding for the maintenance of such a huge project in the future. In 50 or 60 years the state will be forced again to make a decision to fund the maintenance of the mega freeway or tear it down. If there is no money now to maintain our existing freeways, what chance will there be of having cash to fish the proposed freeway expansion??? In short, the proposed freeway expansion costs too much. Downtown roads should be for local traffic only who are driving there to use downtown services, offices, restaurants etc. Freeways don't facilitate local traffic. If someone is traveling from Benton to Jacksonville or Maumelle, they aren’t interested in stopping off in downtown, they just want to get from A to B. Web - PM 6 F-1, F-4, I-4, 604 Other Downtown Little Rock doesn't benefit from that kind of traffic flow, let them use an alternative route Willis, Trey 6/8/2016 Form I-9, I-6, J AROUND the city center. Downtown Little Rock has begun to reinvent itself as a place to be and a lot of people have put a lot of investment into the area, expanding the freeway through downtown will be audibly and visually such a negative obstacle that it will kill off development of the area. Other cities have PROVEN that removing freeways benefits cities. For Arkansas to have this massive freeway, with a tiny population, would just make the City of Little Rock and the state a joke fueling the backwards comments about the south of the USA. Let it be known that I DO NOT SUPPORT FREEWAY EXPANSION through downtown Little rock. The boulevard concept provided by Tom Fennell is a really brilliant idea enabling a more livable city with great use of commercial space.
Web - PM 6 605 6 C/D Split Diamond Very well thought out. Much needed! Mize, Malvin 6/8/2016 M Form
D - 90
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I am writing to express support for the “split diamond” plan, as presented, as a design option for the 30 Crossing project. As the state’s capital city, largest tourism hub, and major economic region, mobility for vehicles, as well as pedestrians, is extremely important to our collective success. Little Rock hosts hundreds of conventions annually and welcomes thousands of visitors each month. The 6-lane split diamond design, with adjacent collector/distributor lanes, will create additional park space downtown and help connect the many cultural amenities of our city. The design coupled with thoughtful urban planning will make downtown Little Rock a more inviting, walkable, ride-able, and safer destination. It will result in the removal of a large barrier (Cantrell Road interchange) between the River Market district, downtown and the emerging East Village which in turn will enhance opportunities to explore and enjoy all that Little Rock has to offer. Web - PM 6 J, I-11, I-4, I- 606 6 C/D Split Diamond Hall, Gretchen 6/8/2016 I have personally attended numerous public meetings, as well as served on AHTD’s visioning committee. I Form 9, L-1, L-2 feel that your team has listened and the most recent plan addresses many of the initial concerns surrounding this project. If implemented as presented, the new design provides the most positive attributes for pedestrian safety, and flexible options for traffic congestion, urban design and additional green space, as well as destination connectivity. Although other alternatives presented by outside groups also provides many positive elements for downtown, I trust your team has evaluated the traffic counts and research thoroughly prior to presenting final design plans. This project is tremendous in size, complexity and scale and I truly appreciate the time and effort AHTD has put into the planning and development in order to create the best possible design.
I agree with the following statement: "According to extensive studies by Smart Mobility, an independent traffic consultant engaged by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel to model and evaluate the consequences of the freeway expansion and alternatives, a boulevard with an additional arterial bridge west of Broadway addresses congestion most Web - PM 6 607 No Build Franklin, Nathan 6/8/2016 E, F-1, F-3 efficiently. In the boulevard plan, traffic is dispersed across the city via a traditional street grid. Managing Form traffic through downtown via the grid provides multiple paths and options for drivers at speeds safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. This is in contrast to an expanded freeway that concentrates traffic on one route and traps drivers in traffic with no options when any vehicle malfunction occurs."
I'd prefer to see the boulevard approach, allowing access to a revitalized downtown. Web - PM 6 608 Other I do not think any of the aforementioned alternatives are needed or would solve what is perceived as a Lewno, Mary Jo 6/8/2016 F-1 Form problem by some….definitely not all.
D - 91
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
What about any of the alternatives proposed in public for a more downtown-centric plan? You should be looking for ways to bypass traffic around a growing area, not push more through. What's No Build Web - PM 6 E, F-7, F-1, 609 the end game? Replace downtown with more and more lanes and interstates? Have you seen that work Spillers, Daniel 6/8/2016 Other Form F-4 long term ANYWHERE? Texas is a nightmare. Stop segregating the inner city. Push Traffic around and work on providing more ingress choices.
Web - PM 6 610 6 C/D Split Diamond Improvements need to be made. Current conditions will continue to deteriorate. Lansden, Joe 6/8/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 611 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Smith, Carisse 6/8/2016 M Form
Build 4 lane upper deck for those that want to bypass exits to down town. Ingress and egress could be at Web - PM 6 612 Other Rogers, Alan 6/8/2016 F-4 the I-40? I-30 interchange and I30/I440 interchange. Thanks Form
D - 92
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I am FOR the proposed new plans for the I‐30 Crossing. Although I sympathize with and understand the reaction of the overly cautious downtown real estate owners, and the social dreamers, I think the changes resulting, from the Mayor’s comment period, including the addition 17 acres of quality green space, should more than assuage most of their worries. And It really isn’t these downtowners who need the highway expanded the most to handle increased capacity for the next thirty to forty years. It is the other 100,000 truck drivers, ambulances, food haulers, Stephens, buses, Children’s Hospital and all the other employees who must drive in and out of downtown to their jobs daily. And don’t forget the people who bring good services to and from downtown. There are a few other complaints about the highway plans that I would like to address. The first is pollution. Even with more cars and trucks, and there will be more cars and trucks if we allow the population to continue growing, the evolution of electric and vastly improved fuel usage, compressed natural gas, and better filtering, will improve pollution to the point where it will barely be noticed. I don’t really notice it today, and I am on the road a lot. Just give technology a few more years and we’ll accomplish all of this without any social engineering at all. The air quality, from autos and tucks, is already better than in over 70 years. And they will be safer too. Also, there have been complaints about the dictatorial highway department just doing it their way. I know for a fact that there are conscientious, purposeful, intelligent employees including Scott Bennett who have no ax to grind and a passion for building the best possible transportation system for central Arkansas. If there were no Mack Blackwell, then the big money, politics and favoritism surrounding this and other critical state‐wide project would be overwhelming and morally disgusting. It should be expressed that Little Rock would not have as good a quality of life if it weren’t for the interstate highways. It is non‐sense to disagree. I‐30 has made Little Rock a metropolitan area, and the I-3, I-5, I-8, 613 Dickinson, Haskell 6/8/2016 Email center for commerce and jobs in central Arkansas for everyone on both sides of the highway. If, for I-11, L-2 instance, it had been built from Conway to Beebe, Little Rock might have gone the way of a Pine Bluff, out of the loop. We are lucky to have this major thoroughfare that connects us easily with other regional capitals. Also has been mentioned is the pipedream of light rail systems as a reason for “no build”. Most big cities who now cannot raise the money to maintain their light rail or commuter services, which never pay for themselves, are simply facing the choice of just shuttering them. If we stick with enhanced bus services with good roads to get the buses where they need to go safely, we will likely stay out of bankruptcy. By the way, if you want to save some money just ask your selves how much we have to pay to keep the useless trolley in service. Last time I checked, the trolley deficit in San Francisco was close to $50,000,000 annually. How much of that do we want and why should the folks out in south and west LR have to pay for it? AS for good business sense, a question. When is the only weekend that the trolley might pay for itself? River Fest. And for those days, riding has been free. This is social engineering at its best. Finally, will the new highway be an eyesore? This depends on who is asked? It is purely subjective. I think an iconic thruway, and believe the concept now is just that, with better ingress and egress from downtown will be a great asset. And opinions are not in my mind as important as facts. If you believe Little Rock and its environs will grow, and you better be hoping it will, then we really need such a wonderful improvement for safety, better use of our time, and less overall pollution. For the social dreamers, just relax and see what the JV’s who are tasked with designing a great iconic structure, come up with. They do it for a living, and do it well. For all the social media addicts, Isn’t it time to go back to work? Regards I would like to see the "6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange" as Web - PM 6 614 6 C/D Split Diamond the option we (Arkansas) goes with as it provides us the best path for growth. Let's do the right thing the Dorsey, Mark 6/8/2016 M Form first time!
D - 93
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I think the 6 4 with Split Diamond is by far the best alternative and that it specifically addresses all of the legitimate concerns expressed over the past year, while still achieving the purposes of congestion relief Web - PM 6 615 6 C/D Split Diamond and safety that I find very appropriate and necessary. I'm particularly pleased with how this alternative Morris, Mary 6/8/2016 G-1, I-5, I-6 Form can go hand in hand with the kind of aesthetic improvements and urban development that will allow our downtown areas to thrive for decades.
Web - PM 6 616 6 C/D Split Diamond This is definitely the best alternative. Hathaway, Laura 006/08/2016 M Form
Do not add more lanes to just bottle neck it back into a few lanes like the new interchange it sucks trying to merge to get off the exit you need to crossing traffic is near impossible. Web - PM 6 617 Other Majors, Shawnda 6/8/2016 M First and foremost you need to keep the roads free of debris. I have a new car that has chips all in the Form windshield due to the construction going on now!!! I hate this mess.
Web - PM 6 618 8-lane SPUI We need this freeway widened as much as possible. The congestion is choking. Rogers, Eric 6/8/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 619 6 C/D SPUI 6 Lane with C/D SPUI Ockay, Ellen 6/8/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 620 6 C/D SPUI 6 lane with C/D and SPUI Ockay, David 6/8/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 621 8-lane SPUI Thanks Rogers, Miki 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 622 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Langston, Jack 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
D - 94
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 623 6 C/D Split Diamond This is going to be a huge project that will benefit our downtown in the long run. McLarty, Jamie 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 624 6 C/D Split Diamond while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve Moore, Stacey 6/9/2016 Form 6 downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area.
Web - PM 6 625 6 C/D Split Diamond I think the 6 4 with Split Diamond is by far the best alternative! Gentry, Katherine 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 626 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks Crass, Kevin 6/9/2016 M Form
With the single exception of the revisions to Capitol Avenue between I-30 and Cumberland, the split lane with collector/distributor lanes and split diamond interchange is by far the best of all alternatives. It is imperative that action be taken as soon as possible to relieve the existing conditions. We appreciate the Web - PM 6 627 6 C/D Split Diamond way that the Highway Department staff and the commission have listened to the community. Now is the Flake, Dickson 6/9/2016 I-11, L-2 Form time to proceed with implementation. When the project is completed with the 17 acres of green space in immediate proximity to the central business district, the quality of life in Little Rock will be substantially enhanced.
As the General Manager of the Caterpillar North Little Rock Motor Grader Facility the option I selected Web - PM 6 628 6 C/D Split Diamond Rivera, Paul 6/9/2016 M above will be the best for our business and for me as a resident of Central AR. Form
Web - PM 6 629 6 C/D Split Diamond None Reynolds, John 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 630 6 C/D Split Diamond None Hussman, Walter 6/9/2016 M Form
Hightower, Web - PM 6 631 6 C/D Split Diamond The 6 lane with Split Diamond is best for the city 6/9/2016 M Schawnee Form
Web - PM 6 632 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks! Tuggle, Cathy 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 633 6 C/D Split Diamond I feel this would be the best alternative to improve our overall road structure through Little Rock. Cook, Donald J. 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 95
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
6 Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) lanes and Split Diamond Interchange has the most positive Web - PM 6 634 6 C/D Split Diamond Lay, Lyndell 6/9/2016 M impacts. Form
Web - PM 6 635 6 C/D Split Diamond I feel strongly this is the best alternative for the city. Drilling, Ed 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes has my full support. It works best for the interstate and local traffic, provides the most options for distributing traffic into downtown Little Rock equally, and is by far the best option for the connectivity of downtown to east Little Rock in Web - PM 6 I-11, I-4, I-9, 636 6 C/D Split Diamond Tilbury, Van 6/9/2016 terms of sight lines, openness and new green space. I thank the AHTD and Garver for the community Form L-2 meetings, listening and responding to public comments, and developing the 6-Lane with C/D and Split Diamond Interchange option. Many thanks for the collaboration and engineering.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 637 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Hargraves, Lucas 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
The 6-lane split diamond option would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new Web - PM 6 638 6 C/D Split Diamond opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, Rhodes, Martin M. 6/9/2016 I-4, I-9 Form eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area.
Web - PM 6 639 6 C/D Split Diamond This is ultimate long term solutions. Chokhani, Rajesh 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 640 6 C/D Split Diamond I support this effort strongly Dedman, Ronald I 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 641 6 C/D Split Diamond Best choice to move traffic through the downtowns of LR and NLR Coulson, Mike 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 96
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 642 6 C/D Split Diamond Desperately needed! Bailey, John S 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 643 6 C/D Split Diamond Please see this through! Champion, Courtni 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 644 6 C/D Split Diamond This is the best option Watson, Julie 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 645 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Burk, Kristen 6/9/2016 M Form
This is very important for the continued growth of Little Rock. We can't do nothing and expect to see the Web - PM 6 646 6 C/D Split Diamond Garrett, Dumas 6/9/2016 M city prosper. Form
Web - PM 6 647 6 C/D Split Diamond Best choice Watson, Matt 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 648 6 C/D Split Diamond push this through Stewart, Shelly 6/6/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 649 6 C/D Split Diamond push this option Stewart, Michelle 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 650 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Ashley, Richard H. 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Dedman, Web - PM 6 651 6 C/D Split Diamond None 6/9/2016 M Margaret Form
D - 97
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 652 6 C/D Split Diamond The "no build" option is crazy! I realize construction will take a long time. Lake, Lisa 6/9/2016 G-5, G-6 Form
Web - PM 6 653 6 C/D Split Diamond Good for the city, good for downtown. Erbach, Don 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 654 6 C/D Split Diamond I support the 6-lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange option. Faubel, Steve 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 655 6 C/D Split Diamond Best alternative for growth of Little Rock Lake, Mike 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane with collector/distributor lanes and split diamond interchange is the best proposed design for Web - PM 6 656 6 C/D Split Diamond Garrison, Lloyd 6/9/2016 M the "30 Crossing" and Little Rock. Form
Thanks for all your hard work coming up with all these alternatives to consider. I think the split diamond Web - PM 6 657 6 C/D Split Diamond does the best job of answering people's concerns about impact on local downtown traffic while still Clark, William 6/9/2016 C, L-2 Form moving the growing number of vehicles at an efficient rate.
Web - PM 6 658 6 C/D Split Diamond Nicole Amanda 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 659 6 C/D Split Diamond Nicole Amanda 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 660 6 C/D Split Diamond Nicole Amanda 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 98
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Park and ride on each side of the present bottleneck. Fund internet connectivity so people can work and study at home. Build a separate bridge over the river and make it a toll bridge. Web - PM 6 E, F-3, F-6, 661 No Build Staggered opening and closing hours for businesses and schools. Gibson, Pamela 6/9/2016 Form H-1 Gates and timers on present entrance ramps. Our grandchildren are looking for employment in cities, and with employers, where it is not necessary to have a car.
Cunningham, Web - PM 6 662 6 C/D Split Diamond Seems to enhance safety and would create valuable green space. 6/9/2016 G-1, I-11 Hayden Form
Boulevard Plan based on the Smart Mobility Report I have two children. They will be living with the results of the decisions we make now about this interstate. Will they be able to enjoy a Saturday afternoon outing with their children at the Museum of No Build Discovery? Will the River market and Downtown Little Rock become a better or worse place for them to Web - PM 6 E, F-7, F-1, 663 Hartter, Benjamin 6/9/2016 Other visit? Will it be comfortable for them to walk under a dark, 12 lane, and concrete monolith so loud they Form G-5, I-4, I-9 can’t hear themselves talk to each other when they cross over to visit the Clinton Library or Heifer Village? Please read the smart mobility report and seriously consider other options. History has taught us that interstates should go around cities; not through them.
Web - PM 6 664 6 C/D SPUI this alternative makes the most sense Stephens, Warren 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 665 6 C/D Split Diamond I prefer this option Wortsmith, Keith 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 666 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Blank, Rick 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 667 6 C/D Split Diamond None Davis, J.Mark 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 99
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 668 6 C/D Split Diamond Split Diamond option is the best alternative for preserving the downtown area. Cooper, Richard 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 669 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Guess, Dr. Jerry 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 670 6 C/D Split Diamond I am supporting the 6 lane Diamond plan Rawlings, Scott 6/9/2016 M Form
Heller, Web - PM 6 671 6 C/D Split Diamond This option seems to provide the best combination of function and aesthetics. 6/9/2016 M Christopher Form
Web - PM 6 672 6 C/D SPUI I kind of like Fennel's idea for a Blvd. Ramm, Mark 6/9/2016 F-1 Form
This plan has emerged as the consensus plan after many community meetings and much input. I support Web - PM 6 673 6 C/D Split Diamond Flesher, Greg 6/9/2016 L-2, M this plan and the process of community involvement that arrived at this solution. Form
This option would be sufficient to handle the traffic increase with minimum disruption to the downtown Web - PM 6 674 6 C/D Split Diamond Strauss, Noel 6/9/2016 M area. Form
Web - PM 6 675 6 C/D Split Diamond Critical for Little Rock's future growth Reeves, Jodi 6/9/2016 M Form
In Phoenix, they have adopted a rubberized asphalt that dramatically reduces road noise. Please consider. Web - PM 6 676 6 C/D Split Diamond As a downtown resident, we must take steps to keep down the noise levels or we'll destroy the River Ragon, Heartsill 6/9/2016 I-2 Form Market and its residential community.
D - 100
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
As a young professional living and working in Little Rock, the 6 and 8 lane options both make me want to leave the area. They make me realize that perhaps Central Arkansas is not the forward thinking place that I once thought it was becoming. This is what happens when politics, bureaucracy, and the 1% are in charge of decision making: only do what is best for themselves. Both of these options are not solutions for anybody except the people who live outside of Little Rock. They are not even solutions...they are contrived plans engineered by people whose only solution to any highway problem is "ADD MORE LANES". Every single one of the improvement projects funded with CAP money involves adding more lanes. There are other ways to improve things besides just making them bigger. There are others in this world Web - PM 6 677 No Build besides the white, powerful and wealthy. There are other futures in this place that don't belong solely to Reecer, Baxter A 6/9/2016 E, F-7 Form what your immediate needs seem to be. These plans are bad for the economy, environment, and society as a whole. If this is built, Little Rock and Arkansas as a whole will be taking a huge step backwards in its development. When I've asked multiple AHTD representatives about precedent studies of similarly sized metropolitan areas with urban freeways that have removed congestion by adding lanes, NO ONE has been able to give me an answer. There are none...because adding lanes is not a solution to congestion. But fortunately, if this is built, I most likely won't have to deal with it just as others in my generation won't, because Little Rock will not attract young professionals and families. We'll move to other places that are forward thinking...Kansas City, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco...No Build.
Harrington, Web - PM 6 678 6 C/D Split Diamond Looks to be the best among the alternatives 6/9/2016 M Russell Form
Web - PM 6 679 6 C/D Split Diamond LR needs this project Cook, Ken 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 680 6 C/D Split Diamond None Babin, Hunter 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 681 No Build I-30 widening not needed Henry, Jason 6/9/2016 M Form
We need to fix the bridge for long term viability. In addition I like the green space added in the River Web - PM 6 682 6 C/D SPUI Hilliard, Joe 6/9/2016 F-2, I-11 Market. Form
D - 101
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 683 6 C/D Split Diamond best for downtown Kellam, Art 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6 land split/diamond best addresses the overall needs of the city by providing enhancements for drivers and pedestrians and opening up new developments for downtown. I have spent much time in Web - PM 6 684 6 C/D Split Diamond Tull, John 6/9/2016 I-11 Dallas and their redirection of the Woodall expressway is a good example of the opportunities for the Form greenspace and use of it for downtown little rock.
Web - PM 6 685 No Build No Build - pro boulevard Murphy, Henry 6/9/2016 E, F-1 Form
Web - PM 6 686 6 C/D SPUI I prefer the 6 lane option Gregory, Joe 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 687 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks Bethel, Jennifer 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 688 6 C/D Split Diamond None Alexander, Al 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 689 6 C/D Split Diamond no other comments Vaughan, Peggy 6/9/2016 M Form
This project deserves a second look. As our economy continues to move away from fossil fuel dependent No Build transportation this project, at the very least, needs to incorporate public transit. I've recently moved from Web - PM 6 690 Baker, John 6/9/2016 E, F-7 Other Louisville, KY and you should look at the cluster f**k that's being created in their urban core. Form There is truly another way. The old paradigm no longer works.
Hearnsberger, Web - PM 6 691 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks 6/9/2016 M Graves Form
Web - PM 6 692 6 C/D Split Diamond This would enhance foot traffic and aesthetics from River Market to Clinton Center. Rogers, Andy 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 693 6 C/D Split Diamond We need this Malone, Chris 6/9/2016 M Form
McGibbony, Web - PM 6 694 6 C/D Split Diamond see pref 6/9/2016 M Michael Form
D - 102
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 695 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Choate, Ed 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 696 6 C/D Split Diamond I may have checked the wrong alternative before. Please count this as my vote. Stephens, Warren 6/9/2016 M Form
Hathaway, James Web - PM 6 697 6 C/D Split Diamond This clearly the best alternative. Don't lose focus because the "dreamer-opponents" make a lot of noise. 6/9/2016 M E. Jr. Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 698 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Wells, Troy 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 699 none Halbert, Sheila 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 700 6 C/D Split Diamond Downtown little rock is important and this is the best option Saviers, Mark 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 701 6 C/D Split Diamond I strongly support the 6-lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange plan. Fisher, Charles D 6/9/2016 M Form
The work traffic in the am and pm is dangerous with the small amount of access that is available at this Web - PM 6 G-1, G-5, G- 702 6 C/D Split Diamond time and with the condition of the existing roadway the dangers are greater. This old road has served its Thomas, Gary 6/9/2016 Form 6 purpose but has just become to worn out and too small to accommodate today's traffic.
Web - PM 6 703 6 C/D Split Diamond We need this interchange improvement, not more green space. We have tons of green space in Arkansas! Jones, Elaine 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 103
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 704 6 C/D Split Diamond !!! Russom, Abby 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 705 6 C/D SPUI I think this is the best plan. Parke, Frank 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 706 6 C/D Split Diamond I use the bridge during my commute to work and think this plan would help reduce traffic congestion. Nicholson, Aaron 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 707 6 C/D Split Diamond The existing interstate is in horrible shape and is not adequate to accommodate today's traffic volume. Sneed, Ted 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 708 6 C/D Split Diamond Get'er done :o) Segraves, Dwight 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 709 6 C/D SPUI N/A Saviers, John 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 710 6 C/D Split Diamond A Saviers, Melissa 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 711 6 C/D Split Diamond Please accept this as my support of the option above. Thanks! Rusher, Will 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 712 6 C/D Split Diamond I'm in favor of the 6-lane Collector/Distributor Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange Hale, Butch 6/9/2016 M Form
Please find attached comments on materials presented at CA0602 Public Meeting #6 Dear Mr. Browning: These comments are submitted in three parts. Part I pertains to comments made on the I-30 Crossing Public Meeting #6 and Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting #6. Also included for the record are written versions of oral comments made at Partners and Stakeholders meetings by Mr. McKenzie or myself. Part II contains a link to the comments received by Metroplan on the recently adopted Plan Covington, Casey Amendment 1 that should be included in the record for the 30 Crossing project. Finally, in Part III, I have R. F-4, G-4, G- 713 included for the record our comments on the FAQ answers pertaining to or referencing Metroplan that P.E. AICP 6/9/2016 Email 5, G-1, F-1, we believe to be misleading, incorrect or incomplete. CARTS Study F-7, J, I-12 PART I - Comments on Public Meeting #6 and TWG Meeting #6 Director Consistent Treatment of Corridor Bottlenecks (North Interchange vs. I-30 Widening to 65th Street) The I-30 study team correctly identified two primary bottlenecks impacting traffic exiting the I-30 corridor: (1) the two lane ramp from I-30 Eastbound to I-40 Eastbound and (2) the merge of I-30, I-440, and I-530 west of and outside of the study corridor. However, the two bottlenecks were treated very differently. D - 104
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The bottleneck within the study corridor was ignored in the 8 lane alternative, and the bottleneck outside the study corridor was widened. It should not be acceptable to refuse to fix an identified bottleneck completely within the study corridor (two lane ramp as part of the eight lane alternative) but at the same time fix a bottleneck on I-30 outside the study corridor for which there is no identified funding and which has not been subjected to environmental review. It is even more unacceptable to compare alternatives as if it were an apple to apple comparison. Until an eight lane option is presented that fixes the two lane ramp bottleneck, the results are incomplete and insufficient for consideration. To present a complete picture of alternatives and their impacts, the Department should do the following: (1) for the bottleneck in the PM peak under the eight lane alternative, add one additional lane north and east bound from Broadway onto 67/167 (as included in the ten lane alternative); then rerun the simulations, and (2) Rerun the simulations of all alternatives without assuming the widening of I-30 to 8 lanes from the South Terminal to 65th Street, and (3) Compare the performance of the alternatives as altered above and make the results of those runs available to the public, and (4)Make available to the public the AM Simulation and 3D models of the Alternatives presented at the Public Hearing and both the AM and PM peak model runs for the variations identified above. Then the public and decision-makers will have a full range of possibilities to consider. Schematic Review Design Considerations/Urban Context The section of I-30 from I-40 to I-530 is primarily used by intraregional and local traffic accessing businesses within the downtowns of Little Rock and North Little Rock and along I-630. To that extent the roadway should be designed within the urban context of its surroundings and to balance traffic flow with the capacity of the receiving streets. The following design refinements are strongly recommended. Collector/Distributor Lanes The Collector Distributor lanes should be designed in such a way that they convey to the driver that he or she is leaving a freeway environment and entering a pedestrian zone in a downtown environment. As currently shown, the C/D lanes have ten foot shoulders and twelve foot lanes – a freeway design standard. In such an environment the driver will mimic the speed of the adjacent freeway lanes regardless of signage. To counter that natural tendency, the shoulders and travel lanes should be tapered to 11 foot lanes and a 3-4 foot shoulder by the time the Broadway auxiliary lane joins the C/D lanes and should be consistent with a 35 mph design speed of an urban arterial. If possible, the exterior crash barrier should be an open barrier similar to that used on the Broadway Bridge. Frontage Roads The frontage roads should be designed as if they were a local boulevard with 11 foot lanes, downtown typical curb radii to reinforce a welcoming pedestrian environment, which should also include buffered sidewalk setbacks or 8 foot sidewalks and street trees. Removing grass slopes in favor of vertical retaining walls in the depressed section of freeway is a positive design step that will (1) visually narrow the freeway and its intrusiveness and (2) provide a design that facilitates ultimately decking over the freeway. This applies in particular to the double free rights at Capitol Avenue which are downright hostile to pedestrians. A single lane right-in, right-out with much tighter curb radii is more appropriate for that location. The La Harpe/Cumberland/Markham/Clinton Intersection This intersection has a high pedestrian accident rate and has been mentioned as critical to the City and the health of the River Market. None of the alternatives has yet proposed an acceptable solution to this problem. To insure pedestrian safety, options should be considered that decrease through vehicle traffic at this intersection, eliminate pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, and incorporate a pedestrian all-walk phase into the signal timing. If projected traffic volumes will not allow time for such an all-walk phase, then the intersection and adjacent roadways should be physically narrowed, thereby forcing traffic to seek other D - 105
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
routes on the grid. For example, the 100 block of Cumberland and La Harpe to Chester could be reduced to one lane in each direction. Connecting the Full Grid The urban grid works best in diffusing and distributing traffic when the number of connections to the grid is maximized. The current design of the split diamond focuses traffic on a few roads which reduces the effectiveness of the grid. Consequently, 2nd Street should be connected under the freeway to Mahlon Martin and the north bound side of the Texas turnaround that ends at 3rd Street in the current design should be extended northward to intersect with 2nd and with President Clinton Avenue. As equally important, our modeling shows 4th Street collecting an overwhelming amount of traffic in the PM commute. At major cross streets the potential for significant conflicts exist. Once again, the utility of a new bridge over the river at Chester Street and providing additional options for traffic leaving downtown becomes evident. Providing another connection over the river west of Broadway diverts traffic from the west side of downtown off of Broadway and Main Street Bridges and will allow 4th Street to perform much more efficiently in connecting to the I-30 Bridge. Multi-Lane Weaves and Safety Analysis Improved safety, specifically the elimination of major weave movements, is a benefit of this project. The study team has designed the corridor to eliminate the major weave on I-40 between Hwy 67/167 and I-30 and relocated the North Hills ramp to increase weave distance. Nonetheless, Metroplan remains concerned that there are several movements within the corridor that will require multiple lane changes within a short distance. Given the estimate of travel speed, particularly with the 6+4 alternative, this may negatively impact safety within the corridor and should be accounted for in the safety analysis. Locations identified include: 1. North Hills entry to westbound I-40, 2. I-40 eastbound exit to North Hills, 3. Westbound collector-distributor across the Arkansas River, 4. Westbound I-30 exit to Roosevelt, 5. Eastbound I-30 exit to Roosevelt, and 6. Roosevelt entry to I-440 and I-530. Microsimulation Review Reviews of the microsimulation results depict a level of congestion that is unfathomable for the No-Build and 8-lane alternatives and an unrealistic lack of congestion for the 6+4 collector distributor alternative. The deviation of the results from a reasonable expectation of traffic flow makes the results suspect for decision-making in their current state. The team should review the simulations and confirm with others that they represent a realistic expectation of the future before accepting the results and presenting them to the public. The following are specific issues to review: Traffic Projections/Alternative Modifications The traffic forecast used for microsimulation models shown at Public Meeting #6 were rooted in the broad forecast assumptions made as part of the PEL. Now that specific alternatives have been developed, forecasts should be developed for each specific alternative reflecting interchange location, ramp design, and main lane configurations. The growth in daily corridor VMT, 2010 to 2040, for each of the alternatives shown at Public Meeting #6 (from CARTS Travel Demand Model) is: No-Build +13% 8 General Purpose Lane SPUI +22% 8 General Purpose Lane Split Diamond +20% 6+4 Lane SPUI +32% 6+4 Lane Split Diamond +29% Based on main lanes, collector distributor roads, ramps, and frontage roads. Peak Hour Traffic Modifications AHTD has yet to document adjustments made to peak hour traffic. It is reasonable to expect that capacity constraint outside the corridor and the level of congestion both within and outside the corridor would D - 106
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
impact the amount of daily traffic using the corridor during the peak hour. The 6+4 collector distributor would result in a concentration of peak period traffic while the 8 lane (based on current congestion forecast) and no-build would result in peak spreading, people seeking alternative routes to avoid congestion, and more efficient use of the entire transportation network. Assumptions regarding peak hour traffic and any variations between alternatives should be thoroughly documented and revised as necessary. Traffic Pattern Modifications At the request of Garver Engineers, Metroplan staff provided the I-30 Crossing team with runs from the CARTS Travel Demand Model reflecting the revised SPUI and Split Diamond alternatives on May 27, 2016. These runs reflect significant changes to travel patterns associated with each interchange alternative and how areas within downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock are accessed. Microsimulation models should be modified to reflect broad changes in traffic patterns for accessing downtown with differing interchange alternatives. Furthermore, dynamic traffic assignment (system level) or visual inspection should be used to further refine traffic patterns and forecasts. It makes no sense, for example, for the freeway to be shown at a standstill while frontage roads and parallel arterials have little to no congestion. I-440 also appears to be underutilized as a way to travel to Jacksonville and Cabot from I-630 when I-30 is backed up. Gridlocked Network For the No-Build and 8-lane alternatives, gridlock or near gridlocked conditions are observed on the network. Those conditions that might be reasonable for downtowns of much larger metropolitan areas (i.e., lower Manhattan) but not one with the population of central Arkansas. This gridlock in turn amplifies congestion within the network, impacts travel in all directions (see PM traffic exiting to downtown in the split diamond alternative), and produces an excessive estimate of congestion. Gridlock conditions are caused by the overestimation of peak traffic volumes, lack of traffic diversion, and network anomalies. In the No-Build alternative, for example, gridlock is partially the result of traffic exiting to Broadway and backing onto the freeway because of a signal timing issue on Broadway. The result is an unrealistic depiction of congestion on the freeway. These types of anomalies in the model runs should be systematically identified and corrected. PART II - Public Comments On Plan Amendment #1 Metroplan received a total of 196 comments on Plan Amendment #1 to the Imagine Central Arkansas Plan. The vast majority of those comments referenced the 30 Crossing project. Those comments may be read and downloaded from http://metroplanrpac.org/. PART III – Setting the FAQ Straight We recognize that the FAQ is a marketing tool and, as such, is designed to show the 30 Crossing Project in the best light. And we also realize that different people can see the same situation from separate points of view. Having said that, there are several glaring examples in the FAQ that are attributed to Metroplan where we believe the answers are incorrect, misleading or incomplete. Comments on those are submitted for the record in the form of alternative answers. WILL WIDENING I-30 REQUIRE ALL CONNECTING FREEWAYS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $4 BILLION? The $4 billion estimate was produced by Metroplan as part of its preliminary Systems Impact Analysis and was based on a specific set of assumptions. If the underlying assumptions change the results will change. So to understand the result, one should understand the assumptions upon which the estimate is based. First, the freeway system in the metropolitan area operates as a dynamic system. Changes, especially significant changes, in one part of the system will result in impacts to the rest of the system. The 30 Crossing corridor is the backbone of the area’s freeway system, and one of its primary regulating valves. Congestion in this corridor meters traffic as it moves onto the Little Rock and North Little Rock downtown grids in the morning and out to the remainder of the freeway system in the evening. Second, Metroplan initially assumed that any proposed freeway system improvements would be based on Level of Service (LOS) D, the de facto standard AHTD uses for urban freeways. That assumption is based D - 107
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
on the fact that LOS D was used by the Department in: 1) meeting the Purpose and Need Statement of the 30 Crossing alternative in the PEL, (2) conducting the 2003 Area wide Freeway Study (the last comprehensive regional study of the freeway network), and (3) conducting multiple corridor studies since the completion of the Area wide Freeway Study. If a higher level of congestion in the 30 Crossing corridor is acceptable, i.e. a lower Level of Service, the consequences for the rest of the system will change. Third, Metroplan assumed a ten lane I-30 cross section in the 30 Crossing corridor since that was the original preferred alternative selected by the PEL process. Fourth, Metroplan ran the model with the LOS D standard in place for 2040. When the system reached equilibrium again (at least LOS D on all of the links), it resulted in an assumed freeway network that ranged from 8-14 lanes wide. Metroplan assumed that was totally unrealistic from a financial standpoint and reran the model for a LOS E level of congestion. That model run resulted in an assumed freeway network of 8-12 lanes in most corridors. Fifth, it is on the LOS E system model that Metroplan made planning level cost estimates using per mile construction cost estimates. The price tag in current dollars is $3.1 billion. Metroplan then made assumptions about when, over the next twenty years, those widenings would occur and adjusted the cost estimate for inflation appropriately. This is how the $4.2-4.5 billon cost estimate was derived. AHTD staff then reviewed the cost estimate and determined current dollar costs of $2.3 billion. Inflated over time, the AHTD estimate translates to $3.3 billion. All estimates include the I-30 Crossing project in the total cost. In conclusion, yes, there will absolutely be impacts on the freeway system outside the 30 Crossing Corridor. All modeling done to date, whether by Metroplan, AHTD or consultants indicate such? How significant those impacts will be cannot be determined until it is decided what will be built in the 30 Crossing corridor. A final Systems Impact Analysis will be conducted and a new cost estimate developed by Metroplan once AHTD completes the Draft Environmental Assessment for the 30 Crossing project. The results of that analysis will very likely be different than the preliminary analysis that resulted in the $4+ billion cost estimate. HAVE OTHER STUDIES BEEN CONDUCTED REGARDING THE NEED FOR WIDENING I-30? Yes, in 2003 AHTD and Metroplan jointly funded the two-phase Area wide Freeway Study. Phase I of the study looked at the river bridges, including the long-identified Mid-Town crossing at Pike Avenue. Phase II of the study looked at the remainder of the metro freeway system. Phase I of the study recommended a combination of improvements as having the highest cost-benefit ratio. That combination included a new crossing at Pike Avenue to Cantrell Road, replacing the Broadway Bridge and widening the I-30 bridge to 8 lanes first, then ultimately to 10 lanes. Phase II of the study, predicated on the LOS D performance standard, recommended a series of phased widenings by 2025 that would expand the regional freeway network to 8 -10 lanes (see map below). Area Wide Freeway Study – 2025 Time Horizon (LOS D achieved for all freeways but I-630) While the recommendations of the Area wide Freeway Study were never adopted as policy by either Metroplan or the Highway Commission, Metroplan did study the affordability of the recommendations during its METRO 2030 plan update. The conclusion was that the price tag for the recommended improvements was simply unaffordable and, therefore, Metroplan reiterated the region’s strategic goal of building a balanced transportation system. Metroplan also, pursuant to federal requirements, operates a Congestion Management System (CMS) designed to identify system bottlenecks and choke points early. Metroplan purposely set its congestion thresholds low by national comparison. For example, what might be ranked as “extreme” congestion in Metroplan’s CMS may be classified by drivers in Atlanta or Dallas or Austin as a pretty light traffic day? Additionally, the CARTS CMS is not time sensitive and assumes that higher levels of congestion will be accepted for short periods during the day. The CMS also identified bottlenecks at most freeway to freeway interchanges in the metro area where adding capacity to interchange ramps and merging capacity at the interchange can improve system operations without having to add more main lane capacity. In the 30 Crossing corridor, the many freeway D - 108
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
to freeway interchanges are so close together that fixing the capacity and merging issues at the interchanges looks a lot like main lane widening. WILL WIDENING THE INTERSTATE NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY WIDENING, URBAN SPRAWL, AND INNER CITY JOB LOSS? Yes, major widening in the 30 Crossing corridor will necessitate widening other highways in the region – to what extent has not yet been determined. To the extent that virtually the entire urban freeway network is widened as recommended in the Area wide Freeway Study, it will be a major contributing factor to continued urban sprawl. The question of inner city job loss is a much more complex one. To the extent that it contributes to urban sprawl, it is quite likely that the inner city’s share of jobs in the metro will continue to decrease, even if they increase in absolute number. The preferences of the Millennial generation and the fundamental change in work brought on by new technologies and off-shoring of jobs will play much larger roles. It is clear from looking at cities such as Austin, Texas, that severe congestion is a symptom of robust economic and population growth and has not proven to be a major obstacle in downtown vitality. Severe congestion in the I-30 corridor could lead some businesses to relocate out of the traditional CBDs, although much of that has already happened in previous decades, but it could also incentivize workers to live closer to the jobs and stimulate downtown housing development as it has in other metro areas. For most workers, the 30 Crossing corridor is only one part of their journey to work. If that segment is improved but simply moves the bottlenecks to other parts of the system, total trip time is unlikely to improve significantly for the average suburban commuter. To get significant trip reduction, or to maintain the overall level of mobility that we enjoy today, most of the freeway system would need to be widened. WILL CORRECTING THE BOTTLENECKS IN THE CORRIDOR SIMPLY MOVE THE EXISTING BOTTLE NECKS ELSEWHERE? Yes. AHTD will then decide on a segment by segment basis whether to address those new/worsened bottlenecks by additional freeway widening as congestion demands and funding allows. IF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED DECLINES, WILL I-30 STILL REQUIRE IMPROVED CAPACITY? Nothing requires the freeway to be widened to meet projected future demand. I-30 is congested today, and without capacity improvements, will get more congested in the future. Even if VMT increases, there is no requirement that roadways be expanded to meet the demand of every driver to be able to drive the speed limit in the busiest 15 minutes of the day (LOS D). If I-30 is not widened, congestion will increase to the point where traffic will divert to other routes, will divert to other times of the day or locational decisions for housing and businesses will be made. But more directly to the question on VMT, there are two statistics of which one should be aware. The first is VMT per capita and the other is total VMT. There is ample evidence that VMT per capita has peaked. In the United States we have more registered vehicles than registered drivers. Total VMT, however, is still growing as population grows. While it fluctuates up and down with economic conditions and the price of petroleum, it is generally on a growth trend that parallels growth in total population. Metroplan estimates that between 2010 and 2040 regional population will increase by 40% while regional VMT will increase 32-37%. VMT growth will be highest in areas of greatest population growth. But that does not mean that VMT growth in the 30 Crossing corridor will increase by that much. End Comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to seeing continued refinements in the project as a result of this and other input. Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 714 6 C/D Split Diamond None Colford, Laurie 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 109
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 715 8-lane SPUI We need this to happen!!!!!! Parker, Nate 6/9/2016 M Form
Williams, Edward Web - PM 6 716 6 C/D Split Diamond Love the free and green space in our city center!!!! Think Boston! 6/9/2016 I-11 A Form
6-Lane Option with Split Diamond Interchange is best option for Downtown Little Rock, especially River Web - PM 6 I-11, I-4, I-9, 717 6 C/D Split Diamond Market area - and also best option to allow future economic development, East LR to West LR Stanley, Joe 6/9/2016 Form I-6 Connectivity and "green" urban amenities by the City of Little Rock
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 718 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Welch, Michael 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, Web - PM 6 G-1, I-4, I-9, 719 6 C/D Split Diamond while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve Parker, Nathaniel 6/9/2016 Form I-6 downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area.
Web - PM 6 720 6 C/D Split Diamond This is the best option for Little Rock by far Copas, Scott 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 721 6 C/D Split Diamond I believe this is the best design for the future of our City and State Herring, Chris 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 110
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 722 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Lafferty, William 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 723 6 C/D Split Diamond Improvements are needed. Ellis, Jessica 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 724 6 C/D Split Diamond It would help the flow of heavy traffic. Powell, Brenda 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 725 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Delco, Brad 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 726 6 C/D Split Diamond 6 lane C/D lanes and split diamond Munson, Eric 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 727 6 C/D Split Diamond Support 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange McGeorge, Brian 6/9/2016 M Form
On behalf of the Little Rock Technology Park Authority, we have previously endorsed the 6 lane C/D with Birch, Brent Web - PM 6 A-1, C, F-1, 728 6 C/D Split Diamond split diamond interchange with the caveat that Capitol Ave. would be thoroughly evaluated to remain 6/9/2016 LR Tech Park Form F-7, I-7 parking and pedestrian friendly with a bulk of the traffic pushed to 4th and 6th streets.
D - 111
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 729 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Butler, Bob 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
This option will enhance driver and pedestrian safety. It will also provide new opportunities for new Web - PM 6 G-1, I-4, I-9, 730 6 C/D Split Diamond development in downtown Little Rock. In addition, this design will improve downtown connectivity by Farley, Jennifer 6/9/2016 Form I-6 eliminating barriers such as the 2nd Street ramp which currently divides this important area.
Boulevard Plan. Web - PM 6 731 Other Having considered this issue at great length, I believe a boulevard plan is the most in synch with the Barth, Jay 6/9/2016 F-1 Form continued development of downtown LR and with the limiting of divisions within the city.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 732 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Cranford, Ross 6/9/2016 Form 6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 733 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks for listening to the community input! Chesshir, Jay 6/9/2016 L-2 Form
The 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange will address current and Web - PM 6 734 6 C/D Split Diamond future traffic needs, while enhancing the green and park spaces and pedestrian and biking infrastructure Rose, Tom 6/9/2016 J, I-11 Form that are so desperately needed in the River Market area of Little Rock.
8 lanes will allow to open up the traffic flow and will make commuting from one side of the river to the other easier during rush hour traffic. The main thing is that the bridges are old and something has to be Shelton, Web - PM 6 735 8 GP Split Diamond 6/9/2016 F-2 completed and since we would need to repair, we need to look in to expansion while we are in the Christopher Form process.
D - 112
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 736 6 C/D Split Diamond Henry, Sarah 6/9/2016 important area. The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a Form 4, I-9, I-6 unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 737 6 C/D Split Diamond None Graham, Greg 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6 Lane with collector/distributor would be an outstanding improving to the current traffic situation. As someone who lives in West Little Rock and has commuted downtown since 1976, I was skeptical about Web - PM 6 738 6 C/D Split Diamond the Big Rock Interchange Project, but it works beautifully! If your I-30 Corridor Project works as well, you Thomas, Frank 6/9/2016 L-2 Form will have renewed my faith in the planning and implementation efforts of the Arkansas Highway Department. Good job by everyone involved.
Please be mindful that this project is being funded by tax payers located all over the State of Arkansas not just the tax payers located in downtown Little Rock. This project is to serve all tax payers of Arkansas not Web - PM 6 739 6 C/D Split Diamond Foster, Charles 6/9/2016 A-1, M just those in the Little Rock area. As a retired architect, it appears that the 6-Lane with Form collector/distributor lanes will provide the safest solution.
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, Web - PM 6 G-1, I-4, I-9, 740 6 C/D Split Diamond while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve Kerr, Elizabeth 6/9/2016 Form I-6 downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area.
Web - PM 6 741 6 C/D Split Diamond We need this sooner than later. Long, Jack 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 742 6 C/D Split Diamond This is the best idea in my opinion Dunigan, Sawyer 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 743 6 C/D Split Diamond Good Idea Belford, Shae 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 744 6 C/D Split Diamond Good Idea Hirschman, Blake 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 113
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 745 6 C/D Split Diamond We need a new bridge. Preuett, Gordon 6/9/2016 F-2 Form
Web - PM 6 746 6 C/D Split Diamond We need this to road and interchange to be improved. Pierce, Wrona 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 747 6 C/D Split Diamond 6-Lane Split Diamond interchange is the best option. Roberts, Robyn J 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 748 6 C/D Split Diamond This is really needed. Smith, Brenda 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 749 6 C/D Split Diamond Please build this. The old bridge definitely needs to be rebuilt. This could be such a traffic relief. Williams, Travis 6/9/2016 F-2 Form
Web - PM 6 750 6 C/D Split Diamond good idea Gomez, Joshua 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 751 6 C/D Split Diamond This looks like the best option for Downtown and LR, hope this goes through. Henry, Richard 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 752 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea Ford, Herman 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 753 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea Ellis, Jacob 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 754 6 C/D Split Diamond This is a fantastic idea! It will certainly make the commute into downtown area less terrifying! Fox, Melissa 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 755 6 C/D Split Diamond Move forward Geiger, Jean 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 756 6 C/D Split Diamond We need it! Lowe, Doug 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 757 6 C/D Split Diamond Great idea…these changes are greatly needed. Jones, Matthew H. 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 758 6 C/D Split Diamond Good Idea Ratcliff, Jackson 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 114
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 759 6 C/D Split Diamond I am impressed with the effort that AHTD has put into showing the public the different designs, thank you. Schwark, Geoffery 6/9/2016 L-2 Form
Improve what's there. Messing up the already congested downtown traffic is only going to make things Web - PM 6 760 No Build Nikki 6/9/2016 E, I-1 worse for those that are downtown! Form
I think this would be the best option for travelers and commuters into and out of Little Rock. Something Web - PM 6 761 6 C/D Split Diamond Sweet, Kimberley 6/9/2016 M needs to be done. Form
Web - PM 6 762 No Build No more. Chris 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 763 6 C/D Split Diamond Seems to me that the 6-lane with split diamond is the most logical choice by far. Whitfield, Bobby 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 764 6 C/D Split Diamond I think the project is a good idea. All for it. Ferrell, Hunter 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 765 6 C/D Split Diamond I support this idea. The No Build option is not an option. Kentner, Matt 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 766 6 C/D Split Diamond Please consider this as it would be a benefit to our city. Henry, Shannon 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 767 6 C/D Split Diamond Good strategy. Jeffery, Nancy 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 768 6 C/D Split Diamond None Leeper, Gus 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 769 6 C/D Split Diamond Good plan. Time to move it forward. Rousseau, Saul 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 770 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a Johnson, Russell 6/9/2016 Form 4, I-9, I-6 unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
D - 115
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 771 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea Moore, Cheryl 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 772 6 C/D Split Diamond Certainly a change is needed to eliminate this congested and unsafe area. Atkinson, Drew 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 773 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea! Werninger, Kay 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 774 6 C/D Split Diamond I like the 6 Lane with collector/distributor idea. Bizzel, JR 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 775 6 C/D Split Diamond I like the idea. Something has to be done. Perry, Steve 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 776 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea Palmer, Whitney 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 777 6 C/D Split Diamond Great idea. Fisken, Nikolai 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 778 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Lambert, Kim 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 779 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you - this will be a positive change for our downtown area. Phillips, Dwight 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 780 6 C/D Split Diamond 6 lanes with Split Diamond appears to be the best option. Faught, Kevin 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 781 6 C/D Split Diamond I like this idea. What we need. Tackett, Mary 6/9/2016 M Form
I think elimination through semi traffic would alleviate a great deal of the 2 hours of congestion over the river. Creating a toll for 3 axle vehicles (or any vehicle) using 40 through to 30 or (or visa versa) instead of Web - PM 6 782 Other Other 440 or 430 would be a feasible way to decrease the scope and cost of this project. I can see the river Hudson, Diane 6/9/2016 G-7 Form bridge from my office. There is very little traffic the majority of the time. Many times the cause of congestion is the 3 axle vehicles.
Web - PM 6 783 6 C/D Split Diamond The bridge needs to be replaced, and I see this as the smoothest way to deal with the traffic in the area. Clements, Jeremy 6/9/2016 F-2 Form
D - 116
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 784 6 C/D Split Diamond Robinson, Bryan 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 785 6 C/D Split Diamond I particularly like the removal of the ramp @ Clinton and 2nd Street. Moses, Jimmy 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 786 6 C/D Split Diamond We sure need more lanes. White, Cindy 6/9/2016 M Form
Nobody likes change and our schedules disrupted but this bridge needs to be replaced. Think about your Web - PM 6 787 6 C/D Split Diamond kids and grand-kids that have to travel across it every day. The longer we put this project of the worse the Cecil, Melissa F-2, M Form conditions on the bridge are going to get.
I believe this is the best alternative. Something needs to be done to handle the large flow of traffic Web - PM 6 788 6 C/D Split Diamond through here every day. Please just keep the freeway traffic out of downtown Little Rock. For the safety Parsons, Alicia 4/9/2016 G-1, M Form of everyone in the downtown area. I work there and my children go to school there.
Web - PM 6 789 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Brown, Blevin 4/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 790 6 C/D Split Diamond I think this would be the better option. Seifert, David 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 791 6 C/D Split Diamond Think this would be a good idea and good for the City. Irby, Stuart 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 792 6 C/D Split Diamond I believe this is a very workable solution providing a positive impact on Little Rock. Goff, Bill 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 793 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea Stevens, Laura 6/9/2016 M Form
I do not want to see 1-30 widened through downtown Little Rock. I prefer alternatives presented by the E, F-3, F-4, public, including funneling more traffic onto I-440, making I-30 more of a parkway through downtown, Web - PM 6 794 No Build Fulk, Marion 6/9/2016 G-2, G-3, G- and building an additional bridge in the Chester Street area. I do not want 4th and 6th street turned into Form 4 on/off ramps and consequently filled with high-speed traffic in downtown.
Web - PM 6 795 6 C/D Split Diamond I prefer this alternative. May, Anna 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 796 6 C/D Split Diamond I prefer the 6 Lane with Collector/Distributor Lanes and split diamond interchange. Harden, Phyllis 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 117
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 797 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you for asking for our choice. Williams, Jenley 6/9/2016 L-2, M Form
I think this option will best for LR and those of us traveling there weekly. It will help the future Atkinson, Web - PM 6 798 6 C/D Split Diamond development of downtown LR. I really like the 17 acres of green space, which will also enhance the 6/9/2016 I-11, I-6 Catherine Form downtown area.
Web - PM 6 799 6 C/D Split Diamond I like this one the best, but anything is better than what we have now. Vandever, Bill 6/9/2016 M Form
Prefer the boulevard plan proposed by Tom Fennell or no build if that's not something that AHTD is willing Web - PM 6 800 No Build McKuin, Vanessa 6/9/2016 E, F-1 to do right now. Form
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, Web - PM 6 G-1, I-4, I-9, 801 6 C/D Split Diamond while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve Choate, Jeff 6/9/2016 Form I-6 downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd street ramp, which currently divides this important area.
Web - PM 6 802 6 C/D Split Diamond All for it. Babcock, Sandra L. 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 803 6 C/D Split Diamond This project is definitely needed for our community. Biernat, Leigh Ann 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 804 8 Lane Split Diamond Please consider my vote as listed above. Regenhardt, John 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 805 8 Lane Split Diamond I think widening I-30 is needed. The population is only going to increase. Collins, Lauren 6/9/2016 M Form
I support this alternative and strongly believe that doing nothing to improve this main ingress/egress for Web - PM 6 806 6 C/D Split Diamond Dover, Tim 6/9/2016 M Little Rock would not serve the city, or all of the people that travel to/from Little Rock at all. Form
Web - PM 6 807 6 C/D Split Diamond Seems like a really good idea! Daniel 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 808 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. I support. Nelson, Scott B 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 809 6 C/D Split Diamond Widening I-30 is needed. The population is only going to increase with time. Collins, Lauren 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 810 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Berkemeyer, Alicia 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 118
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 811 6 C/D Split Diamond I commute Hwy. 67 (I-30) Dunlap, Pamela 6/9/2016 M Form
I think this design is the best one. Little Rock desperately needs to improve the I-30 crossing. Traffic is Web - PM 6 812 6 C/D Split Diamond Landfair, Cherry 6/9/2016 M out of control. Form
Web - PM 6 813 6 C/D Split Diamond Please do this. Spjut, Madeleine 6/9/2016 M Form
I have driving from saline county to work in downtown LR for over 20 years. Traffic has increased and our roadway needs to be upgraded. So glad I don't have to head north after work each day. It is a nightmare Web - PM 6 814 6 C/D Split Diamond Bowers, Sherry 6/9/2016 M and the slightest accident can cause huge delays. There really aren't any good alternatives. Please make Form some improvements. I would like my tax money to be spent wisely.
Web - PM 6 815 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks Christine 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 816 6 C/D Split Diamond 6 Lanes for this area and flow pattern seems appropriate. We need this. McAnally, Myra 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 817 6 C/D Split Diamond Need to fast track the construction. Grace, Ted 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 818 6 C/D Split Diamond Great idea Loyd, Bryan 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 819 6 C/D Split Diamond Love the green space, too much traffic and merging issues with the existing clover leaf. Tomboli, Chad 6/9/2016 G-1, I-11 Form
Web - PM 6 820 6 C/D Split Diamond Please! Great idea. Vincent, Nina R. 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 821 6 C/D Split Diamond We need to fix that bridge. Doing nothing isn't an option for a city that wants to grow. Evans, Kyle 6/9/2016 F-2, M Form
D - 119
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Disruptive strategies can lead to amazing innovation. The citizens of central Arkansas, and Pulaski county officials have the unique opportunity to positively impact the central Arkansas area, property preparing for many decades of growth and enrichment of new business, industry, tax revenues and with that workers, whom with families, will be able to enjoy an improved quality of life due to our sacrifices we make today. All the while, for the short term, of just a few short 2 years of discomfort, impacting the quality of life, for decades! This combined group of citizens and county leaders have one real opportunity to cease the moment for ensuring proper funding, resources, preparation, execution of a large scale plan, all for the betterment and quality of life. While the transition will be uncomfortable, at times frustrating, and not without challenges, seeing this infrastructural improvement through and expanding and preparing for the future, all happens now with action and execution of this plan. Planning for a full 8 lanes is the best choice, building the infrastructure for our future, while appealing outside corporations for Web - PM 6 822 8 Lane Split Diamond Fox, David 6/9/2016 I-6, G-5, G-6 consideration to move or expand to our central Arkansas market. When reviewing the comments and Form reasoning for different opinions for expanding or limiting the expansion of the infrastructure for our interstate transit project, I'm reminded of in our city and county leaders who failed to recognize the disruptive strategy of expanding the LR Airport for a small startup company wanting to expand and prepare the central Arkansas area for its corporate headquarters in the early 70's and were too narrow minded and short sighted to realize the opportunity of the value of our investment in building and expanding the LR Airport, vetoing the opportunity. The city of LR, the county of Pulaski, the state of Arkansas lost what came to be known as a top 10 in Fortune 500 companies, all because the citizens and leaders didn't realize the potential of or the return on the investment, from this startup company, FedEx. Let's not miss this opportunity to prepare for another defining moment in our state's history. Do the right thing, expand to 8 lanes and place Arkansas on a path of growth and economic development.
Web - PM 6 823 6 C/D Split Diamond Feel this would better serve Little Rock Young, Donna 6/9/2016 M Form
Option #3 is a great idea for the City of Little Rock. As the City continues to grow, the infrastructure has Web - PM 6 824 6 C/D Split Diamond Leake, Michael 6/9/2016 M not. Something must be done soon, traffic is horrible and getting worse. Form
I really feel "something" needs to be done to improve traffic flow. Of the ones listed above, I believe I Web - PM 6 825 6 C/D Split Diamond Jaeger, Arnold 6/9/2016 M have chosen the best option. Form
Web - PM 6 826 6 C/D Split Diamond The other options are garbage. Can't believe anyone would consider the other options. Sealy, Matthew 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 120
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 827 6 C/D Split Diamond I believe this is the best alternative for this area. Reed, Sha'Nae 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 828 6 C/D Split Diamond I think this is the best idea. Dunigan, Sawyer 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 829 6 C/D Split Diamond I think the 6 lane with C/D lanes and split diamond interchange is the best option. Burns, Kevin 6/9/2016 A-1, C Form
Web - PM 6 830 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Weeks, Doug 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 831 6 C/D Split Diamond The 6-lane with C/D and the split diamond interchange seems to be the best option for the area. Floyd, Marty 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 832 No Build Needs to work on bottle neck at 40 and 430 after Crystal Hill exit or better mass transportation options. Bullock, Joya 6/9/2016 G-5, F-7 Form
Web - PM 6 833 6 C/D Split Diamond I commuted to downtown from Maumelle for several years. I-30 downtown needs a fix. Rucker, Ross 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 834 6 C/D Split Diamond This is the most balanced and reasonable alternative. Ulrey, Robert 6/9/2016 M Form
I think this will really help slow traffic downtown. I work downtown and the traffic can be a nightmare at times on I-30. After seeing the improvement at the Big Rock Exchange I think we should move forward Web - PM 6 835 6 C/D Split Diamond with the widening I-30. Waiting another ten years will just be more expensive and more difficult because Williams, Robert 6/9/2016 M Form there will be more development downtown to contend with. Let's do this now while we have the will and the financing to do so.
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 836 6 C/D Split Diamond Saviers, Mark 6/9/2016 important area. The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a Form 4, I-9, I-6 unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. The design adequately addresses concerns that some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
D - 121
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Broadway bridge needs replacing, but I don't see the need for 8-10 in downtown LR. It is a high Web - PM 6 837 No Build Thompson, Jennie 6/9/2016 E, F-2, H-2 pedestrian area and becomes a higher injury risk with so many lanes. Form
Web - PM 6 838 6 C/D Split Diamond Prefer 6-lane with split diamond interchange. Graham, M 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 839 6 C/D Split Diamond I strongly desire for option 3 above to be implemented. Adams, Ron 6/9/2016 M Form
I think that the 6-lane collector/distributor lanes and split diamond interchange is a good idea and the Web - PM 6 840 6 C/D Split Diamond Blagg, Rick 6/9/2016 M way to go. Form
Web - PM 6 841 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Alguire, Deanna 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 842 6 C/D Split Diamond Great idea! We need this! Johnson, Jolene 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 843 6 C/D Split Diamond Please do not contact me. Garrett, Tori 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 844 6 C/D Split Diamond Best plan for the future. Hughes, Marilyn 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 845 6 C/D Split Diamond great idea Kukendall, Andrew 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 846 6 C/D Split Diamond Support this idea. Fogle, Aaron 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 847 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Colford, Vickie 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 848 6 C/D Split Diamond I believe the diamond interchange to be the best option of the presented options. Majors, Jason 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 122
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
This project needs to be built to help alleviate current and future traffic issues. The 4 current alternatives will not address every Arkansas citizens’ concerns, but the future growth of central Arkansas depends on an improved highway replacement. Our company employees 60 drivers, half of which travel the I40, I30, I530 corridor daily. We employee another Arkansas company that employees 16 drivers all of which must travel that corridor 3 to 6 times per day. We have another hauler from North Little Rock that employees Web - PM 6 849 8 lane SPUI Davis, Dan 6/9/2016 G-5, G-6 36 drivers all of which travel the same corridor 3 to 6 times per day. That does not include the company Form employees that provide us the materials that are located east off Broadway. For future downtown development, suppliers currently have a nightmare to supply their projects. Yes, 3 to 4 years of construction will be an issues, but for future business, developers, local citizens, and visitors will be much brighter for many years afterwards.
Split Diamond Web - PM 6 850 6 C/D Something definitely needs to be done around the downtown area. Martinez, Anthony 6/9/2016 M SPUI Form
Web - PM 6 851 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Brockinton, Terry 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 852 6 C/D Split Diamond Need to be replaced! Great idea! Flowers, John 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 853 6 C/D Split Diamond I think the project is a good idea. Middleton, Mark 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 854 6 C/D split diamond Good idea. Buchanan, Carol 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 855 6 C/D Split Diamond I think the project is a good idea. Ferrell, Gary 6/9/2016 M Form
I am in complete agreement with the 6 lane alternative with collector/distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Web - PM 6 856 6 C/D Split Diamond Burgess, Rebecca 6/9/2016 M Diamond Interchange. I would hate to see this project move forward with any of the other options. Form
Web - PM 6 857 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Goss, Jennifer 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 858 6 C/D Split Diamond I'm all for it. Ferrell, Diana 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 859 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Bates, Jennifer 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 860 6 C/D SPUI 2nd choice would be the 6 lane split diamond. McKenna, Evelyn 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 123
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 861 6 C/D Split Diamond Please use the 6 lane C/D Lanes and split diamond interchange. This is the best option for all involved. Jerry, Beth 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 862 6 C/D Split Diamond Wonderful improvement for our downtown. Hargrove, Kayla 6/9/2016 M Form
In addition, the streets within the city need to be altered to accommodate easier passage to the different areas of downtown and traffic lights should be synchronized accordingly. The trolley system should be extended to outside the downtown boundaries and commuter parking established with easy egress and Web - PM 6 863 6 C/D Split Diamond Powers, Bob 6/9/2016 H-1, F-2 entry on both I-30 and I-40. Also, the route of the trolleys should be altered so as not to conflict with the Form traffic flow during peak hours. Currently, when a trolley crosses Pres. Clinton and Scott St. the entire traffic flow is disrupted causing bigger traffic jams along that street.
Dear Sir or Madam: The revised I-30 expansion plan of the public hearing of 4-26-16 contains omissions that need to be remedied, and contradictions that need to be resolved. It lacks major additional information that must be studied and added to the project description before any authority could rightfully determine the benefit relative to the costs of this high-dollar proposal. Please incorporate by reference the whole of the previous critique written by Dale Pekar of Little Rock, in comments to the state, as well as the Metroplan Board of Directors, found online here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LEZxZcx29w4jxYke6Dva2gQau-zUWwKy77YYqpuhd00/pub To date, members of the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods see the project as too costly now, and far Wells, Kathy F-7, G-2, G- too costly in further projects anticipated in future, especially widening I-630. The project calls for 15 lanes Coalition of 3, G-4, F-2, 864 of pavement at the junction of I-30 and I-630 today, which we find overwhelming. Cut that back to six 6/9/2016 Email Greater Little Rock M, I-2, I-8, lanes plus shoulders, please. We oppose this level of construction, because we are persuaded this will Neighborhoods J, N, L-1 harm our neighborhoods - again. Original construction of both I-30 and I-630 damaged adjacent neighborhoods, which have never recovered. We ask for mitigation from noise and air pollution from current lanes before any new lanes may be added. A new bridge is needed, and shoulders should be added to the bridge lanes, to improve safety. We oppose overbuilding in this plan. We like fixing the Second St. ramp some way, but oppose the present "firehose" plan that, again, shifts congestion into the downtown grid for the city to handle. Revise this plan so problems are not just shifted elsewhere. Coalition members also value the analysis of Metroplan staff, and wish to incorporate that critique of June 9 by reference.
Makes the most sense to me since we do need a change, just not looking forward to the congestion Web - PM 6 865 6 C/D Split Diamond Hardcastle, Donna 6/9/2016 G-5, G-6, M resulting from construction. Form
A plan like this has been needed for way too long. The locations and distances of the current on/off ramps are not designed to accommodate major congestion which contributes to the rest of the I-30 Montgomery, Web - PM 6 866 6 C/D Split Diamond 6/9/2016 G-5, M congestion to/from Downtown. So many commuters travel to/from downtown for work in addition to Shannon Form visit the many attractions along I-30 it's time to think and act like a big city.
D - 124
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 867 6 C/D Split Diamond Please use the option above. It is the best for all concerned. Jerry, Beth 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 868 6 C/D Split Diamond The Split Diamond Interchange is the best option. Janssen, Bethany 6/9/2016 M Form
McCollough, Web - PM 6 869 6 C/D Split Diamond The traffic will be much better and less likely to have accidents 6/9/2016 M Donna Form
Web - PM 6 870 6 C/D Split Diamond Please consider above option. Dunn, Susan 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 871 6 C/D Split Diamond I think the project is a good idea. Ferrell, Harrison 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 872 6 C/D Split Diamond This is the best idea. Lee, Karen 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 873 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Tackett, Victoria 6/9/2016 M Form
I am in agreement that the bridge needs to be replaced I do not feel that these plans best represent a Web - PM 6 874 Other Other Ulrich, Douglas 6/9/2016 I-4, F-7 view of expanding Downtown's presence. Form
Web - PM 6 875 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Knight, Amy 6/9/2016 M Form
My true first choice is to turn the interstate into a true boulevard, slow down the traffic and reroute thru- traffic around the city on the by-pass. The split-diamond interchange is as good as we will get, I suppose. Web - PM 6 876 6 C/D Split Diamond Benfield, Larry 6/9/2016 H-1, F-1 We need more forward-thinking when it comes to transit decisions, not merely rehashing what we Form thought would work fifty years ago.
D - 125
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 877 6 C/D Split Diamond Cook, David 6/9/2016 important area. The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a Form 4, I-9, I-6 unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. The design adequately addresses concerns that some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
This would replace bridge that is inadequate and provide best traffic flow around downtown. This seems Web - PM 6 878 6 C/D Split Diamond Lassiter, Curtis 6/9/2016 M like the best of available options. Form
General 879 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange Ratton, Brock 6/9/2016 M Web Form
The 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange would appear to be the Web - PM 6 880 6 C/D Split Diamond Wilson, Mike 6/9/2016 M best alternative, considering the current traffic patterns and future growth in the area. Form
Web - PM 6 881 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Newton, Kevin 6/9/2016 M Form
Issues are that NLR main issues are not being addressed in this plan. JFK exit is poorly marked, poor signage throughout, there are no street markings for lane changes like LR. We see literally more turnaround traffic on JFK that is necessary because 30/40 split is poorly marked for West bound traffic. In Web - PM 6 882 Other Other Walker, Kent 6/9/2016 F-7, P-7 addition, the on ramps at both JFK and Levy for east bound traffic is dangerous at best and inadequate. Form These issues are neither difficult nor tedious to change and am wondering why has not and is not in the plan submitted.
Web - PM 6 883 6 C/D Split Diamond The bridge needs to be fixed. LR traffic needs relief. Jenner, Kyle 6/9/2016 F-2 Form
Browning, Web - PM 6 884 6 C/D Split Diamond yes 6/9/2016 M Elizabeth Form
D - 126
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 885 6 C/D SPUI Lain, Andrew 6/9/2016 important area. The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a Form 4, I-9, I-6 unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. The design adequately addresses concerns that some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 886 6 C/D Split Diamond I think this would be a good fit for the city. Bradley, Angelia 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Hansberry, Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 887 6 C/D Split Diamond 6/9/2016 important area. The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a Michael Form 4, I-9, I-6 unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. The design adequately addresses concerns that some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 888 6 C/D Split Diamond I like the 6 -Lane idea with split interchange! Bell, Cindy 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 889 6 C/D Split Diamond This should be beneficial and ease traffic during time of construction. Wise, Laura 6/9/2016 G-5, G-6 Form
Web - PM 6 890 6 C/D Split Diamond Very much needed. McKeown, Gordy 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 891 6 C/D Split Diamond Great idea! Martin, Jim 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 892 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea. Dicus, Lisa 6/9/2016 M Form
Blackstock, Web - PM 6 893 6 C/D Split Diamond This design seems a big improvement. 6/9/2016 M Cynthia Form
D - 127
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I am for Fennell's suggestions and a slow go to address this issue. City transportation planning is lacking LR. Good to know someone is hired to address this matter. Fennell said the boulevard plan "was a future vision and it requires a lot of cooperation by the city and highway department and local planners. In my view this has been a great conversation and there are still people to be heard from, including the mayor Web - PM 6 894 Other Day, Susan 6/9/2016 F-7, F-1 and (newly hired) city planner - we haven't heard what they say yet. There could be some great ideas in Form that." Fennell said that transportation planning ought to be "an ongoing process to find the best solution." He believes the plan "would please all sides, including the highway department if they were inclined to consider alternatives."
I would like to see a thorough analysis (both traffic modeling and cost estimates) for the Boulevard concept as conceived by Little Rock architect Tom Fennell. To me, a Boulevard approach would be the Web - PM 6 895 Other Other best for improving the livability and economic development of downtown Little Rock. The 6-lane with C/D Riley, Pat M. Jr 6/9/2016 A-2, F-7, F-1 Form Lanes Option - which actually show 12 lanes on the bridge crossing the river seems to be purposefully misleading in its description.
Web - PM 6 896 6 C/D Split Diamond After researching the plan options I find this to be my favorite. Hale, Jason 6/9/2016 M Form
I think that the 6-lane with CD lanes and split diamond interchange would create the least bottlenecks and Berkemeyer, Web - PM 6 897 6 C/D Split Diamond 6/9/2016 M improve traffic flow. Kenny Form
Web - PM 6 898 6 C/D; 8 GP Split Diamond I support these changes. Armstrong, Russell 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 899 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you Crain, Greg 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 128
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Arkansas Public Policy Panel, Inc., engaged the services of Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, Inc. to study the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department’s I-30 expansion options, analyze those options regarding their feasibility and develop better alternatives if any exist after studying AHTD’s proposed options The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) proposes to widen a 6.7-mile segment of I- 30 and I-40, including the existing 6-lane I-30 bridge that crosses the Arkansas River between downtown Little Rock and downtown North Little Rock. AHTD seeks comment by June 10, 2016, in preparation for development of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this project, which it has called “30 Crossing” (herein, “the Project”). AHTD has sought to streamline NEPA review for the Project by eliminating various project alternatives through a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) process, which culminated in a May, 2015 PEL Report and recommendation to build a 10-lane (6+4 CD) project. Subsequently, AHTD presented a newly-modified Project at an April 26, 2016 public meeting at the Wyndham Hotel in North Little Rock. The City of Little Rock then received advice from its hired experts regarding this Project— Scott Polikov with Gateway Planning and Paul Moore of Nelson/Nygaard—at a May 23d work session. This letter presents comments that are additional to, and not a substitute for, any other comment in the record. Further, the authors reserve the right to revise and extend these comments throughout the planning process: due to the scope and changing nature of the project, and requested deadlines for consideration, these comments are necessarily incomplete. These comments incorporate by reference the comments and presentations of traffic modeling expert Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility; and the comments of former Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officers Cathryn Slater and Cathie Remmel Matthews. COMMENT 1: NOT A FONSI A-2, G-1, H- The Project requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and not merely an EA. As further 2, I-1, I-4, I- discussed below, the Project would have significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the human Arkansas Public 900 6/9/2016 Email 9, I-6, I-8, I- environment and thus cannot qualify for a FONSI. The Project has been credibly described as the most Policy Panel 12, L-2, M, expensive highway project in Arkansas history and as the third widest bridge in the United States. These N two facts, alone and on their face, suggest that a full EIS is required. Further, at the May 23d presentation to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors, Scott Polikov with Gateway Planning and Paul Moore of Nelson/Nygaard) referred to the project as essentially new construction and recommended to the Board that the City should seek an MOU with AHTD giving the City significant influence over the design of the interface between the project and the City through which it would run in order to avoid significant impacts on the heart of downtown. The consultants explained that the high volume and speed of traffic exiting the project onto city streets could endanger pedestrian safety, absent an effective MOU. While the consultants initially recommended “letting go” of the issue of the number of lanes on the bridge in favor of focusing on the design of exit lanes, under questioning by the Board, they also suggested that the City should “push back” against AHTD on the number of lanes proposed by AHTD because of the potential impact of the project on the City. As reported by the Arkansas Times, the consultants stated that "[w]e have concerns about the proposal's impact and interaction of the design with development" downtown, which will impact "blocks and blocks and blocks" (emphasis added). The consultants could not recommend any method to fully mitigate the project or ensure its operation as advertised: for instance, they suggested that C/D lanes on the bridge itself could be used as “storage” to slow traffic before it exits to the City, but could not explain how or whether that suggestion is feasible or how far back along the bridge such traffic “storage” would need to extend. These facts and more indicate that the Project cannot reasonably be found to have “no significant impact” on the City. To be specific, the Project will significantly, directly, and negatively impact traffic, economic development, noise, and air pollution. It also will indirectly and cumulatively impact traffic, significant further highway expansion, and local and regional development patterns, with their attendant environmental impacts. COMMENT 2: INACCURATE AND MISLEADING CURRENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The PEL included three phases of analysis (see, PEL Traffic and Safety Report at 37). The first and second D - 129
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
phases eliminated all alternatives involving alternative modes of transportation and/or improvements on parallel corridors. Id. at 37-39. The third and more detailed phase of the analysis—which eventually gave rise to the current Project—distinguished between the remaining highway widening alternatives primarily on the basis of the number of lanes included in each alternative. In addition to the No Build (current 6- lane) alternative, the PEL analyzed an 8-lane and a 10-lane alternative. The 10-lane alternative had two forms: one with 10 multi-use lanes, and one with 6 through lanes and 4 collector-distributor (“C/D”) lanes. AHTD referred to each of these as “10-lane” alternatives. Numerous figures in the PEL demonstrated the total of ten lanes in drawings, in both cross section and from an aerial view. During the PEL process, which involved published analysis and several large public meetings, AHTD thus established a framework and expectation under which freeway widening alternatives were designated in terms of how many total lanes were included (6, 8, or 10), including “main” lanes plus “C/D lanes.” After completion of the PEL, AHTD departed from this convention in a way that fundamentally obscures the physical dimensions of the Project from the public and that creates confusion even among persons attempting to closely follow Project developments. At the April 26, 2016 public meeting arranged by AHTD to announce new revisions to the Project in response to public concerns, AHTD announced that the former 10-lane alternative would be called “6 lanes plus CD lanes.”Here is AHTD’s description from its webpage: “The 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor Lanes alternative (previously called the PEL Recommendation 10-Lane with Downtown C/D) has been renamed to better clarify the scope of the alternative and reduce misconception.” (Emphasis added.) AHTD apparently abandoned the “10-lane” nomenclature in order to avoid potential difficulty getting approval for the Project by MetroPlan (the relevant Metropolitan Planning Organization, or “MPO”), which has an existing policy limiting freeway widening projects to 6 lanes. But AHTD did not announce or print in its description the following additional salient fact: the bridge segment of the Project is 12 lanes. Only by carefully watching AHTD’s video simulations of future traffic patterns can an interested resident discover that the key metric used by AHTD to distinguish its alternatives in the PEL (6, 8, or “10” lanes) does not describe the Project, which now includes six through lanes plus at least six C/D lanes through downtown Little Rock. Specifically, as determined by expert Norm Marshall who was hired by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the proposed Project has 12 lanes at the north end of the bridge, at the middle of the bridge, and at the south end of the bridge. The bridge and the section of the project traversing the most densely populated residential and commercial area in which many public commenters live is at all points at least 12 lanes. Between 3rd and 9th streets downtown the “6-lane” option has 8 freeway lanes and 7 one-way frontage road lanes exiting or entering the freeway, for a total of 15 lanes. See, Section C-C at “Typical Sections” found under “roll plots” on this page: https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/meetings/i-30-pulaskicounty/169/public-meeting-6-april-26- 2016-30-crossing/#.V1cfcccmH8s . Referencing what AHTD calls its “6 lane with Collector/Distributor Lanes alternative,” Norm Marshall determined that in fact, the 12-Lane Bridge Alternative has no segments with as few as 10 lanes in the City of Little Rock. It is not the same as the 10- Lane C/D alternative described in the PEL Report (see Figure 3). The renaming has not reduced misconception; it has increased misconception. Further, a significant portion of the Project through North Little Rock effectively has 10 through lanes, again contradicting the “6 through lanes” description. Failing to describe accurately the total number of lanes in the Project, after this exact metric was established by AHTD as the distinguishing factor between alternatives, and after concern about the number of lanes generated significant public outcry fundamentally undermines the transparency of AHTD’s public outreach. The NEPA process does not merely require that information of some type be provided to the public for comment. It requires accurate information that gives notice to the public as to the nature of the Project, in order to enable informed comment. AHDT cannot rely on deceptive public outreach to achieve a FONSI or avoid a full EIS. Indeed, AHTD has actively steered interested citizens away from the 12-lane bridge reality. The Citizen Comment Form provided to meeting attendees by ATHD at its April 26 meeting to announce its most recent Project proposal asked citizens to mark which of the following 6 alternatives “has the most positive impacts, while minimizing negative impacts:” • “No Build (No improvements are implemented D - 130
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
• 6-Lane Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) • 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange • 8-Lane General Purpose Lanes and Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) • 8-Lane General Purpose Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange • Other Alternative (Please Indicate Below)” Any reasonable citizen looking at the AHTD-provided comment form would think AHTD is considering various 6- and 8-lane alternatives, with the design of the interchanges being the other salient difference. Without significant prior study, an unwary attendee would have no way to know that the 8-lane alternatives in this list actually are narrower than the “6-lane” alternatives and that the “6-lane” alternatives are actually 12 lanes. Beyond the specific, inaccurate 6-lane project description, the context that AHTD places around the 6-lane description makes it even more unlikely to inform the public about the true physical reality of the project. Even seasoned newspaper reporters who had been following the controversy were thrown. They knew that AHTD had begun calling the 10-lane project “6 + 4.” But, in a front page Democratic Gazette story, Chelsea Boozer wrote “there's been much debate about the width the new bridge will be, with proposals to expand the current six lanes to eight or 10.” She continued, regarding the latest options announced at AHTD’s April 26 meeting: “The 30 Crossing project has four design options under consideration. Two of the options have six through lanes on Interstate 30 with two additional lanes in each direction in the vicinity of the Arkansas River bridge to separate local traffic from the through lanes.” (Emphasis added). She noted that the other two options have different locations for downtown exits. Earlier, following the April 26 AHTD public meeting, the Arkansas Times published an article by Leslie Peacock with the subtitle: “The 10-lane I-30 plan wins support by moving exit to Fourth Street.” The two reporters following the story both came away thinking the AHTD is proposing a 10-lane bridge. This is because that is what anyone following AHTD’s series of presentations would think based on the information published by AHTD. NEPA’s public notice and comment requirements cannot be met by a process that requires a hired modeling expert to determine how many lanes the most important and expensive segment of the project has. AHTD’s current project description (“6 Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange”) does not satisfy the requirements of NEPA, in that it cannot provide the basis for an informed evaluation or a reasoned decision. AHTD cannot rely on public comments received on what the public understands to be a 6- or 10-lane bridge in order to gain a FONSI on a 12-lane bridge. COMMENT 3: INCOMPLETE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STUDY AREA, CONSTITUTING IMPERMISSABLE SEGMENTATION AHTD’s evaluation of the traffic impacts of the project assumes significant freeway lane widening outside of the Project area. As noted in the PEL: Figure 29 shows the basic lane configuration of the I-30 PEL Recommended Alternative. For the Vissim analysis, five lanes were evaluated heading south on I-30 between I-630 and the South Terminal, and an additional lane was added from the south terminal down to 65th street due to capacity needs outside of the PEL study area. This was added to the model in order to prevent congestion that occurred outside of the PEL study area from backing up into the PEL study area. Capacity improvements outside of the PEL study area are currently being analyzed in a separate AHTD Study, and are assumed to be addressed outside of the CAP program. Therefore, the CAP program will only build the fifth lane between I-630 and Roosevelt, and will build four lanes between Roosevelt and the South Terminal. (Emphasis added). Put simply, the project does not meet its stated objectives without additional significant, freeway projects. “Traffic Congestion” on I-30 is the first objective in the “Purpose and Need” identified by AHTD. AHTD recommends the Project as the preferred method to meet this purpose and need. The Project, however, would create “congestion … backing up into the PEL study area” without further freeway projects not included in the Study Area for the PEL. This is a stark case of impermissible segmentation under NEPA. NEPA requires that the action evaluated in each EIS or FONSI shall “have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation projects.” Western North D - 131
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Carolina Alliance v. North Carolina Dept. of Transportation, 312 F. Supp. 2d 765 at 774. Absent the further lane widening, the congestion backing up into the project area would negate its first purpose. Indeed, further freeway widening projects are foreseeable and should reasonably be considered a direct, indirect, or cumulative impact of the Project itself. Both independent traffic modeling expert Norm Marshall and Metroplan have indicated that the Project will (1) move the traffic bottleneck on the bridge to the identified freeway location(s) and (2) thereby require a series of major freeway widening projects at great expense. By narrowing the Study Area such that it does not include the further freeway widening that will be made necessary by the Project, AHTD deprives the public of the notice and opportunity to comment on the full scope of its plans, omits costs that necessarily should be considered in the evaluation of competing alternatives, and impermissibly restricts the consideration of alternatives for the other freeway widening projects that it not only reasonably foresees, but actively plans to build. COMMENT 4: AHTD HAS FAILED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT As noted above, AHTD has limited its environmental impact analysis to the “Study Area,” which has been shown to the public in the PEL and at public meetings as the area within a yellow line around the 6.7 mile freeway corridor. The Study Area generally extends on either side of the freeway only to exit ramps, on ramps, and proposed frontage roads associated with the Project. Outside of that impermissibly narrow Study Area, and as demonstrated by traffic modeling expert Norm Marshall’s attached Smart Mobility report, the Project will inject what he calls a “firehose” of traffic into selected parts of downtown. The volume of this traffic will be larger than the volume produced by the No Build and narrower freeway alternatives because of induced traffic effects that AHTD has not included in its modeling. This increased vehicle traffic is a direct environmental impact on the largest city in Arkansas in terms of, inter alia, congestion, noise, regulated air emissions, and pedestrian safety. In this regard, we reiterate that these comments are additional to Mr. Norm Marshall’s expert comments included by attachment hereto. He provides a detailed and specific evaluation of AHTD and Metroplan modeling to date which indicates that the Project does not meet its traffic congestion objectives and that the AHTD analysis thus far fails to acknowledge or analyze basic impacts within and outside the Study Area related to vehicle traffic, including traffic induced by the project. COMMENT 5: PROJECT SEGMENTATION, FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR INDUCED TRAFFIC EFFECTS, AND THE IMPERMISSIBLY NARROW STUDY AREA FATALLY UNDERMINE AHDT’S SAFETY ANALYSIS AHTD indicates in its PEL Traffic Analysis that the Project will reduce traffic accidents within the project corridor. Its assertions are based on average comparative accident statistics and on traffic flow analysis. These comments do not address the average comparative accidents statistics, but do assert that the inaccurate modeling of traffic flows cannot support the conclusion that the project will deliver the safety improvements claimed by AHTD. First, the failure to include induced traffic (as explained in detail in attached reports by Norm Marshal) undermines the claimed safety results. Second, the inclusion of future, segmented freeway widening project(s) fundamentally alters performance of the Project in a way that will change accident rates. Third, AHTD cannot look only at accident rates on the freeway corridor while ignoring the potential safety impacts of the significant increase in volume of the vehicle traffic downtown that has concerned every other independent expert who has reviewed the project.
COMMENT 6: THE FAILURE TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT PRIOR TO ELIMINATING REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES RENDERS THE ELIMINATION OF THOSE ALTERNATIVES BY AHTD ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AHTD seeks to proceed to a FONSI with only major freeway widening alternatives on the table, on the basis that only those alternatives meet its objectives. These comments and those by others demonstrate that the Project itself does not meet core traffic congestion objectives; that its analysis of safety improvements is impermissibly flawed, and that its impacts on the environmental, social, economic, and safety of the nearby human environment have not been assessed. In that context, it is premature, and arbitrary and capricious to eliminate alternatives such as inclusion of a second, no freeway crossing; D - 132
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
increased public transit, traffic demand management, and other alternatives. Further, NEPA does not limit the analysis of alternatives only to projects within the jurisdiction or funding authority of AHTD. Rather, it requires an analysis of all reasonable alternatives to the Project, even if they involve funding or cooperation by other agencies. Attachments: (A) Norm Marshall’s April Report (B) Norm Marshall’s May Report (C) Comments of former Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officers to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (D) Comments of former Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officers to Little Rock Mayor and Board of Directors
Web - PM 6 903 6 C/D Split Diamond Cain, Greg 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 904 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. Hawkins, Rob 6/9/2016 L-2 Form
D - 133
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I can't wait to see the improvements. As someone who spends a lot of time on I-30, I can see how much Web - PM 6 905 6 C/D SPUI Fritsche, Andrea 6/9/2016 M it's needed. Form
Extra lanes are a good thing. The amount of traffic displaced during construction will be a bad thing. 6 C/D Maybe some of the alternate routes through the city containing stoplights could be "streamlined" so Web - PM 6 906 SPUI/Split Diamond Quiggins, Helon 6/9/2016 K 8 GP traffic isn't such a nightmare? Totally for the project. I'd rather you fix the traffic problems in Maumelle Form first though!
Web - PM 6 907 6 C/D Split Diamond None Maureen 6/9/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 908 6 C/D Split Diamond divides this important area. Wickliffe, Jeffrey 6/9/2016 Form 4, I-9, I-6 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 909 6 C/D Split Diamond I prefer the 6-Lane with the split diamond interchange. Fowler, Kim 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 910 6 C/D Split Diamond This appears to be the best solution for the I30 Crossing Project. Cobb, Bill 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 911 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks for listening. Rutledge, John 6/9/2016 L-2, M Form
Web - PM 6 912 6 C/D Split Diamond Will improve congestion Smith, Karen 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 913 6 C/D SPUI Our state needs this improvement asap. Illing, Drew 6/9/2016 M Form
Boulevard or Bridge at Chester Web - PM 6 914 Other Mackey, Suzanne 6/9/2016 F-1, F-3, F-4 Just spent a week in Boston. The city is booming - no highways through their city!! Form
We must have the amenities presented at the April 26, 2016, meeting for my support of this project: Web - PM 6 915 6 C/D Split Diamond Penix, Charley 6/9/2016 I-11 central park at 2nd St. exit ramps, deck park between 6th. Form
D - 134
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 916 6 C/D Split Diamond best option James, Blake 6/9/2016 M Form Comments concerning Public Meeting #6, April 26, 2016, for the AHTD Job Number CA0602 Sirs, I want to state at the outset that I am firmly opposed to the 30 Crossing alternatives currently offered by the AHTD. Although I recognize the absolute need to replace the current bridge, I am opposed to expanding the existing corridor beyond the current six lanes, and I also dislike the design options provided for downtown North Little Rock. Additional, specific comments follow. 1) The METRO 2020 regional plan, adopted in 1995, first spoke of a 6-lane cross-section. The term “six lane policy” was used in the 2025 plan, adopted in 2000. This was included in all succeeding plans, and has been affirmed time and again by the Metroplan board and in public meetings and comments, most recently in the Imagine Central Arkansas plan adopted in 2014. For over 20 years now there has been a clear, consistent, and broadly supported effort to limit the size of the roadway cross-sections to six through lanes; and even though the plan does allow for the Metroplan board to grant an exemption for specific projects, it should be very clear that such an exemption is to be a last resort, after all other options have been removed. I don’t believe that we have yet come to this stage. 2) In your “Know the Facts” document provided at the April 26 meeting, in answering the question of whether widening I-30 will require all connecting freeways to be reconstructed at an estimated cost of $4 billion, you state, “It is therefore improper to assume widening of a highway corridor prior to the completion of a corridor study.” My comment is: (a) given that Metroplan’s system-wide studies show that the downstream effects and the induced traffic increase will necessitate a widening; (b) given the arguments of modeling by knowledgeable people outside of AHTD that also show these downstream and demand-driven effects; E, F-7, F-2, Web - PM 6 917 Other (c) given the AHTD’s historic propensity to widen (as evidenced by the Big Rock interchange, for one Stair, Patrick 6/9/2016 I-11, I-4, I-9, Form example); J (d) given that we are dealing with possibly $3 - $3.5 billion of additional expenditures beyond the current 30 Crossing budget; and (e) given that this project is one that will have a huge effect not only on the cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock in the coming 20 years, but also central Arkansas and indeed the budget for the AHTD; given all that, it seems obviously prudent to pause the steamroller, perform a more thorough and broader analysis, and determine the full impact of this massive project. If this analysis requires that the AHTD perform a “corridor study”, then please do it. 3) For decades Little Rock and North Little Rock have had their downtowns split by the I-30 barrier. The results are obvious and depressing. I find it appalling that the AHTD is suggesting that we increase that barrier. And the barrier will definitely be increased with the 8- and 10-lane alternatives – not only visually and psychologically expanding it for decades to come, but also physically. In my opinion and experience, it is bad enough walking under a 4-lane or 6-lane highway, and walking under 10 lanes would be exceptionally unpleasant. The current underpass on Clinton Avenue in Little Rock is loud and not enjoyable in the least, and doubling that would make it something to actively avoid, especially at night. I firmly believe that you are increasing the barriers to pedestrian and bike traffic with the 8- and 10-lane alternatives, and increasing the rift between the east and west sides of the two downtowns. 4) In the downtown North Little Rock stretch, I dislike the “Texas turnaround” that I’ve seen in some designs. I dislike those turnarounds in part because I consider them to be simply patches to deal with insufficient crossings in a corridor. In my experience, the effect of relying on such a design element is to force me to have to get on the freeway more frequently than I would like in order simply to cross over to the other side. (Note that this would increase the volume of traffic in the corridor.) If North Little Rock had all the same crossings as it currently has, I don’t see that a turnaround such as that would be necessary. D - 135
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
5) Although I dislike the 8- and 10-lane alternatives, I do think that the split-diamond interchange is an innovative solution, although I’ve heard some compelling arguments that they will cause severe damage to the neighborhoods along the streets that will be served by that interchange, because of the greatly increased flow of traffic. I wonder if some innovative solutions such as these (but perhaps not exactly like them) might help the North Little Rock side. 6) The demonstration by Studio Main at the April meeting sure looked nice, but who’s planning on paying for these pretty overhead and bridge improvements? If I am correct, the AHTD has not offered to fund such an enhancement to the project, nor do I expect them ever to do so. This means these improvements would be yet one more expense left to the cities, along with so many other changes resulting from the AHTD expansion alternatives. 7) Lastly, the only 6-lane alternative you put forth is the “no build” option. I would dearly love to see as much effort put into designing what I call an “improved 6-lane” option. In addition to replacing the bridge, perhaps this alternative would involve wider shoulders in the corridor, improved on- and off-ramps, and innovative flyovers at critical junctions (such as I-30 / I-40). There is considerable engineering expertise at the AHTD, and much thought has provided notable improvements in the earliest designs. I would not be surprised to find that an honest and equally determined effort could come up with some very good designs that require only six lanes. We have the time. The bridge isn’t about to fall down. So why can’t we thoroughly investigate an improved 6-lane alternative, and do comprehensive system-wide modeling to see the full effects of all these options? Sincerely,
The 6-Lane "split diamond" design option with the collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and Web - PM 6 918 6 C/D Split Diamond region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, Miller, Nathan 6/9/2016 G-1, I-6 Form while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock.
D - 136
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comments re 30 Crossing Please confirm receipt of these comments June 9, 2016 Dear Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Before I offer my personal comments, I sincerely hope Arkansas Highway Transportation Department’s (AHTD) commissioners will do their best to read as many comments as possible. By agreeing to serve as an AHTD commissioner, you have a responsibility to learn from your community both what we want and don't want regarding I-30. Having attended several of the AHTD public presentations and having studied the voluminous materials available on the 30 Crossing website, I am opposed to all of the current AHTD proposed widening alternatives to I-30 in Little Rock and North Little Rock which at their widest through downtown Little Rock are a massive 15 lanes. I see where an Environmental Assessment is being contemplated. If AHTD will research Audubon Society of Central Arkansas v. Dailey, 761 F.Supp. 640 (E.D. Ark. 1991), you will find the results of a federal lawsuit brought locally where it was determined on a project of much lesser scope that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required instead of a less substantive Environmental Assessment (EA). I was proud to be a plaintiff in that lawsuit against the City of Little Rock and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We prevailed in that lawsuit on the local federal court level as well as on appeal at the 8th Circuit in St. Louis. A number of law schools around the country use this case to teach environmental law. It’s evident than an EIS will be required in regards to the I-30 project unless the scope is scaled back dramatically. Ideally, I-30 would have zero through lanes dividing downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock. Why would any traffic planning agency intentionally choose to disrupt the downtowns of two of Arkansas’s major metropolitan areas with known through traffic when it’s unnecessary? We have I-440 in east Little Rock and I-430 in west Little Rock that are each capable of handling the present 4-17% through E, F-1, F-3, traffic (AHTD traffic figures) on I-30 downtown. That through traffic percentage may be even higher than F-4, F-2, I-4, 919 Haas, Barry 6/9/2016 Email AHTD estimates, making diversion to I-440 and I-30 even more of a cost savings. Both I-440 and I-430 I-9, I-6, I- should be designated as I-30 alternatives to divert I-30 through traffic from Little Rock and North Little 12, J, L-2 Rock. That simple, almost cost free action, would immediately alleviate some congestion in downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock by diverting that through traffic. The “Purpose and Need” section on your website is grossly deficient in indefensibly narrowing the subject area to just a very narrow I-30 corridor. AHTD is fully aware this proposed widening would have major impacts on a large section of local streets in downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock. The Purpose and Need should be revised to acknowledge the need to examine the fiscal impact of each proposed widening option on the local street grids of Little Rock and North Little Rock. An independent traffic analysis indicates I-30 expansion would impact local traffic as far west as Broadway Street in Little Rock, a number of blocks outside AHTD’s study area. AHTD has totally ignored such fiscal impacts by too narrowly defining the study area. The proposed new I-30 bridge would be twice as wide at 12 lanes as the current 6 lane bridge, and would be the third widest bridge in the entire United States. The mere notion of a 12-lane bridge is simply mind boggling given Little Rock and North Little Rock traffic counts. There is not now, nor will there ever be, the need for a 12 lane bridge there. AHTD decided in April 2016 to switch to funny math and only count through lanes as “lanes”. This appears to be an intentional effort to confuse interested citizens, and detach them from the planning process. It’s my understanding federal law requires agencies like AHTD to provide information in a forthright fashion to affected communities so their residents can reasonably participate in the planning process. AHTD has failed in that regard. Another intentional effort to mislead the general public has been AHTD’s refusal to acknowledge that the proposed I-30 widening would lead to additional related interstate projects at even greater cost than this proposed project. Failure to widen I- 30 in other areas would simply move congestion zones to other downstream points. AHTD’s document “Know the Facts” states: “This assumption [widening of other interstates beyond I-30] does not accurately portray the Department’s planning process.” That’s meaningless Madison Avenue gobbledygook. The fact that it’s not AHTD’s “planning process” doesn’t mean it won’t happen. In fact AHTD has already D - 137
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
acknowledged in a deceptive way that its 3-D traffic simulation models are based on expansions of several other interstate sections that are not within the scope or cost projections for this project. This intentional confusion is very disrespectful of taxpayers who are paying for this work and paying your salaries. AHTD's estimated cost of just this one proposed 6.7-mile project is $631.7 million. That amounts to more than $212 per Arkansan, or $850 per family of four, not including interest on the $100.9 million (16% of the estimated project cost in Design-Build-Finance funds) AHTD assumes can and will be borrowed from contractors doing the work. That's $631.7 million or more for what likely will be no improvement in congestion, and excludes additional interstate projects AHTD assumes will follow this one at additional massive cost to Arkansas taxpayers. Nothing could be further from the truth than calling I-30 a "freeway". It's anything but "free" given its monumental cost and the cost impact to adjacent local street grids with forced improvements to be borne by Little Rock and North Little rock taxpayers. The Big Rock interchange, the latest mega-project by AHTD, suffered a significant cost overrun. The eventual cost was about $125 million, far in excess of the estimated cost. AHTD claims the I-30 expansion cannot suffer a similar cost overrun, but if that’s true why didn’t AHTD use the same bidding method on the Big Rock interchange to avoid wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars? Might taxpayers end up with a bill exceeding $1 billion for AHTD’s I-30 options? Interstates were not originally conceived to go through major metropolitan areas and disrupt their economies. And yet today we have I-30 dividing the heart of downtown Little Rock with AHTD’s proposed expansion options that would be even more damaging economically. One need only look at current development in Little Rock to the west of I-30 compared to the area east of I-30 to confirm that reality. Prime developable downtown property is being consumed by an ever widening, nonproductive I-30 swath of concrete along with its access ramps, a massive 14 or 15 lanes as currently proposed through downtown Little Rock. The proposed mega-widening options most resemble Rube Goldberg creations. I-30 through Little Rock and North Little Rock should optimally be designed for 100% local traffic/commuters, and discourage through traffic as much as possible. Various boulevard concepts have been offered by some of our leading local architects and planners. A boulevard would do more to enhance both the economy and vitality of Little Rock and North Little Rock than anything currently being offered by AHTD. AHTD would benefit from being at least minimally open-minded about community suggested options which would enhance the livability, vitality and commerce for decades to come. Current AHTD expansion options would do just the opposite at monumental expense, and leave congestion issues unresolved and potentially even worse than at present. Summarily dismissed during the planning process to date was a proposed additional bridge across the Arkansas River at Chester Street. Why is AHTD unwilling to consider such viable alternatives which would actually improve and enhance the overall traffic grid? Professional traffic consultants, having analyzed AHTD’s proposed alternatives as wide as 15 lanes in downtown Little Rock, discovered found serious flaws in all of them. At public meetings last fall and again this spring AHTD leadership has been dismissive of input from members of the public who are knowledgeable about traffic planning, and who have offered improvements that would facilitate commuting and more efficiently moving traffic in and around both metropolitan areas. AHTD says we will do it our way, or no way. Take it or leave it. You don’t want the money spent locally? We’ll do our damage in some other part of Arkansas then. Well, if those are our choices, I suggest central Arkansas “leave it” rather than be stuck for the next half century or longer with a recklessly planned mega-expansion of an interstate where it shouldn’t be located, much less made worse. Many of the assumptions to support AHTD’s options have been shown to be seriously flawed, for example estimated increases in traffic volumes over the next ~25 years and estimated increases in traffic fatalities and injuries during that same time period. It’s my understanding federal officials have determined the I-30 bridge needs to be replaced for structural and safety reasons. The Broadway Bridge, opened in March 1923 and about to be replaced, has lasted 93 years. The I-30 bridge, built 35 years later in 1958, has only lasted 58 years in comparison. Why were engineers able to design and build a bridge in 1923 that has lasted 60% longer than a bridge designed and built in 1958 when assumedly the knowledge of bridge building and materials should have been far superior? Will the proposed replacement I-30 bridge last an D - 138
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
even shorter time than the present I-30 bridge given the apparent repressiveness of bridge building techniques, at least here in Arkansas? I may be missing AHTD’s definition of the “No Build (No Improvements are Implemented)” option on your website, but I’m unable to find it. Does AHTD consider replacement for structural or safety reasons of the I-30 bridge with a similar 6-lane bridge to be an “Improvement”? Asked another way, does the “No Build” option mean no replacement of the I-30 bridge for any reason? Please clarify that point. This proposed project is too important to central Arkansas and the state’s economy to expand I-30, further dividing Little Rock and North Little Rock downtowns. AHTD has a rare opportunity to actually do something to greatly improve traffic flow, safety and save the taxpayers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars by taking a fresh look at options proposed by the community. My sincere hope is that AHTD Commissioners will demand the department take a fresh look at better alternatives, and seek to work with all interested parties to create a solution that includes replacement of the I-30 bridge with no additional lanes, assuming that is essential, and revise interstate access points to improve the interface between I-30 and the local street grid. Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 920 6 C/D Split Diamond None Jeffery, Bryan 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 921 6 C/D Split Diamond None Jeffery, Carol 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 922 6 C/D SPUI This was a much better plan after all the community input. I totally support this plan. Flesher, Dora 6/9/2016 L-2 Form
Web - PM 6 923 6 C/D Split Diamond Like this one. Burchfield, Chad 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 924 6 C/D Split Diamond X Allen, B 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 925 6 C/D Split Diamond This project will only make the city more accessible and safer. Stuart, Joe 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 139
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
This may be a duplication of comments that I have submitted earlier today using your on-line comment page acknowledgement from your website that the comment was received, so since it is so close to the deadline I thought I’d email you the comments also, just in case the online form didn’t work. If you determine this is a duplication, then you should obviously discard this email. Sincerely, Comments concerning Public Meeting #6, April 26, 2016, for the AHTD Job Number CA0602 Sirs, I want to state at the outset that I am firmly opposed to the 30 Crossing alternatives currently offered by the AHTD. Although I recognize the absolute need to replace the current bridge, I am opposed to expanding the existing corridor beyond the current six lanes, and I also dislike the design options provided for downtown North Little Rock. Additional, specific comments follow. 1) The METRO 2020 regional plan, adopted in 1995, first spoke of a 6-lane cross-section. The term “six lane policy” was used in the 2025 plan, adopted in 2000. This was included in all succeeding plans, and has been affirmed time and again by the Metroplan board and in public meetings and comments, most recently in the Imagine Central Arkansas plan adopted in 2014. For over 20 years now there has been a clear, consistent, and broadly supported effort to limit the size of the roadway cross-sections to six through lanes; and even though the plan does allow for the Metroplan board to grant an exemption for specific projects, it should be very clear that such an exemption is to be a last resort, after all other options have been removed. I don’t believe that we have yet come to this stage. 2) In your “Know the Facts” document provided at the April 26 meeting, in answering the question of whether widening I-30 will require all connecting freeways to be reconstructed at an estimated cost of $4 billion, you state, “It is therefore improper to assume widening of a highway corridor prior to the E, F-7, F-1, completion of a corridor study.” 926 Stair, Patrick 6/9/2016 Email F-2, I-11, I- My comment is: 4, I-9, J (a) given that Metroplan’s system-wide studies show that the downstream effects and the induced traffic increase will necessitate a widening; (b) given the arguments of modeling by knowledgeable people outside of AHTD that also show these downstream and demand-driven effects; (c) given the AHTD’s historic propensity to widen (as evidenced by the Big Rock interchange, for one example); (d) given that we are dealing with possibly $3 - $3.5 billion of additional expenditures beyond the current 30 Crossing budget; and (e) given that this project is one that will have a huge effect not only on the cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock in the coming 20 years, but also central Arkansas and indeed the budget for the AHTD; given all that, it seems obviously prudent to pause the steamroller, perform a more thorough and broader analysis, and determine the full impact of this massive project. If this analysis requires that the AHTD perform a “corridor study”, then please do it. 3) For decades Little Rock and North Little Rock have had their downtowns split by the I-30 barrier. The results are obvious and depressing. I find it appalling that the AHTD is suggesting that we increase that barrier. And the barrier will definitely be increased with the 8- and 10-lane alternatives – not only visually and psychologically expanding it for decades to come, but also physically. In my opinion and experience, it is bad enough walking under a 4-lane or 6-lane highway, and walking under 10 lanes would be exceptionally unpleasant. The current underpass on Clinton Avenue in Little Rock is loud and not enjoyable in the least, and doubling that would make it something to actively avoid, especially at night. I firmly believe that you are increasing the barriers to pedestrian and bike traffic with the 8- and 10-lane alternatives, and increasing the rift between the east and west sides of the two downtowns. 4) In the downtown North Little Rock stretch, I dislike the “Texas turnaround” that I’ve seen in some D - 140
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
designs. I dislike those turnarounds in part because I consider them to be simply patches to deal with insufficient crossings in a corridor. In my experience, the effect of relying on such a design element is to force me to have to get on the freeway more frequently than I would like in order simply to cross over to the other side. (Note that this would increase the volume of traffic in the corridor.) If North Little Rock had all the same crossings as it currently has, I don’t see that a turnaround such as that would be necessary. 5) Although I dislike the 8- and 10-lane alternatives, I do think that the split-diamond interchange is an innovative solution, although I’ve heard some compelling arguments that they will cause severe damage to the neighborhoods along the streets that will be served by that interchange, because of the greatly increased flow of traffic. I wonder if some innovative solutions such as these (but perhaps not exactly like them) might help the North Little Rock side. 6) The demonstration by Studio Main at the April meeting sure looked nice, but who’s planning on paying for these pretty overhead and bridge improvements? If I am correct, the AHTD has not offered to fund such an enhancement to the project, nor do I expect them ever to do so. This means these improvements would be yet one more expense left to the cities, along with so many other changes resulting from the AHTD expansion alternatives. 7) Lastly, the only 6-lane alternative you put forth is the “no build” option. I would dearly love to see as much effort put into designing what I call an “improved 6-lane” option. In addition to replacing the bridge, perhaps this alternative would involve wider shoulders in the corridor, improved on- and off-ramps, and innovative flyovers at critical junctions (such as I-30 / I-40). There is considerable engineering expertise at the AHTD, and much thought has provided notable improvements in the earliest designs. I would not be surprised to find that an honest and equally determined effort could come up with some very good designs that require only six lanes. We have the time. The bridge isn’t about to fall down. So why can’t we thoroughly investigate an improved 6-lane alternative, and do comprehensive system-wide modeling to see the full effects of all these options? Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 927 6 C/D SPUI Build a new bridge. Smith, Jeff 6/9/2016 F-2, F-3 Form
Web - PM 6 928 6 C/D Split Diamond None Arnold, Wade 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 141
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 929 6 C/D Split Diamond Please update our city!!! Johnson, Melinda 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 930 6 C/D Split Diamond This looks good to me. Clemmons, Skip 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 931 No Build The boulevard idea with more bridge crossings should be studied. Brantley, Max 6/9/2016 F-7, F-1, F-3 Form
I lived in Little Rock for 22 years, moving back to NE AR in 1998. Downtown has thrived during those 22 Web - PM 6 932 No Build Jarrett, Gina 6/9/2016 M years. Please don't stop the progress. Form
Web - PM 6 E, F-7, F-1, 933 No Build Study boulevard and more bridged. Brantley, Max 6/9/2016 Form F-3
Route traffic out by airport. No Build Web - PM 6 934 There is not enough distance to make the decisions required to navigate the freeway through downtown Stewart, Gale 6/9/2016 E, F-4, G-5 Other Form LR and NLR. It will be unsafe at any speed.
The 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange alternative is the most Web - PM 6 935 6 C/D Split Diamond Deuschle, Matt 6/9/2016 M logical, efficient, and well thought out choice. Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 936 6 C/D Split Diamond divides this important area. Rector, Bill 6/9/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as Web - PM 6 937 No Build bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and Mathisen, Holly 6/9/2016 G-5, E, L-2 Form unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. AHTD isn't listening to AR residents. Please come together and listen!
D - 142
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Please pursue the Boulevard options and the Chester Street bridge. We do not need more lanes and Web - PM 6 E, F-1, F-3, 938 No Build Nicon, Walter 6/9/2016 more traffic. Preserve the thriving redevelopment of downtown Little Rock. Form I-6
This proposal is two thirds of a billion dollars’ worth of disaster. It's a solution to no problem, wanted by nobody, unpaid for by anybody, that destroys a neighborhood, AND, as a BONUS, has ZERO support from Web - PM 6 939 No Build the "fiscally conservative", mostly Republican, red voters that live in Saline County who are supposed to Lilly, Daniel Keith 6/9/2016 M Form reap the benefits of such a mammoth nightmare. "Benefit" being defined as saving TWO WHOLE MINUTES on their daily commute, by pushing the traffic jam further on down the line.
Favor the Blvd idea. No Build So many improvements have been made to downtown the last 20 years and continue today. Please don't Web - PM 6 E, F-1, F-4, 940 Taylor, Shawn 6/9/2016 Other derail the progress with this expansion of I30. The concept is outdated and more progressive cities are Form I-6 moving away from interstate traffic through cities. Think forward!
Web - PM 6 941 6 C/D Split Diamond Clear the traffic on I30 Smith, Jamie 6/9/2016 M Form
The massive undertaking would rob downtown of its growing culture and unfairly benefit those who live Jorgenson, Web - PM 6 942 No Build in the sprawled outer area while putting all of the strain and downside on those who live and pay taxes 6/9/2016 I-4, I-6, I-9 Michelle Form within the city.
We would be building for the past instead of the future. Wake up, we do not need to worship the car Web - PM 6 943 No Build West, Katherine 6/9/2016 I-10, M anymore. We can't afford it. Form
A massive build is not economically feasible or prudent and would reverse the wonderful improvements to downtown Little Rock. I drive from NLR to LR almost every day, and the height of traffic is a very brief Web - PM 6 944 No Build period of time each day. The people who support expanded lanes include many residents from outside of Robertson, Marci 6/9/2016 I-4, I-6, I-9 Form Little Rock, yet still works in town, they need to accept that they will make concessions. Please don't pave over the urban renewal that Little Rock has experienced!
This proposed expansion would be disastrous to the downtown area and infrastructure. It's completely Web - PM 6 945 No Build Keene, Christine 6/9/2016 I-4, I-6, I-9 unnecessary and the funds could be better used elsewhere. Form
D - 143
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Expanding the highway is an antiquated policy. This is 2016. We need to start making proactive, progressive and intelligent decisions about infrastructure and transportation. It affects so many things. I've already written many emails to important decision makers. Can we please put our heads together and find creative, best-practice solutions that seek to build an intelligent transportation system that is conducive to building a city that people come to? Web - PM 6 H-2, I-4, I-6, 946 No Build Klein, Tim 6/9/2016 Expanding a highway will drive away potential new residents, existing residents, reduce walkability, Form I-9, L-1 increase flight to suburbs, decrease space for downtown businesses, decrease taxes for downtown, reduce the aesthetics of the city, and further disenfranchise lower income people. Please do the right thing. There are other options. Don't expand the highway. It will destroy the positive momentum this city has going for it right now.
No Build Better public transit… trains. Web - PM 6 947 Chrissie 6/9/2016 F-6 Other We don't need more highways. We need better public transit to relieve highway congestion. Form
I do not support the expansion as proposed by AHTD. Without expansion to all the surrounding interstates feeding into the bridge, this behemoth expansion will only speed traffic for an exceedingly short time during peak congestion times. The expense without a comprehensive, long term solution is futile. And there are no funds currently available for any other expansion. I also oppose this expansion because it has Web - PM 6 E, F-2, I-4, I- 948 No Build Miller, Gaea 6/9/2016 been shown in numerous studies that you cannot build your way out of congestion. This will also have a Form 6, I-9 negative effect on all of the commercial and retail development flourishing around the Clinton library. I doubt if any of the retail outlets could survive such a massive construction project. Repair the bridge, forget the expansion.
I like the Blvd idea and route interstate traffic to 440. Web - PM 6 949 Other This project should not happen. This big of an interstate thru the middle of downtown is not needed. I Milner, Rick 6/9/2016 F-1, F-3 Form am against this project as currently proposed.
D - 144
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I've done all the research, pored over the AHTD proposals, read the reports of the opposing consultants and I don't see any point in trying to write another impassioned well-reasoned letter to try and convince the AHTD to do anything other than bulldoze its way through the heart of Little Rock with a massively ill- conceived option. So, I'll take a page from your own tactic book and just copy and paste a great tract opposing your current plans. I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future E, F-7, F-1, Web - PM 6 950 No Build development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway Brajcki, Joseph 6/9/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, Form encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike I-9 friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
The Boulevard proposal that was recently introduced. No Build Interstate expansion is a beast that feeds itself. It will degrade the connectivity of our downtown and Web - PM 6 E, F-1, I-4, I- 951 Hassell, Leif 6/9/2016 Other INCREASE congestion. If anything is to be done, it should unify the separated sections of our city and Form 6, I-9 discourage suburban sprawl- exactly the opposite of the plans so far proposed.
Instead of adding to debt, urban sprawl, and traffic congestion, we need to maintain what we already Web - PM 6 952 No Build Hopkins, Gail 6/9/2016 M have. Form
Web - PM 6 953 6 C/D Split Diamond Please start soon!!!! Keel, Joshua 6/9/2016 L-2 Form
Web - PM 6 954 No Build DO NOT BUILD Roell, Ginger 6/9/2016 E, M Form
None of the presented ideas are acceptable. Traffic will not be improved and the city will lose valuable resources - historical, social, geographical, and, of course, financial. Please study "induced demand" and Web - PM 6 F-7, I-4, I-9, 955 No Build Rogers, Elizabeth 6/9/2016 look at what more progressive cities are doing, since their efforts to build their way out of congestion Form I-6 failed.
D - 145
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 956 No Build The bridge may be rebuilt with shoulders but nothing else is needed. Bryant, Judy 6/9/2016 E, F-2 Form
I grew up in Houston and saw firsthand that expanding the freeways did not alleviate congestion. This plan will draw all the traffic directly to the 10 lanes - commuter traffic to downtown, truck traffic going through the state, other traffic going through the state. These are TWO types of commuters. Those going through the state should not be routed into the hub of downtown - I-30 should be around the town, not through the town center. Then commuter traffic should be spread out and encouraged to take multiple alternate routes and feeder streets should be designed to handle this traffic. In addition the giant overpasses ruin all the development around them - no one can or would build under a freeway. It's a wasteland. No light gets to it. Nothing will grow there. It's loud, it's noisy. No one wants to be under a freeway. No one wants to build next to a large freeway with vast expanses under it. Downtown Blackstock, Web - PM 6 E, F-7, F-4, 957 No Build 6/9/2016 development will be ruined. A long term Realistic plan that looks at all the aspects - traffic flow, traffic Clayton Form I-6 sources, movement within the community, and movement through the state, development - needs to be considered. The various agencies and entities City, county, state, planning agencies - all need to do their research into what has and what has not worked in other parts of the country. There are enough examples that we can learn from others who have implemented successful and unsuccessful plans. Are there other examples of freeway expansions through downtowns that have had a long range positive impact? Are there examples that have had a negative impact? Are there examples of alternative ways to handle traffic that have had a long term positive impact? Why not study all of those? I am opposed to this massive expanse that will not solve any long range problems.
Web - PM 6 958 6 C/D Split Diamond GET DONE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE WITH LESS TRAFFIC DELAY Hargis, Howard 6/9/2016 G-6, L-2 Form
The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Web - PM 6 E, F-7, F-1, 959 No Build Linn, Sandra 6/9/2016 Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region Form I-6 more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
Please don't destroy the momentum downtown Little Rock has going. As a business owner in SoMa I am Web - PM 6 960 No Build Bell, John 6/9/2016 I-6 totally opposed to the plan promoted by AHTD for expanding the I-30 corridor in downtown LR. Form
D - 146
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
O'Donoghue, Web - PM 6 961 No Build X 6/9/2016 M Patrice Form
Web - PM 6 962 6 C/D Split Diamond Seems like a logical solution. Cronkhite, Mike 6/9/2016 M Form
https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/I30-public-comment-form#.V1n9f7srLcs URGENT! The opposition is marshaling their supporters to flood AHTD with comments of support for the massive freeway they want to put through downtown. If you oppose, go to the site and check the "No Build" Option. This is absolutely the most important moment to comment as June 10th is the deadline. If you choose "NO Build" you will also have to put a comment in the block below on the form, or it will not allow you to register your opinion. There are many letters detailing many reasons groups and individuals oppose the freeway. Your comment can be as simple as all or part of this statement below. Please feel free to copy and use it. But above all, COMMENT by tomorrow. "I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and O'Donoghue, Web - PM 6 E, F-7, F-1, 963 No Build unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. 6/9/2016 Patrice Form I-4, I-6, I-9 The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD. It is not necessary, not worth the expense and Web - PM 6 964 No Build Scheiman, Daniel 6/9/2016 L-2 will only encourage more traffic. Just listen to the people, please. Form
Web - PM 6 965 No Build NO BUILD. This plan does not make sense for such a small amount of traffic. McCarron, Vickie 6/9/2016 E, M Form
D - 147
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
No Build Smaller road that does not ruin my city. Web - PM 6 966 Miers, Shep 6/9/2016 E, F-7, F-1 Other Please consider other options, smaller roads, i.e. Boulevard Form
This is my neighborhood. Please respect the fact that not only do people work and play in downtown Little Rock, but they also LIVE here. This is an area where urban revitalization that has reshaped the city Grobmyer Web - PM 6 967 No Build 6/9/2016 I-6 and its look towards the future. I am mystified that this plan appears to take none of this into account. I Elizabeth Darwin Form mourn the lack of imagination of these proposals.
I recently relocated from Ohio and feel this project would not benefit the downtown residents. The noise from the additional traffic lanes will make it less than ideal for the residents of my building, and changing Web - PM 6 968 No Build Capitol Avenue to four lanes and eliminating street parking will affect the residents in the buildings on this Chaddock, Mary 6/9/2016 E, K, I-1 Form street and also guests who attend events at Trapnall Hall or Curran Hall. No Build can be the only option at this time.
I oppose it because of flawed traffic-modeling. I would prefer a second bridge, maybe on Chester or Web - PM 6 969 No Build Francoeur, Julian 6/9/2016 E, F-3 somewhere past I-30 Form
"I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little E, F-7, F-1, Web - PM 6 970 No Build Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the Elaine 6/9/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, Form boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as I-9 well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better."
Web - PM 6 971 No Build Do not destroy downtown Little Rock please!!!!!! Vancura, Mary 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 972 6 C/D Split Diamond We need to rebuild the bridge and option 3 is the best alternative. Johnson, Jim 6/9/2016 F-2 Form
Bringing more traffic and congestion to the heart of our city is not the way to promote a vibrant McCormick, Web - PM 6 973 No Build downtown. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something inspirational and visionary. Please 6/9/2016 F-7, L-1 Suzanne Form don’t be afraid to dream large and loud.
D - 148
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Little Rock has spent decades improving the areas around the I-30 bridge. That area was not a destination in the 1970's and 1980s and now it is. The current proposals seem to run the risk of setting back all these decades of improvement. Obviously the I-30 bridge needs to be replaced, but the current Roberson, Russell Web - PM 6 974 No Build 6/9/2016 F-7, I-1 proposals didn't adequately considered the impact of these areas until too late in the process. The whole S Form thing needs to be reworked with the impact on these areas having a higher priority throughout the design process.
Web - PM 6 975 No Build No Build! Butler, Elizabeth 6/9/2016 E Form
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little E, F-7, F-1, Web - PM 6 976 No Build Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the Dunaway, Beverly 6/9/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, Form boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as I-9, J well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
D - 149
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little F-7, F-1, H- Web - PM 6 977 No Build Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the Brickey, Jannette 6/9/2016 2, I-4, I-6, I- Form boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as 9, J well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
The cost in terms of additional urban sprawl and a burden for the development of neighboring areas Web - PM 6 978 No Build Platz, Carsten 6/9/2016 I-4, I-6, I-9 downtown does not seem to have been looked at yet. Form
Web - PM 6 979 No Build The proposed changes are not good for traffic management. Guffey, Stephen J 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 980 No Build Don't build anything S., B. 6/9/2016 M Form
Reroute I-30 to use the I-440 interchange to bypass downtown. Web - PM 6 981 Other Ellis, John S. 6/9/2016 F-4 See above. Form
Please move forward with this needed improvement to LR. This alternative offers best solution for Web - PM 6 982 6 C/D Split Diamond Silaski, Dana 6/9/2016 I-6, M continued downtown development. Form
This proposal is unneeded and is an outdated method of planning that has failed everywhere it has been Web - PM 6 983 No Build Lauck, Chester 6/9/2016 M tried. It is a huge waste of taxpayer money. Form
The decision is moving too fast - there must be a better way! The a'ginner's make some fine points and Web - PM 6 984 No Build Jameson, Tommy 6/9/2016 E, F-7 I've not heard much rebuttal. Form
No Build Web - PM 6 985 Boulevard per independent designers Karen 6/9/2016 E, F-1 Other Form
Web - PM 6 986 6 C/D Split Diamond Sometimes you just have to stop listening to the design engineers and just build it. Butler, Charles 6/9/2016 M Form
D - 150
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The expansion of I-30 is a lame idea. It caters to the white flight people living in the west suburbs, Bryant Web - PM 6 I-4, I-5, I-9, 987 No Build and Benton. It screws with the property values in Little Rock and is just a stupid and ugly eyesore that will Harris, C 6/9/2016 Form I-6 be put in the middle of a nice town. Lameness.
I believe that our community will be best served by routing the freeway around the downtown and making a boulevard out of the road through downtown. If I may be clear: I don't believe that any of the Jennings, Franklin Web - PM 6 988 No Build 6/9/2016 E, F-1, F-4 alternatives the highway department has put forth are good for the city of the Little Rock or for the E. Form populace of the area as a whole.
Web - PM 6 989 No Build We do not need more freeways and more concrete! Berry, Susan 6/9/2016 M Form
The proposed project is unnecessary and will be a huge waste of resources. There are many roads in Web - PM 6 990 No Build Woodward, Jeff 6/9/2016 M Arkansas in poor condition that deserve your attention over this potential boondoggle. Form
Web - PM 6 991 No Build I do not believe this is the right choice for our community. Matejka, John 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 992 No Build Adding lanes to the bridge is unnecessary. Please consider other options. Matejka, Ashley 6/9/2016 F-7, F-2 Form
Odena, Richard Web - PM 6 993 No Build No Build 6/9/2016 E Scott Form
Web - PM 6 994 No Build Don't destroy downtown. Tidwell, Leon 6/9/2016 I-6 Form
D - 151
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The proposed 10-12 lanes Crossing is a design from 30 years ago in the past not a design for the future. It would be devastating to the progress that has been made revitalizing Downtown LR/NLR and surrounding neighborhoods. I am a NE Arkansas native who has lived in Little Rock for 7 years - all in the downtown area. I frequently travel from here to Jonesboro, Memphis, LR Airport and Hot Springs. Hate the current I 30, particularly the horrible transitions to I40 and I40W but see this monstrous proposal as 10 times worse. There is no reason to channel even higher volumes of commercial traffic - tractor trailers hauling 995 Morris, Mary 6/9/2016 Email F-1, F-3, F-4 who knows what through a high density area for tourism, state/city government, business, recreation and residences. The through traffic should be channeled to 440 or 430 bridges. the existing 30 bridge should be reinforced ... NO widening. I would also support the two blvds approach with a Chester bridge, current 440 becoming the I30 route and current 30 bridge becoming a blvd/US Hwy. The downtown "crossing" should be designed for downtown LR/NLR DESTINATION COMMUTERS AND TRAVELLERS. Please reject the HWY Dept's horribly flawed and fraudulently presented fiasco.
Expanded freeways are a think of the past. Just invites more cars, places the traffic jams elsewhere and causes people to move further away from the urban center. I prefer you to take out the ramps in the river Web - PM 6 996 No Build Pfeifer, Jim 6/9/2016 E, F-1, F-4 market, turn that into a park, rename 440 as I-30, feed downtown from I-630 and turn current I-30 into a Form boulevard.
I would prefer our downtown to focus on historic preservation, bike and pedestrian friendly areas and promote a local downtown where all can easily access what we can offer. I do not want to be the place Web - PM 6 E, H-2, I-4, 997 No Build Sullivan, Lily 6/9/2016 people drive thru to reach another destination and I do not want to implement an unsustainable lifelong Form I-6, I-9 money sucker.
Web - PM 6 998 No Build Do not put 15 lane highway in. Gillespie, Mary 6/9/2016 Form E, M
I am a young professional who uses the 30 crossing corridor for commuting, the river trail for recreation, and the river market district for entertainment. The bridge should be replaced with an at grade boulevard which would enhance downtown development and property values, or with a redesigned bridge of comparable lane count to the current bridge. Upgrading to a larger, more Web - PM 6 E, F-1, F-2, 999 No Build Kennedy, Jason 6/9/2016 expensive structure with 12 lanes will undermine the 6 lane metroplan design, increase upkeep costs, and Form I-6 create bottlenecks elsewhere. Because of induced demand, the extra capacity will soon fill up and commuters won't save much time, if any. On balance, a vibrant downtown is much more valuable than the extra lanes.
D - 152
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Gentlemen: I have read the reports of Messrs. Norm Marshall and Dale Pekar, which point to inconsistencies and errors in the analyses carried out by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department regarding this massive and expensive project which will disturb current life and future economic development in Downtown Little Rock, of which I am a resident. I believe this project is being Nazarian, M.D. carried out in haste and with very little attention paid to the input of local residents. Very thoughtful Sarkis - proposals, such as adding a bridge at Chester Street, making the I-30 portion through Downtown Little Downtown Little F-7, F-1, F- 1000 6/9/2016 Email Rock a Boulevard or a Boulevard-Expressway hybrid, have been given short shrift. I respectfully petition Rock Community 3, L-2 you to carry out more studies that consider the effects of traffic being diverted from alternate routes to Development the this proposed mega-project and thus making traffic congestion in the area worse than it is now. Thank Corporation you for your consideration. Sarkis Nazarian, M.D., Member, Board of Directors, Downtown Little Rock Community Development Corporation
Web - PM 6 1001 No Build Don't build this piece of crap it sucks for about 5,000 reasons. Conrad, Brian 6/9/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1002 6 C/D Split Diamond Doing nothing would be a disservice to the working public and community. Langston, Amy 6/9/2016 M Form
I haven't seen any AHTD plans that adequately address the usability, livability and future development factors important to Little Rock. Of the several proposed suggestions, by far the worst options involve adding freeway lanes. As a Little Rock native and 22-year Faulkner County resident who drives into Little Rock several times per month, I know firsthand that the existing I-30 segment from I-40 to I-440 has degraded and seems unable to safely handle the existing traffic at freeway speeds. Furthermore, its Web - PM 6 F-1, F-7, G- 1003 No Build Trussell, Tommy 6/9/2016 existing traffic patterns have been worsened by ill-considered junctions and areas that encourage Form 1, I-11 uncooperative driving behavior. I believe the same corridor would greatly benefit from modern "traffic calming" and street scraping, opening green spaces and providing attractive entrances to two great cities. It's too bad the spaces cannot support modern roundabouts as we now have in Conway; those have done wonders for several of our former congestion points
D - 153
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I think the plan as proposed would be very disruptive to the tenuous redevelopment taking place in downtown Little Rock, and for just minimal congestion relief. The community has stepped forward with Web - PM 6 1004 No Build many serious alternative ideas that place more value on the livability of downtown instead of easier Hutto, Richard 6/9/2016 E, F-7 Form commutes for those who choose to live outside the city where they work. These alternatives need to be studied and considered before adding to the concrete barrier dividing our city.
Web - PM 6 1005 No Build No Build Jeffries, Stan 6/9/2016 E Form
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of E, F-7, F-1, pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. Web - PM 6 1006 No Build Bragg, Eleanor 6/9/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard Form I-9 plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
The studies are majorly flawed and this input has been ignore. Congestion will be caused downtown in a big way than currently already exists at a monetary expense that is wasteful. Current MacArthur Park Web - PM 6 E, F-7, I-3, 1007 No Build Moomey, Alex 6/9/2016 plans are not factored into the AHTD plan. None of these proposed plans make sense. A new set of Form L-2 studies needs to be done at this point taking into account all of the public feedback.
The alternatives provided by the AHTD will have a devastating effect on the growing downtown area of Little Rock. The proposals will only create bottlenecks at other areas of the I-30/I-40 freeways in the Web - PM 6 1008 No Build Boswell, Britt 6/9/2016 E, F-7, G-5 metro Little Rock area and ultimately will cost the citizens of the entire state. Other alternatives must be Form considered!
D - 154
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
It's no secret that NW Arkansas is courting Arkansans and millennials with its many appealing features. Lest too many be lured away, Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the Web - PM 6 1009 No Build process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 Zamora, Marcia 6/10/2016 I-6 Form corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of E, F-7, F-1, pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. Web - PM 6 1010 No Build Birge, A 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard Form I-9 plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
Replace bridge and highway with a boulevard or similar set of roadways to connect I-40 with downtown LR. Ramming a massive freeway through the middle of the city is absurd. There's so much research out there that shows how bad it is for cities to have freeways cutting through the center of cities. It may be good for E, F-1, F-4, No Build commuters (for a while, at least), but it's bad for Little Rock, bad for the environment, and bad for Web - PM 6 G-5, G-1, F- 1011 Lanis, Charles 6/10/2016 Other Arkansas. Form 2 I-4, I-6, I- Arkansas should not be promoting urban sprawl and the decay of downtown Little Rock. People of LR 8, I-9 recognize that the i30 bridge is old and its entrance/exit ramps are a bit dangerous. But we also recognize the damage that urban sprawl and suburbia does on our city center. No to massive highways cutting through downtown, yes to a more modern, progressive approach to road design.
Given the opposition from the general public, urban planning and transportation consultants, and Web - PM 6 1012 No Build Finn, Lawrence 6/10/2016 M considering a cost benefit analysis - doing nothing is the most prudent plan moving forward. Form
Web - PM 6 1013 6 C/D Split Diamond I think this option would greatly benefit central Arkansas. Wilkins, Kelley 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 155
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1014 6 C/D Split Diamond Great idea for Little Rock. Wilkins, John 6/10/2016 M Form
Its past time Arkansas began implementing a transit system. But until we do, the answer is not destroying Web - PM 6 1015 No Build Henry, Jason 6/10/2016 F-6 our city with more roads and cars. Form
AHTD has a responsibility to provide good engineering and planning on behalf of the citizens of Arkansas and the citizens of its largest urban center, and to take a lead in such process when special considerations are required. The I-30 corridor through Little Rock is unique in the state and merits extra care for AHTD to avoid errors made in other urban centers across the country by including urban planning professionals Web - PM 6 1016 No Build Fish, Ray 6/10/2016 F-7 and sound urban planning process. AHTD made a plan for the urban center of the state's largest city Form without consideration of basic urban planning processes. AHTD's consultants have provided AHTD with the highway planning answer it wanted rather than implementing a real urban planning process and attempted to shortcut the planning process by co-opting city management in lieu of real urban planning.
Web - PM 6 1017 No Build This will ruin the Renaissance downtown and only serve to further blight in the area. Garrett, Chad 6/10/2016 I-6 Form
Web - PM 6 1018 6 C/D SPUI This needs to occur for the benefit of all citizens of little rock. Seelicke, Doug 6/10/2016 M Form
As someone who works downtown, I love seeing its vibrancy and continuing development. I oppose any Web - PM 6 1019 No Build Hester, Emily 6/10/2016 I-6 expansion of the interstate that would threaten this and only cater to the people who live outside the city. Form
D - 156
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. E, F-7, F-1, No Build Davenport- Web - PM 6 1020 The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, Other Booher, Verda Form Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as I-9, L-1 encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better. Please look at possibilities that will be more sustainable and that have had success in other cities.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 1021 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Davis, Anita 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Tom Fennel’s Boulevard option. No Build Web - PM 6 1022 The proposed build is too massive, it's overkill to the problem at hand, it will put a massive financial Willis, Carl 6/10/2016 E, F-7, J Other Form burden on our city and its people and it will continue to divide the community.
Web - PM 6 1023 6 C/D Split Diamond This is much needed. Smith, Judy K 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 157
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1024 6 C/D Split Diamond Much needed Smith, Dean 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1025 6 C/D Split Diamond I support the split diamond Hines, Lance 6/10/2016 M Form
I do not believe more of the same will solve the problem long term, and I am not satisfied with the Web - PM 6 1026 No Build Purifoy, Stephanie 6/10/2016 E, F-7 proposed "compromise" at this time. Form
Web - PM 6 1027 6 C/D Split Diamond We need this Smith, Jacob 6/10/2016 M Form
Rebuild the bridge to allow for barge traffic and come up with a way to get through traffic to use alternate Web - PM 6 1028 No Build Whitney, Gladys 6/10/2016 E, F-2, F-4 routes. The current plan will negatively impact the progress downtown. Form
Web - PM 6 1029 6 C/D Split Diamond Do this please we need it Smith, Jacqulyn 6/10/2016 M Form
I do not support the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD. I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result; expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there. It will seriously impair the goal for a multimodal transportation system in Little Rock. The proposed expansion will undo the efforts E, F-7, F-1, Hutchinson, Web - PM 6 1030 No Build made thus far to make the riverfront attractive and economically successful. 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, Richard Form An expanded freeway will lead to increased traffic on I-30 rather than actually reducing congestion. It will I-9 speed up traffic, make the downtown area more auto-oriented and seriously harm the environment of the downtown area. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods.
Web - PM 6 1031 No Build Please don't doom downtown. Sims, Wm Jay 6/10/2016 E, I-6 Form
D - 158
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
6 C/D Web - PM 6 1032 Split Diamond It is imperative this work be completed in a timely fashion. Owen, Cathy 6/10/2016 K 8 GP Form
Web - PM 6 1033 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you for considering feedback from all public viewpoints. Bennett, Danny 6/10/2016 L-2 Form
The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately Web - PM 6 1034 6 C/D Split Diamond Diaz, Brandi 6/10/2016 I-11 addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative Form approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
These improvements are needed to keep businesses thriving downtown and improve access for goods, Web - PM 6 1035 8-Lane Split Diamond Brown, Gary 6/10/2016 I-6 services, employees and visitors supporting the Little Rock economy. Form
The League of Women Voters of Pulaski County objects too many aspects of the proposed alternatives. We agree that the bridge over the Arkansas River should be replaced to remove the support structure in the waterway. We also see the need to increase walkability in the 2nd street area of the River Market, but do not believe Web - PM 6 F-2, F-7, J, 1036 Other that there will not be the funds to create the park like area in the proposed plans. We also do not see Young, Carol 6/10/2016 Form H-2, I-11 where increasing traffic on 4th 5th and 6th streets will help the city's overall plans to be more pedestrian and bike friendly. In general, we think all the plans the AHTD have presented and not cost effective, and will not reduce the traffic congestion as suggested. There needs to be more study done before any of the plans are initiated.
D - 159
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
There are many letters detailing many reasons groups and individuals oppose the freeway. Your comment can be as simple as all or part of this statement. Please feel free to copy and use it. But above all, COMMENT by tomorrow. "I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. E, F-7, F-1, Web - PM 6 1037 No Build An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of Nixon, Dana 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, Form pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. I-9 The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better."
We drive from Little Rock to Jacksonville and return, often times a day. While the 67/167/40 juncture and the I 40/30 juncture are in serious need of reconfigurations, we see no need to destroy the quarter through North Little Rock and Little Rock south of those intersection. Flyovers making the transitions in No Build those areas easier are the only changes necessary. Web - PM 6 1038 Nixon, Abigail 6/10/2016 E, G-5 Other We drive from Little Rock to Jacksonville and return, often times a day. While the 67/167/40 juncture and Form the I 40/30 juncture are in serious need of reconfigurations, we see no need to destroy the quarter through North Little Rock and Little Rock south of those intersection. Flyovers making the transitions in those areas easier are the only changes necessary.
The 6-Lane plus CD will relieve traffic congestion. It will also provide open, green space at the Cantrell Web - PM 6 1039 6 C/D Split Diamond Wilcox, Lawren 6/10/2016 G-2, I-11 interchange. Form
D - 160
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
"I support the comments of Dale Pekar, Arkansas Public Policy Panel and Norm Marshal of Smart Mobility. These comments have been sent to you by the Coalition for Little Rock Neighborhoods and the APPP. I support the most recently submitted boulevard plan of Tom Fennell and other architects at his firm. I also support bridge improvements and the construction of a new bridge west of Broadway. I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is deeply flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions as well as the congestion problems on Little Rock's city streets are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers and especially taxpayers who live in Little Rock. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. E, F-7, F-1, The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD is charged to and needs to look at alternatives to a Web - PM 6 F-3, H-2, I- 1040 No Build behemoth highway expansion, such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to Fennell, Ellen M 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9, L- become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and 2 neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, reinforce and support its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better. Sincerely, Ellen Fennell P.S. Finally, I would say that this comment form is totally inadequate and is reflective of the disingenuous and indeed deceptive manner in which AHTD has communicated with the public on this issue. We know there are 12 lanes on the freeway as proposed, yet AHTD at the moment it was showing pictures of a 12 lane freeway was calling it "6 4" . This is not in keeping with what the federal highway department demands in terms of communicating in an open and transparent way with the public.
Improve the existing State Highways to help handle commuter traffic and more effectively disperse and collect surface road traffic onto the interstates. Build a car-only bridge across the Arkansas River to bring Hwy 167 and Hwy 70 traffic into the downtown areas at Bond Street. Web - PM 6 1041 No Build Lehing, Andre 6/10/2016 E, F-3, F-7 The proposals above do absolutely nothing to address distributing and collecting traffic from the Form downtown Little Rock / North Little Rock areas. Simply expanding a freeway will not promote urban neighborhood growth and redevelopment.
D - 161
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I 30 is disc a main thoroughfare if we do not do anything now we will be having this discussion for decades Web - PM 6 1042 8-lane Split Diamond to come. Let's get it over and done with so that our great downtown area can continue to sprawl and be a Bryce 6/10/2016 M Form destination that everyone wants to go to!
6 C/D Web - PM 6 1043 Split Diamond The main design plan is terribly flawed Carney, Julann 6/10/2016 E, M No Build Form
We really need expansion to help with the flow of traffic. Especially when it comes to passing over the I-30 Web - PM 6 1044 6 C/D Split Diamond Sloan, Jackie D 6/10/2016 G-5 river bridge by Verizon Arena…. Why it bottlenecks there is beyond me. Form
Poorly planned model does not meet the LR citizen’s needs now or in the future. No consideration for Web - PM 6 1045 No Build Brown, Lally 6/10/2016 H-1, I-6 alternative transit such as light rail, and ruins downtown LR neighborhoods. Form
Consider your professional obligation to use a real urban planning process to assure good urban design in Web - PM 6 1046 No Build White, Mike 6/10/2016 M the I-30 corridor. Form
Mackenzie, Web - PM 6 E, G-4, G-5, 1047 No Build Repair bridges, better lighting, and better signage, rework some entrance ramps. 6/10/2016 Elizabeth Form I-5
Web - PM 6 1048 6 C/D Split Diamond I appreciate your consideration… thanks Carter, Sandra 6/10/2016 L-2 Form
The 6-Lane with C/D Lanes and Split Diamond Interchange alternative is my favorite. This alternative Web - PM 6 1049 6 C/D Split Diamond Campbell, Preston 6/10/2016 M seems to simplify access to the downtown area and manages traffic in the best manner. Form
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Web - PM 6 E, F-1, H-2, 1050 No Build An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of Kinser, Sarah 6/10/2016 Form I-4, I-6, I-9 pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan. Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods.
D - 162
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I truly believe that this project is needed. The traffic that I-30 sees daily is enough to warrant the construction, especially as Little Rock and surrounding cities only continue to grow. The 6-Lane with Collector/Distributor lanes with a split diamond interchange seems to be the ideal option to move traffic Web - PM 6 1051 6 C/D Split Diamond Harper, Kristen 6/10/2016 M along. As is, when traffic comes to a halt on I-30, it essentially causes I-630, I-440, I-40, and all surrounding Form local streets to come to a stop as well. I believe that this alternative is the best way to improve current conditions will minimizing negative impacts.
It is imperative that Little Rock look to the future as far as traffic is concerned. It is better to make improvements now than wait until there is even more traffic coming in to the area. Look at other big Web - PM 6 1052 6 C/D Split Diamond Spungnardi, Beth 6/10/2016 M cities, such as Atlanta, GA and Nashville, TN and how much they have grown geographically and in Form population in the last 20 years. It is much better to be proactive than reactive.
"I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of E, F-7, F-1, pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Wiedower, Web - PM 6 1053 No Build 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, William Form I-9 Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 1054 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Russell, Shep 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
D - 163
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
AHTD: Attached are plans for an alternative boulevard. I had tried to submit on the web site comment form but it did not accept attachments. Based on all the available information, studies and reports I developed this boulevard plan to address the best possible outcome for Little Rock and the region in the I‐30 Corridor. I had earlier developed a compromise “Convertible 3.1 Plan” (attached) as a good compromise of keeping through freeway lanes with local access boulevard streets on either side. Your new plans hint that parts of that plan could work but failed to incorporate essential components: no freeway interchange in downtown (you decide in NLR to exit downtown instead of split diamond), local access lanes should be designed as city streets, freeway should be depressed below grade by 3rd Street (to avoid massive overpasses), and freeway footprint should be as small as possible (vertical retaining walls). One would hope these deficiencies would be addressed in future plans. However, in studying the hybrid plan (both the AHTD plus Convertible 3.1) it became clear from traffic studies that there would be: F-1, F-3, G- 1055 a) no effective way to handle the concentrated influx of traffic to downtown from the split diamond Fennell, Tom 6/10/2016 Email 5, G-3, I-4, b) no clear and safe way to re‐enter the freeway from downtown to various destination routes to the I-6, I-9, M south. Surely AHTD is aware of the problems with short distance decisions, weaving at 630, Roosevelt, and the South Interchange. Because of the inherent problems with the I‐30 urban freeway through downtown, study indicated that a true boulevard through the 630 interchange would solve the safety and routing problems with the freeway in this area. This outcome is consistent with traffic modeling showing a true boulevard with an additional river crossing west of Broadway to Pike Avenue outperforms the expanded freeway. The attached boulevard plan does an impressive job of integrating the existing street grid with the best east/west connectivity of any plan proposed. It also makes the most economic sense for cost and future downtown growth. Rather than using outdated thinking AHTD should take a more global view of regional traffic and consequences including a new bridge west of Broadway and possible Bond Street arterial connection to E. Broadway in North Little Rock. AHTD can do more than expand freeways.
I live and work downtown and am pleased with the changes and compromises that have been achieved. I believe this is the best alternative given the cost. I know I 30 is not going away downtown and we must Web - PM 6 1056 8-Lane Split Diamond Oglesby, Chad 6/10/2016 L-2, M move forward with the most common sense plan. This alternative provides many elements that make this Form plan a compromise we should move forward with and build.
Boulevard plan please. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of bike and pedestrian Web - PM 6 F-1, F-7, H- 1057 Other friendly city streets for residents. Hope, Holly 6/10/2016 Form 2, J Burdening future generations with huge Maintenance costs for a doomed to fail project that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Please leave our future something livable.
Web - PM 6 1058 No Build Don't waste money on this. Build a better beltway or improve one near the LR airport. Rickard, Judith 6/10/2016 F-3, J Form
D - 164
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
"I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of E, F-7, F-1, pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Web - PM 6 1059 No Build Harb, Darla 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Form I-9 Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
I am quite concerned about the plan for expansion of I-30 through downtown Little Rock because the 1060 design will move current congestion to more sensitive areas and the high price tag will divert funds from Henthorn, Mary 6/10/2016 Email I-3, I-4, J more practical projects.
Web - PM 6 1061 6 C/D Split Diamond This is the best option. Atkinson, Andrew 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1062 6 C/D SPUI Good idea Dorsey, Michelle 6/10/2016 M Form
Preference is one of the two Proposed 8-Lane options No Build is NOT an option. To be progressive and in anticipation of our continued population growth we need to expand our bridge. If we build the 6-lane, then 10 years later we would have wished we all had Web - PM 6 1063 8 GP French, Deborah 6/10/2016 M built/voted for the 8-lane. Unfortunately we need to spend the money now to improve our infrastructure. Form If we don't have the tax base, and cost is still a factor, then we can go back to consider the Toll bridge concept for all the outside traffic that feeds into Little Rock as it's central corridor.
I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems Web - PM 6 1064 No Build in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. This is absolutely a Abdella, Amy 6/10/2016 I-6 Form horrible option for downtown Little Rock. This cures nothing but creates more problems!
D - 165
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1065 6 C/D SPUI Current bridge is unsafe due to the way traffic enters and exits I-30 on the bridge. It must be replaced. Smith, Dan 6/10/2016 F-2, G-1 Form
A concrete jungle and more cars will decimate downtown just as it did when you barricaded downtown Web - PM 6 1066 No Build years ago to encourage flight to WLR. People are really starting to enjoy downtown again and this will Parker, Margaret 6/10/2016 I-6 Form only hurt it.
I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems Web - PM 6 1067 No Build in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. This will cost way Hassell, Katie 6/10/2016 I-6, J Form more than they estimate. It always does.
Web - PM 6 1068 No Build nc Taylor, Byron 6/10/2016 M Form
I oppose the I-30 Freeway expansion for many reason but primarily because I believe it is the worst solution proposed to deal with the current problems. There are numerous studies out that show without a doubt that freeway expansion does not indeed help with congestion and instead can actually bring about more traffic. I think with the massive improvements that have been made to the downtown and Web - PM 6 F-7, I-4, I-6, 1069 No Build McKinnis, Pamela 6/10/2016 River Market areas over the years, the only good plan is one that will help with continued growth not one Form I-9, L-1 that will reverse all of the work that has been done, which I feel certain the current idea for expansion will all but destroy. Please for the sake of Little Rock and the wonderful people who call it home, stop this expansion for a better alternative, one our city and residents can be proud of.
Bartholmey, Web - PM 6 1070 No Build Do not build! 6/10/2016 M Michael Form
Web - PM 6 1071 No Build Do not build! Bartholmey, Peter 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1072 No Build I support the no build option Storthz, Carol 6/10/2016 M Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 1073 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Evans, Sammy 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
D - 166
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I support the Fennell Boulevard plan and the comments of Dale Pekar and the initiative of the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An E, F-7, F-1, expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of Web - PM 6 1074 No Build Yancey, Amara 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Form I-9 The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
Web - PM 6 1075 6 C/D Split Diamond Good idea! Wooldridge, Judy 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 167
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I support the Fennell Boulevard plan, Dale Pekar's comments and the initiative of the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. E, F-7, F-1, No Build An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of Web - PM 6 1076 Yancey, Joseph 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, Other pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Form I-9 The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
Web - PM 6 1077 8-lane SPUI Little Rock needs this. Staten, Robert 6/10/2016 M Form
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. F-7, F-1, H- When I grew up, I played club soccer in LR. LR was an okay city to me. Since moving here in the fall of Web - PM 6 1078 No Build Hicks, Marissa 6/10/2016 2, I-4, I-6, I- 2014, I fell in love with it. People say LR is dangerous, that there's nothing here and I couldn't disagree Form 9 more. People are starting to realize how wonderful our city is. We have amazing dining, breweries, shops, local festivals, nature, etc. This plan by the AHTD will do nothing but hinder LR's continued growth into being an amazing place to live! We want to keep LR on this path to becoming a place for more people to enjoy living not just in the surrounding areas, but IN the city as well. This would cause nothing but headaches for years to come and the amount of money spent would be extremely unnecessary seeing as it would block the urban growth and development for our city.
D - 168
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
This option appears to the most for addressing the traffic congestion on I-30 without negatively impacting Web - PM 6 1079 6 C/D Split Diamond Headley, Mark 6/10/2016 H-1, H-2 the city streets or the travel modes on the city streets, such as pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Form
I think this would be the most efficient based on your 3D models. The collector/distributor lanes are most Web - PM 6 1080 6 C/D Split Diamond Marcks, Julie 6/10/2016 M important in my opinion. Whether it is split diamond or SPUI is less important to me. Form
Tom Fennell’s most recent boulevard plan. One large reason our country is in difficulty is because we do not use what we know and has been proven. Web - PM 6 1081 Other Therefore, we continue to make choices which do not bring about positive growth environments. Your Herden, Debby 6/10/2016 F-7, F-1 Form opinions are fine for the dinner table, but for spending others hard earned money, I would rather see decisions based on facts. Looking forward to saying well done for all when this job is completed.
Please listen to the professionals and not let citizens who have no idea what they are talking about decide Web - PM 6 1082 6 C/D Split Diamond Wilcox, Ellen 6/10/2016 M the design for the most important infrastructure in our city. Form
Web - PM 6 1083 6 C/D Split Diamond We badly need this Jones, John 6/10/2016 M Form
Kampbell, Barbara Web - PM 6 1084 No Build Please don't make more divisions of neighborhoods in Little Rock. Find a way around. 6/10/2016 I-3, I-4, I-9 J Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, Web - PM 6 G-1, H-2, I- 1085 6 C/D Split Diamond while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve Bynum, Martin 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area.
Replace the river bridge as needed for safety of motorists and barge traffic on the AR River. Maybe even reconfigure the exit at 2nd street and move to 4th. Through traffic can utilize existing connectors between E, H-2, F-2, I-40 and I-30 east of downtown on I-530 or between I-40 and I-30 West of town on I-430. There is no need Web - PM 6 1086 No Build Slater, Cathryn H 6/10/2016 G-3, G-4, I- to make downtown Little Rock another throughway. AHTD has already significantly impacted LR with I- Form 6 630 and north-south divider through the middle of downtown LR which has finally been able to overcome the previous devastation...... NO MORE divisions by pedestrian UN-friendly, WIDE, divided highways.
D - 169
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I support the Fennell Boulevard plan and the comments of Dale Pekar, Smart Mobility and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. Web - PM 6 1087 Other Harper, Jim 6/10/2016 F-1 I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposes by AHTD because, I believe the modeling is flawed and the Form freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock.
Web - PM 6 1088 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you. Owen, Tom C III 6/10/2016 M Form
No expansion, use a roundabout to enter the city, with a low speed boulevard cutting through the city. Web - PM 6 1089 Other Finish I-69 if you want Dallas-Nashville traffic improved. Belding, Henry 6/10/2016 F-1, F-4 Form Don't pave over our city.
Web - PM 6 1090 6 C/D Split Diamond I support the "6 Lane with Collector/Distributor Lanes Split Diamond" configuration. Davis, Justin M 6/10/2016 M Form
In Tampa, FL there is a six lane highway with a second level highway immediately above it. I think it is FL 618. The upper traffic can go in either direction or both directions. The lower level remains as is. This allows for traffic pattern adjustments during rush hours. I don't remember if theirs is a toll road, I think it is. If something similar were done in LR/NLR over the I-30 bridge and downtown area, it would not require Web - PM 6 1091 Other Lee, Anita 6/10/2016 G-3, G-4, M any additional land and give through traffic a way to bypass the local city traffic. And you need to close Form the I-30 Broadway southbound on ramp. There are two other bridges within a half mile for local traffic to use. And this would eliminate a lot of congestion on the bridge itself. What do you think?
Web - PM 6 1092 6 C/D Split Diamond Keep it a freeway, not a grade level parkway Beggs, Allen 6/10/2016 M Form
I think this would be the best option for both downtown traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, as well as Web - PM 6 1093 6 C/D Split Diamond Holt, Felicia 6/10/2016 H-2 interstate traffic. Form
D - 170
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 1094 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Garrett, Gibson 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Web - PM 6 1095 6 C/D Split Diamond I work at CALS and I think this option would best for the River Market area. Holt, Charles 6/10/2016 M Form
We do not have the traffic that warrant additional lanes. Also, I don't agree with taking parking spaces Web - PM 6 K, I-4, I-6, I- 1096 No Build from downtown for this project or disrupting/destroying the river market and downtown areas that are so Baldridge, Karen 6/10/2016 Form 7, I-9 vibrant now. Thank you.
D - 171
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I support the Fennell Boulevard plan and the comments of Dale Pekar, Smart Mobility and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system--including spillover into the neighborhoods north of the 30/40 interchange in North Little Rock, which from what I understand, were outside of the study area looked at by ADHT. I live in Park Hill and am very concerned of the negative implications this additional traffic congestion will have for the neighborhood. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will F-7, F-1, H- No Build Web - PM 6 1097 devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Christian, Kevin 6/10/2016 2, I-4, I-6, I- Other Form An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of 9 pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
We need to spend money maintaining existing roads. This project also encourages urban sprawl, which I Web - PM 6 1098 No Build Moore, Sandy 6/10/2016 F-7, M strongly oppose. Form
D - 172
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of E, F-7, F-1, pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Web - PM 6 1099 No Build Nathan, Debra 6/10/2016 H-2, I-4, I-6, The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Form I-9 Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
Web - PM 6 1100 6 C/D Split Diamond This makes the most sense Dorsey, Coco 6/10/2016 M Form
I work in downtown Little Rock and deal with this area every day. The 6-lane with collector/distributer Web - PM 6 1101 6 C/D Split Diamond Rutland, Donna 6/10/2016 M lanes and split diamond interchange seems to be the best solution. Form
Tsemunhu, Web - PM 6 1102 No Build No Build 6/10/2016 M Ngonidzashe Form
Web - PM 6 1103 6 C/D Split Diamond This plan makes the most sense, given the current blueprint of downtown/River market area. Maxwell, Coralie 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1104 6 C/D Split Diamond This appears to be the most favorable option. Thompson, Denise 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1105 6 C/D Split Diamond The simulations made this the clear choice. Wilcox, Bob 6/10/2016 M Form
I trust that CAP will implement the best solution. I am so frustrated with the people who would advocate Web - PM 6 1106 6 C/D Split Diamond no improvements to the location--that seems to be the least feasible solution of all, contributing to longer Everhart, Clinton 6/10/2016 M Form delays, more pollution, and a step backward for Little Rock/NLR. Thanks for all you do.
D - 173
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1107 6 C/D Split Diamond Good solution! Martin, Hoyt 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1108 6 C/D Split Diamond Let's move forward Hope, Alan 6/10/2016 M Form
Newberry, Web - PM 6 1109 No Build https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/I30-public-comment-form#.V1rXkfkrLIV 6/10/2016 M Rebecca Form
Web - PM 6 1110 6 C/D Split Diamond Voting Schuetzle, Natalie 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1111 6 C/D Split Diamond Voting Schuetzle, Natalie 6/10/2016 M Form
Wickliffe, Mary Web - PM 6 1112 6 C/D Split Diamond Vote 6/10/2016 M Lou Form
Web - PM 6 1113 6 C/D Split Diamond I agree with the Little Rock Regional Chamber's recommendation Brown, Judy 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1114 6 C/D Split Diamond Vote Adams, Sharon 6/10/2016 M Form
It needs to be kept a 6 lane, possible split diamond interchange might be investigated/analyzed more. No Build McCorkindale, Web - PM 6 E, F-7, G-3, 1115 Split Diamond There does not need to be 8 to 10 lanes going through downtown. Please don't do that. Please look at 6/10/2016 Other Trey Form G-4 alternatives to 8 to 10 lanes.
Rebuild bridge on with an extra lane on each side of the bridge for exit/entrance on Broadway in NLR and No Build Web - PM 6 E, G-3, G-4, 1116 Ferry in LR. Dahms, Bob 6/10/2016 Other Form F-2, F-7 I do not like the idea of enlarging the roadways.
D - 174
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I support the 6 Lane with CD Lanes and the Split Diamond interchange with a central downtown park, a deck park between 6th and 9th street, and improved multimodal connections both east and west. The highway connections to the city street grid need to be well designed and included as part of the original project. This includes improving the central park space and including pedestrian amenities such as 12' sidewalks, material selections like brick over concrete, pedestrian scaled lighting, mature street trees, benches, bike racks, trash receptacles and signage. Web - PM 6 G-3, H-2, I- 1117 6 C/D Split Diamond East, Chris 6/10/2016 The undersides of the bridges where they interact with the city street grid also need to be well designed Form 11, L-2 and carefully considered. The underside of the bridges need to be well lit, designed to prevent roosting of birds, and shaped to both diffuse and minimize the transfer of sound. All of these detailed decisions need to include input from Little Rock and communities the corridor passes through. There needs to be an agreement in place between the cities, the AHTD and the future Design Build contractor to ensure these details are well conceived and executed with public oversight.
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 1118 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. V. Dana 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
I like the plan you originally proposed with 6 lanes plus the collector lanes. The only thing I didn't like was it appeared you were closing most entrances and exits and dumping all the traffic onto 2nd St. @ Cumberland. The whole point of having the collector lanes is to allow people to get on and off. A service Web - PM 6 1119 Other Goodrich, Scott 6/10/2016 G-5, M road could hold people and only allow interstate access at 1 or 2 final points if necessary. Also a service Form road could allow people to get off the interstate at several points and then turn onto the surface city streets anywhere they want.
Light rail. Web - PM 6 1120 Other Koch, Stephen 6/10/2016 F-6, F-3 Chester St. bridge should be implemented to improve flow Form
Web - PM 6 1121 No Build Do not build this! It is an awful plan. Hall, Noel 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 175
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1122 No Build This is not an improvement. Hall, Noel 6/10/2016 M Form
This project will affect many future generations and deserves careful consideration. The AHD should make Web - PM 6 F-7, I-4, I-9, 1123 No Build quality of life its primary goal, not simply moving traffic. A hasty decision based on funding deadlines is Brown, Winston 6/10/2016 Form J unwise: rushed decisions are typically poor decisions.
Web - PM 6 1124 6 C/D Split Diamond Feel it's the best option Anderson, Haskell 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1125 Other Fix the bridge. Don't see the need to plan for no congestion ever, much less in 2040. Peacock, Leslie 6/10/2016 F-2, G-6 Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 1126 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Padgett, Marvin 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. I believe this design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of F-7, F-1, H- pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Bodenhamer, Web - PM 6 1127 No Build 6/10/2016 2, I-4, I-6, I- The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Katie Form 9 Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
D - 176
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1128 No Build Please stop and listen to all of this sensible opposition. We don't need a huge bridge here Duke, David W 6/10/2016 L-2 Form
The huge planned expansion will wreck the revitalization of downtown, destroy historic neighborhoods and attractions, and make Little Rock an extremely undesirable place to live to the exact type of young urban professionals we need to attract for the long term foreseeable future. There are so many Web - PM 6 F-7, F-4, H- 1129 No Build Frost, Michelle 6/10/2016 alternatives and existing roads that could be used to route traffic instead. It would be a travesty to do this Form 1, I-3, I-6 to downtown. And what about investing in public transit for all the suburbanites? And getting 18 wheelers off this portion of I30 entirely by using and linking the loops further outside the city?
Web - PM 6 1130 6 C/D Split Diamond Thanks for allowing the public to have a voice in this important decision Earls, Shannon 6/10/2016 L-2 Form
Excited to see a plan to address some of the more hazardous on/off ramps. This plan looks like it will Web - PM 6 1131 6 C/D Split Diamond Herring, Sonia 6/10/2016 G-5, G-1 provide safe, efficient travel through our cities, which will benefit both residents and visitors. Form
Web - PM 6 1132 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you. Ptak, Jacque 6/10/2016 M Form
Terminate I-30 at the I-630 interchange and route northbound traffic to I-440 or I-430 depending on which direction they plan to travel once across the river. Remove the existing route between I-630 and I- 40 with the possible exception of the bridge which could be repurposed for local/pedestrian traffic. I'm a Little Rock expat who is temporarily living out of state -- but I will be back by the time this project is Web - PM 6 F-4, H-2, I- 1133 Other complete -- no matter which option is ultimately chosen. So I think my comments are worthy of Merckx, Keith 6/10/2016 Form 4, I-6, I-9 consideration. This interstate is an unnecessary dividing line cutting off access to otherwise complementary areas of downtown Little Rock. It is hindering the River Market District renaissance. Why would we want to further compound the negative instead of accenting the positive?
AR Highway Department: please read all the thoughtful comments and suggestions from LR residents and Web - PM 6 1134 No Build Barrier, Phyllis 6/10/2016 L-2 experts and act accordingly in spending our tax dollars. Form
Build Chester street bridge or another bridge location. Find another way to get traffic from 40 to 630 If I had to pick one it would be the 8 lane with split diamond interchange. The 6 lane with CD lanes is a Web - PM 6 1135 Other Knight, Kyle 6/10/2016 F-3, F-4, I-6 poor plan that would hinder downtown development, too many lanes and cars going through residential Form areas.
Web - PM 6 1136 6 C/D Split Diamond Time to move forward on this project Stone, Kelly 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 177
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Build it and they will fill it accurately describes a great deal of road construction. Widening the I‐30 1137 corridor between LR and NRL is entirely unnecessary make work project that will scar the city of LR, waste McMath, Bruce 6/10/2016 Email G-3, G-4, tax payer money, encourage sprawl and ultimately add nothing of value. Don’t do it. Thanks.
Dear Sirs: The Downtown Neighborhood Association urges the No Build option among the choices offered by state officials on dealing with the I-30 expansion. There is no option for what is truly needed. We agree a new bridge is needed, and shoulders should be added for safety. We recognize this means more pavement down the corridor as well. This should be limited, and devoted to moving traffic in and out of the downtown grid, safely, at speeds that slow down cars as they exit I-30. Our members do oppose the proposal today that calls for 15 lanes of pavement at the junction of I-30 and I-630, as excessive. We fear shifting demand onto I-630, and justifying widening there, which we oppose totally. This is too costly, now, with borrowing required, and repaid from future federal allocations. Shifting Haas, Starre congestion down the road and generating future demand for more projects, at an estimated cost of $4 President E, F-7, F-2, 1138 billion, according to Metroplan, will eat up all road money for Central Arkansas. We have a more balanced Downtown 6/10/2016 Email I-1, I-4, I-9, approach, which we support, in the Imagine Central Arkansas plan, and we urge you to conform to that Neighborhood I-8, J, plan. Association We support conclusions of respected professionals serving the city of Little Rock, Metroplan and opponents, who tell us this proposal will fail. This proposal will attract more motorists, they told us, so conditions will worsen. We incorporate by reference comments to the state from Norm Marshall, Metroplan staff and Nelson Nygaard, city consultants. Living adjacent to both I-30 and I-630, our members recall damage from the original construction and we want no more of that division from the rest of the city. We want no more air pollution or noise pollution. Our neighbor, Dale Pekar, pinpointed numerous flaws in the proposal and we second his request for corrections and additional study. Yours Truly,
Promenade at I-30 crossing location; spread out crossing traffic across bridges, including an expanded I440 and a new Chester or Cross St bridge. As a Little Rock homeowner who works and enjoys recreation around the site of this project, I strongly G-3, F-3, F- oppose the AHTD's plan for the I-30 expansion. The AHTD plan would INCREASE traffic through our vibrant Web - PM 6 1139 Other Gold, Stefie 6/10/2016 4, I-4, I-6, I- and burgeoning downtown. The crossing expansion would increase through-traffic that should instead be Form 9 routed around the business area. The plan proposed by AHTD is bad for our community's future, as well as fiscally irresponsible. Community planners need to be allowed to contribute their vision, and a vision that works for the community as a whole must inform the new bridge design. Failing to do that is narrow- minded and shortsighted, and will not be acceptable to the members of our local community.
ATHD current 12 lane plan will negatively impact downtown Little Rock and the future of our city. NO Web - PM 6 E, I-4, I-6, I- 1140 No Build Kenward, Tami 6/10/2016 Build Form 9
D - 178
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I support the creation of a Blvd. to replace the I-30 connection between I-630 and I-40. I support keeping I-30 from I-630 to I-440 to bypass Little Rock and North Little Rock. Removing I-30 from downtown and creating a Blvd will only enhance property value and allow for better No Build and smarter development. Routing I-30 from I-630 toward I-440 as a bypass is much smarter for long term Web - PM 6 1141 Robinson, David 6/10/2016 E, F-1, F-4 Other redevelopment downtown. City leaders that support the current vision of the Highway department don't Form speak for me on this matter. I live south of I-630 and am under the age of 40. More and more people my age are moving back into the downtown core and we desire a livable city not system of interstates to simply advance urban sprawl.
Support the Boulevard alternative. Please don't continue to divide Little Rock via the use of freeway Web - PM 6 E, F-1, I-4, I- 1142 No Build Newberry, Alex 6/10/2016 expansions. Form 9
Repair/rebuild the bridge over the Arkansas River, address/improve the interchanges at I-30/I-630 and I- 30/I-530/I-440, but do not increase the current footprint or create additional lanes for I-30 on the Little Rock side of the river. My original statement from October 20, 2015 still applies: As the state representative for the legislative district that includes downtown Little Rock, I am very concerned about the current proposal to expand Interstate 30 in a way that would further divide neighborhoods, disrupt public transit, and degrade the unique culture and economic development potential of the area. The 30 Crossing project was originally conceived to address the structural integrity of the Arkansas River bridge, and of course we should do whatever is necessary to repair and/or replace aging infrastructure to ensure public safety. But it seems frivolous and short-sighted to further widen a freeway at the expense of a downtown streetscape that recently has been revitalized and continues to improve. After all, many cities around the country have been doing exactly the opposite by removing interstate highways from dense urban areas. (See Boston, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Milwaukee, etc.) The current design for the I-30 expansion would decimate the River Market and the area in front of the Clinton Presidential Center, which have become pedestrian-friendly landmark attractions that are F-7, G-3, G- contributing to the economic growth of our city. Furthermore, it would create an even starker dividing Web - PM 6 4, H-1, H-2, 1143 Other Sabin, Warwick 6/10/2016 line between downtown and the neighborhoods to the east — much as I-630 did along the north/south Form F-2, G-2, I- axis when it was installed decades ago — just when there has been new business development and public 4, I-6, I-9 transit that is actually deepening connections across the current I-30 corridor. Yes, there is rush hour traffic on I-30, but that is perfectly normal. The highway flows just fine during all other hours of the day, and history shows that expanding roads usually doesn’t eliminate backups during peak times, but instead it simply invites more vehicular use. If we are going to invest the time and money to think beyond replacing the I-30 bridge, then we should use that opportunity to be creative and innovative in how we direct traffic through and into our downtown area. We should pay attention to current trends — which demonstrate that high-density, pedestrian-friendly urban areas with robust public transit facilitate economic growth — while also anticipating the future, when multi-lane highways may no longer be as desirable. In the end, we should be trying to entice people to live in Little Rock or pull over for a visit, as opposed to making it easier for them to live elsewhere or drive by more quickly. In its current form, the 30 Crossing proposal creates more problems than it solves, and it would reverse all of the recent progress we have been making toward building a more vibrant, efficient, and unified city. We can do better, and I hope the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department will embrace the challenge to make Little Rock a national model for how smart urban growth strategies can co-exist with their mission to move goods and people to and through our city.
D - 179
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1144 6 C/D Split Diamond None Brodsky, Gordon 6/10/2016 M Form
I would like to see further study of an 8 lane boulevard design that slows traffic, enhances east-west connectivity, and encourages mixed use development within the corridor. This would assume a re-routing of non-local traffic along I440 I do not believe the AHTD has done a thorough analysis of alternative options, as evident by the selections made available in the list above. There have been multiple independent analyses conducted by third parties making recommendations that were never seriously considered by AHTD. The renovation of the I30 corridor should be seen as an opportunity to re-vision life in downtown Little Rock, not simply a Web - PM 6 F-7, F-4, I-4, 1145 Other Maddox, Ben 6/10/2016 project to move traffic faster through our city. We need urban planning and public policy to reflect the Form I-6, I-9 needs and concerns of the people of this city. The plans created by AHTD do nothing for these constituencies and instead seem only to benefit out of town commuters and through-traffic, both of which could be serviced by the I440 loop. Our historic and revitalized downtown is no place for a 10 lane speedway. I am writing in strong opposition to the existing AHTD options, and for a more thorough analysis that includes new thinking from the many community groups that have been working together to serve as an independent and grass roots voice on this project.
Something needs to be done to fix the bridge, traffic congestion, access roads which are one-way, Web - PM 6 1146 6 C/D Split Diamond sometimes, the two-way, then one-way, yield etc. it's confusing. Also, I-30 needs to go straight through Fox, Sean 6/10/2016 G-5, F-2 Form without merging interchange worth all the downtown access points.
Web - PM 6 1147 No Build This proposal will be detrimental to downtown and Little Rock's economic development. Gardner, Kelly 6/10/2016 I-6 Form
D - 180
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Please accept our comments OPPOSING all current options for the proposed I-30 widening in downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock. We are nearing retirement, and are mulling whether to stay in the Little Rock area or relocate to a state that is more responsive to, and responsible for, its citizens' best interests. As educated, relatively well-off professionals, we hope our continued residence would be viewed as beneficial to the area. Unfortunately, the current options for I-30 widening would make downtown Little Rock a drive-by afterthought. Socially, economically and environmentally, the city would deteriorate. This would make the area significantly less appealing to us in the long term. As described by Alana Semuels, freeways that bisect cities destroy them http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/highways-destroyed-americas-cities/417789/. Widening freeways simply worsens the destruction. Indeed, many cities are tearing down their throughways. It is ironic, to say the least, that AHTD is actually considering adding to Little Rock's burdens F-7, F-4, I-1, Perlman, Janine 1148 with this proposal. 6/10/2016 Email I-4, I-6, I-8, Fuscoe, Jim We are as concerned about the very great environmental implications for this project as its social and I-9, L-2 economic effects. Per legal precedent, it requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Neglecting to complete an EIS risks multi-year, very expensive lawsuits. Even as it is, though, the proposed project is much too expensive. If it goes ahead, the rest of the state will be starved for badly needed infrastructure funding. Far better options would be to make I-30 a route to LR and NLR, and make other routes more attractive to through traffic. This would make those cities real destinations, which would help rejuvenate them and keep them vibrant. Please begin the planning process again, and invite---and substantially incorporate---local citizens' opinions and interests in your next proposals. Please encourage us to remain in central Arkansas. Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 1149 No Build No to increased urban sprawl and subdivisions of emerging, re-claimed neighborhoods! Laux, Jeff 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1150 No Build Please do not ruin the revitalization efforts in this area by expanding a freeway that has divided our city Stadter, Samantha 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 181
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The boulevard idea proposed by Mr. Fennell would be my preferred project. I've helped operate a family business that sits toward the end of I-630, a block east on 7th Street from Chester called Southern Reprographics. That is to say, I'm around a lot of people that utilize the interchanges under consideration for expansion/construction. The consensus in talking to people around the office is not to expand the freeway to alleviate congestion. As many have pointed out through various studies and data from around the country, induced demand is a problem following nearly every major Web - PM 6 1151 Other highway expansion, mitigating any benefit to expansion in the first place. Another point I'd like to make is McColey, Bradley 6/10/2016 F-1 Form that people my age (I'm 31) are attracted to cities that embrace alternatives to large expansive freeways and I count myself as one. Making Little Rock attractive to younger people should be considered a high priority. This will ensure we are competitive with other cities our size. I hope that Little Rock and its residents get a fair say when it comes to the highway projects being discussed because they can either help to further improve the downtown area, or be a setback in the successful development that's taken place over the last few decades. Please take these things into consideration. Thank you.
This option achieves goals of improving safety, reducing congestion, enhancing connectivity and Web - PM 6 1152 6 C/D Split Diamond Paschall, William 6/10/2016 M dispersing vehicles throughout the downtown Little Rock grid. Form
I believe this expansion would be very detrimental to the downtown area, with the worst impact on the Web - PM 6 1153 No Build Golf, Laura 6/10/2016 E, I-3, I-4 areas surrounding the River Market and Clinton Library Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, Web - PM 6 1154 6 C/D Split Diamond while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve Loftin, Aaron 6/10/2016 M Form downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area.
Web - PM 6 1155 6 C/D Split Diamond Voting Baney, Melissa 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1156 6 C/D Split Diamond Great idea on Split Diamond Jones, Stephen 6/10/2016 M Form
Conversion to Boulevard style and creation of Chester Street Bridge. Web - PM 6 1157 Other It is important to protect the downtown River market area that has recently been revitalized and seem Glasgow, Jennifer 6/10/2016 F-1, F-3, I-3 Form BILLIONS in investment. Boulevard with green space and run the bypass out past the airport. Don't ruin the downtown Web - PM 6 F-1, F-4, I-3, 1158 Other Neal, Bradley 6/10/2016 redevelopment! Form I-6, I-11
D - 182
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tom Fennell's boulevard plan and re-routing the bulk of traffic to bypass downtown Everything I have read on this and other similar projects around the nation say that widening the bridge No Build Web - PM 6 1159 and adding lanes will increase congestion, not decrease it. I love the downtown boulevard plan (Fennell's Orsi, Anne 6/10/2016 F-1, F-4, G-6 Other Form idea) and strongly believe that routing traffic around the city on 440 and 430 between 40 and 30 will be the best solution for Little Rock's future.
I know my comment and those of many others does not ultimately matter to you but here goes. As someone who commutes to downtown from Saline Co. daily in rush hour traffic both ways it is not THAT bad. Your construction plan that will likely last 5 years and require more construction on 30 and other interstates outside of downtown will only make things worse for commuters. The couple of minutes that MIGHT be gained (I've yet to see any report that says that significant time gains will occur) is simply not Web - PM 6 1160 No Build worth it. Please quit lying to the public with your use of 6 lanes plus, 8 lanes plus and tell the truth. The Morgan, M. 6/10/2016 E, J Form public now knows your 6 or 8 lanes really mean 12 lanes. We also now know that your plan for the 30 Crossing is only the beginning of many, many constructions projects but you have yet to tell us how much 30 Crossing and all the other lane additions will cost all together. If you just cannot help yourselves and HAVE to do construction please consider fixing the roads that you have already built but have failed to maintain?
Web - PM 6 1161 No Build This project is too large for downtown Little Rock. Jukes, David 6/10/2016 E Form
I prefer the urban boulevard proposal which eliminates the I-30 section between 630 and 40. I want to return that entire downtown LR/NLR area to its urban, local street, grid fabric. Send the through and Web - PM 6 1162 Other Craiglow, Wes 6/10/2016 F-1, F-4 commuter traffic around via 440. Form Thank you for your honest consideration
The east village of little rock and downtown in general is undergoing an amazing revitalization right now. I Austin, Becca Web - PM 6 1163 No Build 6/10/2016 E believe expanding I30 would stop that. As a downtown resident I strongly oppose any expansion of I30 Carle Form
As a native of Little Rock (born here 76 years ago), I have seen a great many road and highway "improvements" that were pursued mindlessly, In the name of moving traffic, without regard to the Barrier, John Web - PM 6 1164 No Build 6/10/2016 E damage inflicted on the fabric of the city. This is yet another one, and easily the worst. It's time to call a Michael Form halt.
No alternative proposed by the AHTD is in the best interest of Little Rock. Web - PM 6 1165 No Build AHTD planners need to make substantive changes based on the much-better alternatives offered by Little Nichols, Cheryl 6/10/2016 E, F-7 Form Rock residents and the transpiration planner they hired.
This large expansion has been proven to have a very negative impact on downtown businesses and in Web - PM 6 1166 6 C/D Split Diamond Engles, Rob 6/10/2016 M Little Rock this is where our historical and cultural heritage thrives. Form
D - 183
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Make Chester Street a state Highway, would be cheaper to buy the property at end of Chester for a high Web - PM 6 1167 No Build price build Chester Bridge, then build a much smaller, safer new bridge for 30 crossing than you have in Remmel, Pratt 6/10/2016 F-2, F-3 Form your current mega plan. This would cost public far less in the end.
Web - PM 6 1168 6 C/D Split Diamond N/A Schuetzle, Randy 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1169 No Build Chester Street Bridge is best option to divert traffic and keep I-30 size it is Sauer, Lucy 6/10/2016 F-3 Form
Web - PM 6 1170 6 C/D Split Diamond I support this. Levin, Mark 6/10/2016 M Form
Edmondson, Jo Web - PM 6 1171 6 C/D Split Diamond We need to have better flow through Little Rock. 6/10/2016 M Anne Form
Boulevard Plan. Little Rock does not have a traffic problem downtown. During rush hour the traffic is slow, but that is for just a small percentage of time. I travel to Little Rock from Searcy frequently, and my wife worked at Arkansas Children's Hospital until recently. We have never had a problem with traffic being anything but a minor inconvenience. We have traveled all over the world, and one thing every major city has in common is a lack of freeways through the city center. Rome, Paris, London, Munich, Florence, Barcelona. All of those cities have active, vibrant downtown areas with no freeway access. American cities are starting to realize the damage that urban freeways have on a city and are actively working on ideas to REMOVE them instead of making them larger. Dallas, TX, a city which it was reported the AHTD consulted with, is actively trying to lessen the amount of freeways they build. Houston, TX has consistently been building freeways in their city for generations. What they have seen is that the additional freeways have not reduced congestion, but INCREASED congestion. The number of cars have increased exponentially faster than the Web - PM 6 F-1, F-4, G- 1172 Other Stewart, Kevin 6/10/2016 traffic models predicted, because as people see the number of interstates increase, they are more likely Form 6, L-1 to drive than find alternate methods of travel. It is long past time for the AHTD to be proactive in planning for the future. Just today, an article in the Washington Post highlighted 7 cities that are exploring options other than building bigger freeways to address transportation issues in their city (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/future- of-transportation/). It is clear that the current I-30 already divides downtown, separating the east end from the rest of downtown. Traffic models have shown that re-routing I-30 to the current I-440 and replacing I-30 with 2 4-lane boulevards would not increase travel times from the outlying cities to downtown. However, it would provide more parking downtown and make downtown a friendlier place. Please take the time to consider ALL alternatives and make the decision that is best for Little Rock and the surrounding area. Thank you for your consideration,
D - 184
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is my third attempt. First two disappeared. The ten lane, now re-branded as 6 lane with C/Ds, is not only too expensive, but also too expansive with adverse effects on Little Rock's quality of life. We should not be mortgaging future federal highway funds to overbuild this project thereby creating excessive maintenance burdens. ATHD is not maintaining what we already have. Web - PM 6 1173 No Build Hedrick, Patricia L. 6/10/2016 F-7, L-2, J Consultants hired by a citizens' group and the City of Little Rock, Metroplan, and qualified citizens have Form identified significant deficiencies in AHTD's analysis. There are significant impacts. The only reasonable approach is go with the No Build and then start over. This time taking a holistic approach that will work best for all. I support improvements that will improve safety and recognize that the Arkansas River bridge must be rebuilt, but please develop an affordable plan that will best serve all and minimize the gash through downtown Little Rock.
D - 185
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Dear AHTD: Please accept, consider, and respond to the following enumerated comments regarding the proposed 30 Crossing project: 1. AHTD presentation materials indicate that the $631 million Project cost will be borne partly by the design-build contractor financing up to $100 million, which will then be repaid through future state and/or federal transportation allocations. It seems to me that financing backed by a promise of repayment through a future, as-yet-undefined budget does not meet the definition of financially constrained planning, in that there is not a set timeframe within which the total project costs will be repaid, nor specifically-designated amounts and sources. For instance, if the project were $101 million and the contractor financed $100 million and the state currently committed only $1, that would not be a financially constrained project. This Project includes $100 million of unspecified funding that is not constrained by time and will displace $100 million of unknown projects in future STIPs. How does $100 million in borrowed funds from future STIPs constitute a financially constrained plan? 2. The PEL documents assume a 1% traffic growth rate through the I-30 bridge corridor through 2041. Actual data regarding traffic over the bridge shows significantly lower growth rates by three calculation methods (see, inter alia, Appendix 7 to the PEL). Only when these bridge traffic growth rate data are averaged with a forth estimate: the much higher traffic growth rates for the whole of Pulaski county (which includes new development far from the historic downtown) does the result (which is no longer specific to the bridge) begin to approach 1%. The Countywide growth rate averaged in the PEL with bridge-specific growth rates is roughly three times the growth rates calculated for traffic on the bridge itself, and thus significantly distort the projection. AHTD also considered Metroplan traffic projections that were made merely for the purpose of setting theoretical upper bounds (i.e., system wide E, F-1, F-3, lane widening to eliminate all congestion) and that were knowingly not realistic projections of what will Moore, Lawrence Web - PM 6 1174 No Build 6/10/2016 L-1, I-1, I-4, happen in setting growth rates higher than reasonable for this specific I-30 bridge and corridor. AHTD also III Form I-6, I-9 rounded its resulting average traffic projections upward to the nearest half percent, in conformance with its Highway Manual. Each of these decisions (including higher countywide growth rates, considering unrealistic theoretical projections, and rounding a growth rate that was below 1% up to 1%) overstate the amount of traffic in this specific corridor that can be reasonably expected and altered from the start the reasonable analysis of project performance and the reasonable comparison of alternatives. 3. Please indicate whether the widening of I-30 to 8 lanes from the South Terminal of the Project to 65th Street was included in the PEL analysis of each alternative, including the No Build alternative. 4. Improving safety on the I-30 corridor is one of five core project objectives adopted and published by AHTD. However, AHTD has not indicated the safety impacts of all alternatives. Because each alternative will affect the network as a whole (through induced traffic and other effects), careful, apples-to-apples modeling of each alternative must underpin a comparison of accident causation among alternatives. 5. Also, the Study Area, which includes only the freeway corridor itself, is insufficient for the purpose of assessing safety impacts, because I-30 traffic interacts with surface streets. The fact that at least some of the PEL modeling held arterial traffic constant across alternative scenarios with significantly different I-30 corridor traffic is another indication that impacts on surface streets have been insufficient to compare accident/safety statistics. 6. The AHTD comment form refers to the 12-lane bridge as 6 lanes with C/D lanes. Local residents who traverse this bridge daily know that it currently is 6 lanes. The comment form creates a huge potential for confusion among commenters because it suggests that a 12 lane alternative is similar to the current footprint and capacity. 7. The PEL eliminated a second bridge crossing as an alternative on the basis that it could carry only 3% of the I-30 traffic. It appears that this 3% figure refers to average daily traffic, or ADT. AHTD then designed the I-30 alternatives around expected peak-hour traffic for the AM and PM commutes. It seems that peak hour traffic became the key metric subsequent to elimination of alternatives that may not have been D - 186
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
evaluated on the basis of peak capacity rather than ADT. At this point, expert comment from Metroplan urges analysis of an alternative that includes a second crossing, and expert modeling from Smart Mobility indicates that it would carry well above 3% of peak traffic. No EIS will be complete without taking a hard look at this alternative. 8. Citizens, at their own expense and time, and in reaction to the significant impacts that AHTD’s proposed 12-lane bridge would have, have continually refined an alternative that would convert a portion of I-30 downtown to a boulevard. Expert modeling from Norm Marshall indicates that this alternative would perform better than the freeway expansion in terms of traffic congestion, if coupled with a second crossing. No EIS will be complete without taking a hard look at this alternative. 9. Regarding AHTD’s indications that it may eliminate alternatives that rely on streets and arterials improvements that depend on local funding responsibility, NEPA requires consideration of “all reasonable alternatives to the proposal.” The document Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, published by the White House Council on Environmental Quality addresses this question: “Must the EIS analyze alternatives outside the jurisdiction or capability of the agency or beyond what Congress has authorized?” (Emphasis in the original). The answer is that “An alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable. A potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable, although such conflicts must be considered.” Alternatives that include a second river crossing, with and without the citizen-proposed boulevard, are reasonable alternatives that must be given a hard look. 10. AHTD’s “No Action” alternative should assume replacement of the bridge with a six lane structure including any reasonable safety improvements and any foreseeable lane widenings within or without the Study Area that are included in the analysis of other alternatives. 11. Economic impacts on downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock should be assessed for each alternative, including the Boulevard/2d Crossing alternative. Analysis of the economic impacts should include topics such as the following: a. changes in economic development effects including: I. Tax base through business startup, attraction, and retention ii. Direct effects on business competitiveness iii. Direct effects on business expansions iv. Estimated indirect and induced effects on economic development; and b. Changes in property values. c. Temporary construction effects on the economy such as changes in travel patterns due to detours and effects on business vitality due to noise and air quality (such as dust). In this regard, AHTD (and the Cities) should take into account the currently-visible impact on economic development, property value, and tax base of the freeway along the I-30 and I-630 corridor. To wit, the right of way on either side of the freeway is currently unproductive economically and adjacent housing and businesses are dilapidated and hard to develop due to the eyesore and noise. Any possibility of reducing these impacts and creating a vibrant, economically beneficial corridor through a Boulevard should be considered. Thank you for your time, attention, expertise, and work on this significant project.
D - 187
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Where would Little Rock be today without I-30? Without it, would we be just another dying delta town?
We need a great connector that brings Little Rock closer to all the things that support and grow our existing community. To do nothing will only make it harder in the future for LR and the surrounding area Web - PM 6 1175 6 C/D Split Diamond to survive. Dickinson, Haskell 6/10/2016 M Form
We need to grow to compete, without slowing down our efforts to add quality of life to our community. This highway, enhanced by public input, along with the wonderful technological advances in air quality and efficiency evolving in new vehicles, will insure responsible growth along with a better environment for all citizens. It is win for everyone.
The bridge and freeway would damage a downtown that has struggled to recover from decades of blight Web - PM 6 1176 No Build Barnes, Jodi 6/10/2016 E, I-6 and eliminate the opportunity for significant new downtown development. Form
D - 188
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dear AHTD, This comment has been submitted on your webpage, but I am re-submitting it here so that you will have it in a more readable Word format. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
Dear AHTD: Please accept, consider, and respond to the following enumerated comments regarding the proposed 30 Crossing project: 1. AHTD presentation materials indicate that the $631 million Project cost will be borne partly by the construction contractor financing up to $100 million, which will then be repaid through future state and/or federal transportation allocations. It seems to me that financing backed by a promise of repayment through a future, as-yet-undefined budget does not meet the definition of financially constrained planning, in that there is not a set timeframe within which the total project costs will be repaid. For instance, if the project were$101 million and the contractor financed $100 million and the state currently committed only $1 that would not be a financially constrained project. This Project includes $100 million of unspecified funding that is not constrained by time and will displace $100 million of unknown projects in future STIPs. How does $100 million in borrowed funds from future STIPs constitute a financially constrained plan?
E, F-1, F-3, 2. The PEL documents assume a 1% traffic growth rate through the I-30 bridge corridor through 2041. Moore, Lawrence 1177 6/10/2016 Email L-1, I-1, I-4, Actual data regarding traffic over the bridge shows significantly lower growth rates by three calculation III I-6, I-10 methods (see, inter alia, Appendix 7 to the PEL). Only when these bridge traffic growth rate data are averaged with a forth estimate: the much higher traffic growth rates for the whole of Pulaski county (which includes new development far from the historic downtown) does the result (which is no longer specific to the bridge) begin to approach 1%. The Countywide growth rate averaged in the PEL with bridge-specific growth rates is roughly three times the growth rates calculated for traffic on the bridge itself, and thus significantly distort the projection. AHTD also considered Metroplan traffic projections that were made merely for the purpose of setting theoretical upper bounds (i.e., system wide lane widening to eliminate all congestion) and that were knowingly not realistic projections of what will happen in setting growth rates higher than reasonable for this specific I-30 bridge and corridor. AHTD also rounded its resulting average traffic projections upward to the nearest half percent, in conformance with its Highway Manual. Each of these decisions (including higher countywide growth rates, considering unrealistic theoretical projections, and rounding a growth rate that was below 1% up to 1%) overstate the amount of traffic in this specific corridor that can be reasonably expected and altered from the start the reasonable analysis of project performance and the reasonable comparison of alternatives.
3. Please indicate whether the widening of I-30 to 8 lanes from the South Terminal of the Project to 65th Street was included in the PEL analysis of each alternative, including the No Build alternative.
4. Improving safety on the I-30 corridor is one of five core project objectives adopted and published by AHTD. However, all alternatives
Please do not approve the AHTD plan for Route I‐ 30. Widening it would disrupt communities and shops, and change the character of downtown Little Rock. This route should not further divide the city, or bring Web - PM 6 1178 more traffic into the city. Other routes have been suggested that need more study. Tax payer money Stewart, Pamela 6/10/2016 F-7, I-6 Form could go toward better projects. Thank you.
D - 189
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1179 No Build Improve Chester St bridge and keep i-30 safe and small. Brewer, Terrence 6/10/2016 F-3 Form
When you build more freeways, more cars will come. This is a basic concept of induced demand. Conversely, when you build walkable, bike able urban environments with mixed-use development and good transit options, more people will come to exercise, shop, eat, participate in the arts and come together as a community. I was born and raised in Little Rock, and more freeway lanes is the last thing the Web - PM 6 1180 No Build Gold, Robin 6/10/2016 E, I-6 city needs. Look at how the Embarcadero in San Francisco transformed after the former elevated freeway Form was removed due to earthquake damage in the early 90's, from a hideous industrial behemoth to a stunning waterfront boulevard frequented by both residents and tourists by bike, foot and transit. There is a lesson there that Little Rock would be foolish to overlook.
Web - PM 6 1181 No Build Better traffic studies, turn I-30 into a boulevard, bridge at Chester. Lopas, Matthew 6/10/2016 F-1, F-3, G-3 Form
Replace I-30 bridge. Improve or change intersections. No 8 lane, no 10 lane, no 12 lane "improvements." Web - PM 6 1182 Other Franklin, Lucinda 6/10/2016 F-2, G-4 Work with local communities. Form
The congestion on the bridge at peak hours does not justify expansion. Improving public transportation - Web - PM 6 1183 No Build Crofoot, John 6/10/2016 M both for Little Rock and the Central Arkansas Region - would be a better strategy for economic growth. Form
Web - PM 6 1184 No Build No Build Kwendeche 6/10/2016 M Form
Widening the highway through downtown Little Rock will not only increase traffic through induced demand, but will decimate all of the great economic gains the city has made through revitalization. Web - PM 6 1185 No Build Hansen, Sarah 6/10/2016 M Highway widening is absolutely the wrong choice for Arkansas and would have devastating effects on the Form city for decades to come.
I really do not want to see the interstate improved while ignoring the actual heart of our city. No Build, Web - PM 6 1186 No Build Fullbright, Trent 6/10/2016 M new plan. Form
Web - PM 6 1187 No Build I do NOT support this expansion given the obvious deleterious effects that it will have. Corrigan, Lisa 6/10/2016 M Form
Let's not make the same mistakes other cities have made. We don't need one of the largest urban bridges Web - PM 6 1188 No Build Roitz, Joe 6/10/2016 M in the nation dividing Little Rock. Listen to the experts. Form
Thank you for coming to ABCBS to present the proposed changes. It was an awesome presentation. No Web - PM 6 1189 6 C/D SPUI Harrison, Kay 6/10/2016 M additional comments at this time. Thanks. Form
D - 190
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Use research and other methods to correct issues with traffic, do not spend exorbitant amounts of money Web - PM 6 1190 No Build on a bridge that will not improve the congestion! Invest in downtown resources and infrastructure Richoux, Camille 6/10/2016 E Form instead!
Hickman, Web - PM 6 1191 6 C/D SPUI; Split Diamond Just ready for this project to be completed 6/10/2016 M Catherine Form
Web - PM 6 1192 No build No build Lewno, Hadley 6/10/2016 E, M Form
Web - PM 6 1193 6 C/D Split Diamond I think this would be the best solution. Law, Gale 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1194 6 C/D Split Diamond (;) Townsend, Gail 6/10/2016 M Form
Hi, The link for comments - on this last day for them - to the part of your website concerning the I-30 upgrade proposal does not seem to be working. Nowhere in any of the comments, proposals, or rants I have read about the various proposals to solve the congestion experienced on the I-30 bridge across the Arkansas River have I seen any about just replacing/upgrading the current bridge at 6 thru lanes - maybe with 1195 emergency lanes in both directions, and upgrading and widening the stretch of I-440 that goes on east Phelps, Robin 6/10/2016 Email F-2, F-6, H-1 side of town past the airport and making that the corridor for thru-traffic, including the big trucks. The traffic left that would be using this current I-30 bridge would be mostly local. Another idea, that I know won't fly - as no one in these parts want to even discuss it - is light rail to the surrounding areas. If light rail went to Conway, Cabot, Benton and Hot Springs, there would be far less traffic on the highways - and less pollution.
I wish that more money and resources could be dedicated to public transportation, which truly helps a Web - PM 6 1196 No Build McKim, Kristi 6/10/2016 F-6 city grow in the most communal, environmentally-wise, socially-minded, economic, and efficient of ways. Form
This expansion would further erode the surrounding struggling neighborhoods and damage the good work Web - PM 6 1197 No Build Johnson, Karen 6/10/2016 E that has been started to revitalize the downtown area. Form
Web - PM 6 1198 No Build The expansion will be bad for Little Rock. Pollack, Sarah 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 191
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
As a taxpayer, a recent commuter from Conway, and a citizen observer who attended the AHTD public hearing in April, I simply wanted to give my two cents worth. I think this proposal needs more study because of the major impact such widening can have on the commercial integrity of downtown Little Rock. I commuted to and from Little Rock from Conway for 11 years until recently, almost always during peak travel times. I did not find the delays on the current I-30 unbearable in terms of waits, although like anyone stop and go traffic is sometimes taxing.
That said, I don't know if your plan is the best solution. I tend to side with the factions that believe a boulevard alternative to downtown should be considered. My feelings are that the interests of long- distance commuters and drive-through motorists should be of minor concern when compared about maintaining the downtown commercial integrity of the Little Rock-North Little Rock downtown areas. I think in the future we should be studying more transit alternatives that tends to incentivize motorists to live closer to urban work centers, or to encourage mass transit rail options. I think the massive costs of widening these roads, followed by the continued ongoing maintenance and upkeep of them, is a future cost I don't necessarily want to be obligated to pay for with future highway tax dollars. I think the widening will simply encourage more commuters to move further away, and will promote more and more Web - PM 6 1199 No Build Parish, Phillip 6/10/2016 F-1, H-1, F-7 drive-through traffic, and soon the congestion will be just as bad as or worse than before the widening Form project. I think the expense will simply make this I-30 corridor a convenient drive-through route at the expense of downtown North Little Rock and Little Rock.
Commuters like me made the choice to live away from the urban centers of Little Rock. In my opinion, that does not mean the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department should give highest precedence to the convenience of getting these commuters to and from their downtown workplaces easier. It seems to me some of the factions opposed to the project have some valid points that I'd like to hear more about before one of the above 30 Crossing alternatives listed above is chosen and funded. I no longer commute to Little Rock, but my commute was fairly recent, and do not remember there being major problems in my 11 years of driving in finding alternate route alternatives home on the few times when traffic slowdowns occurred.
So to summarize, at this time, I recommend no widening be done at this time until other alternatives, beyond those noted above, can be given a full study and analysis. Thank you for allowing me to issue my comment, regardless of the final decision made.
As a homeowner in downtown Little Rock, and someone who values the opportunities for culture, connection, and community that a bustling downtown center can bring, I urge the city to NOT expand I- Web - PM 6 1200 No Build Martin, Londie 6/10/2016 E 30. Studies have shown that projects like these often lead to more congestion (rather than curing it), and Form the negative impact on downtown life will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.
Web - PM 6 1201 No Build Leave it alone. Gray, Richard 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1202 No Build Th Waldron, Andrew 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 192
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
As one of the major tourist and educational attractions in downtown Little Rock, the Clinton Center is dependent upon visitor accessibility to our city's downtown. After evaluating the many options presented, I believe the "split diamond" version will improve overall mobility, including pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to the downtown corridor and the Clinton Center. It will also increase public park space by Web - PM 6 1203 6 C/D Split Diamond Streett, Stephanie 6/10/2016 I-11, L-1, M removing the 2nd Street ramp. Form I want to thank the AHTD for its community outreach efforts over the last 18 months. You and your staff have been very diligent to listen, consider and incorporate the public's concerns throughout this lengthy process.
D - 193
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bridge replacement repair, ramp improvements boulevard. Dear Scott: Thank you for reading and considering the following comments. I appreciate the modifications you have made to the proposed project since it was first shown to the public, and urge you to consider additional alternatives rather than those presented at the April 26 meeting. Like many citizens, I have attended a number of meetings, read numerous articles and reports, and visited with citizens who hold a wide range of perspectives. However, the more research I have done and the more I listen to experts, the more I am convinced the April 26 proposals are wrong for us. Hundreds of citizens have contacted me concerning the 30 Crossing Project, most opposed to the current options. Four neighborhood associations in Ward 3 passed resolutions opposing the project; Capitol View/Stifft Station, the Heights, Hillcrest, and Kingwood. The needs of Downtown Little Rock are not sufficiently addressed as the project stands. As the group of consultants hired by the City state, the needs of downtown Little Rock are not sufficiently addressed in the proposal. The area studied by the AHTD should be expanded to include a larger geographic area of downtown, as well as the economic impact of the proposal. Knowing the traffic and congestion impacts are a “must.” Currently, the AHTD says one of five purposes of the project is to improve mobility on I-30 and I-40. That means, mobility anywhere else is the city's problem, leaving the city to deal with the impact. Paul Moore and Scott Polikov, part of the Nelson/Nygaard group of consultants hired by the city, stressed to the City Board that we should “push back” against the AHTD on the number of lanes, because of the potential impact on the city. It is also critical that the Highway Department consider induced demand and factor that into the equation. E, F-2, G-4, Norm Marshall from Smart Mobility, hired by a group of concerned citizens (of which I was part), would Web - PM 6 1204 Other Webb, Kathy 6/10/2016 F-1, L-1, I-1, be an excellent good resource for that. Samuel I Schwartz, in his book STREET SMART, says that “If you Form I-4, I-6, I-9 build more lanes on the expressway, more cars and trucks will use it. If you’re lucky, congestion remains as bad as it was before you spent $50 million trying to relieve it; if you’re not, it gets worse. It’s like the Red Queen from the other side of the looking glass, who tells Alice, “Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" (page 45 STREET SMART) Given the proposed scope of this project, I believe it will, with near certainty, require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) not merely an EA. While I didn't live here in 1991, I know there was a federal lawsuit against the city on the issue of EIS and EA, as it pertained to Jimerson Creek and the widening of Rebsamen Park Road. The judge ruled against the city and the Army Corps of Engineers; the lower court was upheld when the city and Corps appealed to the 8th Circuit in St. Louis (note: this case is used in law schools around the country as a case study on when an EIS is required). The proposed 30 Crossing is a significantly larger project, with a significantly larger impact. Citizens have donated 100’s of hours, attending meetings, coming up with ideas, all for no compensation. I applaud all of these individuals and groups, from Tom Fennell and Fennell Purifoy Architects, to the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods, StudioMain and others. I hope that we will pursue alternatives to the current proposals. As the AHTD has met with citizens and listened to input, the current plan has evolved from what was presented last year. Optional plans, presented by citizens, have evolved as well. I hope the latest iteration of the Boulevard Plan is considered by the AHTD, along with bridge improvements or replacement and other safety enhancements. As Sam Schwartz points out, in order for a community to “be alive-its streets have to welcome the widest variety of people.” (page 215) Let’s improve I-30 and our city. Web - PM 6 1205 No build No build, period! Flakes, A 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 194
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
In response to the widening of Interstate 30 through downtown Little Rock, I am greatly opposed to the current plans that were presented by AHTD in their last public meeting. I have been a resident of downtown Little Rock for 12 years now, and to have watched my neighborhood completely do a turnaround from bad to good makes me so proud that I stayed in this area. I love living downtown! My 1206 home is located within walking distance of the River Market and MacArthur Park areas. The Woods, Melissa 6/10/2016 Email F-1 condominiums, apartments, shops, theaters, museums, art center, bars, restaurants and bike trails have all attracted vibrant people into this area. How could a person in their right mind want to undo all this? If anything must be done at all, I would personally hope to see the boulevards option implemented. We have such a beautiful city on the river. Let's make it even more attractive and beautiful. Sincerely
An expansion of the I-30 crossing would bring increased heavy traffic across Little Rock's downtown area while driving businesses, consumers, and residents away from this slowly-but-surely revitalizing area. Cases in numerous other cities have shown that expanding freeways and interchanges does more harm Web - PM 6 1207 No Build Norton, Michael 6/10/2016 E than good, Little Rock is currently posed to become a major destination for both travelers and residents Form over the coming decades, but a poorly thought out project such as this could deal lasting damage to that future. Dear AHTD, Please substitute these corrected comments for the document I submitted earlier today to meet the June 10 deadline. Thanks Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Dear AHTD: Please accept, consider, and respond to the following enumerated comments regarding the proposed 30 Crossing project: 1. AHTD presentation materials indicate that the $631 million Project cost will be borne partly by the design-build contractor financing up to $100 million, which will then be repaid through future state and/or federal transportation allocations. It seems to me that financing backed by a promise of repayment through a future, as-yet-undefined budget does not meet the definition of financially constrained planning, in that there is not a set timeframe within which the total project costs will be repaid, nor specifically-designated amounts and sources.
For instance, if the project were $101 million and the contractor financed $100 million and the state currently committed only $1, that would not be a financially constrained Moore, Lawrence 1208 6/10/2016 Email F-1, F-3, P-8 project. This Project includes $100 million of unspecified funding that is not constrained by time and will III displace $100 million of unknown projects in future STIPs. How does $100 million in borrowed funds from future STIPs constitute a financially constrained plan?
2. The PEL documents assume a 1% traffic growth rate through the I-30 bridge corridor through 2041. Actual data regarding traffic over the bridge shows significantly lower growth rates by three calculation methods (see, inter alia, Appendix 7 to the PEL). Only when these bridge traffic growth rate data are averaged with a forth estimate: the much higher traffic growth rates for the whole of Pulaski county (which includes new development far from the historic downtown) does the result (which is not longer specific to the bridge) begin to approach 1%. The Countywide growth rate averaged in the PEL with bridge-specific growth rates is roughly three times the growth rates calculated for traffic on the bridge itself, and thus significantly distort the projection. AHTD also considered Metroplan traffic projections that were made merely for the purpose of setting theoretical upper bounds (i.e., system wide lane widening to eliminate all congestion) and that were knowingly not realistic projections of what will happen in setting growth rates higher than reasonable for this specific I-30 bridge and corridor. AHTD also rounded its resulting average traffic projections upward to the nearest half percent, in conformance with its Highway Manual. Each of these decisions (including higher countywide growth rates, considering D - 195
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
unrealistic theoretical projections, and rounding a growth rate that was below 1% up to 1%) overstate the amount of traffic in this specific corridor that can be reasonably expected and altered from the start the reasonable analysis of project performance and the reasonable comparison of alternatives.
3. Please indicate whether the widening of I-30 to 8 lanes from the South Terminal of the Project to 65th Street was included in the PEL analysis of each alternative, including the No Build alternative.
4. Improving safety on the I-30 corridor is one of five core project objectives adopted and published by AHTD. However, AHTD has not indicated the safety impacts of all alternatives. Because each alternative will affect the network as a whole (through induced traffic and other effects), careful, apples-to-apples modeling of each alternative must underpin a comparison of accident causation among alternatives.
5. Also, the Study Area, which includes only the freeway corridor itself, is insufficient for the purpose of assessing safety impacts, because I-30 traffic interacts with surface streets. The fact that at least some of the PEL modeling held arterial traffic constant across alternative scenarios with significantly different I-30 corridor traffic is another indication that impacts on surface streets have been insufficient to compare accident/safety statistics.
6. The AHTD comment form refers to the 12-lane bridge as 6 lanes with C/D lanes. Local residents who traverse this bridge daily know that it currently is 6 lanes. The comment form creates a huge potential for confusion among commenters because it suggests that a 12 lane alternative is similar to the current footprint and capacity.
7. The PEL eliminated a second bridge crossing as an alternative on the basis that it could carry only 3% of the I-30 traffic. It appears that this 3% figure refers to average daily traffic, or ADT. AHTD then designed the I-30 alternatives around expected peak-hour traffic for the AM and PM commutes. It seems that peak hour traffic became the key metric subsequent to elimination of alternatives that may not have been evaluated on the basis of peak capacity rather than ADT. At this point, expert comment from Metroplan urges analysis of an alternative that includes a second crossing, and expert modeling from Smart Mobility indicates that it would carry well above 3% of peak traffic. No EIS will be complete without taking a hard look at this alternative.
8. Citizens, at their own expense and time, and in reaction to the significant impacts that AHTD’s proposed 12-lane bridge would have, have continually refined an alternative that would convert a portion of I-30 downtown to a boulevard. Expert modeling from Norm Marshall indicates that this alternative would perform better than the freeway expansion in terms of traffic congestion, if coupled with a second crossing. No EIS will be complete without taking a hard look at this alternative.
9. Regarding AHTD’s indications that it may eliminate alternatives that rely on streets and arterials improvements that depend on local funding responsibility, NEPA requires consideration of “all reasonable alternatives to the proposal.” The document Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, published by the White House Council on Environmental Quality addresses this question: “Must the EIS analyze alternatives outside the jurisdiction or capability of the agency or beyond what Congress has authorized?” (Emphasis in the original). The answer is that “An alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable. A potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable, although such conflicts must be considered.” Alternatives that include a second river crossing, with and without the citizen-proposed boulevard, are reasonable alternatives that must be given a hard look.
D - 196
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
10. AHTD’s “No Action” alternative should assume replacement of the bridge with a six lane structure including any reasonable safety improvements and any foreseeable lane widenings within or without the Study Area that are included in the analysis of other alternatives.
11. Economic impacts on downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock should be assessed for each alternative, including the Boulevard/2d Crossing alternative. Analysis of the economic impacts should include a. changes in economic development effects including: I. Tax base through business startup, attraction, and retention ii. Direct effects on business competitiveness iii. Direct effects on business expansions iv. Estimated indirect and induced effects on economic development; and b. Changes in property values. c. Temporary construction effects on the economy such as changes in travel patterns due to detours and effects on business vitality due to noise and air quality (dust). In this regard, AHTD (and the Cities) should take into account the currently-visible impact on economic development, property value, and tax base of the freeway along the I-30 and I-630 corridor. To wit, the right of way on either side of the freeway is currently unproductive economically and adjacent housing and businesses are dilapidated and hard to develop due to the eyesore and noise. Any possibility of reducing these impacts and creating a vibrant, economically beneficial corridor through a Boulevard should be considered.
Thank you for your time, attention, expertise, and work on this significant project.
Use funding to repair existing roads, including secondary roads. And to develop public pedestrian walkways. The proposed highway expansion will further divide and negatively impact the unity of our LR Web - PM 6 1209 Other Duncan, Taine 6/10/2016 E, H-2, I-6 community. My husband and I both regularly use the interstates for commuting (in opposite directions), Form and the traffic is not bad enough to warrant risking the negative impacts.
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD. Rebuild the river bridge with wide shoulders to accommodate accidents, emergency vehicles and breakdowns and clear the shipping lane; add a Chester Street bridge to divert traffic from points west to UAMS, ACH and the State Capitol complex. Keep more Web - PM 6 1210 No Build Freemyer, Gini 6/10/2016 F-2, F-3, F-7 vehicular traffic out of downtown residential areas such as 5th-9th streets. How can this even be Form considered? We need to be on the front edge of people moving rather than tagging along the backside. Come on guys. You can do better for your tax paying employers.
D - 197
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I have been a resident of downtown Little Rock for the past 5 years. The proposed improvements will have an extremely negative impact on both the livability and usability of the downtown area. Additionally, Web - PM 6 1211 No Build this is not a sustainable system of highway growth. We can't even currently maintain I-40 between Little Thor, Timothy 6/10/2016 E Form Rock and Memphis. Be responsible, do the right thing for current and future generations. Listen to the experts. Don't expand the I-30 corridor.
No Build Rebuild bridge. Web - PM 6 1212 Bailin, David 6/10/2016 E, F-2 Other No 10 or 6 lane monstrosity dividing my city in half. Form
Disappointed that many people were fooled into thinking that the highway department and the city of LR General 1213 Frasier, Coreen 6/10/2016 I-11, M could fund the parks and green spaces mentioned by Studio Main. Web Form
While I do not live in LR I am there frequently. I do not believe these changes need to be made for several Web - PM 6 1214 No Build Blair, Elaine 6/10/2016 E reasons too lengthy to mention here. Form
When I go to Little Rock, my family often visits the area right around I-30. This any updates would destroy the walk ability of the area. We like to park near the Clinton Center, spend some time in the park, and Web - PM 6 1215 No Build then visit attractions down town. We would likely stop coming downtown if the size of I-30 increases. I'd Jaeger, Julee 6/10/2016 E, H-2, I-6 Form like to see different routes developed so we have a few different options for getting to the airport from northwest Little Rock.
Web - PM 6 1216 No Build This will introduce new traffic that will make downtown harder to live and work. Thomas, Eric 6/10/2016 E Form
Dear Mr. Bennett, I am writing to express my support for the "split diamond" plan for the 30 Crossing project. As one of the major tourist and educational attractions in downtown Little Rock, the Clinton Center is dependent upon visitor accessibility to our city's downtown. After evaluating the many options presented, I believe the "split diamond" version will improve overall mobility, including pedestrian and vehicular 1217 traffic, to the downtown corridor and the Clinton Center. It will also increase public park space by Streett, Stephanie 6/10/2016 Post I-11, L-2 removing the 2nd Street ramp. I want to thank the AHTD for its community outreach efforts over the last 18 months. You and your staff have been very diligent to listen, consider and incorporate the public's concerns throughout this lengthy process. Sincerely,
The No-Build is the only presented alternative that won't have significant negative impacts on downtown and beyond. The methodology and traffic modeling utilized to justify any of the other presented Web - PM 6 1218 Other Roda, Dan 6/10/2016 F-2 alternatives are inherently flawed. While I am generally supportive of interchange improvements and the Form replacement of an aging bridge, all of the other options go far beyond, and quite unnecessarily so.
D - 198
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The No-Build alternative is the only logical and responsible option presented. All other options will have Web - PM 6 1219 No Build Michael, Elizabeth 6/10/2016 E significant negative impacts on downtown and beyond. Form
Web - PM 6 1220 No Build No Build Gutierrez, Jose 6/10/2016 E Form
Split Diamond Web - PM 6 1221 8-lane N/A Kirk, Mieisha 6/10/2016 M SPUI Form
Web - PM 6 1222 No Build Don't kill downtown McNee, John 6/10/2016 E Form
It probably won't improve much of the traffic, and it will disrupt the flow of traffic while the building will Web - PM 6 1223 No Build be taking place. Arkansas doesn't take proper care of their roads as it is, so until we start doing better Johnson, Melissa 6/10/2016 E Form with that, we shouldn't spends tons of money on a new interchange.
I am greatly opposed to the current plans of widening the I-30 corridor that was presented by AHTD in their last public meeting. I have been a resident of Little Rock for most of my 60 years, and to have watched the downtown area fall into neglect, mainly caused by poor decisions made by leaders in the past. Now many parts of the downtown neighborhood have been purchased by families and business owners that are changing their lifestyles and living and working downtown! Many of my friends live within walking distance of the River Market and MacArthur Park areas. F-7, I-2, I-3, 1224 Shofner, Kirby 6/10/2016 Email All you have to do is drive around on both sides of the I-30 corridor and see for yourself how much has I-4, I-6 changed, change for the positive. The final decision of what is done to the corridor MUST take into consideration that so many people live near this highway and a broader highway that results in more traffic, noise, and pollution is not in the best interests of everyone. Little Rock is such a beautiful city on the river and a powerful place to live. Please create a special, Downtown Little Rock highway corridor that will be an example for inter-city development everywhere. Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 1225 No Build N/A Kirk, Mieisha 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1226 No Build This needs to be further researched. Hussman, Sharon 6/10/2016 F-7, L-1 Form
D - 199
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
One point of concern I had was on the 6-lane with SPUI. It seems like since all traffic is funneled under the interstate through that common area that it could be prone to clogging issues more. While the interstate above keeps flowing, getting on it might be a lot harder especially if there is a wreck in the middle of that Web - PM 6 1227 6 C/D SPUI common point. I would be interested to see what happens in a model or at another real site with SPUI Wait, Brett 6/10/2016 A-1, D Form when a wreck happens or during peak rush hour. Thank you to everyone working on this project to hopefully improve commute times and make everyone's drive safer.
Web - PM 6 1228 No Build No build Boyd, Marian 6/10/2016 E Form
6 lane with C/D lanes looks like the best choice to me. There's less slowdown and getting on and off I-30 Web - PM 6 1229 6 C/D SPUI Norris, Nathan 6/10/2016 M appears more efficient with a SPUI. Form
The evidence is glaringly clear that a highway expansion will NOT serve the purpose of reducing traffic during rush hour and WILL divide our fragile community yet again. City planners and the highway department should seriously be asking themselves how they can create walkable, inclusive and equitable communities, rather than furthering the racial, social, economic and physical divide between our Web - PM 6 1230 No Build neighborhoods in downtown Little Rock. As a homeowner in the downtown neighborhood, I strongly urge Holladay, Morgan 6/10/2016 E Form this committee to follow data-driven research to develop community-based solutions for reducing traffic without destroying our historic neighborhoods. I urge the committee to listen to the voices of the people who are MOST impacted by these decisions – the residents of the east and south downtown communities. And we come with a unified voice that says, “No thank you” to highway expansion.
I do not feel like these are good solutions. You build it they will come. We will always have a traffic Web - PM 6 1231 No Build Sykes, Tracy 6/10/2016 E problem unless we try something different. Form
Web - PM 6 1232 No Build Improve Chester St Bridge. Keep I30 small and safe. Please! Joblin, Jeanie b 6/10/2016 F-3 Form
It is taking too much time to build up downtown Little Rock to just endanger everything by widening the Web - PM 6 1233 No Build Grimnett, Jeff 6/10/2016 E freeway. Form
I believe the 6 lane proposal with CD lanes and split diamond will best serve our community while Web - PM 6 1234 6 C/D Split Diamond Burgess, Blaine A 6/10/2016 M enhancing the downtown and river district area. Form
Widening Interstate 30 through downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock would severely injure if not destroy the vibrant cultural life that has developed in the area while doing little to alleviate congestion Web - PM 6 F-4, G-3, G- 1235 No Build that is the result of bottle necks at the exits to I-40 West and I-40 East/167-67. Improving those access Caviness, Brad 6/10/2016 Form 5 points and diverting northbound traffic to 440 would be a far more effective solution to the congestion issue that would also maintain the civic well-being of downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock.
D - 200
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Simpson, James D Web - PM 6 1236 6 C/D Split Diamond We needs this project for the continued growth of Little Rock. 6/10/2016 M III Form
Chester Street crossing, relief route 167/40 along the west side of the Airport with connections Broadway, Washington Ave, 6th, 9th, eastern end of 630, 440, 530. Complete the 540 Northwest section and provide an additional connection with 40, further north, to funnel traffic to and from Conway and points NW. Central Arkansas also need a highway connecting 40 with 30 west of Little Rock. Web - PM 6 F-3, F-4, G- 1237 Other I strongly feel we should not route traffic through historic residential neighborhoods in downtown LR just Simpson, Wayne E 6/10/2016 Form 7, I-3 to free up property and congestion in the River market area. We do not need bigger and faster as this will just promote truck and through traffic using the 30 corridor, bigger is not better. Please read this critique of the Highway Department Report, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LEZxZcx29w4jxYke6Dva2gQau-zUWwKy77YYqpuhd00/pub My alternative is listed here as your comment form does not function properly.
D - 201
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
To AHTD: I am opposed to all current proposed options regarding the I-30 crossing. I believe there are better options that would result in a comprehensive transportation plan for central Arkansas. If the bridge has to be replaced, then replace it with a bridge the same size as the current bridge. I believe current proposals would destroy any further opportunity to develop the downtowns of both Little Rock and North Little Rock and do not meet the future transportation needs of this area. Interstate highways that cut through major metropolitan areas have proved detrimental to those areas. They inhibit the free flow of city dwellers and create areas of unequal opportunity. And no one wants to listen to continuous traffic day and night. I-30 through downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock should be designed for only local traffic and commuters with final destinations in those areas. Adding another bridge across the Arkansas River in addition to the current number of bridges may be a better long term solution to traffic congestion Given the scope of this project, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required instead of the much less inclusive Environmental Assessment (EA). Please review the case law including a federal lawsuit in Little Rock regarding this issue. As I stated earlier, if a new bridge is needed, replace it with one of the same size • If the I-30 project traffic projections are dependent on other future interstate projects, all such projects should be included in the I-30 proposal. All projects should include estimated costs and all projects should be made available to the affected communities for input before projects are begun. • The $632 million estimated cost for this 6.7 mile project would obligate a large percentage of the statewide revenue from the 1/2% tax approved by voters statewide. This seems like we are concentrating F-2, F-3, I- 1238 too much of our combined tax only in one area to the detriment of other areas of the state. Is this really Franklin, Cindy 6/10/2016 Email 10, I-12, J, necessary? P-9 The days of not soliciting community input are gone. The advent of the internet has made it possible for ordinary citizens to review and comment on proposed projects. AHTD simply cannot continue to operate without any sensitivity to community input. Given the ongoing level of opposition to the current I30 plan, I think the best approach for AHTD is to declare a moratorium on the project and conduct a review of the state of current interstate highway management across the country. Community needs and national trends ought to be the primary consideration when considering the placement or the expansion of interstate highways. I urge AHTD to consider the advent of new technologies like self-driving cars, and how they will impact the number of traffic lanes that will be needed in the future? Does the current plan address these technologies? If not, why not? Several independent traffic consultants hired by the City of Little Rock and community groups have found serious flaws with AHTD projections in regards to future traffic growth, safety issues and in other areas. I urge AHTD planners to evaluate the methodology used by those independent voices to see if their projections are more accurate than AHTD's, and, if so, those concerns should be incorporated into AHTD's own planning process. This proposed project is too important to central Arkansas and the state's economy to expand I-30 without significant community input and subsequent modification of the proposed highway plan. AHTD has a rare opportunity to enhance traffic flow through this region, improve traffic safety and save the taxpayers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars by adopting those strategies suggested by the community that work for the benefit of all stakeholders. Web - PM 6 1239 6 C/D Split Diamond Thank you Crain, Jonathan 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 202
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I work downtown and commute in from the Benton area and this would have a positive impact on my Web - PM 6 1240 6 C/D Split Diamond Bradshaw, Cheryl 6/10/2016 M commute! Form
Web - PM 6 1241 No Build No Build Edwards, Brooke 6/10/2016 E, M Form
Web - PM 6 1242 Other No Build but replace the bridge. Mullinax, Christina 6/10/2016 E, M Form
To Whom it may Concern, I oppose the current plans of AHTD for the expansion of the freeway through downtown Little Rock. I am a lifelong resident of Little Rock, currently living in the Quapaw Quarter neighborhood. These are my reasons. 1. Compared to other cities Little Rock does not have the traffic congestion, even during peak rush hours, to warrant a project of this size or cost nor do I believe the population growth projections being used by AHTD are based on anything other than their desire to justify their proposal. West traffic was encountered in Jacksonville where there has been construction for many, many years. 2. Metroplan's own Imagine Central Arkansas plan is being disregarded, it's a good plan and needs to be followed. 3. The cost of the project does not justify the few benefits, if any, it will afford. It will commit funds Little Rock and surrounding cities don't have to improve the bottle necks it will cause. 1243 4. The extreme width of the 6 mile project will negate growth of the River Market district and disrupt the Davis, Carla 6/10/2016 Email F-7, M connectivity between the east and west sides of downtown. 5. Downtown residents should not suffer because people who are not invested in the city can get to work 4 minutes faster. Little Rock deserves a better more progressive solution to it's transportation issues not a project that is outdated before it's begun. Please consider a plan that incorporates sustainability, sensitivity to the needs of the area it's being built in, that it be pedestrian friendly, and it's cost not be of such a scale that our city and it's citizens are saddled with debt for generations. I challenge each of you to walk under the overpasses as they exist now they are unsanitary, loud, no man's lands, then imagine this space being 3 times wider, is this what you want for us and our grandchildren? As we all know, they will not be as the power point presentation made by Studio Main showed, park like and pleasant. The future of our city is literally in your hands, please act responsibly and do not support the 30 Crossing Plan alternatives being put forth by the AHTD.
D - 203
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1244 6 C/D Split Diamond This route is preferred by me Thomas, Marti 6/10/2016 M Form
FOURTEEN lanes? Seriously, fourteen lanes of traffic through Little Rock? On Wednesday, at 5:30 pm, I drove from downtown Little Rock, through downtown North Little Rock, out JFK all the way to where Web - PM 6 1245 6 C/D SPUI North Hills split from JFK and kept on to my hairdresser at 8000 AR 107 in just 17 MINUTES. 17 minutes Robert, Sallie 6/10/2016 D Form through downtown LR and NLR traffic. It would have taken me at least twice as long, or longer, on the interstate.
No Build Web - PM 6 1246 Improve the I-30/I-40 bottle neck and divert northbound congestion to 440. Rogers, Robert 6/10/2016 G-5 Other Form
In lieu of other to choose from, I'd prefer to see the I-30 project shelved and the old bridge removed when it becomes too dangerous to drive across. A city center as small as Little Rock would be seriously impacted Chambers, George 1247 6/10/2016 Email F-7 by a 12 lane freeway with all its associated ramps and flyovers. For the proposed cost, a more creative and Jr useful solution could be designed and built.
Web - PM 6 1248 No Build Don't destroy downtown Little Rock. Thanks! Reed, Aleta 6/10/2016 E, M Form To AHTD: I am opposed to all current proposed options regarding the I-30 crossing. I believe there are better options that would result in a comprehensive transportation plan for central Arkansas. If the bridge has to be replaced, then replace it with a bridge the same size as the current bridge. I believe current proposals would destroy any further opportunity to develop the downtowns of both Little Rock and North Little Rock and do not meet the future transportation needs of this area. Interstate highways that cut through major metropolitan areas have proved detrimental to those areas. They inhibit the free flow of city dwellers and create areas of unequal opportunity. And no one wants to listen to continuous traffic day and night. I-30 through downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock should be designed for only local traffic and commuters with final destinations in those areas. Adding another bridge across the Arkansas River in addition to the current number of bridges may be a better long term solution to traffic congestion Given the scope of this project, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required instead of the much less inclusive Environmental Assessment (EA). Please review the case law including a federal lawsuit in Little Rock regarding this issue. General F-2, F-3, I- 1249 Burnham, Bill 6/10/2016 As I stated earlier, if a new bridge is needed, replace it with one of the same size Web Form 12, P-10 • If the I-30 project traffic projections are dependent on other future interstate projects, all such projects should be included in the I-30 proposal. All projects should include estimated costs and all projects should be made available to the affected communities for input before projects are begun. • The $632 million estimated cost for this 6.7 mile project would obligate a large percentage of the statewide revenue from the 1/2% tax approved by voters statewide. This seems like we are concentrating too much of our combined tax only in one area to the detriment of other areas of the state. Is this really necessary? The days of not soliciting community input are gone. The advent of the internet has made it possible for ordinary citizens to review and comment on proposed projects. AHTD simply cannot continue to operate without any sensitivity to community input. Given the ongoing level of opposition to the current I30 plan, I think the best approach for AHTD is to declare a moratorium on the project and conduct a review of the state of current interstate highway management across the country. Community needs and national trends ought to be the primary consideration when considering the placement or the expansion of interstate highways. D - 204
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I urge AHTD to consider the advent of new technologies like self-driving cars, and how they will impact the number of traffic lanes that will be needed in the future? Does the current plan address these technologies? If not, why not? Several independent traffic consultants hired by the City of Little Rock and community groups have found serious flaws with AHTD projections in regards to future traffic growth, safety issues and in other areas. I urge AHTD planners to evaluate the methodology used by those independent voices to see if their projections are more accurate than AHTD's, and, if so, those concerns should be incorporated into AHTD's own planning process. This proposed project is too important to central Arkansas and the state’s economy to expand I-30 without significant community input and subsequent modification of the proposed highway plan. AHTD has a rare opportunity to enhance traffic flow through this region, improve traffic safety and save the taxpayers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars by adopting those strategies suggested by the community that work for the benefit of all stakeholders. Morgan, Dennis Web - PM 6 1250 No Build Please convert congestion to 440 6/10/2016 E Wayne Form
Add more lanes to the bypass freeways and complete the loop around the city, thus directing the traffic Web - PM 6 1251 Other from having to go through the middle of the city. VanHook, Robert 6/10/2016 F-4 Form Move the traffic around the city instead of through the city.
Web - PM 6 1252 No Build The community and value of downtown community and space should be considered. Korenblat, Ellen 6/10/2016 E, I-4, I-6 Form
D - 205
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I believe that the Boulevard option put forth by Tom Fennell has the most positive impacts on traffic in addition to encouraging economic development in traditionally economically depressed areas of Little Rock To whom it may concern: Frankly, I am appalled at the actions that the AHTD have taken in regards to this project. While the AHTD argues that they have taken into account the input of Little Rock citizens, they have only done so in regards to those plans that the AHTD supports. At every turn, the AHTD has shown a complete disregard for alternative ideas, writing them off with a simple, "Well, we just can't do that." When it comes to the Boulevard option, San Francisco, a city with exponentially more traffic than Little Rock, was able to turn The Embarcadero into a tourist destination after walking back their plans for an elevated highway (mid-project, I might add) and turning it into a Boulevard. I have personally visited this area and I found no traffic jams, although there was a significant amount of traffic, and an extremely pedestrian and cyclist friendly environment. Saying that "it's just not an option" is a lazy response and I expect more as both a citizen of Little Rock and of the great state of Arkansas. Another major concern that I have with the current AHTD proposed plan is the rhetoric that is being used to discourage people from opposing any of the four proposed plans. I personally clarified with an AHTD employee during the AHTD's Wyndham Hotel circus that "No Build" does not mean that the bridge will not be repaired or that other issues with the current infrastructure will not be repaired. Using the term "No Build" makes people think that absolutely nothing would be repaired and, simply stated, is a scare tactic being used by the AHTD to get what they want. Along those same lines, trotting out StudioMain, an organization full of fantastic designers dedicated to the future of Arkansas in order to show what the project "could" look like makes a mockery of the Little Rock public. We all know that none of the money for the beautiful and well thought-out improvements No Build (frankly, the only well thought-out improvements) to the area surrounding the highway would be funded Web - PM 6 1253 Miller, Molly 6/10/016 F-1, P-11 Other by AHTD because it is "not in the scope of the current project." I commend StudioMain for attempting to Form make this project more palatable, but using them to glaze over the harmful aspects of this project is wrong and, frankly, disrespectful to StudioMain as well as the citizens of Little Rock. While we're on the topic of scope, the response that I have received from a variety of employees when asking very simple questions about the impact on city roads and whether this project will result in future expansions of I-630 have simply been, "I'm not sure, that's not in the scope of this project." So let me ask the real questions now: How is it that AHTD will be able to predict the true impact of this project if they are not considering short- and long-term impacts on the surrounding area? What are surrounding municipalities, whose citizens are the ones who really benefit from this project going to pitch-in towards building and maintaining this monstrosity? How is this project going to affect the health of those who already live close to I-30 and would only be closer to the noise and light pollution produced by the traffic than they are now? Why has the idea to route freight traffic around the city using I-440 not been examined more closely? I would LOVE to have an answers to these questions, and others, as I'm sure many Little Rock citizens would love to have. By expanding I-30, we are not only continuing to create physical barriers (a la I-630 in the 1960s-1980s), but we are also continuing to perpetuate the psychological barriers that these highways create by functioning as a way of saying, "Stay on your side of the highway, we don't want you here," and thus undermining the work that many of us have been doing to make Little Rock a more inclusive and accessible community. Finally, I want to make note of the fact that several consultants, including those hired by the City of Little Rock and independent consultants hired by the citizens of Little Rock, have reported that the AHTD's plan simply will not work. Additionally, there is a huge body of work indicating why elevated highways running through a city's downtown are often disastrous, which is seemingly being ignored by AHTD. I urge the AHTD to be more open-minded regarding the alternative plans that have been presented and to use clear language when explaining their plans and others. I also urge to AHTD to consider the long-term D - 206
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
impact on current and potential future projects that may be needed if this project is completed as proposed. I'll try to leave this on a high note with something that I believe we can all agree on. The I-30 bridge DOES need to be repaired. Hailing from Oklahoma, I have memories of when a barge hit an I-40 bridge that passed over the Arkansas River at Webber's Falls, Oklahoma. 14 motorists were killed in this accident and that area of interstate is not even an area that has to deal with rush hour traffic. If something like that were to happen here in Arkansas, regardless of whether we stay with the current interstate design or implement another plan, it would be disastrous. This is why I ask that you clarify that the "No Build" option means that none of the proposed expansions will be implemented, not that absolutely no changes will be made. I look forward to seeing how your team incorporates the public comments on this project and sincerely hope that the AHTD will begin to look at this project with an eye towards long-term city planning an listening to the preferences of citizens (especially those in the areas most likely to be affected or further economically disenfranchised by moving forward with this project as it stands). Sincerely,
D - 207
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I believe that you should construct the number of main lanes the Department thinks is appropriate. You should make sure you have adequate bridge deck width. I like the C/D lanes, but think it is important that when they intersect city street, vehicles are traveling at city street speeds. I am OK with using 4th, 5th and 6th for major downtown access. I don't think an access from 3rd is warranted just because the Clinton Library would like it. There is no way to justify in on volume. Web - PM 6 1254 6 C/D Split Diamond I do think that Cumberland, 4th and 6th should become state highways to maintain Hwy 10 connectivity. Daters, Tim 6/10/2016 M Form It would make it much easier for travelers to make their way from Hwy 10 to the interstate. Designs should be considered that produce the minimum amount of road and structure noise. I don't think walls to mitigate noise would be a good idea because they would block sight lines. It needs to be easy and inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the interstate either over or under. And the City needs to make sure that the final plan is consistent with our "complete streets" policy. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
You will lock little rock into the past and 50 years Fifty years from now, when bridge needs replacing again, little rock will be 50 years behind, a dead or dying city. Web - PM 6 1255 No Build Hofheimer, John 6/10/2016 E Get out front on this. You will lock little rock into the past and 50 years Fifty years from now, when bridge Form needs replacing again, little rock will be 50 years behind, a dead or dying city.
The proposed additional lanes - no matter what you call them, are horrendous. Too many lanes in thus tight with its dense commercial, tourism, recreation and residential mix. This crossing needs to be designed for travelers whose destination IS downtown LR/NLR - not for 18 wheelers etc. just passing Web - PM 6 1256 No Build Morris, Mary 6/10/2016 E through - that commercial/industrial traffic needs to be diverted to 440 and 430, which will greatly reduce Form congestion and hazards in the downtown areas. Think forward and stop repeating the failed urban interstate designs of the 20th century!
Web - PM 6 1257 6 C/D Split Diamond Miller, Brian 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 208
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
We need to fix the bridge and not widen it or widen the interchange. We should look for ways to re-route traffic away from downtown and I-630 to University. I am president of Arkansas Community Organizations and a Justice of the Peace on the Pulaski County Quorum Court. I live south of I-630 and represent neighborhoods next to the highway. I am concerned that the 30Crossing plan will increase traffic congestion through the city and create a demand to widen I- 630 from downtown to University. This will mean more homes lost in my district. This is unacceptable. I- Web - PM 6 F-2, I-3, I-4, 1258 Other Massey, Donna 6/10/016 630 is an eyesore and a wall that divides our city. Form I-9 I am also concerned that the AHTD does not have a policy for local hiring and minority hiring. People in my district want to work. Where are the jobs? My last comment is that the project is too expensive. With general revenues now being tapped for highways, the money that will be used for the 30Crossing could also potentially for project where there is a greater need such as early childhood education.
Web - PM 6 1259 6 C/D Split Diamond We need the infrastructure Johnson, Cheri 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 209
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Good day: Shortly after moving to Little Rock just over one-year ago, I learned of the plan to widen I-30 to ten lanes through downtown. Since then, I attended almost all of the meetings held by various parties on the 30 Crossing project. I saw presentations by AHTD, Metroplan, Norm Marshall, Nelson Nygaard, Tom Fennell, and others. I reviewed comments by many including informed comments describing technical flaws in AHTD's analysis by Metroplan and Dale Pekar. You have their comments in your possession. I salute Metroplan, Dale Pekar, and Tom Fennell for their fine, informed, · · professional work. From my personal observation in attending the various meetings, it soon became obvious to me that AHTD was interested solely in pushing the I0-lane plan that they now call 6-lane with C/Ds that consists of 12-lanes across the Arkansas River. As identified by Norm Marshall, Metroplan, Nelson Nygaard, Dale Pekar, and others, AHTD chooses examples that show their preferred alternative in positive light while exposing flaws in other alternatives. AHTD representatives in their own public comments show themselves to be master of the "half-truth." They present only partial facts that support their case for the 10-lane alternative. Based on the facts presented by experts and my own experience, I can only support the No Build alternative at this time. I understand that the I-30 Arkansas River bridge will need to be rebuilt and that exits need improvement for safety and traffic flow. Shoulders on a six-lane bridge would not only improve safety and traffic flow, but also provide for movement of emergency vehicles and buses on shoulder operation. I was told by an AHTD representative at the April 26 meeting that only 12% of the 30 Crossing traffic was through traffic. I 1260 Hedrick, John O. 6/10/2016 Email E, F-7, P-12 asked why they insist in providing 6-lanes for through traffic, why isn't I-440 re-designated as I-30 to remove I-30/40 traffic from 30 Crossing, and why was not a 4- lane plus 2 CD lane alternative considered (the consulting team's lead stated that a three plus one CD in each direction was considered and rejected- its obvious a single CD lane would not work), the answer to my questions was very "squishy'' without facts. 30 Crossing as proposed is far too expensive. We should not be overspending and overbuilding only to reduce travel time by minimal amounts. Only the subject corridor was looked at by AHTD while system wide affects were not considered. We should not mortgage our future to overbuild a project with questionable results. Although we are not properly maintaining existing infrastructure, the minimum of twelve lanes advocated by AHTD creates an additional maintenance burden. There is a reluctance to increase the fuels tax at both the federal and state level and Arkansas has recently raided general revenue for roads while proposing to mortgage future federal highway funds; We are to be in a fiscally conservative state so how can this be? The No Build will force AHTD to go back to the drawing board. Given all the information that has come to light I would hope ATHD will start over with a ground up approach rather than the top down/cram-down approach that has been pursued. AHTD must develop an affordable project that delivers value to all and improves rather than degrades our fine city. In the event that another alternative is chosen, I implore FHWA not issue a FONSI. Given all of the flaws identified in AHTD's analysis and the significant impacts identified, a complete Environmental Impact Statement must be required. Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 1261 No Build No improvements should be implemented. Roell, Ginger 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1262 No Build No build keep little rock livable. Richardson, Katie 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 210
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1263 No Build I support the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods on this issue! Roell, Ginger 6/10/2016 E Form
Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department As a lifelong Arkansan and a resident of Little Rock, I am forced to choose the NO BUILD of all the options offered by state officials in considering the I-30 expansion. I have followed the discussion and this issue and it is apparent that all options are not being considered. It is imperative that the state consider other viable options to dramatically expanding the size and footprint of I-30. This includes expanding roads and directing traffic AROUND the city through 440 and 430 and options to decrease the use of downtown as a corridor through the city. 1264 Little Rock is a beautiful and vibrant city. I have witnessed downtown grow and become an attraction to Deen, Tisha 6/10/2016 Email E professionals from across the country. I work as a psychologist and have worked to recruit professionals to both UAMS and CAVHS in the past 5 years. Downtown and the ability to walk/bike are two very big recruitment tools. The breweries and restaurants that have opened downtown, especially those east of I- 30 would suffer and our city would become a thoroughfare rather than a destination. I urge those responsible to think about the long-term economic, environmental and social impacts of expanding I-30. Consider all options and allow Little Rock and Arkansas to be an example of ingenuity.
Web - PM 6 1265 No Build None McClure, Tish 6/10/2016 E Form
Just fix the bridge. I live in a neighborhood that borders I-630. The Wilbur Mills freeway has hurt our city. It's an ugly wall Web - PM 6 1266 Other Sealy, Neil 6/10/2016 F-4, I-5 that divides us. The 30 Crossing project will lead to the widening of I-630. Please re-route traffic away Form from our city.
Web - PM 6 1267 No Build I'm against any of the above listed plans! The only thing it needs is new pavement! No more lanes!! Carrie P 6/10/2016 F-2. F-7 Form
1268 No Build I vote NO TO WIDENING I-30. McMath, Becky 6/10/2016 Email E
As a downtown businessman and resident I ask that you do what you can to not impact all of the progress Web - PM 6 1269 6 C/D SPUI Ferguson, Vincent 6/10/2016 I-6, M we have put forth. Form
If ANY, a boulevard approach to I-30 Web - PM 6 1270 Other Corbett, Mande 6/10/2016 F-1 I strongly oppose the proposed changes to I-30 Form
D - 211
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1271 No build No build Zumwalt, Mary 6/10/2016 E Form
I support the Fennel Blvd plan. This downtown area is finally developing into something we can enjoy. This massive and expensive highway expansion would be damaging. Let's go with a more progressive urban Web - PM 6 1272 Mize, Brenda 6/10/2016 E, F-1 No Build solution. Form Please consider the Fennel Blvd plan. Protect our downtown neighborhoods!
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area. Web - PM 6 1273 6 C/D Split Diamond McBride, Kem 6/10/2016 A-1, C The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space Form that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region. Thank you
Web - PM 6 1274 No Build None Bowling, Sara 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1275 6 C/D Split Diamond None Wilcox, Carolyn 6/10/2016 A-1, C Form
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area. Web - PM 6 1276 6 C/D Split Diamond McBride, Susan 6/10/2016 M The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space Form that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region. Thank you,
D - 212
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Why does a city the size of Little Rock need this? Invest in pedestrian, bicycle lanes and public Web - PM 6 1277 No Build Pollock, Joanna 6/10/2016 E transportation systems. Form
To whom it concerns: I heartily concur with the Arkansas Public Policy panel as I read via arktimes.com that, "The Panel urges AHTD, the Metroplan Board and Little Rock city leaders to abandon the current plan to widen I-30. It is likely to do great harm to the livability of downtown Little Rock while failing to alleviate traffic congestion by inducing new traffic and fueling urban sprawl. “A more thorough analysis of alternatives should be conducted that engages the impacted communities,” said Bill Kopsky, Executive Director of the Panel. “Alternatives should show better prospects of reducing congestion, encouraging infill development F-1, F-7, I-4, 1278 Corbett, Amanda 6/10/2016 Email instead of sprawl and doing no harm to the hard work that’s already been invested to make Little Rock a I-6 vibrant city.”" The current 'congestion' on I-30 as it crosses the Arkansas River occurs only during peak times/rush hours and I do not believe additional interstate lanes will 'fix' what I see as a non-issue. I feel there are plenty of options for crossing the river at present and commuters should plan their routes & schedules accordingly. Please heed the Nelson/Nygaard White Paper's issues/concerns with the 30Crossing Project as it stands currently and consider fully Fennell|Purifoy's Boulevard Option before moving forward. Sincerely,
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 1279 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Cecsarini, Lea 6/10/2016 M Form The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
Same, but with cut-and-cover tunnel under entry to River Market District (as per my prior comments) I 6 C/D strongly prefer the "10-lane" SPUI alternative. Though neither SPUI nor split-diamond adequately Web - PM 6 1280 SPUI Brittain, Richelle 6/10/2016 M Other addresses LaHarpe traffic, at least SPUI maintains the status quo; split-diamond only makes things worse. Form (Supplemental comment by email forthcoming.)
Web - PM 6 1281 6 C/D Split Diamond Build it Chaney, Don 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 213
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this Web - PM 6 1282 6 C/D Split Diamond important area. Snow, Jareth 6/10/2016 M Form The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region.
I'm partial to a boulevard. Look at downtown LR and consider who owns the land. Consider how downtown LR would beat develop economically over coming decades. Consider if downtown and river market are desired as event and Web - PM 6 1283 Other conference spaces. If those areas are choked off, consider what other urban areas stand to benefit and if Wolfe, Robert 6/10/2016 F-1 Form they are even in Arkansas. Are you planning for present commuters or for future residents? If commercial truck traffic is an issue, then expect the public to demand additional taxation to enable carriers and the goods carried to bear costs of externalities which land on Little Rock.
Web - PM 6 1284 No Build No build Call, Chris 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1285 No Build Don't destroy our city Ross, Jim 6/10/2016 E Form
I think it is unwise to add too many lanes to the freeway. I would prefer if another bridge was added further upriver (or downriver) that would divert much of the freeway traffic away from the proposed crossing which would help alleviate traffic. I feel that there are superior alternatives that need to be Web - PM 6 1286 8-lane Split Diamond Cormack, Brian 6/10/2016 F-3, I-5 discussed. I also wish that whatever bridge is built, that there would be some sort of improvements on the Form aesthetics of the bridge itself. I would hope that with all the money the state is planning on spending, that we can have something that looks a little prettier than the current bridge.
Bypass downtown with major through traffic directed around the airport, I430 Please see alternative suggestions by many urban planners and experts from around the country who Louckx, Harry and Web - PM 6 1287 Other 6/10/2016 F-4, F-7 suggest that current Highway Department proposals are woefully shortsighted and 20th Century rather Robin Form than far sighted.
Web - PM 6 1288 No Build My vote is for no build Steck, Jennifer 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 214
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 6-lane “split-diamond” design option with collector/distributor lanes will best equip our city and region to address current and future mobility needs. It would also enhance driver and pedestrian safety, while also offering new opportunities for development in downtown Little Rock. The design will improve downtown connectivity, eliminating barriers like the existing 2nd Street ramp, which currently divides this important area. Web - PM 6 G-1, I-11, I- 1289 6 C/D Split Diamond McBride, Kem 6/10/2016 The 17 acres of green space incorporated in the design present an opportunity for a unique park space Form 6 that will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work, or visit downtown. This design adequately addresses concerns some had with the initial project concept, and it represents a truly innovative approach to enhancing multi-modal transportation in Little Rock and the region. Thank you,
Please don't destroy the rebirth downtown has seen to accommodate commuters to adjust their drive Web - PM 6 1290 No Build Spencer, Angie 6/10/2016 E, I-6 time by a few minutes Form
Please keep the forums open to include continued community involvement, especially those of us who Web - PM 6 1291 No Build Frost, Michelle 6/10/2016 E, I-4 live and work downtown. Form
Convert 30 and 630 to smaller-scale surface streets. Climate change, finite fossil fuel supply, the trend toward moving back to the city center - these are the criteria that should be considered when deciding on what constitutes wise investments for the future. Little Rock is a small town. It should embrace this identity and stop trying to be like Dallas. Making it Web - PM 6 1292 Other Eckerson, Amoz 6/10/2016 F-7 easier for traffic to drive through is not as economically beneficial in the long run as making it a place Form where people want to live. There is prime real estate currently occupied by 630 and 30 that could be recaptured for a mixture of new uses that would bolster the vitality of the existing commercial and residential areas that have been divided by these behemoths.
D - 215
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I support the Fennell Boulevard plan and the comments of Dale Pekar, Smart Mobility and The Arkansas Public Policy Panel. I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. No Build An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of Sundell, Corri Web - PM 6 1293 6/10/2016 E, F-1 Other pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Bristow Form The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
Web - PM 6 1294 No Build There's enough disruption already. Mullins, Morell E. 6/10/2016 E Form
Working with folks in the cities and downtown areas to come up with a plan that works with our cities to achieve efficient transportation without cutting an unincorporated wide, harmful swath through the cities. Web - PM 6 1295 Other We really need a solution that considers the impact on the downtown areas that have been so long in Dickson, Holly 6/10/2016 F-7, I-6 Form development and now serve as attractions of their own for locals and visitors. There is a way to do this right and it will be found by all being considered and heard. Thank you for your hard work and consideration.
Please consider the livability of the downtown area. The current proposal would do a good deal of harm Web - PM 6 1296 No Build Stormoe, Shelle 6/10/2016 E to this historic area of our city. Form
D - 216
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
To whom it concerns: I heartily concur with the Arkansas Public Policy panel as I read via arktimes.com that, "The Panel urges AHTD, the Metroplan Board and Little Rock city leaders to abandon the current plan to widen I‐30. It is likely to do great harm to the livability of downtown Little Rock while failing to alleviate traffic congestion by inducing new traffic and fueling urban sprawl. “A more thorough analysis of alternatives should be conducted that engages the impacted communities,” said Bill Kopsky, Executive Director of the Panel. “Alternatives should show better prospects of reducing congestion, encouraging 1297 infill development instead of sprawl and doing no harm to the hard work that’s already been invested to Harvey, Priscilla 6/10/2016 email F-1 make Little Rock a vibrant city.”" The current 'congestion' on I‐30 as it crosses the Arkansas River occurs only during peak times/rush hours and I do not believe additional interstate lanes will 'fix' what I see as a non‐issue. I feel there are plenty of options for crossing the river at present and commuters should plan their routes & schedules accordingly. Please heed the Nelson/Nygaard White Paper's issues/concerns with the 30Crossing Project as it stands currently and consider fully Fennell|Purifoy's Boulevard Option before moving forward. Sincerely,
No build - rebuild the bridge only. No Build One only has to drive thru Knoxville TN to see the damage increasing the number of lanes would do. All Web - PM 6 1298 Cuffman, Jet 6/10/2016 E, F-2 Other the progress downtown and in the River market would be jeopardized. Commuter traffic should not be Form the priority for our city.
I prefer the Boulevard plan because it would enhance the human scale of the downtown area and make it a better place to live and work and travel. The overshadowing nature of the expansion designs and the division and unattractive underneath areas do not encourage commerce and livability in the surrounding area. Web - PM 6 1299 Other Tirey, Brenda 6/10/2016 F-1 I hope that whatever is the ultimate design will be more compatible with human activity next to the Form roadway as well as on it. Other places with massive freeways seem to have come to recognize how important that is after mammoth roads were built. Thank you for your consideration.
D - 217
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
"I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Web - PM 6 1300 No Build Nester, William 6/10/2016 E, F-1, F-7 The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Form Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
I'm against the proposal because I believe the modeling is flawed and that the proposed development is a temporary time savings that will eventually make traffic worse and bottleneck there and in other areas. I Web - PM 6 1301 No Build Smith, Mathew 6/10/2016 E don't believe that AHTD has given any thought to surrounding neighborhoods or previous comments and Form research presented and therefore vote not to build this expansion project.
D - 218
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Unfortunately I'm super busy, therefore I have to cut and paste……however I find it extremely frustrating that there seems to be a constant disregard for smart growth in almost all transportation aspects around Little Rock. And that the local downtown community has to constantly be on their guard to rally and write letters to combat this lack of Vision. To whom it concerns: I heartily concur with the Arkansas Public Policy panel as I read via arktimes.com that, "The Panel urges AHTD, the Metroplan Board and Little Rock city leaders to abandon the current plan to widen I-30. It is likely to do great harm to the livability of downtown Little Rock while failing to alleviate traffic congestion by inducing new traffic and fueling urban sprawl. “A more thorough analysis of 1302 alternatives should be conducted that engages the impacted communities,” said Bill Kopsky, Executive Budolfson, Brett 6/10/2016 Email F-1, F-7, I-6 Director of the Panel. “Alternatives should show better prospects of reducing congestion, encouraging infill development instead of sprawl and doing no harm to the hard work that’s already been invested to make Little Rock a vibrant city.”" The current 'congestion' on I-30 as it crosses the Arkansas River occurs only during peak times/rush hours and I do not believe additional interstate lanes will 'fix' what I see as a non-issue. I feel there are plenty of options for crossing the river at present and commuters should plan their routes & schedules accordingly. Please heed the Nelson/Nygaard White Paper's issues/concerns with the 30Crossing Project as it stands currently and consider fully Fennell|Purifoy's Boulevard Option before moving forward. Sincerely,
D - 219
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dear Highway Planners, I frequently visit Little Rock for business and committee meetings. We usually plan to come so that we can lengthen our stay and enjoy restaurants, museums, visiting friends, etc. We always stay in the hotels in the River Market area because we can walk and enjoy the downtown area. We eat at local restaurants in the River Market area and in the South Main area. If you destroy the rebuilding that is happening in downtown, what will we do? We will not be spending our money in Little Rock in that case. I use this example because we are just one example of what you will be destroying if you increase the interstate highway to ten lanes. As this issue has been discussed, I have been reading and watching reports on news shows about how other cities are dealing with traffic. Enlightened cities are not dividing and cementing over their downtowns. Rather they are taking down those highways that have destroyed their downtown areas and replacing them with people/pedestrian friendly boulevards and street designs that encourage people to 1303 Rees, Kriste 6/10/2016 Email F-7, I-6 walk and live in their downtown areas. In fact, many surveys show that the younger generation is tired of long commutes and having to use automobiles to go everywhere. These young people are forsaking the suburbs and moving to downtown areas to live and raise families. I remember when I30 was built and the huge controversy over I630. Both of these highways were very destructive of the downtown areas, especially several established African American neighborhoods. Historically, 9th Street was a very strong neighborhood before the highways covered and divided many neighborhoods. So, instead of destroying what is left of Little Rock’s downtown, why don’t you try to reroute the interstates around, instead of through, Little Rock. Look at what other progressive cities are doing to better their downtowns. Look at the suggestions of other designers who see new and better ways of moving traffic. Little Rock’s downtown areas should not have to be destroyed because you want to move people to the suburbs and to white flight towns away from Little Rock. If you need to replace bridges, then do so without destroying Little Rock and its downtown area.
Web - PM 6 1304 No Build Funds better used at other central Arkansas projects Mehl, Shelley 6/10/2016 E Form
King, Rob and Web - PM 6 1305 No Build We love downtown Little Rock. 6/10/2016 E Debbie Form
Web - PM 6 1306 No Build No build Clement, Davis 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1307 No Build Please don't let this monstrosity be built! Justus, Barbara 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 220
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1308 No Build Boulevard is my vote. Justus, Joe 6/10/2016 F-1 Form
I sent a separate e-mail with my suggestions. Briefly, they suggest looking at other progressive cities who are dealing with similar issues in very different ways, by taking down interstates in their downtown areas. They are encouraging the younger generation to move to downtown areas to live because they no longer Web - PM 6 1309 Other Rees, Kriste 6/10/2016 F-7 want to commute and drive long hours to jobs. Looks at new and unique ways of moving traffic; they are Form out there. Different traffic around instead of through downtown areas. Be creative! I sent you a longer e- mail detailing my ideas.
On behalf of the Quapaw Quarter Association, I am writing to comment on the most recent proposal for the 30 Crossing project. The “split-diamond” design with six lanes and collector/distributor lanes uses Fourth Street, Capitol Avenue, and Sixth Street as primary modes of moving people on and off of Interstate 30. As stewards of the 1842 Little Rock Visitor Information Center at Historic Curran Hall that houses the Mayor’s Reception Hall, the QQA has concerns about increased traffic flow and speed, and the removal of on-street parking along East Capitol Avenue that would occur with this plan. Increased speeds and removal of parking would create a problem for visitors trying to find the Visitor Information Center, often their first experience in the city. Lack of parking and increased speeds and traffic noise would also create a problem for the facility’s use as a meeting and event space. Curran Hall’s use as a rental facility has steadily increased over the past few years and is regularly used by several city departments. As Little Rock’s leading historic preservation organization, the QQA has concerns about increased traffic Web - PM 6 1310 Other flow and speeds through the MacArthur Park Historic District and the removal of on-street parking on Roberts, Rhea 6/10/2016 E Form Sixth Street. MacArthur Park is Little Rock’s first and oldest neighborhood and includes the city’s oldest park, the Arkansas Arts Center and the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History housed in a National Historic Landmark. The neighborhood is the city’s only local ordinance historic district, which has served to stabilize the neighborhood and protect important structures, but the impact of increased traffic flow and speeds could be severe. MacArthur Park Historic District is one of Little Rock’s most walkable areas, and many residents rely on on-street parking. Both of these amenities are crucial to the recruitment of residents as the City and its partners work to revitalize downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods. We remain encouraged by AHTD’s continued discussions with the public and stakeholders and with the recent changes to the plan in response to local concerns. The Quapaw Quarter Association urges the continuation of these discussions until all parties with a vested interest in downtown are satisfied. We are confident there is a solution that will not jeopardize Little Rock’s most historic neighborhood.
D - 221
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
As a public health professional and resident of downtown Little Rock I'm concerned about the detrimental impacts of the proposed I-30 widening. Along with the requisite EIS, I would encourage the use of a Health Web - PM 6 1311 No Build Coffey, Jake 6/10/2016 E, I-12 Impact Assessment (HIA) as a means of bringing in community stakeholders and assessing the health Form impacts of the proposed expansion.
Adding more lanes to Interstate 30 will only create more problems in terms of increased congestion and Web - PM 6 1312 No Build further dividing Little Rock city not only physically, but economically and socially. The proposed plans will Ginocchio, Janie 6/10/2016 E Form not benefit Little Rock/North Little Rock residents.
6 lane freeway with bridge replacement and safety enhancements to entrance and exit lanes/ramps. TDM Web - PM 6 1313 Other investments to better manage peak demand. Strauss, Steve 6/10/2016 F-2, I-12 Form AHTD EIS must satisfy Section 106 requirements.
I believe no lanes should be added but improvements to ramps could be made along with possible reworking of downtown Cantrell exit and general improvements to the road ways. I believe adding lanes would ruin all of the hard work that has gone in to revitalizing the down town area. Web - PM 6 1314 Other It would reverse all of the progress that has been made towards reintegrating a city previously split by the Smith, Callie 6/10/2016 G-4, I-6 Form interstate. Taking away down town exits would be detrimental to the lively hood of the downtown area and would increase interstate traffic. More lanes will only increase traffic and the number of accidents. Please consider other states that have made these changes and the effects they have been shown to have
To whom it concerns: I heartily concur with the Arkansas Public Policy panel as I read via arktimes.com that, "The Panel urges AHTD, the Metroplan Board and Little Rock city leaders to abandon the current plan to widen I-30. It is likely to do great harm to the livability of downtown Little Rock while failing to alleviate traffic congestion by inducing new traffic and fueling urban sprawl. “A more thorough analysis of alternatives should be conducted that engages the impacted communities,” said Bill Kopsky, Executive Director of the Panel. “Alternatives should show better prospects of reducing congestion, encouraging infill development 1315 Rickman, Jared 6/10/2016 Email F-7, G-6, I-6 instead of sprawl and doing no harm to the hard work that’s already been invested to make Little Rock a vibrant city.”" The current 'congestion' on I-30 as it crosses the Arkansas River occurs only during peak times/rush hours and I do not believe additional interstate lanes will 'fix' what I see as a non-issue. I feel there are plenty of options for crossing the river at present and commuters should plan their routes & schedules accordingly. Please heed the Nelson/Nygaard White Paper's issues/concerns with the 30Crossing Project as it stands currently and consider fully Fennell|Purifoy's Boulevard Option before moving forward. Sincerely,
D - 222
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1316 No Build No build Runion, Britt 6/10/2016 E Form
I oppose this waste of taxpayer funds which will degrade downtown Little Rock and lead ultimately to Web - PM 6 1317 No Build Smith, Mark 6/10/2016 E increased traffic congestion. Form
Web - PM 6 1318 6 C/D SPUI None Hughes, Gareth 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1319 No Build Expanding I-30 will not be good for our downtown. Kerby, Karalyn 6/10/2016 E Form
Boulevard with another bridge I have a rule, when spending large amounts of money I need to be spending my money to create wealth. Web - PM 6 1320 No Build All of Highway Department's current proposals will not create any wealth for the residents of Central Peterson, David 6/10/2016 F-1, F-3 Form Arkansas but will consume a large amount of wealth to construct. This is why I oppose the Highway Department's options.
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe expanding the I-30 corridor Web - PM 6 1321 No Build Terzia, Louise 6/10/2016 E, J freeway represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better. Form
As a downtown resident I cannot support any of the current iterations of this project. Please continue to Web - PM 6 1322 No Build work toward a more appropriate alternative which adequately addresses the impact on the surrounding Steel, John 6/10/2016 E Form neighborhood.
I do not support any of the current alternatives. Please continue to work with downtown residents toward Patterson, Web - PM 6 1323 No Build a solution that addresses the concerns expressed via this website: 6/10/2016 E Whitney Form http://www.arpanel.org/improve30crossing/
SPUI I support the alternatives that allow for additional capacity for thru traffic, as well as collector/distributor Web - PM 6 1324 6 C/D Newton, Shannon 6/10/2016 M Split Diamond lanes for local commuters. Form
Don't make the same mistake that we made when we built the first highways and displaced the current Web - PM 6 1325 No Build Danforth, Chris 6/10/2016 E residents. Form
Web - PM 6 1326 No Build xxx Linn, Amanda 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 223
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
A twice a day congestion is no reason for an ill-defined and mostly unfunded mega construction project. As a downtown business owner, this feels like a slap in the face to Little Rock residents and business Web - PM 6 1327 No Build Clement, Chris 6/10/2016 I-6 owners who have invested blood, sweat, tears, and $$$ to make downtown Little Rock the vibrant place it Form is today. This is potentially a nightmare of my current and future customers. Thank you for this forum.
Boulevard proposal advocated by Tom Fennell and others. We favor the boulevard proposal and diverting most traffic to I-440 and I-430, and also building Chester street bridge. The proposals presented at the public meeting would be harmful to the downtown area, Web - PM 6 1328 Other especially the River Market area and residential neighborhoods along I-30, including the MacArthur Park Holladay, Scott 6/10/2016 I-2 Form area, Hanger Hill, the Governor's Mansion area, and the Pettaway Park area. I live 12 blocks (about 3/4 mile) west of I-30, but we hear some highway noise, and the noise became louder the last time lanes were added.
Boulevard plan, with an additional bridge at Chester or somewhere nearby. Get rid of the freeway bisecting Little Rock. Rename I-440 as I-30. The boulevard could be "Business I-30." The plan to greatly widen I-30 through downtown is a very backward looking plan. Forward looking cities are not expanding freeways through their cities. Indeed, the original national freeway plan did not anticipate going through cities. President Eisenhower was appalled when he found out this was happening. Indeed, instead of leading to economic growth in cities, it led to decades of decline. We should not be modeling ourselves after cities like Dallas, which is derided around the country for its mass of highways and traffic. Expanding the highway will greatly increase noise levels. When I-30 was expanded down to Benton, the traffic noise greatly increased. We can now hear it from our home constantly, whereas before the Thomas-Holladay, Web - PM 6 1329 Other 6/10/2016 I-2, I-4, I-6, J expansion we could not. Diane Form This project is too expensive and will require large sums of money to be diverted from other projects as we are responsible for the maintenance of this huge highway. It will also create bottlenecks outside of the project area, requiring massive costs to expand those highways. The future of Little Rock is at stake. Are we going to continue to progress and become a destination for millennials and high wage companies, or will we be marginalized as other cities take a more progressive approach to transportation? This project is too important to be left up to the Highway Dept to plan. The Highway Department does not seem to have seriously studied the alternatives and acknowledged its faulty modeling. I urge you to not move forward with the I-30 expansion.
D - 224
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
To whom it concerns: I heartily concur with the Arkansas Public Policy panel as I read viaarktimes.com that, "The Panel urges AHTD, the Metroplan Board and Little Rock city leaders to abandon the current plan to widen I-30. It is likely to do great harm to the livability of downtown Little Rock while failing to alleviate traffic congestion by inducing new traffic and fueling urban sprawl. “A more thorough analysis of alternatives should be conducted that engages the impacted communities,” said Bill Kopsky, Executive Director of the Panel. “Alternatives should show better prospects of reducing congestion, encouraging 1330 infill development instead of sprawl and doing no harm to the hard work that’s already been invested to Pike, Megan 6/10/2016 Email F-7 make Little Rock a vibrant city.”" The current 'congestion' on I-30 as it crosses the Arkansas River occurs only during peak times/rush hours and I do not believe additional interstate lanes will 'fix' what I see as a non-issue. I feel there are plenty of options for crossing the river at present and commuters should plan their routes & schedules accordingly. Please heed the Nelson/Nygaard White Paper's issues/concerns with the 30Crossing Project as it stands currently and consider fully Fennell|Purifoy's Boulevard Option before moving forward. Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 1331 6 C/D Split Diamond This plan accomplishes the goals of a safer downtown and better traffic patterns. Lincoln, Wendy 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1332 6 C/D Split Diamond Time for a change! Barger, Kaitlin 6/10/2016 M Form
Reroute I 30 through I 440. Create new entrances/exits in downtown Little Rock to omit all the overpasses Web - PM 6 1333 Other at the River Market, freeing that land for development and parks. Please consider these alternate Brown, Linda 6/10/2016 F-4 Form proposals and ideas.
Green Boulevard. Web - PM 6 F-1, I-3, I-4, 1334 No Build Patton, Drue 6/10/2016 I've worked really hard to make downtown NLR (Argenta) a better place since 2008 Form I-11
I'm against the proposal because I believe the modeling is flawed and that the proposed development is a temporary time savings that will eventually make traffic worse and bottleneck there and in other areas. I Web - PM 6 1335 6 C/D SPUI Gruber, Will 6/10/2016 M don't believe that AHTD has given any thought to surrounding neighborhoods or previous comments and Form research presented and therefore vote not to build this expansion project.
Work with alternative suggestions that have significantly less negative impact on the downtown. Divert Web - PM 6 1336 Other through traffic away from downtown or routes away from downtown. Provides significant landscape Conner, James 6/10/2016 F-4, I-6 Form plantings and other design elements to the maximum. See comment above.
D - 225
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1337 No Build Please preserve downtown Lambert, Beth 6/10/2016 E Form
This is the US Interstate, just miles from Interstate 40 Junction. The Metrocenter mall failed in the 80's. 1338 DO NOT repeat with some fairy tale plan for our downtown. Traffic has to pass through. I wish city Wright, Douglas 6/10/2016 email E planners retirement was tied to choices they made that affect everyone else.
Web - PM 6 1339 No Build Follow best practices from other cities Moore, Debra 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1340 6 C/D Split Diamond None Pierce, Richard 6/10/2016 M Form
Why can't traffic be routed via I-440 for those who are traveling to Jacksonville, Cabot and beyond? Web - PM 6 1341 Other Any plan that doesn't include widening I-30 to 6-8 lanes. Please consider the impact to the citizens of Alexander, Kris 6/10/2016 F-4, I-4, I-6 Form Little Rock. So much progress has been made to downtown LR ... Widening I-30 will kill the atmosphere.
The downtown grid (especially 4th and Scott) cannot handle evening traffic between 4:30-5:30 as it is. Web - PM 6 1342 No Build These two streets will be main feeders to both NLR and I30. They already back up with drivers blocking Taylor, James 6/10/2016 E Form intersections and ignoring traffic signals. Much
D - 226
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Sirs: The 30 Crossing bridge replacement and interstate widening as proposed should be entirely revised. This segment of the region's interstate system is vital to the interstate network. While acknowledging the current traffic congestion of the I30 segment, its widening nonetheless will further urban sprawl and imbed future untold financial and social costs on Little Rock and the region. The urban core will be further hollowed out as commuters are encouraged to travel more frequently and further by the temporary relief and gain of only a few minutes of reduced travel time. The congestion will inevitably reoccur (induced demand) on I30 and the cycle of sprawl, if no new thinking occurs, will repeat itself. 1343 Lynch, Jim 6/10/2016 Email F-7 The AHTD acknowledges that the current 30 Crossing plan will cause downstream interstate traffic bottlenecks. However, there is no response to correct these bottlenecks in the current plan, which the AHTD simply views as "problems to be solved at a later time." Thus, the current 30 Crossing plan is not a good plan for the Little Rock area transportation system. Rather it is only a plan to spend hundreds of millions of tax dollars as will be evidenced in volumes of new concrete and asphalt but doing almost nothing systemically to make the transportation network more effective and efficient for future travelers and city residents. Surely the AHTD and the City of Little Rock can do much better. Best Regards,
As 5th generation of a Little Rock business family, I strongly oppose any expansion of I-30 as detrimental to the local community. After living for almost a decade in San Francisco, the city became much better Web - PM 6 E, I-3, I-4, I- 1344 No Build Vestal, Sarah 6/10/2016 after tearing down all the freeways through SF. Why do we have to have I-30 come right through the Form 6 middle of LR?
Boulevard Plan proposed by Tom Fennell. Build Bridge at Chester. Take note and abide by dictates from the modeling which shows that adding more lanes at the crossing will cause equal, if not more congestion. With some much of the traffic consists of LR to NLR, then build the Chester Bridge to save our downtown rather than cutting a huge gouge in its heart. Engstrom, Web - PM 6 1345 Other 6/10/2016 F-1, F-3 I am concerned that AHTD is acting like the U.S. Corps of Engineers in the late 50's and early 60's. They Stephen Form want to build something, whatever it is. "To Keep Busy." Just because with some fancy footwork you can get the money out of the public troughs, is not sufficient reason to repeat the errors of the past by gouging out the heart of our budding urban scene with bigger concrete freeways.
D - 227
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Your terms are so ill-defined that, for example, I have no idea what a "split diamond" is. I assume your obfuscation is intentional, which is the sad norm for Arkansas's public service entities: keep the public ignorant and/or confused and then you'll be able to do it your way. Shame on you. Also, if you really valued input, you wouldn't tell the media to broadcast that "30 crossing" will lead a citizen to a computer site where that citizen can comment. I spent a long time trying to find this comment form, but it certainly wasn't on a non-existent "30crossing" address (connecting arkansasprogram.com is what led me here.) Your misleading the public makes me want to weep.
Having lived in both Los Angeles County and Orange County, CA for many years while also living part of every year in Little Rock, I urge you to personally visit the massive freeways that web their way across the metropolitan LA area. You need to experience for yourself the results of paving the ground with asphalt so you, too, can sit in traffic on I-405, or the 10, or stall on the Santa Ana Fwy. (better known locally as the Santa Ana Parking Lot). You, the uninitiated, are about to do a major disservice to this state if you persist in doing what is "obvious," that is, putting more asphalt on the ground to expand a freeway. It is a crime to bisect LR even further with a wider freeway and a 10-lane bridge that will be the widest in, what, the nation? How proud you'll make us! PLEASE carefully consider the wisdom of the boulevard concept! Web - PM 6 1346 Other Grigsby, Ann E. 6/10/2016 E PLEASE realize that a drastically widened freeway will take even more people out of Little Rock to the Form suburbs where they live INSTEAD of in Little Rock! If you had foreseen that dynamic several years ago, perhaps myopic decision-makers wouldn't have been quite so quick to widen the road to Bryant and Benton, both of which have exploded with population (ditto Conway), partially due to the expanded roadway. PLEASE think not only out of the box, but into the future! Invest money not in more road surface, but in mass transportation such as commuter train connectivity while there's still time and money. Otherwise you'll learn LA's sad lesson: you can NEVER build enough freeways to prevent traffic jams: the more you build, the more crowded they become. I've lived that lesson firsthand. PLEASE don't victimize Little Rock residents, forcing them to learn that bitter lesson, too. For the sake of good sense, well-reasoned and forward-looking planning, and everyone's sane future, take your blinders off and think in new directions. You'll only get this one chance. After you commit to the "concrete cure," you won't ever be able to undo the concrete jungle you've created with taxpayer money. Forever is a very long time to live with short-sighted mistakes that will beget ever more complex problems. P.S. I've noted pretty drawings of greenspaces, parks, and such as part of the expansion plans. Really? Where's the money for those idyllic expanses coming from? You wouldn't be participating in false advertising to persuade the public to your own ends, would you? Sigh. Probably.
Web - PM 6 1347 No Build Thanks Peek, Rett 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1348 No Build Finish the 430/440 loop it is the cure for the commuters and those traveling through the cities Goza, Linda 6/10/2016 E, F-4 Form
Web - PM 6 1349 8-lane Split Diamond Needs to be widened all the way from Benton to I40 Hancock, Sheila 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1350 No Build NA Chesser, Tracey 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 228
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Please fund mass transit like they do in other successful cities. No Build Web - PM 6 1351 This highway expansion seems to exist only to line the pockets of involved contractors and WILL NOT Taylor, Wes 6/10/2016 E, F-6 Other Form SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM. Please do not subject downtown to this disaster of a "plan"
Web - PM 6 1352 No Build None of the plans presented above are good for central Arkansas. Kokinos, Jessica 6/10/2016 E Form
I am opposed to the proposed expansion of I 40 and I 30 for the following reasons The projections made by the highway department are based on false data. The model shows traffic congestion because extra cars injected into the model produced traffic congestion. This is only justified by the acceptance of induced demand. Without building extra lanes there would not be induced demand. Projection of future traffic is tricky. Extrapolation from the past is always uncertain. The highway department model is projecting decades ahead, proposing to use present and future funds to build today a solution for anticipated future traffic. The solution is not proposed for today's traffic but traffic in the future. That traffic problem may not come to be, especially if extra lanes are not created to produce the traffic. There are several indications that the future will be different. The suburban sprawl of the past has halted. It may not resume. The solution of many to move out to suburban communities to escape city problems now has a present with crime, reduced city services, fewer parks, a more difficult time to get to good schools, and more difficult commutes. Subsidization of this sprawl solution is unwarranted.
New technologies may reduce one person commuting substantially. State employees have long had a system of van transport to Little Rock. Uber is a reality in Little Rock. Expansion of this kind of cooperative transport can be projected to increase which will reduce future traffic far more than in the past. Building today for future problems which will not develop is unwarranted. Each of us has technology available in our cell phones to reduce traffic congestion. As congestion increases we will turn increasingly to this solution.
Projections are based strictly on past utilizations of vehicles. Self-driving automobiles are a reality. A Walker, Robert E, I-9, I-10, 1353 6/10/2016 Email company is being formed for self-driving trucks. A network of self-driving vans could reduce cars on the Charles I-12, J freeway system by a large per cent in a few decades. This possibility reduces the certainty of our present projections substantially. There is no point in borrowing money today to build lane which will not be needed.
Past construction of Interstate urban highways have consistently not considered the effects of displaced rainwater during torrential events. More lanes mean more impermeable surfaces. Interstate highways are graded for rapid drainage of rainwater into the surrounding areas. This is okay for rural Interstates. It is definitely not acceptable for urban environments with many residents in close proximity to Urban Interstates. There are flooding problems already in Dark Hollow. Construction of I 630, done before FEMA regulations, has caused floods in the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood. A resident, a veteran, nearly drowned in his home after I 630 was constructed. No addition of lanes should be done without a thorough environmental assessment of torrential rain events. These events can be anticipated to increase in the future due to higher average air temperatures which will hold an increased amount of water vapor. No construction should be allowed on the urban Interstate System without a thorough environmental assessment of the path of rainwater from interception by the new impermeable surfaces to its discharge to the Arkansas River. Interstate 30 and Interstate 40 were constructed long before lead was banned from automotive fuel. For decades the soil adjacent to these roads absorbed the automotive lead as well as other urban contaminants. Environmental lead has been shown to increase crime rates decades later. No construction on the urban Interstate system should occur without a thorough review of the contamination of soils to be disturbed. Special techniques may have to be employed during construction D - 229
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
to reduce the spread of lead and other substances in the disturbed soil. A general detailed environmental assessment must be conducted.
Adding extra lanes anywhere in the urban Interstate system increases traffic throughout the system. This increases noise. Noise degrades neighborhoods. The highway department was created to address the highway needs of Arkansas, to connect Arkansans with each other and the outside world. Studies on the impact of highways show a positive economic effect. This is true for rural highways between cities and towns. This is not true for urban interstates. Construction of urban interstates destroys homes. Destruction of homes can cause the closing of schools such as the closing of Woodruff Elementary School subsequent to the construction of I 630. The highway department carefully counts the accident rate on urban Interstates. It does not measure the change in crime rates on the adjacent streets. This one sided approach must be discarded. The highway department practices good management producing the maximum amount of lanes for the lowest cost. This is uniquely unsuitable for urban Interstates. Good urban Interstate construction should result in trenched Interstates to contain the noise and minimize the intrusiveness of an Interstate. This increases construction cost and is discarded by the highway department as unfeasible. But a thorough environmental assessment would show that trenched urban Interstates will minimize the damage done to the surrounds. This damage is not assessed in the standard highway department assessment. Traffic jams will not be solved by extra lanes. This has been shown elsewhere. Spending 600 million dollars now is the start of a four billion dollar solution which will not be a solution. The highway department is trying to eliminate rush hour congestion 25 years into the future. This ignores the destruction done to a city by the construction of extra urban Interstate lanes. No other system is designed to eliminate congestion during peak times. The highway departments plan is unrealistic and impractical. Thank You Sincerely Research shows the widening plan will not accomplish what you hope. It's time to look at other Web - PM 6 1354 No Build Asewicz, Melinda 6/10/2016 F-7 alternatives that will allow our downtown to continue thriving, not stunting it. Form
Web - PM 6 1355 No Build N/A Heimburg, Josh 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1356 No Build Don't destroy downtown! Brady, James 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 230
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Other Alternative Plans are described in the comments. As it looks like the footnotes have not been included in the comments, I will attempt to email the file to you separately. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to identify what the Build Alternative actually is. The reader is left to speculate as to whether the alternative is the 8-lane version requested by the Federal Highway Administration or one of the other various alternatives which have been considered. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to provide necessary information specified on page 2 of the 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance. A summary table as specified on page 2 of said 2016 TIGER Guidance has not been included. Important information, such as the number of vehicles affected by the project daily, has not been disclosed. Annual VMT [Vehicle Miles Travelled] and VHT [Vehicle Hours Travelled] appear to be overstated. The last paragraph on page 2 says: “Daily VMT and VHT accruing to commute and business trips were annualized by assuming 260 working days a year (i.e. 52 weeks). Daily VMT and VHT for leisure and truck trips were annualized by multiplying daily VMT and VHT by 365 days.” Assuming 100% attendance (five days a week for every day of the year) by commuters and business trip travelers would appear to be unreasonable as people normally take sick leave, annual leave, and enjoy time off for holidays. Likewise, it hardly seems reasonable to assume leisure and truck trips would occur every day of the year. Any figures developed from unrealistic assumptions need to be redone. Table 2 on page 3 contradicts itself. The table title says “Daily Traffic in 2010 and 2040”, and the sidings are labelled 2010 Build (A) and “2010 No Build (B)”; but the years shown in the table headings show 2020 VMT and VHT. The table sidings either need to be changed or the figures need to be corrected. Any downstream figures in the analysis based on incorrect figures need to be corrected. Table 2 on page 3 contains an error. 11,224,024-11,223,694 does not equal the -8,670 value shown in the table. Any downstream figures in the analysis which rely on a VMT miscalculation need to be corrected. The document contains a Table 2 on page 3 and a Table 4 on page 4. Has a Table 3 been inadvertently omitted? There is insufficient substantiation for the “Travel Time Costs” benefits claimed in the benefit-cost analysis. These benefits Web - PM 6 1357 Other Pekar, Dale 6/10/2016 N comprise some 80% of the benefits used to justify the project. They do not rely on survey data and there Form is no indication they have been ground-truthed. Information critical to their review--such as the number of vehicles affected, and the travel routes being affected outside the I-30 corridor--have not been disclosed. Some of the information presented is patently incorrect as shown elsewhere in this comment submission package. Conceptually, these benefits are speculative as American commuting patterns indicate a proclivity to commute long distances and spend large amounts of time in vehicles. The Present Value ($0.7 billion) of the Future Value $1.3 billion in benefits the project claims for reducing the amount of time people elect to spend in their vehicles is well in excess of the vehicle operating cost savings associated with driving faster through the corridor. Those vehicle operating costs, including fuel, amount to only some $0.002 billion in present value. People will save very little in fuel and other vehicle operating costs with the Build Alternative. The $1.3 billion in inferred benefits rest on a very nebulous concept--how much people would be willing to pay to speed their journeys. Would the people driving the 126,000 vehicles over the I-30 bridge really be willing to pay some $5,200 each, upfront, to increase their speed through the corridor over the project’s stated 20-year life? Would they be willing to pay a proportional toll annually or per trip? Or would they simply bypass the corridor, especially those who can manage to avoid the worst periods of congestion? A rational person might ask, “What kind of improvement could I get for $1,000 or $3,000? The answer to that question is the kind of information you get from developing the full range of reasonable alternatives, as required by the implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to present any sensitivity analysis. In spite of the uncertainty associated with the project (in terms of benefits associated with reduced travel times, assumed growth rates, and so on), no sensitivity analysis--as specified by the US Department of Transportation--has been presented. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to address the likelihood that speeding I-30 corridor traffic will stimulate development more distant from the downtown D - 231
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
area, and the economic consequences of such development. Speeding traffic is probably the best way to speed development further and further from the city proper. With the faster speeds promised by the AHTD, the current amount of travel time can reasonably be translated into longer-distance commutes. The economic analysis fails to address their effects. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to show how VMT and VHT are affected by accidents. The major congestion in the corridor is that associated with accidents. The Benefit-Cost Analysis has taken pains to project accident losses by alternative once construction is completed, and to dollar quantify these losses, but it has failed to then carry these results forward into the VMT and VHT analyses. The analysis also presumes that there will be no difference in the accidents during the construction period between the No- Build and the Build Alternative. Lack of synchronicity between the Benefit-Cost Analysis and the 30 Crossing Fastlane 2016 Grant Application Values shown in the Benefit-Cost Analysis are not consistent with those shown in the 30 Crossing Fastlane Grant Application. For instance: The Benefit-Cost Analysis shows an Initial Capital Cost of $650 million over a four-year construction period (on page 19); whereas the Fastlane Application shows a “total cost of the Project” at $631.7 million (on page 5). The Benefit-Cost Analysis shows a completion date “by the end of 2021” (on page 19); whereas the Fastlane Application says on page 6 that “the project’s proposed opening to traffic is in year 2020 and on page 8 that, “Project completion is expected in late 2022. Because the Benefit-Cost Analysis relies on discounted values and calendar year-linked, projected growth rates in traffic, this failure to consistently portray the timing of construction necessarily means that the resultant figures are most likely incorrect. Table 4 incorrectly identifies a 20-year analysis period. The table actually shows 21 years of data. Adding these to the 4-year construction period yields an analysis period of 25 years. Here and elsewhere in the document, the description of the period of analysis needs to be corrected as costs and benefits must be tracked over the entire analysis period to a common Present Value reference point. All the costs and benefits expected during the construction period need to be included in the period of analysis. Costs and benefits occur during the construction period. And just as construction period construction costs are included in the economic analysis, so must changes in VMT associated with the construction period. Because AHTD has only developed alternatives that increase the number of lanes in the corridor, it is only reasonable to expect the Build Alternative to cause some change in VMT. That the analysis period must also include the construction period is shown in the following citations. 2015 Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Tiger Grant Applicants, “Other” section: “Applicants should include, to the extent possible, costs to users during construction, such as delays and increased vehicle operating costs associated with work zones or detours.” Page 2 and footnote 3 of the 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance: “In practice, applicants must estimate both benefits and costs for each year after the project’s start date and for a period of time of at least 20 years….” “Includes costs from delays during construction.” Page 13 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis Analyses Guidance for TIGER Grant Applicants: “Additionally, applicants should include, to the extent possible, costs to users during construction, such as delays and increased vehicle operating costs associated with work zones or detours.” The document contains an unsubstantiated $350 million in Operation
D - 232
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
My first attempt at commenting via the online form was thwarted by restrictive limits on the comment fields. Therefore, I submitted a new comment via the form and am submitting this supplemental comment via email. A an introductory note, please note that I am ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to any "boulevard" proposal for I-30, as seems to persist among Little Rock city fathers. As AHTD traffic studies show, a boulevard would be inadequate for "existing" I-30 traffic, much less projected traffic. It is based on the false presumption that the bulk of I-30 traffic is going between Bryant and either Cabot or Lonoke, even though AHTD studies (and my own experience as a Little Rock area resident) prove the bulk of I-30 trips start or end within the Little Rock, North Little Rock and/or Sherwood city limits. Existing I-30 congestion, trucking industry practices, and the hazmat truck restriction have already driven to I-430 and I-440/AR 440 virtually all of the traffic likely to use those alternate routes. Most commuter traffic on the I- 30 bridge is coming from North Little Rock or Sherwood to downtown Little Rock and/or the State Capitol grounds.; that traffic has virtually "NO" alternative to I-30. And a large part of I-30's non-commuter traffic comes from Little Rock and other points south of the Arkansas River to visit the McCain Mall shopping district on US 67 (starting at the north end of the 30 Crossing area and extending into Sherwood); that traffic also has virtually "NO" alternative to I-30. Boulevard supporters keep citing what I call the "Field of Dreams" theory of traffic. If you widen a clogged freeway, more traffic will come and clog it up again, so why bother? Contrary to their claims, that is NOT new; the same drivel was cited by virtually the same people in opposing the widening of I-30 from Little Rock to Benton years ago. (I can tell you from personal experience that widening it anyway was the correct call.) From my own experience, I can tell you I-30 was clogged to capacity DECADES ago, as early as the mid-1980's (though mostly in the late 1980's) when I was commuting daily from the Gravel Ridge area along AR 107, Brockington Road, US 67, I-40 & I-30 to downtown Little Rock. (I worked for the state for 20 years before retiring on disability.) Virtually nothing has been done about I-30 since. It is WAY past time I-1, I-3, I-6, that something was done to relieve I-30 congestion, even if it simply fills up again! 1358 Brittain, Richelle 6/10/2016 Email I-9, I-10, I- While boulevard supporters keep citing what was done to I-5 in Portland, OR they forget one huge 11, M difference: I-5 itself was re-routed on the other bank of the Willamette River, so thru traffic was not affected; downtown traffic simply had to go back across the river (with far more bridges than our Arkansas River) to access downtown. On the other hand, I can cite an example MUCH closer to home of what happens when a highway is inadequate for local and thru traffic: Pine Bluff's Martha Mitchell "Expressway" ( I will never use that term there without quotes), now US 65B. Where a freeway was called for to handle traffic from the rest of Southeast Arkansas, what Pine Bluff got was, as my dad called it, "a glorified University Avenue" (referring to the Little Rock street; Pine Bluff's University Drive, mostly US 79B, didn't get that name till later) -- not to mention it was across the railroad tracks from the bulk of downtown with NO overpasses in the area (indeed, Martha Mitchell's own rail overpasses were the very first ones in Pine Bluff) I-530 finally came along decades later, but too late: Downtown Pine Bluff is mostly a ghost town, and the rest of Pine Bluff is not much better off. In my opinion, an I-30 boulevard would do to downtown Little Rock pretty much what the Martha Mitchell "Expressway" did to downtown Pine Bluff. PLEASE don't let Little Rock destroy itself that way!!! Now, on to the business at hand: I strongly favor the "6-Lane with Collector/Distributor (C/D) Lanes and Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) "(or as I call it, "10-Lane SPUI") alternative for two reasons: (a) Only the "10-lane" alternatives adequately address rush-hour traffic on I-30 and I-40, especially to & from US 67. (b) Though neither SPUI nor "split diamond" adequately addresses LaHarpe traffic (especially where it conflicts with River Market pedestrians), at least SPUI maintains the status quo; despite its popularly, "split diamond" only makes that situation worse. I'm sure some people looked at the video simulations and thought they were manipulated by showing far larger backups with the 8-lane proposals; that was my first reaction also. However, careful examination shows the cause of the backup: Not enough capacity for traffic going to US 67. Under the 8-lane alternatives, the only "capacity" enhancement on I-40 comes from "unweaving the weave" - D - 233
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
reconfiguring the ramps at North Terminal & 40/67 so that there are two continuous flow lanes between I-30 & US 67 and two for I-40, instead of forcing all that traffic to weave across all four lanes as they do now. (None of the proposals fully "unweave the weave" -- the small amount of traffic that doesn't weave today WILL have to weave under all proposals -- but at least it will eliminate the bulk of weaving.) It does NOT eliminate the backlogs from forcing the US 67 ramps of 40/67 onto four lanes with poorly-configured transitions to & from six lanes just south of McCain, as is the case today. The 10-lane alternatives, on the other hand, provide six open thru lanes from US 67 at McCain thru 40/67 & North Terminal to the downtown C/D ramps on I-30, highly adequate to handle rush-hour traffic for the foreseeable future. All of the alternatives seem to underestimate their impact on LaHarpe (Highway 10) traffic; in particular, they completely ignore the clash between auto & pedestrian traffic at Markham & LaHarpe that was once Little Rock city fathers' top concern. For that reason, I also chose the "other" option and suggested modifying the 10-lane SPUI alternative to include the cut-and-cover tunnel I proposed in previous comments. Though it would require permanent removal of the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce building and the parking deck between the Heritage & Stone Ward buildings, as well as temporary removal of the Historic Arkansas Museum's "log cabin" building (to be numbered & reassembled, as when it was moved there) and the fountain in front of the Main Library's Darragh Center, it is the ONLY alternative that would separate LaHarpe autos from River Market foot traffic WITHOUT permanently demolishing historic structures OR building ugly (and seismically unstable) elevated "stack" structures thru the River Market. I believe measures can be taken to resolve the potential conflict between this tunnel and the drainage tunnel under Rock Street, such as raising Second Street above the start of the tunnel; besides, even without the drainage tunnel the road will still need to reach grade level at Rock to get to the overpass starting at River Market Avenue. (I'd like to remove that overpass entirely, but I understand that won't happen unless the roadway is eliminated completely, as in the "split diamond" alternatives.) Still, though none of the present alternatives fixes this issue, at least the SPUI alternatives do no harm: They largely retain the existing Highway 10 path from Markham & LaHarpe to I-30, with improvements at 2nd & Cumberland and replacing the obsolete Cantrell/Clinton trumpet with a SPUI; this continues to use a single block of Cumberland for Highway 10. Compare that to the "split diamond", which forces LaHarpe traffic to travel on Cumberland between 3 and 5 blocks depending on whether it uses Fourth, Capitol or Sixth -- not to mention the 90-degree turn on & off Cumberland, something NOT found in the existing pattern. (That doesn't count the impact of using Fourth, Capitol & Sixth on street parking, a negative recently brought up.) It seems all the effort was expended on dispersing Highway 10 traffic across the street grid between Cumberland & I-30, ignoring the fact that even putting that traffic on Cumberland to begin with is a HUGE NEGATIVE for both Highway 10 *and* the River Market! What's worse, it seems even the activists in this area are sticking their head in the sand, assuming the time will come when. Their preferred alternative will become the consensus: MainStreet designers at the public hearing assume things will remain the same until they can get LaHarpe closed off near the Broadway Bridge; even a current Highway 10 traveler assumes everyone will just turn off LaHarpe at Chester to reach 1-30. And then there's still those championing the Chester Street Bridge, which simply will not work in that form. (Even an angled bridge in that area to carry Cantrell traffic across the river to NLR's Riverfront Drive, a la Portland, would have problems accessing 1-30.) My concern is that failure to provide adequate access to the Highway 10 corridor, especially Riverdale, will lead to such ill-advised projects as a bluff cwt and/or tunnel thru Hillcrest (highly unpopular politically * AND* against Hillcrest's character) and/or a quasi-freeway thru Rebsamen & Murray Parks to West Little Rock (IMO a boogeyman to push other agendas when it inspired a 1992 citywide initiative that blocked a simple park access bridge across Jimerson Creek, but a very real spectre if access to Riverdale becomes restricted). IMO, this opportunity to solve the Cantrell/LaHarpe conundrum should NOT be squandered. Finally, I would like to make a significant suggestion with respect to the North Hills Boulevard interchange on 1-40: The south end of that interchange should be raised in elevation to match up with that of North Little Rock's section of North Hills south of the interchange, *not* that of the current right of-way line between AHTD & NLR. The elevation at the ROW line is essentially that of US 67W before the interchange D - 234
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
was built in the 1960's. NLR raised its portion of North Hills thru Dark Hollow in the 1970's, but rather than coordinate with AHTD it dropped back to the old elevation at the ROW line. This caused a "dip" in North Hills just south of the interchange which floods in most significant rain storms, as the water level in Dark Hollow rises above the ROW elevation but stays below that of the NLR improvements. If this happens at rush hour, it prevents rush-hour traffic on North Hills from continuing on to 1-30 at Curtis Sykes (or to Main Street) due to water over the "dip", even though the rest of North Hills is high and dry. Eliminating this "dip" by raising AHTD's part of North Hills to match NLR's will fix this, but the current plans retain the "dip" even as they rebuild other parts of the interchange. Any wetlands impact from filling the "dip" can be mitigated by removing the ramp from the 1-40 service road to North Hills SB (made unnecessary by improvements to the former NB ramp after the exit ramp was moved away from North Terminal), and possibly also by replacing NLR's North Hills bridge just south of the "dip" with a larger bridge to accommodate additional water flow thru Dark Hollow. All in all, despite all the misgivings I believe the current plan is very sound. All the activists complaining about all those lanes ignore the fact that nearly all of the work will be done within the current 1-30 right- of-way, with only the bridge itself (mainly because the current ROW is limited to the current bridge's footprint) and the NLR Cypress Street viaduct (regrettable but necessary to accommodate the CID lanes and shifting local entrances & exits) requiring significant additional right-of-way; that limits the impact of the project no matter how many lanes are involved. Keep up the good work!
Web - PM 6 1359 8-lane Split Diamond Nothing Bell, Cynthia 6/10/2016 M Form
Whatever AHTD recommends as the best solution, I support. Web - PM 6 1360 Other Please consider bicycle and pedestrian ability to cross the interstate at multiple locations, whatever ends Levy, Ed 6/10/2016 H-2, M Form up getting built. Thank you Hi I'm sending along this electronic file because it appears the footnotes were not downloaded into your comment form. Please use it instead of those submitted on the comment form. Problems Associated with the 30 Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to identify what the Build Alternative actually is. The reader is left to speculate as to whether the alternative is the 8-lane version requested by the Federal Highway Administration or one of the other various alternatives which have been considered. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to provide necessary information specified on page 2 of the 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance. A summary table as specified on page 2 of said 2016 TIGER Guidance has not been included. Important information, such as the number of vehicles affected by the project daily, has not been disclosed. Web - PM 6 1361 Annual VMT [Vehicle Miles Travelled] and VHT [Vehicle Hours Travelled] appear to be overstated. Pekar, Dale 6/10/2016 N Form The last paragraph on page 2 says: “Daily VMT and VHT accruing to commute and business trips were annualized by assuming 260 working days a year (i.e. 52 weeks). Daily VMT and VHT for leisure and truck trips were annualized by multiplying daily VMT and VHT by 365 days.” Assuming 100% attendance (five days a week for every day of the year) by commuters and business trip travelers would appear to be unreasonable as people normally take sick leave, annual leave, and enjoy time off for holidays. Likewise, it hardly seems reasonable to assume leisure and truck trips would occur every day of the year. Any figures developed from unrealistic assumptions need to be redone. Table 2 on page 3 contradicts itself. The table title says “Daily Traffic in 2010 and 2040”, and the sidings are labelled 2010 Build (A) and “2010 No Build (B)”; but the years shown in the table headings show 2020 VMT and VHT. The table sidings either need to be changed or the figures need to be corrected. Any downstream figures in the analysis based on D - 235
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
incorrect figures need to be corrected. Table 2 on page 3 contains an error. 11,224,024-11,223,694 does not equal the -8,670 value shown in the table. Any downstream figures in the analysis which rely on a VMT miscalculation need to be corrected. The document contains a Table 2 on page 3 and a Table 4 on page 4. Has a Table 3 been inadvertently omitted? There is insufficient substantiation for the “Travel Time Costs” benefits claimed in the benefit-cost analysis. These benefits comprise some 80%1 of the benefits used to justify the project. They do not rely on survey data and there is no indication they have been ground-truthed. Information critical to their review--such as the number of vehicles affected, and the travel routes being affected outside the I-30 corridor--have not been disclosed. Some of the information presented is patently incorrect as shown elsewhere in this comment submission package. Conceptually, these benefits are speculative as American commuting patterns indicate a proclivity to commute long distances and spend large amounts of time in vehicles. The Present Value ($0.7 billion)2 of the Future Value $1.3 billion3 in benefits the project claims for reducing the amount of time people elect to spend in their vehicles is well in excess of the vehicle operating cost savings associated with driving faster through the corridor. Those vehicle operating costs, including fuel, amount to only some $0.002 billion in present value.4 People will save very little in fuel and other vehicle operating costs with the Build Alternative. The $1.3 billion in inferred benefits rest on a very nebulous concept--how much people would be willing to pay to speed their journeys. Would the people driving the 126,000 vehicles over the I-30 bridge really be willing to pay some $5,200 each5, upfront, to increase their speed through the corridor over the project’s stated 20-year life? Would they be willing to pay a proportional toll annually or per trip? Or would they simply bypass the corridor, especially those who can manage to avoid the worst periods of congestion? A rational person might ask, “What kind of improvement could I get for $1,000 or $3,000? The answer to that question is the kind of information you get from developing the full range of reasonable alternatives, as required by the implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act. The Benfit-Cost Analysis fails to present any sensitivity analysis. 1 Page 18 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis ($656,154,034/$815,540,395). 2 Page 18 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis. 3 Page 18 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis. 4 Page 18 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis. 5 The present value of the travel time cost avoidance of $1.3 billion ($656,154,034 shown on page 18 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis divided by 126,000 vehicles daily on the I-30 bridge shown on page 1 of the Fastlane document. There are problems with this calculation. The first being that all vehicles in the corridor do not transit the bridge, the second that the number of vehicles using the bridge will increase over time, and also that the proposed works of improvement will not speed all the traffic through the corridor. Drivers in off-peak hours would reap no real speed benefit and would therefore be unwilling to pay. The figure is presented here to give the reader an idea as to whether the In spite of the uncertainty associated with the project (in terms of benefits associated with reduced travel times, assumed growth rates, and so on), no sensitivity analysis--as specified by the US Department of Transportation6--has been presented. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to address the likelihood that speeding I-30 corridor traffic will stimulate development more distant from the downtown area, and the economic consequences of such development. Speeding traffic is probably the best way to speed development further and further from the city proper. With the faster speeds promised by the AHTD, the current amount of travel time can reasonably be translated into longer-distance commutes. The economic analysis fails to address their effects. The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to show how VMT and VHT are affected by accidents. The major congestion D - 236
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
in the corridor is that associated with accidents. The Benefit-Cost Analysis has taken pains to project accident losses by alternative once construction is completed, and to dollar-quantify these losses, but it has failed to then carry these results forward into the VMT and VHT analyses. The analysis also presumes that there will be no difference in the accidents during the construction period between the No-Build and the Build Alternative. Lack of synchronicity between the Benefit-Cost Analysis and the 30 Crossing Fastlane 2016 Grant Application Values shown in the Benefit-Cost Analysis are not consistent with those shown in the 30 Crossing Fastlane Grant Application. For instance: 1. The Benefit-Cost Analysis shows an Initial Capital Cost of $650 million over a four-year construction period (on page 19); whereas the Fastlane Application shows a "total cost of the Project" at $631.7 million (on page 5). The Benefit-Cost Analysis shows a completion date "by the end of 2021" (on page 19); whereas the Fastlane Application says on page 6 that "the project's proposed opening to traffic is in year 020 and on page 8 that, "Project completion is expected in late 2022. Because the Benefit-Cost Analysis relies on discounted values and calendar year-linked, projected growth rates in traffic, this failure to consistently portray the timing of construction necessarily means that the resultant figures are most likely incorrect. Table 4 incorrectly identifies a 20-year analysis period. The table actually shows 21 years of data. Adding these to the 4-year construction period yields an analysis period of 25 years. Here and elsewhere in the document, the description of the period of analysis needs to be corrected as costs and benefits must be tracked over the entire analysis period to a common Present Value reference point. All the costs and benefits expected during the construction period need to be included in the period of analysis. Costs and benefits occur during the construction period. And just as construction period construction costs are included in the economic analysis, so must changes in VMT associated with the construction period. Because AHTD has only developed alternatives that increase the number of lanes in the corridor, it is only reasonable to expect the Build Alternative to cause some change in VMT. That the analysis period must also include the construction period is shown in the following citations. 2015 Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Tiger Grant Applicants, "Other" section: "Applicants should include, to the extent possible, costs to users during construction, such as delays and increased vehicle operating costs associated with work zones or detours." Page 2 and footnote 3 of the 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance: "In practice, applicants must estimate both benefits and costs for each year after the project's start date and for a period of time of at least 20 years..." "includes costs from delays during construction." Page 13 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis Analyses Guidance for TIGER Grant Applicants: “Additionally, applicants should include, to the extent possible, costs to users during construction, such as delays and increased vehicle operating costs associated with work zones or detours.” The document contains an unsubstantiated $350 million in Operation & Maintenance (O&M) expenditures for the NoBuild Alternative. The document shows O&M costs for the No-Build alternative of approximately $17 million annually ($350,078,151/21 +$321,672 ). Using AHTD’s 2015 Fact Sheet figure 7 8 of $3.2 million per mile, this entire 7 mile corridor could be milled and overlaid for less than $23 million. The analysis projects annual O&M costs for the Build Alternative at some $0.3 million. It’s understandable that a new roadway would require less O&M than an old roadway, but the document needs to provide some substantiation for O&M costs that are more than 50 times greater in the Build Alternative than in the No Build Alternative. The NoBuild Alternative does not conform to established guidance for its design.
D - 237
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The NoBuild alternative must be designed reasonably, with proper attention to efficiency requirements and budget limitations. It must represent the most likely future conditions if none of the Action Alternatives were to be implemented. As page 2 of the 2016 TIGER Benefit Cost Analysis Guidance puts it: “The baseline should be an assessment of the way the world would look if the project did not receive the requested grant funding.”
“Baseline assumptions need to incorporate the transportation options with the highest net benefits that would be available in the absence of the project.” It is unreasonable to expect the No-Build Alternative to have O&M costs of some $17 million annually when, “The cost of average cost maintenance for Arkansas (based on FHWA Highway Statistics) is around $3,614 per lane-mile annually.” As currently written, the 9 Build Alternative shows O&M costs of only $0.3 million even though the text indicates it will have a “net increase of 89 lane miles.”10 The analysis needs to explain why it is not more likely that other, more cost-effective improvements would be made, rather than spending an extra $350 million on O&M in the No-Build Alternative..
The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to “...evaluate smaller-scale and more focused projects for comparison purposes.” Page 3 of the 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance says that, “Applicants should evaluate smaller- scale and more focused projects for comparison purposes.” As the Cambridge Systematics analysis fails to show information for anything other than the No-Build and a single, otherwise-undefined Build Alternative, it has failed to follow said TIGER Guidance. An alternative with fewer lanes could increase mobility and safety at lower cost and yet no such alternative is presented for comparison. All alternatives which do not add lanes have been dropped from consideration. The reader is therefore left to speculate as to whether more cost-effective alternatives are available instead of simply viewing a summary table of the alternatives which would show that information.
The Benefit-Cost Analysis fails to evaluate “several alternative actions.” Page 3 of the 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance says that, “A careful evaluation of the baseline will yield several alternative actions.” The Cambridge Systematics analysis evaluates only one Action Alternative though the public have advanced any number of potential alternatives. Said analysis itself hints at a reasonable alternative which has not been developed. A reasonable person might well ask whether a 6-lane alternative that included a new bridge and other substantive improvements might be more costefficient than the $350 million AHTD has identified for O&M expenses alone on the No-Build alternative.
The $10 million discrepancy between the figures shown for Total Benefits discounted at 3% on pages 18 and 20 needs to be resolved.
The Benefit-Cost Analysis claims large dollar benefits before construction is complete. The first paragraph on page 18 says “expected completion in 2021.” But Benefits are identified throughout the document for the Build Alternative beginning in 2020. See for instance, the Tables 4 on pages 4 and 11; and the Tables 7, 9, 14, 17.
The text needs to either explain how it is these various benefits can accrue to the project before construction is complete, or the figures need to be corrected. As currently written, the document would indicate that the last year of construction should not occur as all the benefits accrue without it.
The textual description of the O&M costs associated with the Build Alternative is not consistent with the corresponding O&M dollar values. The penult paragraph on page 18 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis says: D - 238
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
“The cost of average cost maintenance for Arkansas (based on FHWA Highway Statistics) is around $3,614 per lane-mile annually. The cost of this analysis uses this value to estimate the annual O&M cost of net increase of 89 miles.”
The first question to work out is whether the “net increase of 89 miles” is actually meant to say “net increase of 89 lane-miles” as this would give a $322,000 annual O&M figure for the Build Alternative ($3,614 x 89). If the text is correct as written, then the “89 miles” needs to be converted to “lane-miles” in order to arrive at an appropriate O&M figure.
The next question relates to the description of a “net” increase. The reader would reasonably expect from reading other documents that this Build Alternative includes additional lane-miles. However, showing this “net increase” of 89 miles for $322,000 means that there are O&M expenses for the other miles which have not been charged to this Build Alternative.
The “NPV” labels on page 7 need to be changed to “PV” as they are shown to represent Present Value rather than Net Present Value.
The analysis gives no indication it has included the increased VMT and VHT associated with reducing access to I-30 in downtown Little Rock.
The Build Alternative presumably eliminates ingress and egress access in the downtown Little Rock area, forcing traffic to travel farther to many distances. The text gives no indication that these increases in VMT and VHT has been included in the analysis.
The analysis provides so little information on the Travel Demand Model that it is impossible to say whether it was correctly done.
For instance, there is no indication as to the projected rate of increase for traffic use other than that implied by the resulting values. The source of the projected rate, and its derivation, is not disclosed.
The analysis fails to disclose any incremental analysis Many of the components of the Build Alternative could be modelled incrementally. Such analysis would help the decision-makers decide which project components made sense economically for inclusion in the overall project.
Engstrom, Web - PM 6 1362 No Build I support the boulevard plan as proposed by Tom Fennel. 6/10/2016 E, F-1 Stephen Form
Engstrom, Web - PM 6 1363 No Build The AHTD plan will decimate downtown neighborhoods. I support the Boulevard plan. 6/10/2016 E, F-1 Rebecca Form
Web - PM 6 1364 No Build The proposed plan will be bad for downtown neighborhoods. I support the boulevard plan. Ketcher, Louise 6/10/2016 E, F-1 Form
Web - PM 6 1365 No Build Thank you Few, James 6/10/2016 E Form
D - 239
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1366 No Build No mega-freeways! Voss, Carey 6/10/2016 E, M Form
Web - PM 6 1367 Other Replace bridge, keep at 6 lanes and improve them. Do not create more lanes. McSpadden, Julie 6/10/2016 F-2 Form
Please take steps to keep people living and spending money on housing, groceries, and home goods in Web - PM 6 1368 No Build Wingert, Valerie 6/10/2016 E, M Little Rock! Form
Web - PM 6 F-1, I-4, I-6, 1369 No Build The AHTD plan is bad for downtown neighborhoods. If do like the Fennel Purifoy Boulevard plan. Kyniston, Page 6/10/2016 Form I-9
I don't want to have this interstate widened. I don't believe it will actually accomplish the goal and would Web - PM 6 1370 No Build Olson, Chris 6/10/2016 I-4, I-6, I-9 drive the property values and neighborhood down. Form
Web - PM 6 1371 No Build I feel very strongly that adding lanes will be highly problematic to our community. Chandler, Ashley 6/10/2016 I-4, I-6, I-9 Form
Web - PM 6 1372 No Build Please do not do this. Newell, Dee Ann 6/10/2016 M Form
I would rather see nothing done than have a plan implemented that will, according to multiple experts, Web - PM 6 1373 No Build Wyers, James 6/10/2016 G-6, M make traffic much worse. Form
Increase lanes in "bottle neck" areas like what was recently done on I-430 north as it merges to I-40 west. No Build Other places this can and should be implemented are I-30 East merging into I-40 West and I-40 East. Web - PM 6 1374 Brooks, Derek 6/10/2016 G-5, F-1, F-7 Other Traffic backs up when you have 4 lanes suddenly dropping to 1 or 2 lanes. Widening the I-30 bridge Form creates more lanes and doesn't solve the 'bottle neck" issue.
Web - PM 6 1375 No Build no build find alternatives Feldman, Zachary 6/10/2016 E, F-7 , L-1 Form
D - 240
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. These further expansions are ignored by AHTD and unaccounted for in costs that will accrue to taxpayers. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development there which clearly is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of F-7, F-1, H- pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. Web - PM 6 1376 No Build Ambrose, April 6/10/2016 2, I-4, I-9, I- The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Form 6 Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its self-interest, back its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
I oppose the I-30 freeway expansion proposed by AHTD because, I believe AHTD's traffic modeling is flawed and that the freeway will cause numerous congestion problems in downtown Little Rock as well as bottlenecks in other points of the freeway system. The immense cost is not worth the result. Additionally, expanding the freeway in downtown will devastate future development. An expanded freeway encourages urban sprawl, unnecessary car travel and discourages the growth of pedestrian and bike friendly city streets for Little Rock residents. F-7, F-1, H- Web - PM 6 1377 No Build The age of expanding freeways is past. AHTD needs to look at alternatives such as the boulevard plan, Milam, Debbie 6/10/2016 2, I-4, I-9, I- Form Competitive cities are looking for ways to become more pedestrian and bike friendly as well as 6 encouraging redevelopment of historic districts and neighborhoods. Burdening future generations with huge maintenance costs for a behemoth that will not serve our city well is not something I can support. Little Rock should look to its urban core and in the process make our entire region more livable, competitive and economically robust. Expanding the I-30 corridor freeway is counter to these goals and represents an outdated, unaffordable and ineffective solution. Central Arkansas deserves better.
The current AHTD and similar proposals are dinosaur plans that will extinguish the development of Little Cerrato, Deborah Web - PM 6 F-7, I-4, I-6, 1378 No Build Rock. Downtown revitalization efforts will disintegrate. Newer ideas must be considered that are 6/10/2016 MD Form I-10 affordable and promote the city with up-to-date creativity and engineering.
Web - PM 6 1379 No Build No just no LaFave, Jamie 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 241
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Web - PM 6 1380 No Build I support the Fennell Boulevard plan. Traylor, David 6/10/2016 F-1 Form
The general public doesn't understand these options. There needs to be more education. This area of town should be developed into the boulevard option with the other highway/interstate systems on the Web - PM 6 1381 Other Perez, Amanda 6/10/2016 F-1, I-2, L-2 edges of town to be developed further. Please consider the downtown progressive. The river front will be Form lost with excessive traffic noise. See above.
Building the boulevard would be a great improvement. In front of me, I've got a lifetime of using the Web - PM 6 1382 No Build infrastructure that is being built today….. And building more of the same design of the last 50 years is not Traylor, Henry 6/10/2016 F-1 Form the way forward.
Web - PM 6 1383 No Build No build Gold, Kortney 6/10/2016 E Form
My comments have to do mainly with sound shields or sound barriers along the roadway. Interstate traffic noise is an irritant in our urban areas, and we've lived in L.R. for over 35 years. Stand awhile in downtown, say by the Clinton School, and just hear the roar of traffic. Please arrange for sound barriers to be part of this project. If you travel in northern Europe, for instance, you encounter sound barriers - many of them Web - PM 6 1384 6 C/D SPUI Coffin, John 6/10/2016 H-2, I-2 attractive and effective - in many, many urban areas. They do their work - traffic sounds are minimized. Form Now is the time, at the start of what will be a major project here in our city, to include funds for these vital noise abaters/minimizers. Let's keep our downtown also people/walker friendly too! Respectfully and hopefully,
Don't think we need to have a bigger freeway downtown. Think it would be great to take out the Cantrell Web - PM 6 1385 No Build Roberson, Gail 6/10/2016 F-1, F-7 exit and the ninth street exit and funnel downtown traffic thru one exit. Form
Web - PM 6 1386 No Build I support the coalition of Little Rock neighborhoods in their stand on NO BUILD. Roell, Ginger 6/10/2016 E Form
Web - PM 6 1387 No Build No build Roell, Ginger 6/10/2016 E Form
Schoenemann, Web - PM 6 1388 No Build I would like to maximize the use of space already in existence. 6/10/2016 M Nick Form
Web - PM 6 1389 6 C/D Split Diamond I like this option best. Lassiter, Kay 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1390 No Build Please don't ruin Little Rock's revitalization of downtown….. We need Little Rock to be user friendly. Robb, Kristin 6/10/2016 I-6 Form
D - 242
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
The more forward-thinking boulevard plan does not ruin the area like expanding I30 will. Let's build it for Web - PM 6 1391 No Build Curran, Jill 6/10/2016 F-1, H-2 people and cars, not just cars! Form
Would like further study and consideration of alternative ideas such as the boulevard plan, along with Web - PM 6 F-7, F-1, H- 1392 No Build Howorka, DK 6/10/2016 more pedestrian and bike friendly paths. Form 2, L-1
Build an over and under bridge with traffic on each level one way South and one way North. Reduces expansion width needs while meeting the need to add lanes in the busy traffic area. Palmer, Roger Web - PM 6 F-1, F-7, G- 1393 Other 6/10/2016 This will reduce the complaints about width expansion and protect drivers since there is no opposing Phillip Form 1, L-2 traffic on the same level.
Please think long and hard about the negative impact this would have on downtown Little Rock if you Web - PM 6 1394 No Build Woods, Melissa 6/10/2016 I-4, I-9, I-6 were to widen I-30 as proposed by AHTD. It would destroy my neighborhood. Form
Boulevard option and reroute interstate traffics around the airport. Beachboard, Web - PM 6 F-1, F-4, F- 1395 Other Please consider all the alternatives and downtown Little Rock's growth needs incorporating all forms of 6/10/2016 Matthew Form 5, I-6 traffic, not only the vehicular demands of an expanded highway and the induced demand therein.
Make needed structural repairs with existing lanes Improve access ramps to minimize disruption of downtown vehicle and pedestrian traffic Williams, Helen Web - PM 6 F-5, G-3, G- 1396 Other 6/10/2016 Encourage through traffic to use I-440 or other appropriate route Claire Form 4, H-2 See above
Web - PM 6 1397 No Build Please, no more concrete. Bradburn, Monty 6/10/2016 M Form
10 lanes through N Little Rock and Downtown. 2 collector/distributor lanes entering on North side of bridge and well before downtown from the South. The problem that I always have there is at least 1/2 the traffic exiting within a 1/2 mile of each other right Web - PM 6 1398 Other Griffin, John 6/10/2016 F-7, M at downtown. This slows down the whole road back to 67/167. Before the bridge going South, these Form exiting cars should be in 2 feeder lanes ready to exit and out of the way of the through traffic. Go for 10 lanes. You want to expand for the future, not just for today.
I think there are some good ideas here but feel like a lot of issues still need to be analyzed before making such a consequential decision such as the economic impact/disruption on the two downtowns and thru traffic, the possibility that moving people through Little Rock faster isn't necessarily good for local Web - PM 6 F-7, I-4, I-9, 1399 Other Thompson, Colin 6/10/2016 businesses and the creation of a huge dead zone under the overpasses. I park under the current I30 Form I-6, P-13 bridge, verdant field of grass it's not. I feel it needs more study. Thank you, Why does the video simulation show the eight lane option as more crowded than the six lane option?
D - 243
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dear AHTD, Please know that I'm a lifelong resident of Pulaski County and it's been a great pleasure to enjoy the social amenities that have come with the growth of the River Market. And this leads me to wonder why in the world would you want to increase the number of lanes on the interstate right there in downtown? Vehicular traffic goes very nearby at 60 mph with the noise and attendant pollution, and this seems aesthetically incongruent for any downtown area. To me it makes more sense to move that busy traffic out of downtown so that area can continue to grow as a downtown should luckily continue to grow as LR and NLR have been doing. There are multiple arguments against the widening of I-30 in these areas, and one that I often think of is the prediction for less growth for vehicular traffic in the future years. This is already happening in other F-7, F-5, F- 1400 metropolitan areas and will certainly be coming to Little Rock too. Hardin, Susan M. 6/10/2016 Email 6, H-2, I-2, The up and coming and already-here younger folks, plus the growing-older are happy to hop on a bus, rail, I-6, I-8 bicycle or some sort of public transport and not have to worry with the daily upkeep of a car with parking, buying gas, fender benders, etc. Why can't metropolitan central Arkansas be a part of this modern age too? Please stop and consider the excellent arguments that are being raised by your fellow Arkansans, for certainly this 1/2 % sales tax revenue should be shared with other parts of the state, not just central Arkansas. And finally and most importantly, please consider the multiple alternative suggestions that are being put forth, for many are excellent for the desirable and successful future growth of Little Rock! Sincerely,
Web - PM 6 E, F-3, F-4, 1401 No Build Direct traffic around downtown and improve arterials into downtown. Construct the Chester Street Chambers, Don 6/10/2016 Form F-5
Web - PM 6 1402 8-lane Split Diamond I think that the eight lanes with the split diamond design would be least disruptive Sperry, Jennifer 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1403 No Build Please do not build a gigantic highway. It will further segregate our city. Currie, Jacqueline 6/10/2016 M Form
Web - PM 6 1404 No Build NA Christ, Mark 6/10/2016 M Form
D - 244
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
RE: Environmental Assessment of 30 Crossing {CA0602) Dear Mr. Bennett, On behalf of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, we submit the following comments on the geometric alternatives and concepts being considered for the preparation of the 30 Crossing Environmental Assessment (EA). Through that EA, the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department {AHTD) seeks a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) in order to move the project into final design/build. The purpose of this letter is to describe critical elements that the City believes should be included in the project, at a minimum, for a FONSI to be issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Also attached is correspondence from City Director Kathy Webb. The City retained a consulting team to assess the impact of the proposed alternatives and to provide recommendations to ensure the project advances goals for Downtown Little Rock. Developing an overview of Downtown and its context relative to the proposed 30 Crossing Project, the City Team visited Little Rock for several days to gain an understanding of the project history. Prior to arrival, the team reviewed substantial background information including previous plans and studies as well as media coverage of the 30 Crossing project. The team interviewed City Board members and a range of diverse stakeholder groups, all of whom have an interest in the economic and social viability of Downtown Little Rock from an environmental and place-making perspective. With the benefit of the City Team's overview of Downtown and the potential impact of the proposed alternatives, we offer the following comments: The Removal of the Highway Stub Represents a Substantial Improvement to Downtown. The City wholeheartedly supports and applauds AHTD for the removal of the highway stub between 2nd and 3rd Streets (as shown in the original SPUI plans) as depicted in the "split diamond" alternative. The removal of this intrusion to the downtown street network and fabric is a welcome and beneficial proposed change, I-12, C, F-7, Stodola, Mark especially as it will enhance the context for the Metro Streetcar connecting downtown from the Clinton G-1, F-1, H- Mayor Library to the heart of downtown as well as North Little Rock. 1, H-2, I-7, 1405 6/10/2016 Post The Project Purpose and Need Statement Should Be Supplemented. While reducing traffic congestion, I-11, I-4, I-9, Moore, Bruce T. improving roadway safety and addressing structural deficiency are worthwhile goals, the needs of I-6, L-2, N, City Manager Downtown Little Rock (through which I-30 passes) are not sufficiently addressed. Specifically, the needs of L-1 the human environment related to economic development, pedestrian safety and preservation of community character are critically important to any downtown, including Downtown Little Rock; and any project that might negatively impact these elements would likely represent a net loss for the community and the City. Accordingly, an affirmative acknowledgment in the Purpose and Need Statement is needed. Beyond supplementing the elements already in the Purpose and Need, the elements that are already in the purpose and need should be more adequately addressed. For example, the analysis of reduction of congestion does not account for induced traffic1 Rather, the analysis takes a straight-line approach to traffic growth and applies a simple "Level of Service" standard policy to drive lane counts and proposed surface street changes. We are concerned this approach will result in negative surface street impacts, while still failing to account for likely traffic growth. It is recommended that the analysis recognize that the programmed roadway changes will only help to manage (not solve) traffic congestion and that, as a result, driving toward an inaccurate level-of-service outcome will not achieve what is best for both the 30 Crossing and Downtown. The safety analysis should be more broadly applied to assure improvement for all transportation system users. The analysis did not indicate that congestion at Downtown Little Rock interchanges was seen as a cause of crashes2 We want to be sure, however, that what is constructed does not inadvertently create issues on Downtown surface streets. None of the analysis methods adequately address the actual factors that most correlate to higher crash rates on surface streets (namely vehicle speed and access points) nor do they appear to project the increase in crashes likely to occur on Little Rock's surface streets if higher volumes and speeds are introduced. The analysis should at a minimum consider the safety of vulnerable system users (pedestrians and cyclists) on Downtown streets who will suffer (injury or death) if there are D - 245
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
safety deficiencies. It is recommended that the impacts to all system users be fully accounted for in selecting alternative design elements; and that elements such as high-speed, one-way surface streets be re-evaluated in light of the full needs of Downtown. *The proposed Highway Alternatives Must Be sensitive to Irreplaceable Natural, Historic and Cultural Resources and Valued Park Space. Both in terms of the overall width of the right-of-way proposed and the substantial impacts of elements such as one-way surface streets and the removal of on-street parking, the recommended alternatives have the potential to do substantial damage to Downtown Little Rock. It is recommended that, as required mitigation, the overall impact be narrowed through the use of vertical retaining walls (rather than sloped fill) in all locations, the reduction of auxiliary or collector/distributor lanes, and the elimination of highway elements such as clear zones and shoulders on collector/distributor streets, which will also have the benefit of a slower design speed associated with those c/d lanes (see below). *The Collector/Distributor (C/D) Roads Must Be Designed as City Streets. Further, the Needs of the Freeway Network Cannot Be Met at the Expense on the City's Streets. While the City of Little Rock recognizes the goals of AHTD to move regional traffic via the highway network, the City also maintains the necessity to create a safe, vibrant, multi-modal Downtown street network. Consequently, the collector/distributor streets must be a part of this Downtown network and must mark the end of high- speed, freeway driving behavior. The collector/distributor streets must function SOLELY as a transition element of the system. Accordingly, the C/D roads are the place where drivers moving at freeway speeds must transition to moving at speeds appropriate to city streets with pedestrians and cyclists. To achieve that transition as the 30 Crossing approaches Downtown, the following elements will be required: *Lane widths - Lane widths of 11 feet or less will be needed on collector/distributor streets to effectively slow driving speeds. Further, there should be no shoulders or offsets to the curbs along those streets. These elements are fully compliant with the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways (the Green Book). *Edge Elements - Street trees and pedestrian-scale street lights should be placed next to the collector/distributor streets 1.5' from the edge of curb in keeping with Green Book guidance for urban streets. Sidewalks should be placed next to this tree buffer along all the collector/distributor streets. *Corner Radii - As the collector/distributor streets intersect City streets, intersection turn radii should not be overly large so as not to encourage unsafe driving speeds. The NACTO Urban Street Design Manual should be used as a resource in final design. *The Collector/Distributor Streets Should Remain No More Than Two Lanes Wide. Despite some lanes being termed "auxiliary" lanes, the fact is that the proposed C/D streets are wider than what the community anticipated. These streets should not be widened to accommodate the interchange between I-30 and I-630. We request that the design not be solely driven by a vehicle level of service (LOS) measure, but rather by a balance of the factors discussed in this letter. The C/D roads should remain two lanes, and if more length is required to facilitate exit queuing from reaching the mainline, those elements should be accommodated through design characteristics that move the exit decision point and a slowing of highway speeds further back on the mainline. Accordingly, after the exit decision point, the collector/distributor streets should be designed to operate at no more than 35 mph. *Planning for Potential Traffic 25 Years From Now Cannot be the Basis for Opening Day Operation of City Streets. While the City recognizes the desire of AHTD to design a bridge of sufficient width to accommodate various potential futures, the impacts to local streets cannot be calibrated to such an unknown future. Specifically, eliminating on-street parking and allowing high-speed one-way traffic down 4th and 6th Streets at the opening of the project are potentially unnecessary. Many things can change in the next 25 years (demographic changes and technology such as autonomous vehicles, for example), and it is desirable to implement agreed upon elements of AHTD plans as deemed necessary through a comprehensive and context-sensitive vision for Downtown. There should be a less impactful opening year operating plan, which should be measured by standards including operating speeds for city streets at no more than 25 mph so that un-signalized crosswalks, bike lanes, cafes and other people-centric elements D - 246
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
will function safely and be attractive for Downtown living. *East-West Connectivity is Critical for Downtown to Advance as a Nationally-Recognized Urban Center. As you are aware, when I-30 was originally constructed, it was east of Downtown Little Rock. In the intervening years, it is clear that Downtown has developed on both sides of the freeway. The alternative selected must include mitigation elements that facilitate east-west movement, support community character and safety and support Downtown's continued revitalization. These elements are critical to ensure that the integrity and fabric of Downtown is not negatively impacted and they must not be eliminated during any potential value engineering conducted as part of the design-build process. Those elements categorically are: *Wide Bridges at 6th Street and 9th Street - The redesigned and reconstructed bridges and the current highway overpasses must be designed wider and deeper (for sustainable landscaping) so that a person crossing does not perceive the highway below and is invited to traverse the pedestrian crossing as if Downtown was not interrupted by a highway8. While the exact width and deck depth are not possible to determine before final design, we believe that a width that accommodates at least 40 to 50 feet between the outside curb and the edge of the bridge on each side is needed to accomplish that pedestrian perception and function. *Lighting- Lighting under the redesigned and reconstructed highway structure shall be best-in-class technology, function and application to create a sense of invitation and safety at night for Downtown residents. *Structures that create underpasses with openness and light during the day - The utilization of elements such as "smooth bottom" beams and the minimization of the number of bents or other structures supporting the beams/deck will be necessary to ensure that the streets and public spaces that pass under the highway feel inviting, safe, open and connected with Downtown on either side of the highway. Such openness is in many ways present currently and to diminish that would be to negatively impact connectivity. *The City Recognizes and Appreciates The Progress Made In The Development of the Split-Diamond Alternative. We have appreciated AHTD1s willingness to work with us and with important volunteer partners such as Studio Main. We also appreciate the opinions, thoughts and concerns of other stakeholders who have contributed their time and energy to this project. We request that the department continue to collaborate with us and all stakeholders as a part of the design process to develop a new and improved alternative that meets the needs stated above. We also request that AHTD participate in a Joint Development Agreement that defines critical design elements as well as the funding and maintenance roles of AHTD and the City as any agreed upon alternative moves toward into the design/build phase. Based on our assessment, it is our determination that the proposed alternatives need further improvement so that they will not place a substantially negative impact on downtown; and, at a minimum, those alternatives must include the elements described above if a FONS! is to be issued. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the 30 Crossing EA and look forward to further discussions to ensure that success for both the project and Downtown Little Rock are synonymous.
D - 247
PUBLIC MEETING #6 SUMMARY CA0602 ATTACHMENT D – PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Bennett: Thank you for reading and considering the following comments. Please know that hundreds of citizens have contacted me concerning this project, and four neighborhoods in Ward 3 have passed resolutions opposing it. In regard to the letter from the city, I appreciate the work that was involved, and agree with much of it. However, I strongly believe that it is lacking in several areas, which I want to make clear. As stated in the letter from the city, the needs of Downtown Little Rock are not sufficiently addressed as the project stands. I believe that the consultants hired by the city should provide specific goals to you. Additionally, I believe the area studied by the AHTD should be expanded to include impacted areas of Downtown. That study should include the economic burden the expansion would cause, as well as the traffic and congestion impact. Currently, the AHTD says one of five purposes of the project is to improve mobility on 1-30 and 1-40. That means, mobility anywhere else is the city's problem, leaving the city to deal with the impact. It is also critical that the Highway Department consider induced demand and factor that into the equation. Norm Marshall is a good resource for that. I believe that the city should not be commenting on an Environmental Assessment at this point. While I didn't live here in 1991, I know there was a federal lawsuit on the issue of EIS and EA, as it pertained to Jimerson Creek and the widening of Rebsamen Park Road. I believe using the title "Environmental Assessment. .. " is not appropriate. F-7, F-1, G- In the city's letter on page 3, "Proposed Highway Alternatives ... ",! believe the freeway should go below 1, I-1, I-4, I- 1406 Webb, Kathy Email 3rd Street, if a minor exception is made for slope. This would greatly reduce the land covered by 6, I-9, I-12, overpasses. L-2 I think the safety analysis is good, but it should include improving safety across the 1-30 Corridor without reducing safety within adjacent areas. I think the use of vertical retaining walls (rather than sloped fill, p. 4) is good. In discussing mitigating impacts of east-west movement (page 6), we should remove of freeway entrances and exits in the Hangar Hill neighborhood, and restoration of city streets in the area. These specific improvements to the neighborhood and restoration of the east-west grid are critical. Also on page 6, not only is allowing high-speed traffic unnecessary, it's "unacceptable." Hundreds of citizens have donated 1 OO's of hours, attending meetings, coming up with ideas, all for no compensation. I applaud all of these groups and individuals. I personally have had the opportunity to work with a coalition of citizens, who raised money to hire Norm Marshall from Smart Mobility. This group included Tom Fennell, from Fennell Purifoy, who has contributed countless hours developing a Boulevard proposal, representatives from the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, downtown residents, and others. Scott, I hope you will collaborate with us on ways to make this project as beneficial to the future of Little Rock as possible. I would like to be clear that while I support much of what is stated in the letter from the city, I don't believe it has enough specificity nor do I believe it adequately addressed all available options. For these reasons, I submit this letter to be attached to the letter from the city. Sincerely,
D - 248