2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

2040: THE NEW FRONTIER

9/26/2016 Frontier MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan

FRONTIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 1109 S. 16TH STREET/P.O. BOX 2067 FORT SMITH, AR 72902 PHONE (479)785-2651 FAX (479)785-1964 WWW.FRONTIERMPO.ORG 2040: The New Frontier

2040: The New Frontier

Non-Discrimination Clause

Publication of this document was financed in part by funds provided by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. The provision of Federal financial assistance should not be construed as denoting U.S. Governmental approval of plans, policies, programs or projects contained herein.

The Frontier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) complies with all civil rights provisions of federal statutes and related authorities that prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Therefore, the Frontier MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, or national origin, religion or disability, in the admission, access to and treatment in Frontier programs and activities, as well as the Frontier hiring or employment practices. Complaints of alleged discrimination and inquiries regarding the Frontier MPO’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to Dianne Morrison, Title VI & Title II Coordinator, 1109 S. 16th Street, Fort Smith, AR 72901 (479) 785-2651 or the following email address: [email protected]

2040: The New Frontier TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Plan Format Relationship with State and Federal Agencies

II. Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives………………………………………………………………………...5

III. Region………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 Geographic Arkansas Communities Oklahoma Communities

IV. Demographics and Economy………………………………………………………………………20 Population Forecast Economic and Employment Income Employment

V. Transportation Modes…………………………………………………………………………………………….32 Freight Demand Intermodal System Air Rail Water Roadway Pipeline Transit Bicycle Traffic Demand Crashes Truck

VI. The Planning Process…………………………………………………………………………………………...73 Scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Public Participation Plan Public Notification Environmental Justice Frontier MPO Work Products Public Involvement Meetings

VII. Implementation and Financial Plan………………………………………………………………………….88 Relation to Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Process

2040: The New Frontier 2040: The New Frontier Financial Plan 2040: The New Frontier Monitoring Procedures Fiscally Constrained Project Listing Categories

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………………………109 Appendix A Appendix B

TABLE OF FIGURES

Introduction 1 Regional Context Map…………………………………………………………………………………………….8 2 Metropolitan Planning Area General Location Map…………………………………………………………...9 3 Frontier Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary……………………………………………………………….11 4 Physical Map……………………………………………………………………………………………………..12

Demographics and Economy 5 Land Use………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

Transportation Modes 6 Regional Intermodal Transportation System………………………………………………………………….33 7 Intermodal Transportation and Major Manufactures…………………………………………………………35 8 U.S. Freight Rail Level of Service…………………………………………………………………...... 37 9 McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System………………………………………………...... 38 10 The Port of Fort Smith and Port of Van Buren………………………………………………………………..40 11 The Port of Fort Smith…………………………………………………………………………………………..41 12 The Port of Van Buren……………………………………………………………………………...... 42 13 Port Development Site…………………………………………………………………………………………..43 14 Fuel Efficiency By Transportation Mode………………………………………………………………………44 15 Arkansas River-Marine Highway Connector………………………………………………………………….45 16 Frontier MPO Functional Classification Map…………………………………………………………………48 17 Arkhoma Basin and Fayetteville Shale………………………………………………………………………..49 18 Fort Smith Transit Fixed Route ………………………………………………………………………………..52 19 Fort Smith Bikeway, 2003 ……….……………………………………………………………………………..56 20 Fort Smith Trails and Greenways, 2014………………………………………………………………………57 21 Current Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Plan………………………………………………………………58 22 Frontier MPO Regional Pedestrian Plan………………………………………………………………………59 23 Annual Daily Traffic Map 1……………………………………………………………………………………...60

2040: The New Frontier 24 Annual Daily Traffic Map 2……………………………………………………………………………………...61 25 Annual Daily Traffic Map 3……………………………………………………………………………………...62 26 Annual Daily Traffic Map 4……………………………………………………………………………………...63 27 Annual Daily Traffic Map 5……………………………………………………………………………………...64 28 Crash Heat Map Arkansas, 2011………………………………………………………………………………66 29 Crash Heat Map Arkansas, 2012………………………………………………………………………………67 30 Crash Heat Map Arkansas, 2013………………………………………………………………………………68 31 Crash Heat Map LeFlore County, 2011-2013……………………………………………………………...... 70 32 Crash Heat Map Sequoyah County, 2011-2013………………………………………………...... 71 33 Percent Truck Traffic…………………………………………………………………………………………….72 34 Fort Smith Truck Route………………………………………………………………………………………….73

The Planning Process 35 Title VI Populations………………………………………………………………………………………………76 36 Environmental Justice…………………………………………………………………………………………...77 37 Public Involvement Scoring……………………………………………………………………………………..81 38 Public Involvement Scoring……………………………………………………………………………………..81 39 Public Involvement Visioning Responses……………………………………………………………………..83 40 Map of 2040 Proposed Projects, South Fort Smith………………………………………………………….84

Implementation and Financial Plan 41 2016-2020 TIP Projects…………………………………………………………………………………………95 42 Mid-Term Projects…………………………………………………………………………………………….…97 43 Long-Term Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………...99 44 Illustrative Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………..101

TABLE OF CHARTS AND TABLES Table 1 MSA Population Projections……………………………………………………………………………….22 Chart 1 MSA Population Projections……………………………………………………………………………….22 Table 2 Population Projections……………………………………………………………………………………...23 Table 3 Historical Population………………………………………………………………………………………..24 Table 4 County Population History…………………………………………………………………………………24 Chart 2 Counties in Urbanized Area………………………………………………………………………………..25 Table 5 Household Median Income 2012………………………………………………………………………….28 Chart 3 Employment May 2015……………………………………………………………………………………..29 Table 6 Location Quotient by Occupational Group……………………………………………………………….30 Table 7 Sebastian County Employers……………………………………………………………………………...31 Table 8 Crawford County Employers………………………………………………………………………………32

2040: The New Frontier Table 9 Frontier MPO River Ports and Terminals………………………………………………………………...38 Chart 4 Fort Smith Transit Ridership Trends……………………………………………………………………...51 Table 10 MTP Objectives Public Scoring………………………………………………………………………..81-82 Table 11 Short-Term Projects………………………………………………………………………………………...94 Table 12 Mid-Term Projects…………………………………………………………………………………………..96 Table 13 Long-Term Projects…………………………………………………………………………………………98 Table 13 Illustrative Projects………………………………………………………………………………………...100 Table 15 Future Funding…………………………………………………………………………………………….102 Chart 5 Anticipated Funding……………………………………………………………………………………….103 Table 16 Constrained and Unconstrained Projects………………………………………………………….104-106 Table 17 Statewide Transit Funds………………………………………………………………………………….107 Table 18 Fort Smith Transit Short-Term Projects…………………………………………………………………108 Table 19 Fort Smith Transit Mid-Term Projects…………………………………………………………………...109 Table 20 Fort Smith Transit Long-Term Projects………………………………………………………………....109 Table 21 Fort Smith Transit Illustrative Projects…………………………………………………………………..109

2040: The New Frontier Committee Membership

Policy Board

ARKANSAS Mr. John Parker FORT SMITH REGIONAL AIRPORT Mr. Chad Adams COMMISSION ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY & [email protected] TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

[email protected] Mr. Ken Savage – Secretary FORT SMITH TRANSIT Mr. Paul Simms [email protected] ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Mayor Doug Kinslow - Chair [email protected] CITY OF GREENWOOD [email protected] Mayor Keith Greene – Vice Chair CITY OF ALMA [email protected] Mayor Gary O’Kelley CITY OF KIBLER [email protected] Mr. Mike Tanner CITY OF BARLING Mayor Hugh Hardgrave [email protected] CITY OF LAVACA [email protected]

Mayor Elmer Nelson Judge David Hudson CITY OF BONANZA SEBASTIAN COUNTY [email protected] [email protected]

Mayor Chuck Wallace Mayor Bob Freeman TOWN OF CENTRAL CITY CITY OF VAN BUREN [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Mat Pitsch Judge John Hall REGIONAL INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CRAWFORD COUNTY AUTHORITY (RITA) [email protected] [email protected]

Mayor Sandy Sanders Mr. Ivy Owen CITY OF FORT SMITH CHAFFEE CROSSING [email protected] [email protected]

2040: The New Frontier

OKLAHOMA Commissioner Derwin Gist, Dist. 1 LEFLORELEFLORE COUNTY Mr. Anthony Echelle, Div. II Eng. [email protected] OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANPORTATION [email protected] Mayor Don Didier TOWN OF POCOLA [email protected] Mayor Floyd Lawrence TOWN OF ARKOMA Commissioner Ray Watts, Dist. 1 [email protected] SEQUOYAH COUNTY [email protected] or Linda Dobbs [email protected]

2040: The New Frontier COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Technical Committee

ARKANSAS

Mr. Jason Hughey Mr. John Parker ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY & FORT SMITH REGIONAL AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT COMMISSION [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Antonio Johnson Ms. Lori Carr ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY & FORT SMITH TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Sonny Bell Mr. Mark Yardley CITY OF GREENWOOD CITY OF ALMA [email protected] [email protected] Mayor Gary O’Kelley Mr. Mike Tanner CITY OF KIBLER CITY OF BARLING [email protected] [email protected] Mayor Hugh Hardgrave Mayor Elmer Nelson CITY OF LAVACA CITY OF BONANZA [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Jim Carter Mayor Chuck Wallace SEBASTIAN COUNTY TOWN OF CENTRAL CITY [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Joe Hurst Mr. Ivy Owen CITY OF VAN BUREN CHAFFEE CROSSING [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Mat Pitsch Mr. Chris Keith REGIONAL INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CRAWFORD COUNTY AUTHORITY (RITA) [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Matt Meeker CITY OF FORT SMITH [email protected]

2040: The New Frontier

OKLAHOMA NON-VOTING MEMBERS Ms. Laura Chaney OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF Ms. Valera McDaniel TRANSPORTATION FHWA-AR [email protected] [email protected]

Mayor Floyd Lawrence Mr. Isaac Akem TOWN OF ARKOMA FHWA-OK [email protected] [email protected]

Commissioner Derwin Gist, Dist. 1 Mr. Tim Allen LEFLORELEFLORE COUNTY FORT SMITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE [email protected] (Gina Rogers) [email protected]

Mr. John Limbocker Ms. Jackie Krutsch TOWN OF POCOLA VAN BUREN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE [email protected] [email protected]

Commissioner Ray Watts, Dist. 1

SEQUOYAH COUNTY [email protected] or Linda Dobbs [email protected]

2040: The New Frontier

FRONTIER STAFF

Sasha Grist, PCED Executive Director [email protected]

Dianne Morrison, AICP Director [email protected]

Lyndsee Littleton-Lyons Transportation Assistant [email protected]

Amanda Moses Fiscal Officer [email protected]

Rhonda Bell Office Manager [email protected]

2040: The New Frontier

FRONTIER MPO METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

I. INTRODUCTION 2040: �e New Frontier is the regional transportation plan for the Fort Smith Region which encompasses municipalities and unincorporated portions of counties in Arkansas and Oklahoma. It is a plan that identifies the needs and financial resources available to meet the area’s transportation needs over a twenty-five year period. This Plan was developed through a cooperative effort The 3 C’s of the coordinated by the Frontier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and its planning process: member jurisdictions, Fort Smith Transit and other transit providers, the Arkansas Cooperative State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) and the Oklahoma Continuing Department of Transportation (ODOT). The metropolitan transportation planning process is required to be a cooperative, continuing and comprehensive Comprehensive multimodal process that monitors regional growth and any subsequent socioeconomic changes resulting from growth. The monitoring efforts of the Frontier MPO transportation planning process are conducted in cooperation with local member governments in order to maintain an accurate and current representation

of street and highway improvement needs. A four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is developed to identify projects anticipated to be implemented over a four-year period. The TIP not only lists the anticipated projects, but provides information relative to cost, sources of funds and any matching requirements of each project.

Plan Format The 2040: �e New Frontier format is comprised of seven individual sections which address the principal components of the Plan and the overall transportation planning process. The seven sections are as follows:

1. Introduction 2. Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives 3. Demographics and Economy

2040: The New Frontier

4. Transportation Modes 5. The Planning Process 6. Implementation and Financial Plan 7. List of Transportation Projects

These sections provide the supportive technical data for the Plan’s development and respond to the Federal requirements for a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) as established by Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and amended by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU), the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century of 2012 (MAP-21) and finally the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST ACT).

Relationship with State and Federal Agencies and Requirements 2040: �e New Frontier has been developed in conjunction with the Frontier MPO member governments, the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD), the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The preparation of the Plan has been funded, in part, through the use of FTA and FHWA planning funds which are administered through both states' Highway and Transportation Departments. The Plan is the culmination of a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning effort among the Federal, State and local governments directed by the Frontier MPO process that provides for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that address the following factors:

• Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

• Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;

• Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;

• Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight;

• Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

2040: The New Frontier

• Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

• Promote efficient system management and operation;

• Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system; • Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation; and • Enhance travel and tourism.

The following federal requirements were also incorporated into the 2040: �e New Frontier development. The transportation plan must:

a. Address a twenty-year planning horizon;

b. Include long range and short range strategies that lead to an integrated intermodal transportation plan;

c. Identify the transportation demands of persons and goods over the period of the plan;

d. Identify congestion management strategies that demonstrate a systematic approach in resolving current and future demand;

e. Identify needed pedestrian walkway and bicycle facilities;

f. Reflect the consideration given to the results of the management systems;

g. Assess the capital investments and other measures necessary to preserve the existing transportation system and make the most efficient use of existing facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and enhance the mobility of people and goods;

h. Include sufficient design concept and scope descriptions regarding each proposed transportation improvement described in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates;

i. Reflect a multi-modal evaluation of the transportation, socioeconomic, environmental, and financial impact of the overall plan including all major transportation investments;

2040: The New Frontier

j. For major transportation investments for which analysis are not complete, indicate that the design, scope, mode, and alignment have not been fully determined and will require further analysis;

k. Reflect consideration of the area’s comprehensive long-range land use plans and metropolitan development objectives;

l. Indicate, as appropriate, the transportation enhancement activities within the area; and,

m. Include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and projected sources of revenue;

n. Compare the estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total transportation system over the period of the Plan.

There must be adequate opportunity for public officials and citizen involvement in the development of the transportation plan before it is approved by the Frontier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board. Chapter 5 of 2040: �e New Frontier presents the Public Participation Procedures used by the Frontier MPO in this process.

2040: The New Frontier

II. MISSION, VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

MISSION Together with other public and private partners, develop and maintain the appropriate management systems necessary for a safe, efficient, and convenient multi-modal transportation system that will effectively move people and goods on a coordinated transportation network that will advance and secure the economic prosperity and social equity for all residents, visitors, and businesses within the Frontier Metropolitan Planning region of Arkansas and Oklahoma.

VISION A comprehensive and coordinated multi-modal transportation environment based on the principles of inclusion, communications and innovation that will have the flexibility to respond to new technologies and methodologies to enhance the Frontier region’s position in the regional, national, and international markets as well as provide accessible and affordable transportation services and opportunities to all of the region’s current and future residents.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal 1: Encourage and support transportation planning at the local and regional level to create an integrated multi-modal transportation system that promotes livability and economic development opportunities. Objectives • Develop Complete Street Policies at the regional and local level • Design transportation projects utilizing Context Sensitive Solutions (CCS) • Adopt master street and comprehensive plans at the local level • Update the Functional Classification Map on a regular basis • Develop and maintain local and regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans • Promote local and regional transit planning • Identify and plan for future corridor preservation

2040: The New Frontier

Goal 2: Maintain, operate, and fund the existing transportation system efficiently and effectively. Objectives • Develop and continue to maintain a safe and efficient transportation network for the movement of people and goods • Utilize new technology for signalization timing, traffic flow, and traffic management • Identify and promote Travel Demand Management • Deploy Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology throughout the region

• Establish transportation performance measures, set targets, report performance and program transportation investments directed toward the achievement of transportation system performance outcomes

Goal 3: Improve the safety and security of the transportation system.

Objectives

• Deploy proven safety measures such as cable median barriers and rumble strips • Develop and adopt access management ordinances at the local level on key corridors in order to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and improve facility capacity • Support and develop educational programs to reduce the incidence of distracted driving and DUI’s

• Support rail grade separations at high-use crossings

• Promote the utilization of traffic calming techniques, where appropriate, to mitigate the impact of increasing traffic volumes and speeds on local streets

Goal 4: Develop a complete, connected, integrated regional transportation system that provides transportation choices for people and freight. Objectives • Enhance and improve the freight movement and capacity on the Arkansas River • Improve the freight handling capacity at the existing ports • Improve the landside infrastructure at the Port of Van Buren and the Port of Fort Smith • Preserve and improve the existing and future railroad corridors • Improve and enhance the intermodal connections between all modes of transportation • Enhance and improve transportation options for all transit dependent persons in the region

• Enhance and improve modal choice in the region and last mile connections for transit users

2040: The New Frontier

• Improve ground access to airport facilities as determined in the airports’ master plans

• Encourage local governments to link their land use plans to their master street plans and capital improvement plans

• Encourage local governments and private developers to consider all modes of transportation (pedestrian, transit and bicycle) in the development process

Goal 5: Create a transportation system that protects the environment and promotes sustainability. Objectives • Support the development of alternative fuels and the infrastructure to deploy new fuel alternatives • Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation • Reduce congestion and vehicle delay through travel demand management, incident management, and the promotion of van pools and car pools

• Encourage good air quality as measured by attainment with the Clean Air Act pollution standards

• Support the substitution of communication technology for transportation (telecommuting and e-commerce)

• Encourage the protection of wetlands and other natural resources in the planning and design of new transportation facilities with appropriate mitigation to be required for unavoidable impacts

• Promote land use ordinances that discourage sprawl and other land use patterns that increase automobile dependency

Goal 6: Plan and invest in transportation investments that support and promote economic development opportunities and job creation for the region, state, and United States. Objectives • Support funding to complete I-49 within the region and in the United States • Move additional freight by rail, air and on the Arkansas River McClellan-Kerr Navigation System • Preserve and enhance the existing infrastructure to serve the industrial and manufacturing base within the region • Expand transit service to those persons needing access to employment opportunities, shopping, recreational activities, etc. • Improve truck movements in the region with a focus on access and safety

2040: The New Frontier

• Contribute to a high quality of life in the region by minimizing congestion, providing modal choice, encouraging high quality design in transportation facilities and providing an adequate and well-maintained public infrastructure at a reasonable cost

III. THE REGION GEOGRAPHIC Located on the border of Arkansas and Oklahoma, the Frontier MPO area is nearly equidistant from the major metropolitan areas of Memphis, Kansas City, and Dallas, which are within a five-hour drive time, or approximately 320 miles. Little Rock, Arkansas is 150 miles east of the area and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is 180 miles west. The Fort Smith Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) includes Crawford and Sebastian Counties in Arkansas and LeFlore and Sequoyah Counties in Oklahoma. The incorporated communities, cities, and towns within the MSA include Alma, Barling, Bonanza, Cedarville, Central City, Chester, Dyer, Fort Smith, Greenwood, Hackett, Hartford, Huntington, Lavaca, Mansfield, Midland, Mountainburg, Mulberry, Rudy, and Van Buren in Arkansas and Arkoma, Bokoshe, Cameron, Fanshawe, Gans, Howe, Moffett, Muldrow, Panama, Pocola, Poteau, Roland, Sallisaw, Spiro, Vian, and Wister in Oklahoma.

The Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers MSA (Washington, Benton, Madison, and McDonald County, MO) is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation. This MSA is located approximately 40 miles north of the Frontier MPO Planning Area Boundary. With the completion of I-49 between these two areas, the social, economic, and cultural interaction has increased by bringing over 20% of the State’s population into a more convenient travel sphere of daily socio-economic activity. The urbanized area between the two MSA’s is separated by the Ozark National Forest which covers approximately 1.2 million acres in northern Arkansas.

2040: The New Frontier

Rogers

Fayetteville

Ozark National Forest

Alma

Fort Smith

Figure 1: Regional Context Map The four contiguous counties of Benton, Washington, Crawford and Sebastian in western and northwest Arkansas that comprise these two metropolitan areas are four of the most rapidly growing counties in the State and, when viewed in a regional context, are seen as one of the principal growth areas in the nation.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 2: Metropolitan Planning Area General Location Map

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 3: Frontier Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary

2040: The New Frontier

PHYSICAL The Frontier MPO Metropolitan Planning Area encompasses approximately 491 square miles in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. The Metropolitan Planning Area includes 23 square miles of eastern Sequoyah County (OK), 51 square miles in northeastern LeFlore County (OK), 178 square miles of southwestern Crawford County (AR) and 239 square miles in northwestern Sebastian County (AR). The Arkansas River flows through the center of the Metropolitan Planning Area and is part of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) The navigation system is approximately 445 miles long, includes 18 locks and dams, and is operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers 24 hours a day.

The urbanized area located within the Frontier Metropolitan Planning Area consists of flat to rolling terrain and becomes a more mountainous to the south and north. The central cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren Figure 4: Physical Map reflect this type of terrain in that they both exhibit a rather flat topography adjacent to the Arkansas River and a rolling to hilly topography away from the River Valley.

2040: The New Frontier

ARKANSAS COMMUNITIES

The City of Alma is located seven (7) miles east of Van Buren at the intersection of the I-40 and U.S. 71 corridors. The I-40/U.S. 64 corridor represents the direct connection between Alma and the Fort Smith/ Van Buren area.

Since the 1999 completion of I-49, between Alma and the Fayetteville/Springdale area, this city has seen the continuance of new residential developments along the I-49 corridor. This growth has been advanced with the completion of the I-49 interchange at Collum Lane and Maple Shade Road. The city has also recently realized the beginning of “spill-over” development from the unprecedented growth of Northwest Arkansas. Increasingly, new individuals to that part of the state who are working in Northwest Arkansas are living in Alma, Van Buren, Mountainburg, and other Crawford County communities. A number of these individuals are moving to the area from other parts of the country where commutes of 35 to 40 minutes are common-place. The commute times to Northwest Arkansas from Alma, Van Buren, Mountainburg, and other Crawford County communities fall well within these accustomed travel times.

The City of Barling is located immediately east of the City of Fort Smith. There are four existing connecting corridors between Barling and the other Frontier MPO communities. Barling is connected with Fort Smith through three corridors. Two of these corridors, Highways 22 and 255, offer fast and direct linkage between the two cities. The development that is occurring along the Highway 255 corridor is considerably different than that of the Highway 22 corridor due to the large tracts of land that are available for warehousing, distribution, and other light industrial uses. The Highway 22 corridor does not offer large tracts, thus the types of development along this corridor tend to have more of a service and highway commercial orientation. The third existing corridor between Barling and Fort Smith is the Moody Road corridor which extends west out of Barling to its intersection with Massard Road in Fort Smith.

The only major north-south corridor between Barling and any other community within the Frontier MPO Area is Highway 59. Although presently there is little development along this corridor, there are abundant

2040: The New Frontier

opportunities for development because of the existing mixture of uses found within this corridor. Residential usage dominates the southern section of the corridor within the city, whereas the northern section of the corridor within the city is predominantly open and includes a Corps of Engineers Park (Springhill Park) along the Arkansas River. Highway 59 crosses the Arkansas River at this point and continues into the City of Van Buren where the development dramatically changes to agricultural and industrial uses.

Approximately 7,000 acres of property was released from Fort Chaffee through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) procedures by the US Department of Defense. This property has been ceded to the Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Trust for the purposes of developing a reuse plan that provides for the development of Chaffee Crossing, a mixed-use development including residential, commercial, industrial, public use conveyances, and other public uses. Among the most important public use properties is the necessary right- of-way for the construction of I-49 through Chaffee Crossing from south of I-40 near Alma to an area north of the Jenny Lind Community, south of Fort Smith.

Bonanza The City of Bonanza is located five miles south of Fort Smith, in the southwest part of the Frontier area in Arkansas. The City of Bonanza relies almost entirely on the Fort Smith/Van Buren area for employment, medical, and retail services due to its very small area and population. Highway 45 traverses the city from north to south and provides the only direct access between Bonanza and Fort Smith. The city initiated a planning program and formed a planning commission in the late 1990s in anticipation of the continued growth and development trends south of Fort Smith. The Frontier MPO staff has assisted the city in the development of plans and ordinances and will continue to assist in developing strategies that will be consistent with the regional plans and projects.

Central City Central City is located immediately east of Barling and has access to the Fort Smith area by Highway 22. The City is currently experiencing a considerable amount of residential growth along the Highway 22 corridor as well as the Highway 255 corridor, connecting Central City with the City of Lavaca.

2040: The New Frontier

The City of Fort Smith is the largest city in the region, situated in the center of the Frontier MPO area. With the exception of I-40 and Highway 59, each of the Federal and State Highways comes to or through this city. Fort Smith is separated from Van Buren and points north by the Arkansas River; Greenwood and points south by topographical features such as Rye Hill. The eastern section of Fort Smith points toward the area by Chaffee Crossing and toward the Oklahoma communities by another bend in the Arkansas River. Considering these limited points of access as gateways, the following highway corridors offer the only means of accessing Fort Smith:

1. Highways 22 and 255, to the east; 2. I-540 and Highways 71, 253, and 45 to the south; 3. I-540 and Highway 64/71 to the north; 4. Highway 64 to the west. The City of Fort Smith actively implements their Master Street Plan through the enforcement of their subdivision regulations and through their transportation related capital improvements program which is supported by a city-wide 1 cent sales tax. Although the City of Fort Smith has been successful in maintaining and improving their streets and highways, 2040: �e New Frontier addresses additional regional highway improvements that will provide further access and mobility improvements into and out of the city. These proposed improvements will not be the sole responsibility of the City of Fort Smith; rather, the city will be working with the appropriate federal and state agencies and local governments to secure funding and implementation of these proposed improvements.

The City of Greenwood is located 10 miles south of Fort Smith immediately east of Highway 71. Although Highway 10 Spur provides the principal connection between the city and the Highway

2040: The New Frontier

71 corridor, recent residential developments along North Main Street (north of the city) are placing more importance on the recently developed North Main Street connection to the Highway 71 corridor. Greenwood has also seen a significant amount of development pressure along the Highway 71 corridor. These have been, for the most part, residential and retail activities and proposals.

Residential developments toward the east have caused the city to study the need for an effective bypass for traffic on Highway 71. With the assistance of the AHTD and Frontier MPO staff, the city has proposed two separate bypasses. The first involves the use of Highway 10 on the southwest side of the city and an extension of Highway 10 south of the city to an intersection with Highway 96 on the east side of the city. This would involve approximately 1.5 miles of construction on a new location within the Vache Grasse Bottoms area south of the city’s waste water treatment facility. The second bypass that has been addressed is located on the north side of the city. This bypass would provide the same type of relief as the Highway 10 and 96 proposal as it relates to the existing and future congestion through the city’s downtown. The northern bypass would link the east side of the City with the planned Gate 9 Road interchange on I-49 within Chaffee Crossing. The Department of Defense and the Arkansas National Guard both agreed that a proposed northern bypass was not a viable alternative due to recent improvements that had been made by the DOD along the western segment of the proposed route. The City of Greenwood is now actively studying other options and alternatives, including major widening and operational improvements on the Highway 10 and Highway 10 Spur corridors.

Kibler The City of Kibler is located five miles east of Van Buren and two miles south of Alma. Kibler is connected to these two communities by Highway 162. As seen in most of the smaller Frontier MPO communities, the development within Kibler is concentrated along the Highway that provides the principal means of access to the Fort Smith/Van Buren area.

Improved access through the upgrading of Highway 162 has fostered an increase in residential activity in and around the city. Although the city is experiencing increases in residential development, the long term residential growth within the city will be dictated by the substantial amount of prime agricultural farm land within the Arkansas River Valley surrounding the city. As Kibler continues to grow and develop, an increasing number of commuters using Highway 162 will access the Fort Smith/Van Buren area for employment, medical, and retail purposes. Since the long range plans and goals of the city do not include major industrial and retail development, the current commuting trend between the city and the Fort Smith/Van Buren area is

2040: The New Frontier

expected to continue. One qualifying factor pertaining to the future of industrial and commercial activity is the continuation of I-49 through Kibler. The approved plan for I-49 includes an interchange on Highway 162 east of this city. Typically, interchanges on interstate highways are catalysts for development. Factors such as water, sewer, local building regulations, and traffic volumes are critical to the scale, timing, and type of development that occur. The Frontier MPO staff will continue to assist the City of Kibler in their planning and project development to be able to respond to the changing development climate that will arise as a result of the construction of I-49 and its eventual completion through the city.

The City of Lavaca is located along Highway 255, two miles north of Highway 22 and eight miles east of Barling. The development that is occurring in and around Lavaca is primarily found along the Highway 255 corridor and the Highway 96 corridor, offering access to Highway 22. A significant amount of residential growth has occurred in the city. In response to this growth, Lavaca formed a planning commission and is developing plans and implementing ordinances. The Frontier MPO staff assisted the city in the formation of the planning commission and in the development and preparation of the plans and ordinances. As in Greenwood, Kibler and the neighboring communities in Oklahoma, the residential development is directly related to the overall growth within the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. Also, as in these other communities, the growth will be seen along the connecting corridor to the Fort Smith/Van Buren area which is Highway 255 in Lavaca.

Rudy The City of Rudy is located at the intersection of Highways 348 and 282, 12 miles north of Van Buren and two miles northwest of Alma. The Highway 348/282 corridor is currently experiencing scattered residential development and small scale subdivision activity.

Rudy has access to I-49 through an interchange at Highway 282 on the east side of the city. Again, as in most of the other smaller Frontier MPO communities, the future growth is expected to be seen along the highways which connect these communities to the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. Since I-49 is a controlled access facility, the growth in and around Rudy is anticipated along Highways 348 and 282 as they connect the city to Highway 59 and I-49.

2040: The New Frontier

The City of Van Buren is located immediately north of Fort Smith on the north side of the Arkansas River. Van Buren is served by three east-west highway corridors and three north-south corridors. These corridors are as follows;

1. I-40, east-west route 2. Highway 64, east-west route 3. Highway 162, east-west route 4. I-540/Highway 71, north-south route 5. Highway 59, north-south route 6. Highway 282, east-west route

As in the other Frontier MPO communities, these corridors offer connections between the communities within the Frontier MPO area. The City of Van Buren has maintained the integrity of their street plan through the monitoring of the growth trends, development issues and pressures. This monitoring program has ensured that adequate and appropriate access to the above corridors has been maintained and fostered. Van Buren is also provided with the following three means of accessing Fort Smith:

1. I-540 Bridge 2. Highway 64/71 Bridge 3. Highway 59 Bridge (Lock and Dam # 13)

The importance and impact of the Frontier MPO area’s corridors and their connections among the Frontier MPO area's communities becomes most apparent in the case of Van Buren. Practically all of the vehicular traffic emanating from points north and northeast of the Frontier MPO area with destinations in Fort Smith or points south of Fort Smith must cross the Arkansas River on one of the three bridges cited above. Since this amounts to a significant amount of traffic, the importance of these bridges and of maintaining the local street plans through the careful review of circulation issues becomes a critical issue.

2040: The New Frontier

Over the past 10 years, growth in northern Van Buren has continued to accelerate, resulting in new residential developments and a rapid increase in commercial developments. The most important factor in this growth has been the widening and reconstruction of Highway 59 from Rena Road to Northridge Road. The widening is scheduled to continue for the next 10 years over a series of phased projects. Highway 59 is the only continuous north - south facility in Van Buren and major growth areas have developed within its corridor.

Cooperative Inter-Jurisdictional Planning Agreements Recognizing the importance of maintaining adequate connections between jurisdictions, the Cities of Van Buren and Alma agreed in 1993 to coordinate their respective planning jurisdictional areas in order to remove any overlapping, redundancy, and jurisdictional conflicts. As a result of this coordination, all of the Frontier MPO area in Arkansas north of the River is now under the authority of local jurisdictions for master street planning and subdivision control. The significance of this can be clearly understood with respect to design and construction standards and the provision of future connecting facilities between and among communities.

Also in 1993, the cities of Greenwood and Fort Smith entered into a cooperative and coordinated arrangement for planning jurisdictional responsibility. Accordingly, nearly the entire southern portion of the Frontier MPO area in Arkansas is under a coordinated planning authority resulting from this agreement.

These inter-jurisdictional agreements and processes have continued and have expanded to include the cities of Barling, Lavaca, Bonanza, Dyer, and Cedarville.

2040: The New Frontier

OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES All of the Oklahoma communities lie west of Fort Smith and Van Buren and are connected to the Frontier MPO area by four US highways and one state highway. The town of Moffett is connected to Fort Smith by Highway 64. The Arkansas River presents both a physical and a fiscal barrier for potential connections from the Fort Smith/Van Buren area to the communities in Sequoyah County due to the tremendous costs and complexities of bridge construction. As a result, the I-40 and Highway 64 connections will retain their importance as the only foreseeable connections north of the River between the Frontier MPO area and Oklahoma.

Communities in LeFlore County, Oklahoma within the Frontier MPO area are offered two primary connections into the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. Oklahoma State Highway 9 connects Arkoma, Oklahoma directly to Fort Smith while Highway 271, which becomes I-540 as it enters Arkansas, offers Fort Smith/Van Buren connections for Pocola, Oklahoma. Highway 271, via Oklahoma Highways 112 and 9, offers a direct connection between the Fort Smith/Van Buren area and the growing sub-regional center of Poteau, Oklahoma, outside of the Frontier MPO.

2040: The New Frontier

IV. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY POPULATION FORECAST The Frontier MPO’s central city, Fort Smith, is the second largest in the state of Arkansas, based on 2010 Census Data. The five largest cities in Arkansas as reported in the 2010 census are the following:

Percent of Population Growth 2000 to 2010 Arkansas Largest Five Cities:

Little Rock 193,524 5.7 percent Fort Smith 86,209 7.4 percent Fayetteville 73,580 26.8 percent Springdale 69,797 52.4 percent Jonesboro 67,263 21.2 percent

Percent of Population Growth 2000 to 2010 Arkansas Largest Five Counties:

Pulaski 382,748 5.9 percent Benton 221,339 44.3 percent Washington 203,065 28.8 percent Sebastian 125,744 9.3 percent Faulkner 113,237 31.6 percent

Percent of Percent of Population Growth 2000 to 2010 State of Arkansas:

State of Arkansas 2,915,918 9.1 percent

2040: The New Frontier

Population growth in the Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA is projected to increase by 10 percent over the next 25 years. Sebastian County is forecasted to see the largest increase, with an increase in population of approximately 19,000.

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 2015 to 2040 2000 2010 2015* 2020 2030 2040 Numeric Percent Crawford County, AR 53,247 61,948 61,703 63,259 62,881 61,945 242 0.39% Sebastian County, AR 115,071 125,744 127,780 132,058 139,246 146,825 19,045 15% LeFlore County, OK 48,109 50,384 49,605 50,296 51,707 53,157 3,552 7% Sequoyah County, OK 38,972 42,391 41,153 41,993 43,725 45,529 4,376 11% MSA 255,399 280,467 280,241 287,606 297,559 307,456 27,215 10% * US Census Estimate Source: Arkansas Muncipal Leauge, US Census, WAPDD, UALR Institute for Economic Advancement Frontier MPO Estimates

Table 1: MSA Population Projections

Chart 1: MSA Population Projections The Frontier MPO area will continue to grow at a modest rate over the next twenty-five years, approximately three percent annually. The City of Greenwood is estimated to be the fastest growing community, with a population increase of 18,409 over the next twenty-five years. Smaller communities that have been stagnant or declining over the last three decades will continue this trend; however, the area continues to expand toward the south and east in Sebastian County and to the north and east in Crawford County. Table 2 (page 23) depicts the estimated population projections for the region. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute for

2040: The New Frontier

Economic Advancement population projections were used for Arkansas Counties. Population projections for other areas such as cities and counties in Oklahoma were determined based on growth trends over the last 35 years.

Population 1980 to 2040

Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013 2015* 2020 2030 2040

Crawford County 36,892 42,493 53,247 61,948 61,640 61,703 63,259 62,881 61,945 Alma 2,755 2,959 4,160 5,419 5,523 5,629 6,347 8,069 10,259 Kibler 798 931 969 961 942 923 916 900 884 Rudy 79 45 72 61 60 59 58 57 56 Van Buren 12,020 14,979 18,986 22,791 23,059 23,474 25,654 26,114 31,189 Sebastian County 95,172 99,590 115,071 125,744 127,342 127,780 132,058 139,246 146,825 Barling 3,761 4,078 4,176 4,649 4,750 4,853 5,072 5,540 6,052

ARKANSAS Bonanza 553 520 514 575 559 543 539 531 523 Central City 339 419 531 502 493 484 487 494 500 Fort Smith 71,384 72,798 80,268 86,209 87,650 89,114 92,524 99,742 107,523 Greenwood 3,317 3,984 7,112 8,952 9,302 9,666 11,642 16,886 24,495 Lavaca 1,092 1,253 1,825 2,289 2,363 2,439 2,789 3,647 4,768 LeFlore County 40,698 43,270 48,109 50,384 49,774 49,605 50,296 51,707 53,157 Arkoma 2,175 2,393 2,180 1,989 1,952 1,916 1,851 1,723 1,604 Pocola 3,268 3,664 3,994 4,056 4,021 3,986 4,017 4,080 4,143 Sequoyah County 30,749 33,828 38,972 42,391 41,218 41,153 41,993 43,725 45,529 OKLAHOMA Moffett 269 219 179 128 124 120 115 110 109 4 County Totals 203,511 219,181 255,399 280,467 279,974 280,241 287,606 297,559 307,455 * US Census Estimate, County only Source: Arkansas Muncipal Leauge, US Census, WAPDD, UALR ,Frontier MPO Estimates

Table 2: Population Projections

Table 3 is a 60-year population trend from 1950 to 2010 for each jurisdiction.

2040: The New Frontier

Population 1950 to 2013

Jurisdiction 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Crawford County 22,727 21,318 25,677 36,892 42,493 53,247 61,948 Alma 1,228 1,370 1,613 2,755 2,959 4,160 5,419 Kibler - - 611 798 931 969 961 Rudy 97 113 103 79 45 72 61 Van Buren 6,413 6,787 8,373 12,020 14,979 18,986 22,791 Sebastian County 64,202 66,685 79,237 95,172 99,590 115,071 125,744 Barling (U) 770 1,739 3,761 4,078 4,176 4,649

ARKANSAS Bonanza 361 247 342 553 520 514 575 Central City - - - 339 419 531 502 Fort Smith 47,942 52,991 62,802 71,384 72,798 80,268 86,209 Greenwood 1,634 1,558 2,032 3,317 3,984 7,112 8,952 Lavaca 373 392 532 1,092 1,253 1,825 2,289 LeFlore County 35,296 29,106 32,137 40,698 43,270 48,109 50,384 Arkoma 1,691 1,862 2,098 2,175 2,393 2,180 1,989 Pocola - - 1,840 3,268 3,664 3,994 4,056 Sequoyah County 19,773 18,001 23,370 30,749 33,828 38,972 42,391

OKLAHOMA Moffett 380 357 312 269 219 179 128 4 County Totals 141,998 135,110 160,421 203,511 219,181 255,399 280,467 Source: Arkansas Muncipal Leauge, US Census, WAPDD

Table 3: Historical Population

MPO Counties Located in Urbanized Area: Crawford, Sebastian, LeFlore and Sequoyah

Population 1950 to 2010 Jurisdiction 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Crawford County 22,727 21,318 25,677 36,892 42,493 53,247 61,948 Sebastian County 64,202 66,685 79,237 95,172 99,590 115,071 125,744 LeFlore County 35,296 29,106 32,137 40,698 43,270 48,109 50,384 Sequoyah County 19,773 18,001 23,370 30,749 33,828 38,972 42,391 4 County Totals 141,998 135,110 160,421 203,511 219,181 255,399 280,467

Table 4: County Population History

Source: AR Municipal League, US Census, WAPDD

2040: The New Frontier

Frontier MPO Counties 1950-2010 140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Crawford County Sebastian County LeFlore County Sequoyah County

Chart 2: Counties in Urbanized Area

Frontier MPO has produced a generalized land use map based on the 911 data available in Crawford and Sebastian Counties and is forecasting increasing residential, commercial and industrial growth associated with the development of I-49 and Chaffee Crossing.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 5: Land Use

2040: The New Frontier

Economic and Employment The Fort Smith area is a significant manufacturing and trucking hub in the state of Arkansas and in the region.

Large companies such as USA Truck, Inc., Baldor Electric Company, OK Foods, Simmons Foods, Inc., and

ArcBest Corporation are located in this region. This area’s employment reflects this focus, with a higher concentration of in production and transportation jobs than the national average, as well as a lower concentration of many high-skilled, high-education jobs in occupational groups, such as Business and

Financial Operations, Computer and Mathematical, or Architecture and Engineering.

Income The average hourly wage in the Fort Smith Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)1 in May 2015 was $16.79,

27.72% lower than the United States average of $23.232. The median hourly wage was $13.27, 23.73%

lower than the United States median of $17.40, while the annual mean wage was $34,910, 27.75% lower

than the United States average of $48,3203. Although the cost of living in the area is low, this does not fully

offset lower wages. According to the ACCRA Cost of Living Index4, the Composite Index for the Fort Smith

Urban Area in the first quarter of 2011 was 85.1 % of the index’s average. Similarly, Sperling’s Best Places’ cost of living index for the Fort Smith Metro Area (updated June 2014) was 81 compared to a US average of

100. To summarize, while cost of living is about 15 or 19 percent lower than the national average, mean hourly wages and mean annual wages are approximately 28 percent lower; median income is approximately

23 percent lower.

1 The Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA is composed of Crawford, LeFloreLeFlore, Sebastian, and Sequoyah counties and contains a total land area of 3387.48 square miles and an estimated total population of 280,241 residents (U.S. Census Bureau Annual Estimates of the Resident Population, July 1 2015). In comparison, the Frontier MPO Area covers 491.12 square miles with a population estimate of 168,852 (2010 U.S. Census population estimate) (Brochure). 2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2015. 3 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2015. 4 http://www.discoverarkansas.net/article.asp?PAGEID=&SUBID=&ARTICLEID=1685&SEGMENTID=1

2040: The New Frontier

In 2012, of all 357 MSAs in the United States, the Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA had the 8th highest share of households earning less than $35,000, at 48.6%, and the third lowest share of households earning $75,000 or more, at $17.4%5. The distribution ratio between these two values (% Incomes < 35K / %Incomes > 75K) ranked the fourth highest of all MSAs6 and median household income for 2013 ranked 352 out of 363.7 Table

5 below shows the income distribution of share of household by Median Income in 2012.8

Less than $25,000 - $50,000- $75,000 - $100,000 or $25,000 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 more

Fort Smith, 35.1% 29.4% 18.1% 7.8% 9.6% AR-OK

Table 5: Household Median Income in 20129.

Employment In March 2016, the total civilian labor force in the Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA numbered 122,100 and non-farm employment numbered 113,700. Unemployment in the MSA was 4.6 %, lower than the national average of

5.1 %, but slightly higher than the Arkansas state unemployment rate of 4.1 % and the Oklahoma state unemployment rate of 4.4 %10.

The total civilian labor force numbered 122,100. Chart 3

(page 29) shows the number of employees in the Fort Smith

MSA by occupational group.

5 http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 6 http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 7 http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 8 http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 9 http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 10 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2040: The New Frontier

The five largest categories are: (1) Office and Administrative Support, (2) Production, (3) Sales and Related,

(4) Transportation and Material Moving, and (5) Food Preparation and Serving Related.

Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA Employment by Occupational Group

Office and Administrative Support 16,850 Production 14,010 Sales and Related 11,360 Transportation and Material Moving 11,060 Food Preparation and Serving Related 9,350 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 6,430 Education, Training, and Library 5,440 Construction and Extraction 5,040 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 4,760 Management 4,540 Personal Care and Service 3,380 Healthcare Support 3,350 Building and Grounds Cleaning and… 2,990

Occupational Group Business and Financial Operations 2,830 Protective Service 2,260 Community and Social Service 1,580 Computer and Mathematical 1,090 Architecture and Engineering 890 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 770 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports,… 690 Legal 350 Life, Physical, and Social Science 300

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Employment

Chart 3: Employment in May, 2015 in the Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area by Occupational Group.11

11 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Fort Smith, AR-OK, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_22900.htm

2040: The New Frontier

Table 6 below lists the location quotient12 for each occupational group. The rows are colored to highlight those occupations with a significantly greater share than the national average (in green), a similar share to the national average (in orange), and a significantly smaller share than the national average (in blue).

Occupation Location Quotient Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 2.15 Production 1.95 Transportation and Material Moving 1.46 Construction and Extraction 1.16 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 1.12 Healthcare Support 1.06 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 1.01 Community and Social Service 1.01 Sales and Related 0.99 Personal Care and Service 0.99 Office and Administrative Support 0.97 Food Preparation and Serving Related 0.94 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 0.86 Protective Service 0.85 Management 0.82 Education, Training, and Library 0.80 Business and Financial Operations 0.51 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 0.47 Architecture and Engineering 0.45 Legal 0.41 Computer and Mathematical 0.34 Life, Physical, and Social Science 0.33 Table 6: Location Quotient by Occupational Group13

12 The location quotient is the ratio of an occupation’s share of employment in a given area to that occupation’s share of employment in the U.S. as a whole. 13 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Fort Smith, AR-OK, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_22900.htm

2040: The New Frontier

The Arkansas Economic Development Commission reported the largest 20 employers in Sebastian County (see Table 7) and Crawford County (see Table 8), as of March 2014 and February 2016, respectively. The two lists feature a large number of healthcare, manufacturing, education, and retail businesses.

Number of Rank Employer Location Industry Employees 1 St. Edwards Mercy Medical Center Fort Smith Healthcare 2,500+ 2 Fort Smith School District Fort Smith Public Schools 1000-2,499 Motors and Generators 3 Baldor Electric Company Fort Smith 1000-2,499 (manufacturing) Poultry Processings Plants 4 OK Foods, Inc. Fort Smith 1000-2,499 (manufacturing) Multiple 5 Wal-Mart Retails Department Stores 1000-2,499 Locations 6 Sparks Regional Medical Center Fort Smith Healthcare 1000-2,499 Air Conditioning Equipment 7 Rheem Manufacturing Company, Inc. Fort Smith 500-999 (manufacturing) 8 University of Arkansas at Fort Smith Fort Smith University 500-999 9 Golden Living Fort Smith Nursing and Convaleescent Homes 500-999 Baby Foods (wholesale and 10 Gerber Products Company Fort Smith 500-999 manufacturing) 11 Arkansas Best Corporation Fort Smith Trucking 500-999 Schools, handicapped and special 12 Bost Human Development Services Fort Smith 500-999 needs 13 Gerdau MacSteel Fort Smith Steel (manufacturing) 500-999 14 Greenwood School District Greenwood Public Schools 300-499 15 Cooper Clinic, PA Fort Smith Physicians and Clinics 300-499 16 The Trane Company Fort Smith Air Conditioning (manufacturing) 300-499 17 Vista Health of Fort Smith Fort Smith Healthcare 300-499 18 Kraft Foods, Inc. (Planters Company) Fort Smith Nuts and Snacks (manufacturing) 300-499

19 Dixie Consumer Products LLC Fort Smith Paper Products (manufacturing) 300-499

Paper Containers and Boxes 20 Graphic Packaging International, Inc. Fort Smith 300-499 (manufacturing) Table 7: Sebastian County Employers14

14 http://www.arkansasedc.com/sites/default/files/content/sebastian_03_141stqtr13.pdf

2040: The New Frontier

Number of Rank Employer Location Industry Employees

1 USA Truck, Inc. Van Buren Trucking 2,500+ 2 Simmons Foods, Inc. Van Buren Poultry Processing 1000-2,499 3 Tyson Foods, Inc. Van Buren Poultry Processing 1000-2,499 4 Van Buren School District Van Buren Public Schools 500-999 5 Wal-Mart Multiple Locations Retail Department Stores 500-999 6 Alma School District Alma Public Schools 500-999

7 Community Health Systems (CHS) Van Buren Healthcare 500-999

8 Bekaert Corportation Van Buren Wire Products (manufacturing) 300-499

9 McDonald’s Restuarants Van Buren Restaurants 200-299

Condiments and Sauces 10 Pepper Source Limited Van Buren 100-199 (manufacturing)

11 Cedarville Schools District Cedarville Public Schools 100-199

12 Mountainburg School District Mountainburg Public Schools 100-199

13 Stepping Stones School Alma Special Academic Schools 100-199 14 Van Buren HMA, Inc. Van Buren Healthcare 100-199

Pointer Trail Nursing and 15 Van Buren Nursing Care Facilities 100-199 Rehabilitation 16 Dancor Transit, Inc. Van Buren Trucking 100-199

17 Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. Van Buren Home Improvement Stores 100-199

18 Victoria Healthcare Properties, LLC Van Buren Healthcare 100-199

19 Sonic Drive-In Multiple Locations Restaurants 100-199 20 Tankersley Food Service, LLC Van Buren Food Service Distributors 100-199 Table 8: Crawford County Employers15

15 http://www.arkansasedc.com/sites/default/files/content/users/lcogbill/crawford_02_161stqtr15.pdf

2040: The New Frontier

V. TRANSPORTATION MODES

Transportation in the Frontier MPO area encompasses not only automobiles on roads, but also movement by trucks, air, water, rail, transit, and non-motorized modes such as bicycling and walking. The Frontier MPO area is located in a prime strategic geographic position to capture potential economic development opportunities related to the movement of people and goods across the United States. Specifically, as emphasized in Figure 5, the area’s combined presence of Interstates such as I-40 and I-49 (currently incomplete), multiple rail lines, and the Arkansas River provides a central intersection for regional and national freight movement.

Figure 6: Regional Intermodal Transportation System Featuring Proposed Completed I-49 - Context Map

Freight Demand As the United States population increases from approximately 321 million in 2015 to approximately 420 million by 205016, demand across all modes of transportation will also increase.

16 U.S. Census Bureau; “American FactFinder”; generated by Luke Tia; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/; (29 January 2016).

2040: The New Frontier

In particular, increased demand for freight transportation will affect the region’s roads, rail, and ports.

The projected increase in freight demand in the United States by 2050 is shown below.17

2010 Total Freight Demand 15 Billion Tons

2050 Total Freight Demand 30 Billion Tons

2050 Truck Forecasted Increase 41 %

2050 Rail Forecasted Increase 38%

Intermodal System The area’s transportation system continues to develop into an intermodal system, as seen in the construction of intermodal river-port terminal facilities along the Arkansas River, immediately east of the I-540 bridge between Van Buren and Fort Smith (see Figure 6). Additional interest in intermodal transportation has been expressed by the City of Fort Smith, City of Van Buren, Crawford County, and Sebastian County with the formation of the Western Arkansas Intermodal Authority, also known as the Western Arkansas Regional Intermodal Transportation Authority (RITA). The Frontier MPO supports the efforts of RITA to improve the capacity of the regional intermodal transportation system. Figure 6 on page 33 shows the intermodal access for major manufacturers in the MPO area and their locations in relation to rail, air, water, and road travel.

The following summaries survey the various modes of transportation in the Frontier MPO area (air, rail, water, roadway, pipeline, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian).

17 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Transportation Reboot: Restarting America’s Most

Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect

Communities, July 2010.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 7: Intermodal Transportation and Major Manufactures

2040: The New Frontier

Air Regional passenger air service is provided by the Fort Smith Regional Airport, located in Fort Smith and is known for its award-winning restrooms18. This airport offers passenger service to Dallas/Fort Worth and Atlanta and hosted 90,214 enplanements in 20145. In 2005, the Fort Smith Regional Airport retained a consultant to develop their Airport Master Plan update. The principal transportation system needs identified in the update include signage for the airport, improved access at the Leigh Avenue/I-540 interchange, and the deployment of appropriate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects. The Airport Master Plan update has estimated a total airport improvement cost of $74,170,000 over a Three Phased Development Program6. The overwhelming majority of these costs are for the airport’s operational and functional projects. The associated costs for improvements to the region’s surface transportation system will be found in regularly scheduled maintenance activities, implementation of improved signage pertaining to airport access, and related projects resulting from the development of off-airport properties under the airport’s ownership.

Rail Two (2) Class 1 Railroads service the Frontier MPO Area. The first of these, Union Pacific, is located north of the Arkansas River and provides east-west service essentially along the I-40 corridor. Switching capabilities are located in Van Buren, Arkansas and Sallisaw, Oklahoma, located approximately nine miles west of the western boundary of the Frontier MPO Area. The second Class 1 rail line is Kansas City Southern, which provides services to the west/southwestern portion of the area in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Kansas City Southern offers rail services in a north-south corridor between Highway 59 in Oklahoma and the Arkansas/Oklahoma State Line. Switching capabilities along this line are offered at two locations, both of which are located outside of the Area. One of these facilities is located in Poteau, Oklahoma, approximately 25 miles southwest of Fort Smith, while the other facility is located in Sallisaw, Oklahoma.

In addition to the two Class 1 rail lines, the Frontier MPO Area is served by two Class 3 lines, known as short line railroads. The Arkansas-Missouri (A&M) Railroad provides rail services between Springfield, Missouri and Fort Smith, Arkansas. The A&M has contractual arrangements with all three Class 1 lines in the area, which is a rarity among communities that are primarily serviced by a Class 3 short line railroad. The second

18 Cintas’ America’s Best Restroom Contest. Hall of Fame. 2005. www.bestrestroom.com/us/hall_of_fame/2005/ fortsmith.asp. Retrieved January 29, 2016. .5 Federal Aviation Administration, Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) and All-Cargo Data for U.S. Airports, http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/, Retrieved October 1, 2015. 6 Fort Smith Regional Airport, Airport Master Plan Update Executive Summary, http://fortsmithairport.com/wp- content/uploads/FSM_MP_Executive_Summary.pdf, Retrieved October 1, 2015.

2040: The New Frontier

short line is the Fort Smith Railroad, which offers transportation services within Fort Smith. With the provision of the two Class 3 short lines and the three Class 1 main lines, the Frontier MPO area has access to every major east-west and north-south gateway for freight and raw material transportation.

Unless significant improvements are made to rail infrastructure in the United States, many miles of the rail system will be falling behind demand. For example, Figure 7 below shows that by 2035, without any improvements, the capacity of the rail system between Little Rock and Fort Smith is forecasted to be at a level of service “F” as depicted on the following map.

Figure 8: U.S. Freight Rail Level of Service in 2035 tWithout Improvements7

Reprinted with permission from: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Unlocking Freight July 2 0 1 0 http://ExpandingCapacity.transportation.org Transportation Reboot: Restarting America’s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities, July 2010, Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. “National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study.” Report prepared for the Association of American Railroads, September 2007.

2040: The New Frontier

Water The Frontier MPO area is bisected in a west to east direction by the Arkansas River. The Arkansas River is part of a larger navigation system which includes the Arkansas and White Rivers in Arkansas and the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers in Oklahoma. This system, known as the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (as seen in Figure 8), was completed in the 1970's and opened a length of the Arkansas River to barge traffic between the Mississippi River in Desha County, Arkansas and the Port of Tulsa in Catoosa, Oklahoma. Since the Arkansas River does not freeze during the winter, the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System operates 365 days per year, 24 hours per day. Although the width of the Arkansas River varies, the channel depth is maintained at a minimum depth of 9 feet in order to accommodate barge traffic.

Figure 9: McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System

The area is served by two commercial ports located in Fort Smith and Van Buren, Arkansas, as well as several private terminals, docks and loading facilities. As seen in Figures 9 and 10, the Port of Fort Smith is actually located on the Poteau River immediately south of the confluence of the Poteau and Arkansas Rivers, The port in Van Buren is located on the Arkansas River, east of and adjacent to the I-540 Bridge over the

2040: The New Frontier

Arkansas River, as seen in Figures 9 and 11. Both ports are in operation and serve local, regional, and national barge and shipment needs. The Port of Van Buren is a series of privately held terminals, individually owned and operated. Table 9 lists Ports and Terminals in Van Buren and Fort Smith, including the Port of Fort Smith and the Port of Van Buren (Five Rivers Distribution).

Table 9: Frontier MPO River Ports and Terminals by River Mile

RITA commissioned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District to perform a 2013 Section 107 study of potential new port development sites near the Port of Van Buren. Figure 12 is one of the four potential port development sites located south of the Port of Van Buren and the primary site in development.

The Frontier MPO, along with RITA, continues to support efforts to make the Arkansas River channel a 12-foot depth and increase the freight capacity of the ports and terminals. The additional three-foot increase in depth on the Arkansas River would result in a 43% capacity increase of freight loaded onto barges.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 10: The Port of Fort Smith and Port of Van Buren

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 11: The Port of Fort Smith on the Poteau River

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 12: The Port of Van Buren and Van Buren Industrial Park

2040: The New Frontier

One of Four Potential Port Development Site Studied by the USACE, Little Rock District, 2011

: Figure 13 Figure

2040: The New Frontier

The Fort Smith region is fortunate to have all modes of transportation available to move freight. As the region competes for economic development opportunities, waterborne transportation is considered a fuel efficient, safe, and cost effective mode of transportation to move freight. Freight is typically measured in ton miles when comparing the different modes of transportation. A ton mile is equivalent to a ton of freight moved one mile. The following illustrations in Figure 14 compare the cost for moving freight by the different modes and illustrate the cost and fuel efficiency savings of moving freight by water.

Freight Cost and Fuel Efficiency by Mode

Volume of Freight Transported by Mode

Figure 14: Fuel Efficiency by Transportation Mode

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 15 below shows the routes of the United States’ Marine Highway system. In 2015, the Arkansas River was designated as the marine highway route M-40.

Figure 15: Arkansas River - Marine Highway Connector on the “America’s Marine Highway Program” Source: US DOT / Maritime Administration

2040: The New Frontier

Impacts of the Arkansas River In the Fort Smith/Van Buren area, the highway corridor river crossings and their connections to the area’s communities are very important and significantly impact the local roadway transportation system. Almost all vehicular traffic traveling from points north and northeast of the Frontier MPO must cross the Arkansas River on one of four bridges in order to reach Fort Smith or areas south of Fort Smith. Since this results in a significant amount of traffic channeled into a small number of routes, careful review of traffic circulation on local streets are of critical importance.

The implementation of the 2040: �e New Frontier Plan will have two important impacts related to the Arkansas River. First of all, the planned expansion of I-49 will include an additional river crossing with a bridge across the Arkansas River near Barling. In addition, the Arkansas River itself will be impacted by the on-going implementation of the Van Buren Regional Intermodal Facility in the Van Buren Industrial Park, as seen in Figure 11, and along the Arkansas River immediately downstream from the I-540 Bridge. This facility not only impacts the river through increased river traffic, but also significantly impacts traffic on the streets and highways in and around the Industrial Park.

Roadway The Frontier MPO area is served by numerous highways. The east-west corridors are serviced by the following State and Federal highways:

Arkansas: I-40 and Highways: 64, 348, 282, 162, 22, 10, 10 Spur, and 255 Oklahoma: I-40 and Highways: 64

The north-south corridors are serviced by the following State and Federal highways: Arkansas: I-49 and I-540 and Highways: 59, 255, 45, 253, 71, 271 and 549 Oklahoma: Highways: 9, 9A, 112, 271 and 59

2040: The New Frontier

The relocation of Highway 71 (later designated as I-49), between Bella Vista and Alma was completed in 1999. In 2015, another portion of I- 49 (currently named Highway 549) was completed across Chaffee Crossing property. This phase is part of a complete plan for I-49 to travel through western Arkansas between Missouri and Louisiana. Ultimately, I- 49 will replace the entire length of Highway 71 between Texarkana and the Frontier MPO with a safer and more efficient facility, thus facilitating an expanded regional and national economic environment for all of western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. This facility has long been the highest regional priority.

Another facility that has been considered a critical planned extension within the Frontier MPO area is the extension of I-540 into Oklahoma from Fort Smith. Each of these facilities could have significant impacts on the area's transportation network as well as its economic growth and development. Each of these proposed facilities are integral parts of the 2040: �e New Frontier Plan.

2040: The New Frontier

Frontier MPO Functional Classification Map

Figure 16: Frontier MPO Functional Classification Map

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 16 (see page 47) is a functional classification map for the Frontier MPO’s roadway network. Federal aid projects are required to be classified as a collector or above according to this system.

Pipeline Pipelines also serve an important role in transportation for the Frontier MPO. The Frontier MPO area sits upon one of the largest continental natural gas fields in the nation ( (Figure 17). This field, the Arkoma Basin and the Fayetteville Shale Play Formation, provides natural gas for local, regional, and national customers and is regularly expanded as the need for natural gas increases. The number and location of all pipelines will be an important factor in the design and location considerations during implementation of the proposed improvements contained in the 2040: �e New Frontier Plan. As the proposed improvements are readied for implementation, the location of the lines and efforts to avoid or accommodate them will be done on a case by case basis.

Figure 17: The Arkoma Basin and the Fayetteville Shale Play Formation

2040: The New Frontier

Transit Fort Smith Transit is the only public transportation provider operating in the Frontier MPO area and provides transit services within Fort Smith city limits. As seen in Figure 188, the transit system operates six core routes, with service from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday (Zero Route does not run on Saturday). A downtown trolley route also operates Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Curbside service is provided to passengers with qualifying disabilities (paratransit) and passengers traveling outside the fixed route coverage area (demand response), with operating hours Monday to Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Transit fares are $1.25 for fixed routes, free for the downtown trolley, and $2.50 for the paratransit/demand response service. Reduced fares for fixed route services are provided for the elderly and disabled while children seven years of age and younger ride free with a paying passenger.

As of September 2015, Fort Smith Transit’s fleet consists of 16 cut-away buses between 19 and 30 feet in length, with combined seating and standing capacity between 11 and 39. Five buses are Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles.

2040: The New Frontier

As seen by Chart 4 below, Fort Smith Transit has seen a general trend of increasing total passenger trips per year from 1998 to 2015, with slightly under 200,000 passenger trips in 2015.

Chart 4: Fort Smith Transit Ridership Trends – 1998-2015.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 18: Fort Smith Transit Department – Fixed Route Bus System Map

2040: The New Frontier

Many citizens have expressed interest in providing service between Fort Smith and Van Buren. In 2014, a survey to Van Buren residents received an 80% response in favor of a bus system between Van Buren and Fort Smith.

The River Valley Transportation Providers (RVTP) is a group of approximately 30 individuals representing all of the region’s transit providers, both public and private, including the local taxi company and the region’s charter bus services. The group was formed to dissolve boundaries and barriers and to establish a communication link between area providers. This collaboration produced a Coordination Plan, last revised in 2007, but now replaced by the Arkansas State Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan. Below is a list of the planning partners included in the RVTP:

• Abilities Unlimited • Area Agency on Aging • BOST, Inc. • Brookfield Assisted Living Center • Butterfield Place • City of Fort Smith Transit • Crisis Intervention Center • Franklin County Learning Center • Franklin County Senior Center • Gateway House • Gormon Towers • Harbor House, Inc. • Hope’s Creek • Legacy Heights • Letsgo Charters • Mercy Crest • Non-Ambulatory Transportation Service • Razorback Cab Company • Sebastian Retirement Citizen’s Association • Stepping Stone Schools • Western Arkansas Counseling and Guidance Center

2040: The New Frontier

These mostly human service agencies provide a vital link to the overall passenger transportation service in the Frontier MPO region. They provide transit service to specific clients for a variety of trip purposes, including medical, shopping, education, employment and recreational. Funding for transportation services is largely provided to these agencies through the AHTD administered Sections 5310, 5311, 5337, 5339 and 5329 programs and through the Arkansas Department of Human Services aging, disability, and Medicaid programs. These agencies provided an estimated 150,000 passenger trips in 2010 throughout Crawford and Sebastian Counties.

Frontier MPO area residents living in LeFlore and Sequoyah Counties do not have access to a public transportation provider. Although the KiBois Area Transit System provides demand response transit services to rural residents of these counties, its service areas do not include communities in the Frontier MPO Area.

Though it serves a historical and tourist purpose instead of a transportation purpose, the Fort Smith Streetcar Restoration Association, Inc. owns and operates a fully-restored 1926 electric streetcar which runs a half mile route in Downtown Fort Smith.

Bicycle

In 1998, the Frontier MPO staff, with the assistance of the Fort Smith Parks Commission, prepared a Bikeway Plan for the City of Fort Smith (Figure 19). This plan was adopted and is an integral part of the City’s Master Street Plan, coordinating with street plan implementation activities that are enforced through the City’s Subdivision Regulations.

Sebastian County initiated a bikeway project that was coordinated with the City of Fort Smith’s Bikeway Plan to create a bike path along Massard Road. The Massard Road bike path intersects with Zero Street and enters the County, continuing into Ben Geren Park, operated by Sebastian County.

Pedestrian and Recreational Trails

A regional pedestrian/bicycle plan for the Frontier MPO area is challenging due to geography and the Arkansas River. Major cities in the area are separated from one another by long stretches of undeveloped land corridors. In turn, these corridors do not have sufficient population or activity to generate the need for pedestrian improvements. However, as highways are improved, the Frontier MPO will suggest that pedestrian improvements be considered in the highways’ final study and design. When requested, the

2040: The New Frontier

Frontier MPO staff assists each area city in their planning needs and activities. As cities continue to grow, and needs such as pedestrian improvements arise, the Frontier MPO staff will coordinate all local pedestrian plans to ensure connectivity, correct location, Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessibility, and design.

The Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Plan Master was originally developed during late 2003 and into 2004. The Plan offered recommendations for improving community access to outdoor resources by identifying and preserving greenway corridors and building a network of off-road multi- purpose paved trails. LandPlan worked very closely with the Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee in preparing this master plan. LandPlan conducted public workshops, public meetings, and worked very closely with Fort Smith to ensure the proposed trail/greenway system will enhance the quality of life for city residents. A total of nearly 88 miles of trails were proposed in the plan with a total estimated cost of $21,897,500 to $26,277,000. The original Trails and Greenways Route Plan is shown in Figure 19.

After years without progress on implementing the original plan, the Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee was inactive until it was resurrected in 2014. The new committee created a modified plan. As seen in Figure 20, the current trails master plan identifies a reduced 35 miles of multi-use trails, as well as bike lines and Shared Lane Markings, known as “sharrows.” The system is extensive and comprehensive, and at the same time provides a realistic program for satisfying the needs of local residents regarding access to outdoor resources and linkage to popular destinations. Cost estimates range from $9.5 to $17 million.

In addition, the City of Greenwood is developing a Greenways Plan that will become an element of its Master Street Plan.

Lastly, in 2016, the Frontier MPO adopted a Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The plan recommends bicycle and pedestrian routes within and around the MPO Area, as seen in Figure 22. These routes connect the existing trail plans to each other and to the different communities in the MPO. In accordance with AHTD policy (Appendix A), the plan recommends bicycle facilities to be built on these routes when future work is done on these roadways.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 19: Fort Smith Bikeway, 2003

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 20: Fort Smith Trails & Greenways – Original Route Plan (2014)

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 21: Current Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Plan

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 22: Frontier MPO Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

2040: The New Frontier

Traffic Demand Figures 23-25 show Annual Daily Traffic data on major roadways within the MPO over the last 15+ years. The data reveals different trends on for the various roadways and communities. Figure 23 shows traffic between Van Buren and Alma, with a pattern of the highest ADT values in 2010.

Figure 23: Annual Daily Traffic Map 1 (Source: ODOT and AHTD)

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 24 shows that for many of the ADT values between Greenwood and Fort Smith, traffic was also highest in 2010.

Figure 24: Annual Daily Traffic Map 2 (Source: ODOT and AHTD)

2040: The New Frontier

In Figure 25 below, the ADT figures reveal that traffic near the Oklahoma-Arkansas border by Zero Street was the lowest in 2014 (and 2013). This was lower than in both 2010 and 2000. This was likely affected by loss of employment and activity due to the closure of the Whirlpool plant in 2011, which was located in this area.

Figure 25: Annual Daily Traffic Map 3 (Source: ODOT and AHTD)

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 26 displays traffic in Van Buren and north Fort Smith. Unlike in the previous maps, Van Buren’s ADT data shows the highest values in 2013 and 2014, with the exception of the readings just north and south of I-40 on Highway 59.

Figure 26: Annual Daily Traffic Map 4 (Source: ODOT and AHTD)

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 27 displays ADT in the City of Barling, showing increased traffic over the last 15+ years, reflecting development in Chaffee Crossing. The figures on Rogers Avenue show the previously noted pattern of a traffic peak in 2010.

Figure 27: Annual Daily Traffic Map 5 (Source: ODOT and AHTD)

2040: The New Frontier

Road Crashes Crashes

The following crash data for the Frontier MPO was obtained from the Arkansas State Police and the Oklahoma Department of Transportation for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Crashes not located on the State Highway Systems are not mapped; therefore, not included in this data. Thus, the result should be viewed as a general representation of crash frequency and location patterns and not a complete record of all crashes which occurred in the MPO.

Year Total Fatalities Injuries Pedestrians Cyclists 2011 2209 7 851 9 4 2012 1937 4 824 12 4 2013 2280 8 1075 15 2 2011-2013 6426 19 2750 36 10 Average Per Year 2142 6 917 12 3 Crashes in Arkansas Portion of the Frontier MPO from 2011-2013

In the table above, the drop in crashes in 2012 is more likely related to incomplete data than an actual change in crash occurrences. Given this observation, there does appear to be an increase in the number of injuries each year, with an increase from 851 in 2011 to 1075 in 2013, perhaps signifying more severe accidents.

Figures 28, 29, and 30 are heat maps which visualize the crashes in the table above. Each map shows the areas with the highest density of crashes for the respective years from 2011 to 2013. The density is shown on a green to red scale in which red signifies the areas with the greatest density of crashes and green signifies the areas with the lowest density of crashes. In all three years, the highest density of crashes was present in the City of Fort Smith, the most urbanized area in the MPO. In addition, the City of Van Buren, the second largest city in the MPO, had a higher density of crashes than the rest of the MPO area. Significantly, in 2013, the density of crashes in the center area of Van Buren increased from the density in 2011 and 2012.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 28: Crash Heat Map for Arkansas Portion of MPO Area – 2011

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 29: Crash Heat Map for Arkansas Portion of MPO Area - 2012

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 30: Crash Heat Map for Arkansas Portion of MPO - 2013

2040: The New Frontier

The table below reveals a smaller number of average crashes in Oklahoma’s portion of the MPO (98 versus 2,142), as to be expected given its smaller area. The data does not show the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes.

Year Total Fatalities Injuries 2011 93 0 42

2012 109 0 44 2013 92 0 31 2011-2013 294 0 117

Average 98 0 39

Crashes in Oklahoma Portion of the Frontier MPO from 2011-2013

Figure 31 and 32 are crash heat maps for Leflore and Sequoyah counties, respectively, for 2011-2013. Figure 31 reveals the highest density of crashes in Leflore County around the intersection of Highway 271 and Highway 112. Figure 32 reveals the highest density of crashes in Sequoyah County between I-40 and Highway 64.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 31: Crash Heat Map for Leflore County 2011-2013

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 32: Crash Heat Map for Sequoyah County 2011-2013

2040: The New Frontier

Truck Figure 33 below depicts truck traffic in the Frontier MPO area. Truck traffic in the area is concentrated on designated truck routes through the City of Fort Smith. I-40 and I-49 north of Alma currently carry the highest amount of truck traffic.

Figure 33: Percent Truck Traffic

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 34: Fort Smith Truck Route

2040: The New Frontier

VI. THE PLANNING PROCESS

Scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process §450.306 Federal law and regulations require each MPO to conduct a planning process that must consider projects, planning strategies and implementation methods that will:

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency, 2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system (which includes road, highway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, rail and aviation components) for motorized and non-motorized users, 3. Enhance and increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users, 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight, 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns, 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes for people and freight, 7. Promote efficient system management operation, 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system 9. Improve the resiliency and the reliability of the transportation system and to reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation, and; 10. Enhance travel and tourism.

The Frontier MPO adheres to the philosophy of affording all citizens an equal opportunity to participate in each transportation program or activity.

Public Participation Plan Public involvement is an integral part of the transportation planning process. The Frontier MPO is proactive in its efforts to effectively communicate with the public and has adopted a Public Participation Plan (PPP) to ensure that the transportation planning process and procedures comply with Federal requirements for public

2040: The New Frontier

involvement and participation. These procedures provide opportunities for the public to take an active role in the decision making process of the Frontier MPO.

Efforts were made to encourage participation at all stages of decision making in the transportation process to include underserved individuals, the elderly, low income and minority individuals, persons with disabilities, and persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Staff worked closely with Federal, State and local agencies with interest in transportation issues with the development of transportation projects as well as working with professionals in all modes of transportation.

Public Notification Notification of the Frontier MPO Policy Board, Technical Committee, subcommittee and focus group meetings are provided to local newspapers of general circulation sufficiently in advance of each meeting. The meeting notices are also posted at the Frontier MPO Office (1109 S. 16th Street, Fort Smith, AR), the MPO website (frontiermpo.org) and the Frontier Facebook page (facebook.com/frontierplanning). Public meeting notices were also posted in the following locations to encourage minority and other underserved populations to participate in the process:

• The Administrative Offices of each local member jurisdiction • Libraries • Facebook • Twitter, and • Appropriate websites

The Policy Board and Technical Committee meetings are advertised and open to the public, with meetings conducted in locations in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All public meetings were held in locations accessible by public transit, where available.

Environmental Justice The Frontier MPO promotes the principles of environmental justice, as outlined by FHWA. The Frontier MPO ensures that the process of transportation planning is consistent with the provisions of FHWA Order on Environmental Justice and Title VI. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is the Federal law that protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color or national origin in programs that receive Federal financial assistance.

2040: The New Frontier

There are three fundamental environmental justice principles:

1. Avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. 2. Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 3. Prevent the denial of, reduction in or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low- income populations.

Figures 35 and 36 depict the Title VI and Environmental Justice areas in the Frontier MPO area and the locations where public involvement meetings were held.

Figure 35: Title VI Populations

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 36: Environmental Justice

2040: The New Frontier

Frontier MPO Work Products

1. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) The UPWP is a description of the proposed activities of the Frontier Metropolitan Transportation Program during a Fiscal Year (July 1 – June 30). The program is prepared annually and serves as a basis for requesting Federal planning funds. It also serves as a management tool for scheduling, budgeting and monitoring the planning activities of the participating agencies. This document is prepared by staff from the MPO with assistance from various agencies, including the AHTD, ODOT, FHWA, FTA, Fort Smith Transit and members of the MPO.

2. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Major updates of the MTP are conducted every five years. The Frontier MPO hosted public meetings to involve interested parties in the early stages of the plan development. Notices of public hearings for the MTP were published and posted as stated in the Public Notification and Participation section on page 75. The Public Involvement Section details the public meetings held and responses for 2040: �e New Frontier.

3. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The TIP is updated every four years and annually maintained. Frontier MPO staff work directly with the MPO member governments, including AHTD and ODOT, to identify proposed projects for the inclusion in the TIP. After all proposed project requests are identified, Frontier MPO staff, in conjunction with the Technical Committee, prepares a draft TIP for public review. Notices of public review and a comment period for the TIP is published and posted, as stated in the Public Notification and Participation section. Upon resolution of public comments, the Technical Committee reviews the TIP and a recommendation to adopt will be made to the Frontier MPO Board. If no adverse public comments are received, recommendation may be adopted by mail-out, fax or email ballot. The final TIP is published and made available to the public.

4. Annual Listing of Obligated Projects (ALOP) The ALOP is a list of projects for which Federal funds are obligated in the preceding fiscal year. An obligation is the Federal government’s legal commitment to pay the Federal share of a project’s cost. An obligated project is one that has been authorized and funds have been designated by a Federal agency.

a. In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year, the State, public transportation operator(s) and the MPO shall cooperatively

2040: The New Frontier

develop a listing of projects (including investments in pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year. b. The listing shall be prepared in accordance with §450.314(a) and shall include all federally funded projects authorized or revised to increase obligations in the preceding program year, and shall, at a minimum, include the TIP information under §450.324(e)(1) and (4) and identify, for each project, the amount of Federal funds requested in the TIP, the Federal funding that was obligated during the preceding year and the Federal funding remaining and available for subsequent years. c. The listing shall be published or otherwise made available in accordance with the MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) criteria for the TIP.

In addition to the work products listed below, the Frontier MPO also publishes a Public Participation Plan (PPP), updated as needed and the ALOP on an annual basis.

Who Who Update Time Horizon Content Develops? Approves? Requirements Planning UPWP MPO MPO 1 or 2 Years Studies and Annually Tasks Every 5 Years Future Goals, MTP MPO MPO 20 Years Strategies and 4 years for Projects nonattainment and maintenance areas Transportation TIP MPO MPO 4 Years Every 4 Years Investments Future Goals, LRITP State DOT State DOT 20 Years Strategies and Every 5 Years Projects Transportation STIP State DOT US DOT 4 Years Every 4 Years Investments

2040: The New Frontier

Public Involvement Meetings To guide and inform the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the Frontier MPO completed three rounds of public involvement meetings in June and July 2015, February 2016, and June 2016 to assess the public’s vision for regional transportation improvements and needs over the next 25 years as follows:

First Round of Public Involvement Meetings – June and July 2015

Location Date

Greenwood City Hall June 15 11 AM - 1 PM

Van Buren City Hall June 16 11 AM - 1 PM

Pocola City Hall June 17 4 PM - 6 PM

Fort Smith Riverfront Events Building June 18 11 AM - 1 PM

Freedom Fest – Downtown Greenwood July 4 11 AM - 3 PM

Meeting Format

The first round of meetings were open house style meetings. Attendees were asked to answer how important each of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan’s objectives were to them by placing stickers on a poster in columns on a 1 to 5 scale. The numbered columns corresponded to the following degrees of importance: 5 – Extremely Important, 4- Very Important, 3 – Important, 2 – Not Very Important, and 1 – Unimportant. Figures 37 and 38 are photographs of the final responses on the objectives from the public meetings.

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 37 and 38: Public involvement scoring of importance of transportation issue – June 2015

Table 10 tabulates the results from the scoring of each of the MTP objectives and ranks the issues based on the average score for each issue. The average scores range from 4.75 to 3.00.

Rank Average Issue 5 4 3 2 1 Score 1 4.75 Funding 9 3 2 4.69 Safety 9 4 3 4.67 Roadway Maintenance 10 2 4 4.64 Connectivity 7 4 5 4.63 Quality of Life 13 1 1 1 6 4.57 Congestion 12 1 1 7 4.54 Managing Congestion 10 1 1 1 8 4.50 Security 5 5 9 4.45 Maintenance 6 4 1 10 4.44 Efficiency 5 3 1 11 4.38 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 11 1 3 1 12 4.25 Complete Streets Policy 5 5 2

2040: The New Frontier

13 4.20 Air Quality 5 2 3 14 4.20 Alternative Fuel 5 3 1 1 15 4.13 Alternative Modes of Transportation 9 3 2 1 1 (Bicycle, Transit) 16 4.10 Port 5 1 4 17 4.08 Educational Programs to Reduce 5 4 4 Distracted Driving 18 4.00 Multi-modal Options 4 3 4 19 4.00 Future Corridor Preservation 6 2 1 1 1 20 4.00 Railroad Infrastructure 3 2 3 21 3.93 Improved Transit 6 2 5 1 22 3.92 Traffic Calming 5 1 6 23 3.90 Conserve Energy 4 3 2 1 24 3.75 Access Management 1 5 1 1 25 3.70 Environment 1 5 4 26 3.60 Freight Movement 6 4 27 3.50 Freight 2 3 3 2 28 3.00 Rail Grade Separation 3 3 1 1

Table 10: Results and Averages of Public Scoring of Importance of MTP Objectives

In addition, attendees were invited to write down their vision for transportation in the MPO Area on Post-It notes attached onto a large poster, as shown in Figure 39. The participant responses are transcribed below:

“Road maintenance improvements, and funding. Alternative fuels”

“Cars that are silent”

“Rail Trail to Lavaca”

“Rail Trail to Russellville”

“Road diet on Phoenix + Zero Street to make separate bike lanes”

“An exit off of Edward Road to Interstate”

“River Navigation 12 foot Channels”

2040: The New Frontier

“Traffic Signal Optimization”

“Transit from Downtown to UAFS”

“Bike Lanes”

“Airmobiles”

“Hovercrafts”

“Safe separated paths everywhere in city”

“Boat from VB Historic to FS historic”

Figure 39: Public Involvement Visioning Responses – June 2015

Second Round of Public Involvement Meetings – February 2016

Locations Dates

Pocola City Hall, Pocola February 22, 11 AM – 1 PM

2040: The New Frontier

River Park Events Building, Fort Smith February 23, 11 AM – 1 PM

Van Buren Public Library, Van Buren February 24, 5 PM – 7 PM

Ed Wilkinson Pavilion, Greenwood February 25, 5 PM – 7 PM

Meeting Format A total of 24 people attended the second round of public meetings. These meetings were also public involvement meetings for the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. At each meeting, 2040: �e New Frontier Plan projects were presented to the public on maps, such as seen in Figure 40 and attendees were surveyed on their preferences for projects.

Figure 40: Map of 2040 Proposed Projects in South Fort Smith

Attendees were provided paper slips on which to list the three projects they considered most important out of all of the 2040 proposed projects displayed on the maps.

2040: The New Frontier

Project # of Responses

Port Roads Widening 3 I-40 and SH 59 Interchange 2 I-40 and North 16th Street Interchange 2 Highway 59 Widening 2 Highway 45 Widening (Highway 255 to Highway 71) 2 Industrial Park Road Widening 2 Jenny Lind Road Widening (Dallas St. to Phoenix St.) 2 Spradling Ave. Extension 1 Planters Rd. Extension 1 Highway 255 Widening (Massard Rd. to Frontier Rd.) 1

Jenny Lind Widening (Phoenix Ave. to Zero St.) 1 Highway and George Ave. Signalization (not on project list) 1 Highway 271 and Highway 112 Lighting Improvements 1 I-540 and Highway 71 Signalization 1 Pave West George Ave. (not on project list) 1 Denver Street Widening 1 I-49 Extension 1

2040: The New Frontier

In addition, attendees were asked several survey questions. The following results were obtained:

Which project is most important to the traveling public of the Number of region? Responses Completion of I-49 to I-40 9 Highway 59 and I-40 Interchange Improvements 3

Which would you choose? Number of Responses

Bicycle Facilities 4

More Lanes for Vehicles 7

Which is More Important? Number of Responses

Current Roadway Maintenance 8 Widening Roads 3

2040: The New Frontier

Third Round of Public Involvement Meetings – June 2016

Pocola City Hall, Pocola June 20, 4 PM – 6 PM Public Comments Ed Wilkinson Pavilion, Greenwood June 22, 11 AM – 1 PM “People use Gray Street as a highway; a Adult Education Center, Van Buren June 24, 11 AM – 1 PM traffic light should be at McKenzie Ave. and Riverfront Building, Fort Smith June 27, 10 AM - Noon Hwy. 112; a caution light at George Ave.” Meeting Format “Speed reduction on Twenty-five people attended our last set of public open house meetings for Pocola Blvd. (Hwy. 112) north from the draft plan. At each open house, attendees were presented with maps of Backbone Mountain to proposed projects, anticipated funding and population projections. Attendees McKenzie Ave.” were provided with comment sheets and voting slips to choose their top “Lighting at North 112 and Hwy. 271.” three priority projects. “Widen Hwy. 112 north and south from Rock Island to Hwy A total of 12 271.” individual “Western bypass from responses I-40 through Sequoyah were County across the Arkansas River into received for LeFlore County to three top connect with I-540 near Pocola. It is difficult for priority Sequoyah County projects: residents to access south Fort Smith without driving through sometimes congested downtown traffic the driving through west Fort Smith.” “Widen Uniontown from Hwy. 59 to Pointer Trail, due to kids walking down the street, need sidewalks. Seen more than once after school kids walking and almost get hit, very dangerous.” 87

2040: The New Frontier

Project Responses

I-49 Bridge 3

I-49 3

Highway112 Widening 2

Highway 112 and George Signal 5

Highway 112 and Highway 271 Lighting 4 Improvements

Highway 10 Spur Widening 5

I-40 and I-59 Interchange 5

Pevehouse Widening 1

Industrial Park Widening 1

Highway 59 S Widening 2

28th St Widening 1

Highway 59 N Widening 1

I-40 and 16th Street Interchange 1

Uniontown Widening 1

Online Public Involvement Beginning in June 2016, the Frontier MPO engaged the public using the MySideWalk online service through online survey questions. The site received 1,626 views and 97 responses. Appendix B on page 110 shows survey questions and responses in detail.

2040: The New Frontier

VII. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN Relation to Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Process

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process is the mechanism that the Frontier MPO uses each year in the implementation of the Plan. The TIP is developed as a four-year document containing proposed transportation projects that have been selected from the 2040: �e New Frontier Plan. The TIP must be fiscally constrained in the same manner as the Plan and must contain assurances or a reasonable expectation that the projects listed in the document can be accomplished during the time frame stated in the document. The TIP has prescribed amendment procedures and preparation must be a coordinated and cooperative effort among all of the participants of the Frontier MPO transportation planning process, to ensure a complete and comprehensive document. All projects that anticipate Federal funding from any source must be included in the TIP, yet any project that may have a significant effect on the transportation system (regardless of federal funding) must also be in the TIP. This requirement is to maintain a close coordination and monitoring of all projects that may have an impact not only on the existing transportation network, but also on the potential or possible future requests for Federal assistance.

2040: The New Frontier Financial Plan The Financial Plan for implementing 2040: �e New Frontier is contained in the listing of transportation projects and year of expenditure. Its elements include the funds available to local governments for street and/or highway improvements in conjunction with Federal assistance, State assisted projects and 100% locally funded projects. Local governments are best served when implementing street projects through the use of Federal funds because of the leveraging effect of the Federal funding programs. However, since local access to these programs cannot be guaranteed, the need to identify the local improvements remains. If Federal funds become available for a project that is currently shown as an illustrative project, the local government, and the Frontier MPO staff will initiate the process of securing these funds, while retaining the integrity of the fiscally constrained element of the TIP and the 2040: �e New Frontier.

2040: The New Frontier Monitoring Procedures There are two primary sources that monitor the Frontier MPO activities relative to the 2040: �e New Frontier plan: the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and the Western Arkansas Planning and Development District (WAPDD).

2040: The New Frontier

Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) The UPWP is prepared each year by the Frontier MPO staff in coordination with the local member governments, AHTD and ODOT, and FHWA. This provides the framework for all regional transportation planning activities in the Frontier MPO area. It enables the Frontier MPO staff to assist local governments in local plan development and review, which is the essence of the Frontier MPO. The Frontier MPO staff works with each local planning commission in conducting studies, providing analysis of transportation related matters and periodically updating the street plans as the need arises. Local Master Street Plans are regularly reviewed and amended as needed in response to the various development issues facing the local jurisdictions. These efforts are coordinated through the Frontier MPO staff, which, when necessary, involve the appropriate State Transportation Department.

Western Arkansas Planning and Development District (WAPDD) The second form of plan monitoring that is regularly undertaken is a product of the unique relationship that the Frontier MPO has with Western Arkansas Planning and Development District (WAPDD). Although the Frontier MPO is a free-standing MPO, the two organizations serve within the same general area and share staff, facilities and other planning resources. The fiscal responsibilities of the two organizations are distinct and have remained separate because the Frontier MPO can only serve within the metropolitan planning area boundary that the District encompasses, as well as those urbanized portions of LeFlore and Sequoyah Counties in Oklahoma. This relationship has provided a degree of synergy that has benefited both organizations in their missions to provide local and regional planning assistance to their respective member governments. As a result of this unique agreement, the Frontier MPO staff has access to essentially all development related matters and this affords the staff opportunities for comprehensive impact analysis, early information relative to planned developments that may impact the region’s infrastructure and a database for comparable studies linked to previous regional and district plan implementation activities. All of these benefits combine to afford the Frontier MPO with a unique apparatus to effectively monitor local plan implementation efforts and, collectively, the 2040: �e New Frontier Plan.

Another monitoring device that assists the Frontier MPO staff is through the Frontier MPO’s role as a regional Sub-State Data Center in cooperation with the State Data Center at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. The designation as a Sub-State Data Center means that all of the Census Bureau data releases are housed in the Frontier MPO offices. Sub-State Data Centers receive numerous requests each week from private

2040: The New Frontier

developers and marketing consultants for data pertaining to local demographics, traffic and other census related data used in preparing plans and proposals for new developments within the Frontier area. When there is a possibility of a new development occurring as a result of the data requests from private developers and consultants, the Frontier MPO staff works closely with the impacted local jurisdiction in identifying any transportation needs or improvements relative to the possible developments. This close coordination between the communities and developers enables the Frontier MPO staff to stay abreast of impending developments and to incorporate them into the planning process. When various assortments of monitoring techniques and activities are combined, the Frontier MPO staff is presented with a comprehensive plan of both the Frontier MPO area and the surrounding communities ultimately impacted or to be impacted by the transportation needs, issues, plans and programs affecting the metropolitan area.

Importance of Local Planning Programs Each of the Frontier MPO jurisdictions has developed a set of regional priorities for transportation improvements. These priorities range from local improvement projects that will benefit their respective street and highway networks to truly regional projects that will benefit all jurisdictions.

1. Local Master Street Plan Implementation Procedures Local street plan administration is a significant implementation device since the successful day-to- day administration can implement large parts of the Plan with limited expenses required from local governments. Many cities within the Frontier MPO area have adopted a master street plan and have implemented enforcement procedures through their respective planning commissions. As a result of these enforcement measures, numerous miles of local and collector streets have been built or improved in new and expanded subdivisions according to regionally accepted and shared standards. 2. Maintenance Activities of the Frontier MPO Area’s Local Street Plans Maintenance of local streets and highways that are under the jurisdiction of local governments is a large annual budget item for each area city. It represents the majority of the allocations of the annual funds for street repair and construction. Each Frontier MPO area city has a one (1) cent dedicated sales tax for street and drainage work. These funds have provided the cities with resources necessary to perform the required maintenance activities for their individual street networks. Although these funds allow the cities to extend the life of the streets, there are not enough funds to undertake new construction or major improvements. However, the cities of Fort Smith and, to a smaller degree, Van Buren are exceptions. Each of these cities has programmed large scale street projects in recent years through the assistance of Federal funds which were leveraged by the

2040: The New Frontier

availability of local non-federal matching funds. Notwithstanding, each city still devotes a large percentage of their budget to regular maintenance activities. The underlying tenet of all the Frontier MPO cities and counties is that effective maintenance programs extend the life of a facility while poor programs or insufficient maintenance practices result in re-capitalizing their public investments before the expected replacement of them. Not only is this a sound administrative policy, but it is also the means by which the local governments can demonstrate accountability to the local tax payers.

Although maintenance costs can vary depending on the type of facility and cost of materials, a 12% to 17% range of local budgets is an average for the Frontier MPO area’s jurisdictions.

2040: The New Frontier

2040: THE NEW FRONTIER METROPOLTAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5 YEAR MODULAR PROJECT LIST 2015-2040 Fiscally Constrained Project Listing Categories

The project listing presented in this section contains only those projects that are fiscally constrained. By definition, this means that the following projects are those where there is a reasonable expectation of the availability of funds for each project by its horizon year. Therefore, if for any given project, there must be a reasonable probability that the funds, whether they are from Local, State, or Federal sources, will be available for the project during the specified time period. To assist in maintaining the fiscally constrained requirement, some projects have been phased over more than a one-time period.

There are a number of projects in the constrained listing that may raise some concern about fiscally constrained issues. It is the policy of the Frontier MPO that these projects have a reasonable expectation for funding over this time frame and that the concerted efforts of the Frontier MPO Staff and those of the local governmental and business leadership will result in securing the necessary funding for the following projects:

• Bridge Funds • Transportation Alternatives Program Funds • Interstate Maintenance Funds • National Highway System Funds • Safety Funds • Surface Transportation Program Funds • Surface Transportation Program Urban Funds for Intersection Improvements • State Funding • Transit Funding • Projects with Designated Funding

2040: The New Frontier

SHORT - TERM 2016-2020 (CURRENT TIP) Job Responsible Estimated Estimated Total Year of Roadway Description Funding Category Years Number Agency Federal Local Expenditure Cost

Jenny Lind Rd. & Ingersoll Ave. Widening Earmark, locally 040471 CS 2016 Fort Smith $23,840,000 $5,960,000 $29,800,000 (Fort Smith) (S) funded

040692 96 Hwy. 10 - Flat Rock Creek (Overlay) (S) STBGP, State 2016 AHTD $1,280,000 $320,000 $1,600,000

Hwy. 45/Planters Rd. Intersection Impvts. CMAQ Flex, State, 040416 45 2017 AHTD/Fort Smith $800,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 (S) Local Hwy. 22 - I-40 (Arkansas River) (preliminary NHPP AC, 04X001 49 2017 AHTD $8,080,000 $2,020,000 $10,100,000 engineering) Earmark, State

04X008 271 Hwy. 71 - I-540 (system preservation) NHPP, State 2017 AHTD $3,280,000 $820,000 $4,100,000

04X012 282 Hwy. 64 - Hwy. 71 (system preservation) STBGP, State 2017 AHTD $4,080,000 $1,020,000 $5,100,000

04X014 253 Hwy. 10 - Hwy. 45 (system preservation) STBGP, State 2017 AHTD $3,360,000 $840,000 $4,200,000

04X015 64B Hwy. 162 - Hwy. 64 (system preservation) STBGP, State 2017 AHTD $400,000 $100,000 $500,000

040625 96 Hwy. 22 - Hwy. 252 Strs. & Apprs. (S) NHPP (BR), State 2018 AHTD $1,840,000 $460,000 $2,300,000

04X005 64 Hwy. 64 Strs. & Apprs. (S) NHPP (BR), State 2018 AHTD $1,680,000 $420,000 $2,100,000

BB0406 540 Hwy. 71 - Hwy. 22 (F) NHPP (IRP), State 2018 AHTD $8,080,000 $2,020,000 $10,100,000

Oklahoma St. Line - Ark. Mo. R.R. BB0401 40 NFP, State 2019 AHTD $4,800,000 $1,200,000 $6,000,000 Overpass (S) (reconstruction) Ark. Mo. R.R. Overpass - Dyer (S) BB0402 40 NFP, State 2019 AHTD $7,040,000 $1,760,000 $8,800,000 (reconstruction)

04X007 71B Hwy. 271 - Hwy. 64 (system preservation) NHPP, State 2019 AHTD $1,760,000 $440,000 $2,200,000

I-40/Hwy. 59 Intchng. Impvts. (preliminary 04X002 40 NHPP, State 2020 AHTD $560,000 $140,000 $700,000 engineering) AHTD/Fort 04X003 255 Hwy. 255 Relocation/widening (Barling) STBGP, Local 2020 $9,600,000 $2,400,000 $12,000,000 Smith/FCRA/Barling AHTD/Fort Hwy. 71 - Hwy. 255 (Ft. Smith) (capacity 04X019 45 STBGP, Local 2020 Smith/Sebastian $12,000,000 $3,000,000 $15,000,000 improvements) County

Total Short - Term Roadway: $115,600,000

Table 11: Short-Term Projects

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 41: 2016-2020 TIP Projects

2040: The New Frontier

MID - TERM 2021-2030 Total Year of Job Responsible Estimated Estimated Roadway Description Funding Category Years Expenditure Number Agency Federal Local Cost Hwy 71 relocation (I-49) ROW I-49 NHS, STBGP, State 2021-2030 AHTD 16,000,000 4,000,000 20,000,000 Hwy 22 to I-40 I-40 and Hwy 59 Interchange NHS, Bridge, State, 59 2021-2030 AHTD 16,564,800 4,141,200 $20,706,000 Improvements Safety Access Road/Off Ramp at Hwy 59 NHS, State, Local 2021-2030 AHTD 876,800 219,200 $1,096,000 59 Hwy 59 South Widening from NHS, STBGP, State, 59 2021-2030 AHTD/Van Buren 7,645,600 1,911,400 $9,557,000 Pointer Trail to Mt. Vista Blvd. Local Chad Colley and Massard Rd. Chad Colley STBGP, Local 2021-2030 Fort Smith 192,800 48,200 $241,000 signalization Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" STBGP BR, State, 64C 2021-2030 AHTD 5,258,400 1,314,600 $6,573,000 replacement Safety Hwy 71 and Hwy 10 Spur, 71 STBGP, Local, State 2021-2030 AHTD 192,800 48,200 $241,000 Signalization Hwy 59 widening from 59 STBGP, State 2021-2030 AHTD 14,080,000 3,520,000 $17,600,000 Uniontown to Hwy 348 Hwy 255 and Chad Colley 255 STBGP, State, Local 2021-2030 AHTD/Fort Smith 192,800 48,200 $241,000 signalization

I-40 I-40 and N. 16 St interchange NHS, State, Local 2021-2030 AHTD/Van Buren 16,564,800 4,141,200 $20,706,000

Hwy 96 widening from Hwy 22 96 STBGP, State 2021-2030 AHTD 2,966,400 741,600 $3,708,000 to Hwy 255 Hwy 10 Spur widening from Mt. 10 Spur STBGP, State, Local 2021-2030 AHTD/Greenwood 20,513,600 5,128,400 $25,642,000 Harmony to Denver St. Hwy 10 Spur widening from 10 Spur STBGP, State, Local 2021-2030 AHTD/Greenwood 9,696,000 2,424,000 $12,120,000 Denver to Park Hwy 10 Spur widening from Park 10 Spur STBGP, State, Local 2021-2030 AHTD/Greenwood 8,956,800 2,239,200 $11,196,000 to Hwy 71 AHTD/Sebastian 45 Hwy 45 and Woodson widening STBGP, State, Local 2021-2030 2,191,200 547,800 $2,739,000 County

Line Item Various State Maintenance State Maintenance 2021-2030 AHTD 48,107,200 12,026,800 $60,134,000

Line Item Various Interstate Maintenance NHS IM 2021-2030 AHTD 64,540,000 16,135,000 $80,675,000

Line Item Various Bridge Projects STBGP BR (State/City) 2021-2030 AHTD/Local 24,201,600 6,050,400 $30,252,000

Total Mid - Term Roadway: $323,427,000

Table 12: Mid-Term Projects

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 42: Mid-Term Projects

2040: The New Frontier

LONG - TERM 2031-2040 Total Year of Responsible Estimated Estimated Job Number Roadway Description Funding Category Years Expenditure Agency Federal Local Cost

I-49 Hwy 71 relocation (I-49) ROW , Hwy 22 to I-40 NHS, STBGP, State 2031-2040 AHTD 124,218,400 31,054,600 $155,273,000

Hwy 64 multiple bridge rehab and NHS BR, STBGP, 64 2031-2040 AHTD 51,894,400 12,973,600 $64,868,000 replacement (4 structures) STBGP BR, Safety

Line Item Various State Maintenance State Maintenance 2031-2040 AHTD 95,763,200 23,940,800 $119,704,000

Line Item Various Interstate Maintenance NHS IM 2031-2040 AHTD 97,516,000 24,379,000 $121,895,000

Line Item Various Bridge Projects STBGP BR (State/City) 2031-2040 AHTD/Local 32,524,800 8,131,200 $40,656,000

Total Long - Term Roadway: $502,396,000

Table 13: Long-Term Projects

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 43: Long-Term Projects

2040: The New Frontier

ILLUSTRATIVE Total Year of Estimated Estimated Job Number Roadway Description Unfunded Years Responsible Agency Expenditure Federal Local Cost I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) AR River I-49 AHTD 389,208,000 97,302,000 $486,510,000 Bridge I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) I-49 AHTD 15,179,200 3,794,800 $18,974,000 interchange I-40 I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) I-49 AHTD 315,262,400 78,815,600 $394,078,000 construction I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) I-49 interchange Hwy 162 (Clear Creek AHTD 15,179,200 3,794,800 $18,974,000 Rd) I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) I-49 AHTD 15,179,200 3,794,800 $18,974,000 interchange Hwy 59 (Gun Club Rd) I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) I-49 AHTD 15,179,200 3,794,800 $18,974,000 interchange Hwy 10 Hwy 162 widening from Main St to I- 162 AHTD/Alma 12,973,600 3,243,400 $16,217,000 49 interchange Chad Colley widening from Hwy 255 Chad Colley Fort Smith/Barling 25,933,600 6,483,400 $32,417,000 to Massard Hwy 112 and Hwy 271 (Lighting Hwy 112 ODOT 648,800 162,200 $811,000 Improvements) Chad Colley widening from Massard Chad Colley Fort Smith 15,788,800 3,947,200 $19,736,000 to Rye Hill Planters Road extension to Massard Planters Rd. Fort Smith 11,683,200 2,920,800 $14,604,000 Rd N. 28th St. widening from Hwy 64 N 28th St Van Buren 9,572,000 2,393,000 $11,965,000 to I-40

66th St 66th extension to Kelley Hwy Fort Smith 12,664,800 3,166,200 $15,831,000

S. 28th St widening from Hwy 64 to S. 28th St Van Buren 5,152,800 1,288,200 $6,441,000 I-540 Riverfront Dr. extension from Riverfront Dr. AHTD/Fort Smith 43,470,400 10,867,600 $54,338,000 Midland Blvd to Kelley Hwy S. 28th St widening from S. 28th St. Van Buren 4,940,800 1,235,200 $6,176,000 IndHwytrial Park to Hwy 59 "H" St widening and extension to I- "H" St AHTD/Barling 15,602,400 3,900,600 $19,503,000 49 Clear Creek Rd. widening from Hwy Clear Creek Rd. AHTD/Kibler 2,900,800 725,200 $3,626,000 162 to I-49 Mtn. Grove Road widening and Mtn. Grove Alma/Crawford reconstruction from Hwy 64 to 26,855,200 6,713,800 $33,569,000 Road County Edwards Rd Main St. extension to I-49 Main St AHTD/Alma 4,644,800 1,161,200 $5,806,000 interchange N. 40th St. widening from Hwy 162 N. 40th Van Buren 8,944,800 2,236,200 $11,181,000 to IndHwytrial Park Rd. AHTD/Crawford 71 Hwy 71 and Hwy 282 Signalization 285,600 71,400 $357,000 County Denver St. widening from Hwy 71 to Denver St. Greenwood 13,444,800 3,361,200 $16,806,000 Hwy 10 Spur Uniontown Rd, widening and Van Buren/Crawford Uniontown Rd. 3,718,400 929,600 $4,648,000 extension to Oliver Springs Rd. County

Pevehouse widening and extension Pevehouse Rd. Crawford County 2,332,800 583,200 $2,916,000 from Mitzi to Sandstone Rd. Industrial Park Industrial Park Rd. widening from Van Buren/Crawford 8,960,000 2,240,000 $11,200,000 Rd. 28th St to S. 40th St. County Hwy 112 widening from Hwy 271 to Hwy 112 Pocola/ODOT 50,850,798 12,712,700 $63,563,498 George

Hwy 112 Hwy 112 and George Signalization Pocola/ODOT 648,679 162,170 $810,849

Roberts Blvd Widening from Chad Roberts Blvd Fort Smith 6,776,800 1,694,200 $8,471,000 Colley to Terry Jenny Lind Widening from Phoenix Jenny Lind Fort Smith 6,031,200 1,507,800 $7,539,000 to Zero Jenny Lind widening from Dallas to Jenny Lind Fort Smith 4,611,200 1,152,800 $5,764,000 Phoenix Port Roads widening from west of Port Roads Hwy 59 to Riverfront Road and Port AHTD/Van Buren 89,600 22,400 $112,000 (Van Buren) Illustrative Projects $1,330,892,347

Table 14: Illustrative Projects

100

2040: The New Frontier

Figure 44: Illustrative Projects

101

2040: The New Frontier

Table 15 describes the funding anticipated to be available for the 2040: �e New Frontier planning timeline. All figures were determined assuming a three percent annual inflation and include a state and/or local match. (5307) Transit Transit $2,152,563 $2,174,088 $2,195,829 $2,217,787 $2,239,965 $2,262,365 $2,284,988 $2,307,838 $2,330,917 $2,354,226 $2,377,768 $2,401,546 $2,473,592 $2,547,800 $2,624,234 $2,650,476 $2,676,981 $2,703,751 $2,730,788 $2,758,096 $2,785,677 $2,813,534 $2,841,669 $2,870,086 $2,898,787 $10,980,232 $23,965,274 $27,729,847 $62,675,353 Total Urban Trails $1,961,339 $2,020,179 $2,080,784 $2,143,208 $2,207,504 $2,273,729 $2,341,941 $2,412,199 $2,484,565 $2,559,102 $2,635,875 $2,714,952 $2,796,400 $2,880,292 $2,966,701 $3,055,702 $3,147,373 $3,241,794 $3,339,048 $3,439,220 $3,542,396 $3,648,668 $3,758,128 $3,870,872 $3,986,998 $10,413,014 $26,065,758 $35,030,200 $71,508,972 Total Recrational Recreational Trails Statewide Totals TAP Total $418,438 $430,991 $443,920 $457,238 $470,955 $485,084 $499,636 $514,625 $530,064 $545,966 $562,345 $579,215 $596,592 $614,490 $632,924 $651,912 $671,469 $691,613 $712,362 $733,733 $755,745 $778,417 $801,770 $825,823 $850,597 Statewide $2,221,542 $5,560,942 $7,473,440 $15,255,923 HSIP HSIP 1,629,975 1,678,874 1,729,240 1,781,118 1,834,551 $8,653,759 $1,889,588 $1,946,275 $2,004,664 $2,064,804 $2,126,748 $2,190,550 $2,256,267 $2,323,955 $2,393,673 $2,465,483 $2,539,448 $2,615,631 $2,694,100 $2,774,923 $2,858,171 $2,943,916 $3,032,234 $3,123,201 $3,216,897 $3,313,404 $21,662,006 $29,111,925 $59,427,689 State $4,524,790 $4,660,534 $4,800,350 $4,944,360 $5,092,691 $5,245,472 $5,402,836 $5,564,921 $5,731,869 $5,903,825 $6,080,939 $6,263,368 $6,451,269 $6,644,807 $6,844,151 $7,049,475 $7,260,960 $7,478,788 $7,703,152 $7,934,247 $8,172,274 $8,417,442 $8,669,966 $8,930,065 $9,197,966 $24,022,725 $60,133,455 $80,814,335 Maintenance $164,970,515 State Maintenance Impr. $430,025 $442,926 $456,214 $469,900 $483,997 $498,517 $513,472 $528,877 $544,743 $561,085 $577,918 $595,255 $613,113 $631,506 $650,451 $669,965 $690,064 $710,766 $732,089 $754,051 $776,673 $799,973 $823,972 $848,692 $874,152 Total Int. $2,283,061 $5,714,937 $7,680,397 $15,678,395 STBGP City $279,388 $287,769 $296,402 $305,294 $314,453 $323,887 $333,603 $343,611 $353,920 $364,537 $375,473 $386,738 $398,340 $410,290 $422,599 $435,277 $448,335 $461,785 $475,639 $489,908 $504,605 $519,743 $535,335 $551,395 $567,937 $1,483,306 $3,712,998 $4,989,959 $10,186,263 Total Bridge Anticipated Available Future Funding Available Anticipated $1,996,913 $2,056,820 $2,118,524 $2,182,080 $2,247,543 $2,314,969 $2,384,418 $2,455,950 $2,529,629 $2,605,518 $2,683,683 $2,764,194 $2,847,120 $2,932,533 $3,020,509 $3,111,125 $3,204,458 $3,300,592 $3,399,610 $3,501,598 $3,606,646 $3,714,845 $3,826,291 $3,941,080 $4,059,312 $10,601,880 $26,538,524 $35,665,557 $72,805,961 Total Bridge STBGP State 9,029,238 9,300,115 9,579,118 9,866,492 10,162,486 10,467,361 10,781,382 11,104,823 11,437,968 11,781,107 12,134,540 12,498,576 12,873,534 13,259,740 13,657,532 14,067,258 14,489,276 14,923,954 15,371,672 15,832,823 16,307,807 16,797,042 17,300,953 17,819,981 18,354,581 $47,937,448 $119,996,563 $161,265,346 $329,199,357 Total STBGP Total IM $2,972,838 $3,062,023 $3,153,883 $3,248,500 $3,345,955 $2,972,838 $3,062,023 $8,393,750 $8,645,563 $8,904,929 $9,172,077 $9,447,240 $9,730,657 $15,783,198 $10,022,576 $10,323,254 $80,674,906 $10,632,951 $10,951,940 $11,280,498 $11,618,913 $11,967,480 $12,326,505 $12,696,300 $13,077,189 $13,469,505 $13,873,590 $121,894,871 $218,352,975 3,406,725 3,508,927 3,614,195 3,722,620 3,834,299 $3,949,328 $4,067,808 $4,189,842 $4,315,537 $4,445,003 $4,578,354 $4,715,704 $4,857,175 $5,002,891 $5,152,977 $5,307,567 $5,466,794 $5,630,797 $5,799,721 $5,973,713 $6,152,924 $6,337,512 $6,527,637 $6,723,467 $6,925,171 $18,086,766 $45,274,619 $60,845,302 Total Bridge $124,206,687 National Highway Total NHS $5,496,338 $5,661,228 $5,831,064 $6,005,996 $6,186,176 $6,371,762 $6,562,914 $6,759,802 $6,962,596 $7,171,474 $7,386,618 $7,608,217 $7,836,463 $8,071,557 $8,313,704 $8,563,115 $8,820,008 $9,084,608 $9,357,147 $9,637,861 $9,926,997 $9,815,815 $29,180,802 $73,045,106 $10,110,289 $10,413,598 $10,726,006 $96,455,443 $198,681,351 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 YEAR Current projects TIP Total Total Total Total

Table 15: Future Funding

102

2040: The New Frontier

Chart 5: Anticipated Funding

103

2040: The New Frontier

2040: �e New Frontier constrained and unconstrained project listing 169,966 169,967 $164,248 $410,620 $748,242 2,053,102 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 17,615,963 $9,085,046 $7,163,972 $9,181,471 $9,181,471 $9,181,471 $9,181,471 $8,392,753 $19,221,076 $13,193,232 $32,189,044 $14,601,660 $14,601,660 $235,422,337 $235,422,337 $24,333 $16,060 $16,060 $60,833 $48,666 $304,163 $996,439 $996,439 $996,439 $996,439 $1,345,933 $2,609,772 $2,847,567 $1,954,553 $1,061,329 $4,768,747 $1,379,684 $1,379,684 $1,243,371 $25,549,711 $25,549,711 ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost 8% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 12% 14% 12% 14% 20% 12% 12% 20% 20% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility 20,075 $18,250 $20,075 228,122 $45,624 $91,249 $795,997 $932,528 1,067,613 1,067,613 1,067,613 1,067,613 $1,009,450 $1,957,329 $2,135,675 $1,465,915 $3,576,560 $1,724,605 27,374,690 $1,724,605 27,374,690 Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $13,214,912 $5,751,849.30 $5,748,397.15 $8,525,649.32 $5,748,684.96 $5,768,093.22 $5,690,629.13 $5,756,346.50 Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile $121,665 $133,832 $133,832 $304,163 $608,326 $6,729,664 $1,520,816 $9,772,764 $5,306,646 $7,117,419 $7,117,419 $7,117,419 $7,117,419 $6,216,854 $13,048,862 $14,237,834 $23,843,736 $11,497,370 $11,497,370 $182,497,935 $182,497,935 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction 1.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.17 0.92 1.08 2.27 1.67 4.19 Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles 13.81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6,181 4,874 5,710 8,827 11985 13,298 22,134 72,901 Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) To To To To To To To To N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I-40 N/A N/A N/A Park SH 71 SH 22 Denver S of SH 282 N. 16th Street Mt. Vista Blvd. George Avenue George N/A N/A N/A N/A (East) Signal Bridge (West) (West) (West) (South) (South) (North) (North) Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I-40 Park SH 22 From From From From From From From From US 64 SH 271 SH Denver Massard Pointer Trail East Off Ramp Mt. Harmony Rd Uniontown Road Safety Bridge Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Intersection Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Signalization Construction Traffic Signal Maintenance Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Reconfiguration Reconfiguration (Clear Creek Rd) Creek (Clear (Gun Club Rd) Project Listing - Constrained and Illustrative Project Listing - Constrained and Illustrative SH-255 SH-45 SH-112 (OK) SH-59 SH-10 and SH 10 S I-49 (Highway 71 Relocation) I-40 I-540 / SH-271 (OK) SH 10S Widening 10S SH (OK) Improvements Lighting Interchange 112 SH and 271 SH SH 59 South Widening South 59 SH SH 112 and George I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange SH 10 I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) AR River Bridge I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange SH 59 I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange SH 162 I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange I-40 Various Interstate Maintenance Projects project I-49 the for funding designated from come will funding Additional Access Road/Off ramp at SH 59 Interchange 59 SH and I-40 Various Interstate Maintenance Projects SH 255 and Chad Colley Blvd Colley Chad and 255 SH Widening 10S SH Various Interstate Maintenance Projects I-40 and N. 16th Street I-540 and SH 71 Traffic Signal Widening North 59 SH SH 255 Widening Woodson and 45 SH S Widening 10 SH and 10 SH SH 112 Widening

Table 16: Constrained and Unconstrained Project Listing

104

2040: The New Frontier 169,966 169,966 165,282 $169,966 2,058,988 2,809,604 4,635,448 7,847,411 9,437,702 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost 2015 cost $1,836,127 $5,651,536 16,244,141 $8,132,326 24,333,058 $4,320,753 $8,513,886 $7,395,646 $6,350,197 $7,660,582 $15,984,377 $13,984,234 $26,294,059 N/A N/A N/A $16,060 $16,060 $16,060 $272,019 $304,918 $437,995 $882,578 $851,657 $1,762,930 $1,024,247 $16,059.82 $837,264.58 $640,111.51 $940,769.94 $831,380.98 $2,368,055.88 $1,095,651.24 $2,853,618.83 ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost N/A N/A N/A 20% 12% 12% 14% 12% 14% 20% 12% 14% 14% 20% 14% 12% 20% 20% 20% 14% 14% Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility ROW/Utility N/A 20,075 20,075 15,391 20,075 204,014 326,698 627,948 547,494 945,619 912,490 480,084 821,738 705,577 890,765 1,888,854 1,097,407 1,776,042 1,824,031 1,110,507 3,057,449 Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,824,979.80 $4,197,452.51 $3,889,263.47 $4,197,452.51 $4,197,452.44 $2,134,478.78 $4,197,452.51 $3,870,924.76 $5,414,105.42 $3,862,872.97 $4,197,452.51 $5,414,105.42 $5,414,105.42 $3,862,872.97 $10,706,545.54 Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile Const. per mile $133,832 $133,832 $133,832 $133,832 $3,649,959 $4,186,323 $6,304,128 $6,083,265 $3,200,558 $7,316,048 $5,478,256 $4,703,850 $7,403,379 $5,938,436 $1,360,094 $2,177,988 $12,592,358 $24,333,058 $11,840,279 $12,160,204 $20,382,992 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction Cost construction 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.75 1.98 1.00 1.50 2.85 0.76 1.89 1.42 2.19 1.12 1.37 2.25 1.54 1.90 0.56 Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,935 5,266 7,930 4,026 7,488 5,917 7,220 8,117 2,977 15029 10000 15,840 11,547 11,859 10,052 Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) Length (feet) To To To To To To To To To To To I-49 N/A N/A N/A N/A I-49 I-49 N/A SH 255 SH SH 255 SH SH 10 Spur Terry Road Zero Street Kelley Hwy. Kelley Hwy. Phoenix Ave. Rye Road Hill Edwards Road Massard Road Massard Massard Road Massard MPO Boundary I-49 Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A (East) Signal (East) (East) (East) (East) (East) (East) (West) (South) (South) (South) (South) (South) (North) (North) (North) (North) Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction N/A N/A N/A N/A 66th SH 22 SH 71 SH 22 From From From From From From From From From From From US 64 SH-59 SH 162 SH AR River Main Street Intersection Dallas Street Midland Blvd Midland Town Branch Phoenix Ave. Planters RoadPlanters Massard Road Massard Chad Colley Blvd. Chad Colley Blvd. Main Street South Bridge Bridges Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Extension Extension Extension Extension Extension Signalization Signalization Signalization Signalization Maintenance Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Widening/Reconstruction Need where, distance and cost Arkansas PROJECTS BY: Member Jurisdiction (City) SH-96 Greenwood SH-162 SH-71 US-64 Alma Barling Central City Fort Smith Kibler Lavaca SH 162 Improvements SH 71 and SH 10 Spur CreekClear Road SH 71 and SH 282 SH 96 Road Grove Mountain and 64 SH Interchange I-49 to Extension Street Main "H" Street Lind Jenny Denver Street Jenny Lind Jenny Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" Bridge 64C Highway Road Grove Mountain Roads Frontage US 64 Multiple Bridge Rehab and Replacement (4 Structures) (4 Replacement and Rehab Bridge Multiple US 64 US 64 Bridge Painting Garrison Ave. Planters Road Planters Massard Road Massard Chad Colley Blvd. and Massard Road Massard and Blvd. Colley Chad Blvd. Roberts Chad Colley Blvd. Chad Colley Blvd. 66th Street Extension Clayton Expressway Extension

Table 16: Constrained and Unconstrained Project Listing Continued

105

2040: The New Frontier 62,049 2,248,952 1,411,107 6,059,357 3,261,492 3,127,341 5,671,927 5,410,612 2015 cost 2015 cost $5,494,100 N/A $813,941 $244,072.32 $153,143.42 $897,682.46 $483,184.02 $463,309.72 $840,285.47 $587,198.17 ROW/Utility Cost ROW/Utility Cost N/A 14% 20% 14% 20% 20% 20% 20% 14% Percent Percent ROW/Utility ROW/Utility N/A 261,506 164,082 673,262 362,388 347,482 630,214 629,141 $610,456 Engineering 15% Engineering 15% Engineering $313,212.52 $4,197,452.51 $2,774,798.15 $4,197,452.51 $4,197,452.51 $4,197,452.51 $4,197,452.51 $4,197,452.51 $4,197,452.51 Const. per mile Const. per mile $62,049 $1,743,374 $1,093,882 $4,488,412 $2,415,920 $2,316,549 $4,201,427 $4,194,273 $4,069,704 2015 Estimate 2015 Estimate construction Cost construction construction Cost construction 0.42 1.47 0.26 1.07 0.58 0.55 1.00 0.20 1.00 Miles Miles 2,193 7,744 1,376 5,646 3,039 2,914 5,285 1,046 5,276 Length (feet) Length (feet)

To To To To To To I-40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I-540 SH 59 S. 40th Street Sandstone Road Oliver Springs RoadOliver Springs Industrial Park Road Riverfront Road and Port N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (East) (East) (West) (South) (South) (South) (North) (North) Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mitzi From From From US 64 US 64 From From From From SH 162 SH 28th Street West of SH-59 Uniontown Street Industrial Park Way Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Expansion Expansion Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route New Facility Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Type of Project Extension/Widening Extension/Widening Oklahoma PROJECTS BY: Member Jurisdiction (Town) Transit PROJECTS Project Listing - By County Van Buren LeFlore Sequoyah Arkoma Transit Sebastian Crawford Uniontown Road Uniontown Const. I-49 -With Road Club Gun Pevehouse Road N. 28th Street S. 28th Street S. 28th Street Industrial Park Road Industrial Port Roads (2) (Levee - Riverside) N. 40th Street Urban Area Transit Expansion Transit Area Urban Fort Smith Transit Secondary Transfer Station Transit to Chaffee Crossing CNG On-Site Fueling Station Transfer StationExpansion and Walkway and StationExpansion Transfer

Table 16: Constrained and Unconstrained Project Listing Continued

106

2040: The New Frontier

2040: �e New Frontier Statewide Transit Future Funding Safety $284,063 $286,903 $289,772 $292,670 $295,597 $298,553 $301,538 $304,553 $307,599 $310,675 $313,782 $316,920 $320,089 $323,290 $326,523 $329,788 $333,086 $336,416 $339,781 $343,178 $346,610 $350,076 $353,577 $357,113 $360,684 $1,730,254 $3,123,520 $3,450,309 Section 5329 $3,725,391 $3,762,645 $3,800,272 $3,838,274 $3,876,657 $3,240,952 $3,273,362 $3,306,096 $3,339,156 $3,372,548 $3,406,274 $3,440,336 $3,474,740 $3,509,487 $3,544,582 $3,580,028 $3,615,828 $3,651,986 $3,688,506 $3,915,424 $3,954,578 $3,994,124 $4,034,065 $4,074,405 $4,115,150 $19,740,978 $35,637,158 $39,365,593 Section 5339 Bus and BusBus and Facilities Formula Repair $298,605 $301,591 $304,607 $307,653 $310,730 $313,837 $316,975 $320,145 $323,347 $326,580 $329,846 $333,144 $336,476 $339,841 $343,239 $346,671 $350,138 $353,640 $357,176 $360,748 $364,355 $367,999 $371,679 $375,395 $379,149 $1,818,836 $3,283,431 $3,626,950 Section 5337 State Good of RTAP $212,487 $214,612 $216,758 $218,925 $221,115 $223,326 $225,559 $227,815 $230,093 $232,394 $234,718 $237,065 $239,435 $241,830 $244,248 $246,691 $249,158 $251,649 $254,166 $256,707 $259,274 $261,867 $264,486 $267,131 $269,802 $1,294,279 $2,336,482 $2,580,930 Section 5311 (b)(3) Formula Formula $19,766,559 $19,964,225 $20,163,867 $20,365,506 $20,569,161 $20,774,852 $20,982,601 $21,192,427 $21,404,351 $21,618,395 $21,834,579 $22,052,924 $22,273,454 $22,496,188 $22,721,150 $22,948,362 $23,177,845 $23,409,624 $23,643,720 $23,880,157 $24,118,959 $24,360,148 $24,603,750 $24,849,787 $25,098,285 $120,400,168 $217,350,920 $240,090,636 Section 5311/5340 Nonurbanized Area $3,167,624 $3,199,300 $3,231,293 $3,263,606 $3,296,242 $3,329,205 $3,362,497 $3,396,122 $3,430,083 $3,464,384 $3,499,027 $3,534,018 $3,569,358 $3,605,051 $3,641,102 $3,677,513 $3,714,288 $3,751,431 $3,788,945 $3,826,835 $3,865,103 $3,903,754 $3,942,792 $3,982,220 $4,022,042 $19,294,326 $34,830,845 $38,474,922 Section 5310 Older Adults and Older and Adults Enhanced Mobility for Mobility Enhanced People with Disabilities Planning Planning $147,762 $149,239 $150,732 $152,239 $153,761 $900,032 $155,299 $156,852 $158,421 $160,005 $161,605 $163,221 $164,853 $166,502 $168,167 $169,848 $171,547 $173,262 $174,995 $176,745 $178,512 $180,297 $182,100 $183,921 $185,761 $187,618 Statewide $1,624,772 $1,794,759 Section 5304 $545,206 $550,658 $556,164 $561,726 $567,343 $573,017 $578,747 $584,534 $590,380 $596,283 $602,246 $608,269 $614,351 $620,495 $626,700 $632,967 $639,296 $645,689 $652,146 $658,668 $665,254 $671,907 $678,626 $685,412 $692,266 Planning Planning $3,320,904 $5,995,021 $6,622,233 Metropolitan Section 5303 Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 3039 2040 Mid-Term TotalMid-Term Long-Term Total Short Total Term

Table 17: Statewide Transit Funds

107

2040: The New Frontier

2040: �e New Frontier Fort Smith Transit Constrained and Illustrative Projects

SHORT - TERM 2016-2020 (CURRENT TIP) Job Responsible Total Year of Description Funding Category Years Number Agency Expenditure Cost

FTS006 Consolidated Planning Program (MPO) FTA 5305 2016 FST $270,000

FTS005 Capital Planning FTA 5307 2016 FST $62,000

FTS001 Operating Assistance FTA 5307 2016 FST $1,700,000

FST002 Capital-Preventive Maintenance FTA 5307 2016 FST $360,000

FST003 Capital-Paratransit Service FTA 5307 2016 FST $340,000

FTS004 Capital-Rolling Stock/Support Equipment FTA 5307 2016 FST $360,000

FTS006 Consolidated Planning Program (MPO) FTA 5305 2017 FST $275,000

FTS005 Capital Planning FTA 5307 2017 FST $63,000

FTS001 Operating Assistance FTA 5307 2017 FST $1,700,000

FST002 Capital-Preventive Maintenance FTA 5307 2017 FST $360,000

FST003 Capital-Paratransit Service FTA 5307 2017 FST $340,000

FTS004 Capital-Rolling Stock/Support Equipment FTA 5307 2017 FST $110,000

FTS006 Consolidated Planning Program (MPO) FTA 5305 2018 FST $280,000

FTS005 Capital Planning FTA 5307 2018 FST $63,000

FTS001 Operating Assistance FTA 5307 2018 FST $1,751,000

FST002 Capital-Preventive Maintenance FTA 5307 2018 FST $371,000

FST003 Capital-Paratransit Service FTA 5307 2018 FST $350,000

FTS004 Capital-Rolling Stock/Support Equipment FTA 5307 2018 FST $113,000

FTS006 Consolidated Planning Program (MPO) FTA 5305 2019 FST $287,000

FTS005 Capital Planning FTA 5307 2019 FST $63,000

FTS001 Operating Assistance FTA 5307 2019 FST $1,804,000

FST002 Capital-Preventive Maintenance FTA 5307 2019 FST $382,000

FST003 Capital-Paratransit Service FTA 5307 2019 FST $365,000

FTS004 Capital-Rolling Stock/Support Equipment FTA 5307 2019 FST $116,000

FTS006 Consolidated Planning Program (MPO) FTA 5305 2020 FST $291,000

FTS005 Capital Planning FTA 5307 2020 FST $64,000

FTS001 Operating Assistance FTA 5307 2020 FST $1,858,000

FST002 Capital-Preventive Maintenance FTA 5307 2020 FST $394,000

FST003 Capital-Paratransit Service FTA 5307 2020 FST $372,000

FTS004 Capital-Rolling Stock/Support Equipment FTA 5307 2020 FST $120,000

Total Short - Term Transit: $14,984,000

Table 18: Short-Term Transit

108

2040: The New Frontier

MID - TERM 2021-2030 Job Responsible Total Year of Description Funding Category Years Number Agency Expenditure Cost

Operations and Maintenance FTA 5307 2021-2030 FST $19,088,866

Transfer Station Expansion and Walkway FTA 5307 2021-2030 FST $600,000

Urban Area Service Expansion-Van Buren FTA 5307 2021-2030 FST $2,000,000

Total Mid - Term Transit: $21,688,866

Table 19: Mid-Term Transit

Long - TERM 2031-2040 Job Responsible Total Year of Description Funding Category Years Number Agency Expenditure Cost

Operations and Maintenance FTA 5307 2031-2040 FST $21,085,984

Transit Expansion to Chaffee Crossing FTA 5307 2031-2040 FST $2,000,000 Total Long - Term Transit: $23,085,984

Table 20: Long-Term Transit

Illustrative Transit Job Responsible Total Year of Description Funding Category Years Number Agency Expenditure Cost

Secondary Transfer Station FTA5307 FST $2,000,000

Total Illustrative Transit: $2,000,000

Table 21: Illustrative Transit

109

2040: The New Frontier

110

2040: The New Frontier

APPENDIX A

111

2040: The New Frontier

112

2040: The New Frontier

113

2040: The New Frontier

114

2040: The New Frontier

APPENDIX B

MySidewalk Responses Activity Summary

Views Responses Interactions

1626 97 97

115

2040: The New Frontier

116

2040: The New Frontier

117

2040: The New Frontier

118

2040: The New Frontier

119

2040: The New Frontier

120

2040: The New Frontier