Fastlane 2016 Grant Application I-30 Crossing Project

FASTLANE 2016 GRANT APPLICATION I-30 CROSSING PROJECT

ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WWW.ARKANSASHIGHWAYS.COM

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) Grant

Interstate 30 National Freight Corridor Improvements Project Name Interstate 30 National Freight Corridor Improvements Previously Incurred Project Cost $8,783,118 Future Eligible Project Cost $622,916,882 Total Project Cost $631,700,000 NSFHP Request $100,000,000 Total Federal Funding (including NSFHP) $227,400,000 Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If No so, which one? Is the project or a portion of the project currently located on Yes National Highway Freight Network Is the project or a portion of the project located on the National Highway System NHS – Yes • Does the project add capacity to the Interstate system? Interstate Capacity - Yes • Is the project in a national scenic area? Scenic - No Do the project components include a railway-highway grade Yes crossing or grade separation project? Do the project components include an intermodal or freight rail project, or freight project within the boundaries of a public or Yes private freight rail, water (including ports), or intermodal facility? If answered yes to either of the two component questions above, Bridge cost $114,000,000. how much of requested NSFHP funds will be spent on each of A portion of the NSFHP these project components? funds received will be used for this component. State(s) in which project is located Arkansas Small or Large project Large Also submitting an application to TIGER for this project? No Urbanized Area in which project is located, if applicable Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas Population of Urbanized Area 431,338 Is the project currently programmed in the • TIP TIP - Yes • STIP STIP – Yes • MPO Long Range Transportation Plan MPO LRTP - Yes • State Long Range Transportation Plan SLRTP – This is not a project specific plan. • State Freight Plan? SFP – Current SFP is not project specific. The update is underway and this will be included.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT SUMMARY...... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 2 PROJECT LOCATION...... 3 PROJECT PARTIES...... 3 GRANT FUNDS, SOURCES AND USES OF PROJECT FUNDS / COST SHARE...... 5 COST-EFFECTIVENESS...... 6 PROJECT READINESS...... 8 ECONOMIC OUTCOMES...... 9 MOBILITY OUTCOMES...... 13 SAFETY OUTCOMES...... 21 COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES...... 23 PARTNERSHIP AND INNOVATION...... 24

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 [I-30 Corridor Project Map]...... 2 Figure 8 [I-40 Pavement Condition]...... 13 Table 1 [Needs and Purpose]...... 2 Figure 9 [Functional Deficiencies]...... 14 Figure 2 [I-30 Corridor Project Area] ...... 3 Figure 10 [I-30 Arkansas River Bridge]...... 14 Table 2 [PEL Technical Work Group Members]...... 4 Figure 11 [Spalled Bearing Pad]...... 15 Table 3 [Funding Source]...... 5 Figure 12 [Beam Corrosion]...... 15 Table 4 [Project-Level Impacts] ...... 6 Figure 13 [Navigation Channel Obstruction]...... 15 Table 5 [Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis]...... 7 Figure 14 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Mobility]...... 17 Table 6 [Project Readiness]...... 8 Figure 15 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Speed Profiles]...... 17 Table 7 [Population]...... 9 Figure 16 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Mobility]...... 18 Table 8 [Median Income]...... 9 Figure 17 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Speed Table 9 [Population by Race]...... 9 Profiles]...... 19 Table 10 [Metropolitan Statistical Area]...... 9 Figure 18 [Future 2041 PEL 10-Lane Recommended Figure 3 [Concentrated Employment Areas]...... 10 Alternative Mobility]...... 20 Figure 4 [Freight Dependent Portion of Arkansas’ Figure 19 [Future 2041 PEL 10-Lane Recommended Economy]...... 11 Peak Hour Speed Profiles]...... 21 Figure 5 [Freight Dependent Portion of Table 11 [Historic Crash Rates (2010-2012)]...... 22 Arkansas’ Economy - Jobs]...... 11 Figure 20 [I-30/I-40 Main Lane KA Crashes]...... 22 Figure 6 [Truck Tonnage]...... 12 Table 12 [Improvement Alternatives Comparison]...... 23 Figure 7 [I-30 Pavement Condition]...... 13 Table 13 [List of Partners]...... 25

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 PROJECT SUMMARY

In 2012 the people of Arkansas voted to implement the Connecting Arkansas Program (CAP), passing a Constitutional Amendment to assess a one-half cent, ten year sales tax to support the largest single highway program in the history of Arkansas. Thirty-five projects were identified as part of that program when the vote was taken, with The I-30 Corridor Project (Project), being the largest and most ambitious ever planned to be undertaken by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD). It will be the first project in the state to utilize the design-build-finance method, and is the first to incorporate the Planning and Environmental Link- age (PEL) study process.

The Project seeks to improve portions of Interstate 30 (I-30) and Interstate 40 (I-40) in Central Arkansas. The Project’s major components include improvements to approximately five miles of I-30 from the Interstate 530 (I-530) interchange north to the I-40 interchange; approximately 1.75 miles of I-40 from Highway 107 east to the Highway 67 interchange; the Interstate 630 (I-630) interchange; and replacement of the structurally deficient, fracture-critical Arkansas River Bridge.

This Project will ease congestion and reduce travel times in one of the most heavily traveled corridors of the state. Repairs and replacements are necessary due to wear and tear on the roadway associated with constant, heavy traffic in the area. However, rather than simply repair the existing roadway, the Project seeks to address traffic operational needs through widening of the roadway; increase safety through redesign of access; increase connectivity of the local communities; and ease freight movement along Marine Highway 40 (M-40). These highway improvements will occur on either side of the I-30 Arkansas River Bridge, the “Keystone” of the Project, which at 126,000 vehicles per day is the most traveled bridge in the state. The Bridge is in need of replacement due to fatigue, the lack of beams sharing the load of the pin and hanger assembly, and the inadequacy of the columns in the event of a seismic event. The new structure will not only be designed to promote safe and efficient traffic flow on I-30, the bridge piers will be relocated to clear the navigational path for river freight along M-40, the only waterway connecting Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The Project will serve connections to five major interstates and one freeway — I-40, I-630, I-30, I-530, and Interstate 440 (I-440), and Highway 67 — within the Little Rock/ North Little Rock metropolitan area. Interstate 30, as well as the connecting routes are included in the National Highway Freight Network. These routes are critical to the efficient movement of freight not only in Arkansas but also nationally. Both I-30 and I-40 are national freight shipping lanes that also happens to be located in the project foot print. These connections make the Project both locally and regionally significant. See “Figure 1 [I-30 Corridor Project Map]”.

Total cost of this Project is estimated to be $631,700,000. The dollar amount and large scope of this project makes funding difficult. AHTD is requesting $100,000,000 in National Significant Freight and Highway Project (NSFHP) funds. The balance of funding will come from CAP funds, and $22 million from AHTD’s Interstate Rehabilitation Program (IRP).

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This Project proposes to widen, reconstruct, and rehabilitate portions of I-30 and I-40, including replacing and widening the Arkansas River Bridge. Consideration has been made for increasing safety by revising access ramps in order to lengthen weaving distances and decision making time, and to increase Figure 1 [I-30 Corridor Project Map]

Cincinnati accessibility with the

Topeka Kansas City 70 Independence Columbia possible inclusion of St. Louis Olathe INTRODUCTION 35 ille additional ramps. Evansv ayette Lexington-F Wichita 49 44 Frontage roads will be Springfield connected, and additional 67 Clarksville son 55 Nashville-David Knoxville Tulsa lanes will be included on Murfreesboro Broken Arrow 40 49 Visioning Workshop Oklahoma City 67 40 the Arkansas River Bridge. anooga Norman Chatt INTRO TO VISIONING40 WORKSHOPMemphis Quick Facts Little Rock Huntsville A VISSIM model showing 59 575 Conway WHAT: I-30 Visioning Workshop 530 Atlanta 67 the extent of the Project can 30 Birmingham Cabot Visioning Workshop Purpose and Scope 675 JOB: CA0602 I-530-Hwy. 67 40 be found at https://vimeo. Denton 359 85 (Widening & Reconst.) (I-30 & I-40) Lewisville Garland 55 Jacksonville s SherwoCoodlumbu 16 com/125509867. lle This first Visioning Workshop invited stakeholders in the communityMaume to Noproviderth Dallas Montgomery 440 Arlington Shreveport 43 80 Little JOB OWNER: Arkansas State Ty Jackson 20 ler Rock input and prioritize their ideas for the I-30 corridor. This included insight into 40 430 Highway and Transportation 231630 preservingW andaco enhancing aesthetic, historic, and community resources. A 440 Littl6e5 Rock Department 84 second KVisioningilleen Workshop will be49 held during the NEPA/Schematic phase 30 obile ahassee DATE: November 19, 2014 M 30 Brya1nt0 Tall to examineRound R potentialock Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) and design concepts Baton Rouge B1e1nt0on 530 Austin The Woo Lafayette dlands New Orleans TIME: 8:15 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. in greater detail. Based onB estakeholderaumont feedbackMetairie and available funding, Legend Houston Project Corridor CSS/aesthetic guidelinesPasadena will be developed following this second Visioning WHERE : Garver Workshop and included in the Design-Build request for proposals, pending Miles ADDRESS: 4701 Northshore Drive, AHTD approval.0 50 100 CA0602 North Little Rock, Arkansas

Table 1 [Needs and Purpose] NEEDS (PROBLEMS) PURPOSE (SOLUTIONS)

To improve mobility on I-30 and I-40 by providing comprehensive solutions that improve travel speed and travel time to downtown North Little Rock and Little Rock and accommodate the expected increase in Traffic Congestion traffic demand. I-30 provides essential access to other major statewide transportation corridors, serves local and regional travelers and connects residential, commercial and employment centers.

To improve travel safety within and across the I-30 corridor by eliminating Roadway Safety and/or improving inadequate design features.

Structural and Functional To improve I-30 roadway conditions and functional ratings. Roadway Deficiencies

To improve navigational safety on the Arkansas River by eliminating and/ Navigational Safety or improving inadequate design features.

Structural and Functional To improve I-30 Arkansas River Bridge conditions and functional ratings. Bridge Deficiencies

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 2 5 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located in Central Figure 2 [I-30 Corridor Project Area]

n M o cC ain 1 obins 1B Arkansas, on I-30 and starts at the R mp D a 176 O Venable C P A R K O E. McCain le Doy H I L L W E 1A K 67 junction with I-530 in the south as A 40 107 L

152 M acA

r pr t P hu Baptist Health i er nghil Medical Center shown in “Figure 2 [I-30 Corridor r cy 161 153A M JFK l

ac ills h in h H t

N 155 Pershing 153B e ik 40 Project Area]”. From there the P Ft. Roots VA Hospital 153B 156 157 ain

M 154 Project moves north through down- 143B 143A town Little Rock and its junction E. 19th 365 30 E . 15th Curtis Sykes North with I-630 and, after crossing the E. 13th 142

B A R I N G LIttle C R O S S Arkansas River, through North A R 141B Rock K E. 7th Bishop Lindsey 70

t A s N es

ocus

S . L

. C Little Rock. From the junction of N

A N S E. Broadway R O S E Dickey- Stephens Verizon Park Arena 70 C I T Y R 141B I-30 and I-40, the project continues, iverfront 100 165 Old State heading east on I-40 to the inter- 10 House M arkham

Statehouse Convention 141A State Center Capitol Clinton Presidential RIVER change with Highway 67. Library M E. 3rd arkham 2B 141A Heifer 630 70 Village 2A E. 6th

Way

r t en

a e

LK 1B nt

ildr

. B M 1A e land h

S E. 9th ain C

e mber 30 es u at ay 140B h t C

C S w

oad

The project area is considered r

B ana

i t

cot 139A S Louis

ce 140 E. 15th mmer Urban, centered within Arkansas’ o 1 C 139B 139B LITTLE E. 17th

largest urbanized area with a E. 21st ROCK

139A Clinton population of 431,338. Little Rock 70 E. Roos 365 evelt National

139A Airport

t a

E. 28th r

e d e f

is the capitol, and most populous n

o C 367 city, of Arkansas and the county 440 4 3 138B 1

seat of Pulaski County. North ch S r 138 . A

r e g n

r p Little Rock is situated across the S

138A 365 Arkansas River from Little Rock, 30 and the two cities are connected by 367 630

Miles the I-30 Arkansas River Bridge. 0 0.5 1 PM: PS: AJD: 3-10-2015 Connecting Arkansas Job CA0602 Little Rock & North Little Rock, AR

PROJECT PARTIES

Statewide Parties The primary party in this Project is the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. AHTD has partnered with Metroplan, the City of Little Rock, and the City of North Little Rock. They are committed to the success of this, and all projects, of regional significance in their area. The Project is funded in partnership with the People of Arkansas through IRP and CAP funds.

Interstate Rehabilitation Program • In a special election held November 8, 2011, the citizens of Arkansas voted to allow the Arkansas Highway Commission to issue up to $575 million in Grant Anticipation Reve- nue Vehicles bonds to help finance improvements and repairs to existing interstates in Arkansas. This program, in combination with existing federal and state revenues, is

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 3 expected to support $1.2 billion in construction on our interstate highways over the life of the program. The IRP will provide $23 million for the Project.

Connecting Arkansas Program • The CAP is the largest highway construction program ever undertaken by AHTD. In early 2011 the Arkansas Legislature voted to include Issue #1 on the General Election ballot. On November 6, 2012, Arkansas voters approved this ten-year, half-cent sales tax to improve highway and infrastructure projects throughout the state. This constitutional amendment will finance widening, improvements, and completion of certain state highways. The $1.8 billion CAP will end when the bonds are paid off. The temporary tax is shared statewide by consumers and road users. Taxes were not raised on groceries, medicine, or motor fuels. This program provides $404 million for the Project.

Local Parties On a more local level, the communities impacted by the Project have been engaged and participat- ed extensively through the PEL process. Significant outreach resulting in community involve- ment has brought the surrounding areas and the businesses, schools, and attractions, together as partners with the AHTD in seeking funding for the Project. Summaries of all meetings can be found at the CAP website at https://connectingarkansasprogram.com/ meetings/I-30-pulaski-county/.

Broad-based community support has directed and defined the Project from the early stages, and will continue to push the Project to implement community-driven needs. Broad-based support is evident from the diverse groups represented in the technical work group reflected in “Table 2 [PEL Technical Work Group Members]”. The Technical Work Group is a meeting of local, state and federal agencies having an interest in the various components of the project and its immediate surroundings.

Table 2 [PEL Technical Work Group Members]

PEL TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEMBERS Ark. State Highway and Transportation Dept. City of North Little Rock Parks and Recreation Ark. Archeological Survey Federal Highway Administration Ark. Commissioner of State Lands Federal Railroad Administration, SW Region Ark. Dept. of Emergency Management Little Rock District Corps of Engineers Ark. Dept. of Environmental Quality Little Rock School District Ark. Dept. of Parks and Tourism Metroplan Ark. Economic Development Commission North Little Rock A&P Commission Ark. Game and Fish Commission North Little Rock Visitors Bureau Ark. Geological Survey North Little Rock School District Ark. Historic Preservation Program Pulaski County Planning & Development Ark. Natural Heritage Commission Pulaski County Special School District Ark. Natural Resources Commission Union Pacific Railroad Ark. State Police US Army Corps of Engineers Ark. Waterways Commission US Coast Guard - Western Rivers Central Ark. Transit Authority US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development City of Little Rock - Planning and Development US Dept. of the Interior - National Park Service City of Little Rock - Public Works US Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation US Fish and Wildlife Service City of North Little Rock US Geological Survey - Ark. Water Science

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 4 GRANT FUNDS, SOURCES AND USES OF PROJECT FUNDS / COST SHARE

The Project will be the largest construction project let to contract in Arkansas’ history. This Project will cost more than AHTD receives in Federal funds for an entire year. The total cost of the Project is $631.7 million. AHTD is requesting $100 million in NSFHP funds. The remaining balance of funding will come from the CAP, the IRP, and other federal funds. Both of these programs were approved by a vote of the people of Arkansas. The state match for this project will be close to 70% of the total cost if NSFHP funds are received. Congress approved a $1 million earmark under SAFETEA-LU for this project. The table below shows funding sources and their percent of the Project.

As shown in the “Table 3 [Funding Source]”, CAP will be primary funding source for this Project. When the people of Arkansas voted for the CAP, this project was on the list of improvements. This project would not have been possible if the people of Arkansas had not seen a great need for improving the highway system in the state. The Project can reach its full potential and fulfill the vision of the people of Arkansas with the additional support of NSFHP funds.

Table 3 [Funding Source]

Cost % of Total Funding Source Funding Status (Millions) Funds NSFHP Funds $100.0 Applied For 15.8% Connecting Arkansas Program $404.3 Committed 64.0% Interstate Rehabilition Program $22.7 Committed 3.6% SAFETEA-LU Earmark $1.1 Committed 0.2% Other Federal $103.6 Committed 16.4%

Total Project Funds $631.7

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 5 Travel Demand Impacts Travel demand benefits for the proposed improvements along I-30 are summarized below (Table X). BenefitsCOST-EFFECTIVENESS reflect corridor-level impacts compared to a future 2040 No-Build scenario. The project’s proposed opening to traffic is in year 2020. A future/horizon year for the No Build and Build projectTravel scenarios demand is benefitsset at 2040 for to the provide proposed a 20 improvements-year benefit stream along I-30for the are impact summarized below“Table 4 [Project-Level Impacts]” on page 6. Benefits reflect corridor-level impacts compared to a analysis. Impacts are isolated to the I-30 project only; they do not reflect any additional planned future 2040 No-Build scenario. The project’s proposed opening to traffic is in year 2020. A improvements in the region. future/horizon year for the No Build and Build project scenarios is set at 2040 to provide a It is estimated20-year that in benefit the base stream year, for the the proposed impact analysis. project willImpacts reduce are isolateddelay by to aroundthe I-30 35% project only; they percent duringdo (AM not andreflect PM) any peak additional periods ofplanned travel improvementsfor both autos andin the trucks region.. Table X. ProjectIt is estimated-Level that Impacts in the base year, the proposed project will reduce delay by around 35% percent during (AM and PM) peak periods of travel for both autos and trucks.

Table 4 [Project-Level Impacts]

Base Year Base Year % Change No Build Build

Total Daily Delay 173,635 111,347 -36% AM Peak Delay/Auto 30,797 21,113 -31% AM Peak Delay/Truck 1,556 1,009 -35% PM Peak Delay/Auto 101,577 62,427 -39% PM Peak Delay/Truck 4,206 2,738 -35%

The benefits of implementing the project include cost savings due to reduced pavement mainte- The benefits of implementing the project include cost savings due to reduced pavement nance cost, travel time, delays and vehicle operating cost, motor vehicle crash costs. “Table 5 maintenance cost, travel time, delays and vehicle operating cost, motor vehicle crash costs. [Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis]” on page 7 summarizes the findings of the benefit-cost Table 3 summarizes the findings of the benefit-cost analysis which yield a robust BCR ranging analysis which yield a robust Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) ranging between 1.6 and 2.1. between 1.6 and 2.1. Economic Impacts

The transportation cost savings arising from the Project will support additional economic growth and development in the region. It is estimated that the short-term impact of the increased construction spending will lead to an additional 8,450 jobs. In the long term, the Project will increase the overall competitiveness of the region, translating into an additional 369 jobs, $17.1 million in labor income, and $51.0 million in Gross State Product (GSP), annually.

Summary Benefits The I-30 corridor project is estimated to provide significant benefit to the Little Rock region and the State of Arkansas. Capacity upgrades yield a significant and immediate 31 to 39 percent delay reduction across the corridor. Improved mobility and reliability resulting from the project will support reduced air pollution and ensure the region and the state’s economy grows bigger and faster. The Gross State Product (GSP), a measure of the size of the state’s economy, is projected to grow by about $51 million more per year with the project than without it. The expansion in GSP Table 3. Summarytranslates into of Benefit an additional-Cost Analysis369 permanent jobs per year and $17.1 million in additional personal Discount rate income per year for residents throughout the state.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 6 Table 5 [Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis] Table 3. Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis Discount rate

Benefits 7% 3%

Reduction in Value of Time Costs $656,154,034 $957,843,150 Reduction in Non-Fuel Vehicle $800,623 $1,140,167 Operating Costs Reduction in Fuel Vehicle $1,137,305 $1,619,543 Operating Costs Reduction in Safety Costs $ 1,924,490 $2,740,368 Reduction in Emissions Costs $483,162 $693,006 Reduction in Logistics Costs $ (2,846) $ (4,200) Reduction in Repair Costs $155,040,781 $247,237,507 Total Benefits $ 815,537,548 $1,211,269,539 Costs Construction Costs $514,412,924 $586,435,428 Maintenance and Operations Costs $ 2,370,441 $3,974,520 Total Costs $516,783,366 $590,409,948 Benefits vs. Costs Net Present Value of Benefits $298,754,182 $620,859,591 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.6 2.1

Economic Impacts The transportation cost savings arising from the Project will support additional economic growth and development in the region. It is estimated that the short-term impact of the increased construction spending will lead to an additional 8,450 jobs. In the long term, the Project will increase the overall competitiveness of the region, translating into an additional 369 jobs, $17.1 million in labor income, and $51.0 million in Gross State Product (GSP), annually. Summary Benefits The I-30 corridor project is estimated to provide significant benefit to the Littlerock region and the State of Arkansas. Capacity upgrades yield a significant and immediate 31 to 39 percent delay reduction across the corridor. Improved mobility and reliability resulting from the project will support reduced air pollution and ensure the region and the state’s economy grows bigger

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 - 2 - | 7 PROJECT READINESS

Although large in scope, this Project will have an abbreviated timeline as compared to other projects of similar size and scope. This abbreviated timeline is due to the Project being confined predominantly to the existing right of way footprint and by utilizing time saving techniques in the planning, design and construction phases. By utilizing the PEL process during the planning phase, the resulting PEL recommendations will streamline the NEPA process thus reducing the timeframe for environmental clearance. By use of the design build process; design, utility reloca- tion and construction will occur concurrently resulting in a greatly reduced project timeline. Environmental clearance for this Project is expected by the end of 2016. Following environmental clearance, a design build firm will be selected in mid 2017 with construction expected to begin in mid 2018. Project completion is expected in late 2022.

Table 6 [Project Readiness]

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 8 North Little 2010 Census, Population Little Rock Rock White 46.7% 51.6% Black or African American 42.3% 39.7% Native American 0.4% 0.4% Asian / Pacific Islander 2.8% 1.0% Hispanic or Latino 6.8% 5.7% Two or More Races 1.7% 2.1% Data from United States Census Bureau

North Little 2014 Median Income Little Rock National Rock North Little 2010 Census, Population Little Rock Median household income $46,409 $40,305 Rock$53,482 Population below the White 18.0% 46.7%21.7% 51.6%15.6% Blackpoverty or African Line American 42.3% 39.7% North Little ECONOMIC OUCOMES Data2010 from Census, United Population States Census BureauLittle Rock Native American 0.4% Rock 0.4% Statistical data and economic infor- Asian White/ Pacific Islander 46.7% 2.8% 51.6% 1.0% Table 7 [Population] mation for the Little Rock/ North Black Hispanicor African Americanor Latino 42.3% 6.8% 39.7% 5.7% 2014Native est. American Census, 0.4% North0.4% Little Little Rock areas are provided in Two or More Races Little Rock 1.7% 2.1%Total DataAsian from population/ Pacific United Islander States Census2.8% Bureau Rock1.0% Tables 7 through 10. Data compiled HispanicPeople or Latino 197,7066.8% 66,8105.7% 264,516 by Metroplan, using the Metropolitan TwoHouseholds or More Races 77,3521.7% 26,5302.1% 103,882 Planning Organization (MPO) for DataDensity from United (peo./mile States Census2) Bureau4,624 1,210 Central Arkansas, U.S. Census data Data from United States Census Bureau North Little shows that approximately 56,000 Table2014 8 [Median Median Income] Income Little Rock National Rock commuters from the closest neighbor- North Little 2014 Median Income Little Rock National ing counties travel to Pulaski County Median householdYear incomeMSA $46,409Rock $40,305 $53,482 MedianPopulation household2013 below income the $46,409 724,385 $40,305 $53,482 each day for work. Residents 2010 699,757 Population below the 18.0% 21.7% 15.6% of Pulaski County who remain in the poverty2000 Line 18.0% 610,518 21.7% 15.6% poverty Line county for work total 171,000. DataData from from United United States States Census Census Bureau Bureau Data from United States Census Bureau Of the approximately 227,000 per- sons working in Pulaski County, at Table 9 [Population by Race] least 25% of those are employed at North Little 20102014 Census, est. Census, Population Little RockNorth Little the major employment centers high- 2014 est. Census, Little Rock RockNorth LittleTotal population Little RockRock Total lighted in red in populationWhite 46.7% 51.6%Rock Black or PeopleAfrican American 197,70642.3% 66,81039.7% 264,516 “Figure 3 [Concentrated Employ- HouseholdsPeople 77,352197,70626,530 66,810103,882 264,516 Native American 0.4% 0.4% ment Areas]”on the following page. DensityHouseholds (peo./mile2) 4,624 77,3521,210 26,530 103,882 Asian / Pacific Islander 2.8% 1.0% Data fromDensity United (peo./mile States Census2 )Bureau 4,624 1,210 Hispanic or Latino 6.8% 5.7% Data from United States Census Bureau The recommendations include imple- Two or More Races 1.7% 2.1% mentation and utilization of Data from United States Census Bureau bus-on-shoulders, increasing the Year MSA Table 10 [Metropolitan Statistical Area] efficiency and ride ability of available 2013 724,385 transit. This provides additional 2010Year 699,757MSA 2000 610,518 2013 724,385North Little methods of transportation in an area Data2014 from UnitedMedian States Income Census BureauLittle Rock National where residential information indi- 2010 699,757 Rock cates a significant portion of residents Median household2000 income $46,409 610,518 $40,305 $53,482 DataPopulation from United below States the Census Bureau are classified as low income. 18.0% 21.7% 15.6% poverty Line The additional lanes on the I-30 ArkansasData River from Bridge United States would Census provide Bureau an ease of connectivity not previously available to these two cities,and provide north-south connections for both cities’ downtown areas. 2014 est. Census, North Little Little Rock Total Opportunities to enhance safety and reconnect eastpopulation and west sides of I-30 would beRock heightened through better visual connections and safe sight linesPeople and vistas over 197,706and under the66,810 interstate. 264,516 Where possible, longer bridge spans will be explored,Households including minimizing77,352 column26,530 placements103,882 and depressing of corridor sections at strategicDensity locations. (peo./mile Visibility2) under4,624 bridges should1,210 be developed to improve pedestrian and bicycleData from safety. United This States could Census be Bureauachieved through greater sidewalk widths, longer bridge spans or sloped abutments where necessary and enhanced pedestrian and vehicular safety lighting under bridge structures and along pathways.

Year MSA I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 2013 724,385 | 9 2010 699,757 2000 610,518 Data from United States Census Bureau Figure 3 [Concentrated Employment Areas]

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 10 Freight andAcross the Arkansas the state, Economy transportation is a critical factor in the movement of freight. Of the total $119 Across thebillion state, transportation in economic is a output, critical factor 43% in or the $51 movement billion of isfreight. dependent Of the totalon freight$119 movement. The following billion in charteconomic details output, the 43% sectors or $51 billionof the is economydependent on most freight dependent movement. onThe freight.following chart details the sectors of the economy most dependent on freight. Figure 4 [Freight Dependent Portion of Arkansas’ Economy] Figure 1 – Freight Dependent Portion of Arkansas’ Economy 60

50 4.4 Construction 5.0 40 Transportation/Warehousing ($ billions)($ 7.8

30 8.4 Retail Trade

Output Wholesale Trade 20 9.0 Agriculture 10 Economic Economic 16.4 Manufacturing

Likewise,Likewise, nearly 781,000 nearly jobs 781,000or half of jobsthe total or halfemployment of the intotal Arkansas, employment is dependent in Arkansas,on is dependent on freight movement either as a resource for manufacturing or for delivery of finished goods for retail sales.freight Figure movement 2 displays the either distribution as a ofresource freight-dependent for manufacturing employment in Arkansas.or for delivery Of of finished goods for course, agricultureretail sales. is very “Figure heavily 5 dependent [Freight on Dependent freight movement Portion as ofboth Arkansas’ a sector of Economy the - Jobs]” displays the economy distributionas well as a major of employerfreight-dependent with over 259,000 employment jobs attributed in to Arkansas. the agricultural Of sector. course, agriculture is very heavily dependentFigure 2 – onFreight freight Dependent movement Portion as of both Arkansas’ a sector Economy of the- Jobs economy as well as a major employer with over 259,000 jobs attributed to the agricultural sector.

Figure 5 [Freight Dependent Portion of Arkansas’ Economy - Jobs]

900,000

800,000 50,000 700,000 67,000 Wholesale Trade

600,000 84,000 Transportation/Warehousing 500,000 157,000 Construction 400,000 164,000 Manufacturing 300,000

200,000 Retail Trade Economic Output (Jobs) 259,000 100,000 Agriculture

Relevant to this application is the truck-related freight movements in Arkansas. The following figure showsI-30 CROSSINGthe top trading PROJECT partners based | AHTDon the 2016tonnage of freight shipped by truck. | 11 Oklahoma and Texas qualify as the largest tonnage-based trading partners with more than 20 million tons being shipped by truck. The next on the list would be Missouri, Louisiana, and Tennessee. This is important to the proposed project corridor as I-49 provides direct access from Arkansas to Missouri and Louisiana.

Freight traffic forecasts indicate the tonnage of freight shipped to, from, and within Arkansas will nearly double between 2012 and 2040 from 299 million tons to over 439 million tons. This brings with it additional commercial vehicles on the system, additional employees to handle the freight, and additional passenger traffic associated with the additional employees and their families. Relevant to this application is the truck-related freight movements in Arkansas. The following figure shows the top trading partners based on the tonnage of freight shipped by truck. Oklaho- ma and Texas qualify as the largest tonnage-based trading partners with more than 20 million tons being shipped by truck. The next on the list would be Missouri, Louisiana, and Tennessee. This is important to the proposed project corridor as I-49 provides direct access from Arkansas to Missouri and Louisiana.

Figure 6 [Truck Tonnage]

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 12 MOBILITY OUTCOMES

Structural and Functional Deficiencies of I-30 and I-40 This portion of I-30 was originally constructed in the 1960s with 10-inch jointed concrete pavement over eight inches of aggregate base material. In the early 1980s, this section was overlaid with a one-half inch stress absorbing membrane and 5.5 inches of asphalt. Likewise, the I-40 pavement section was originally constructed in the 1960s with 10 inches of concrete pavement over 9 to 11 inches of aggregate material. In the mid-1980s, the section was overlaid with one inch of asphalt and six inches of continuously reinforced concrete pavement. Structural and Functional Deficiencies of I-30 and I-40 ThCurrently,is portion of Ithe-30 wasexisting originally surface constructed shows in the moderate1960s with 10 to-inch severe jointed levels concrete of cracking along both I-30 and pavementI-40, including over eight inches alligator of aggregate cracking, base material. joint Inreflective the early 1980s, cracking, this section longitudinal was and transverse cracking, overlaid with a one-half inch stress absorbing membrane and 5.5 inches of asphalt. Likewise, the I-and40 pavement linear sectioncracking. was originally Other constructedroadway in distresses the 1960s with include 10 inches lane of concrete and shoulder separation and patch pavementdeterioration. over 9 to 11Portions inches of aggregateof I-30 material.and I-40 In thewithin mid-1980s, the studythe section area was will overlaid likely require some level of withpavement one inch of rehabilitation asphalt and six inches within of continuously the expected reinforced time concrete frame pavement. of this Project in order to meet adequate Currentlystructural, the existingperformance surface shows for moderatethe typical to severe 20-year levels of design cracking life along utilized both I-30 forand pavement analysis. I-40, including alligator cracking, joint reflective cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, and linear cracking. Other roadway distresses include lane and shoulder separation and patch deterioration.The FAST Portions ACT ofcontinues I-30 and I-40 the within requirements the study area ofwill MAP-21 likely require for some states level to of have infrastructure condition pavement rehabilitation within the expected timeframe of this project in order to meet adequate structuralperformance performance measures for the typical to determine 20-year design how life wellutilized they for pavement perform analysis. from year to year. AHTD uses the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) as one of the tools to evaluate the conditions of highways. The MAP-21 requires states to have infrastructure condition performance measures to determine how wellPCI they is performcalculated from year based to year on. AHTDInternational uses the Pavement Roughness Condition Index Index (IRI), (PCI) as rutting, one of and cracking. The PCI for thethe tools project to evaluate segment the conditions along of I-30 highways. and TheI-40 PCI is isconsidered calculated based poor. on International “Figure 7 [I-30 Pavement Condition]” Roughness Index (IRI), rutting and cracking. The PCI for the project segment along I-30 and I-and40 is “Figureconsidered 8poor. [I-40 Figure Pavements XXX and Condition]”XXX show the pavement show the condition pavement along I -condition30 and I- along I-30 and I-40. 40. The functional deficiencies Figure 7 [I-30 Pavement Condition] in the project area are also

Reflective Cracking extremely problematic. The existing I-30 facility

Fatigue Cracking contains two horizontal curves that have

Shoulder Fatigue inadequate stopping sight Cracking distance due to the median Joint Failure barrier obstructing the driver’s vision in the Figure XXX – I-30 Pavement condition. Figure 8 [I-40 Pavement Condition] inside travel lane, and the vertical profile contains CRCP Failure (pavement view) three sag curves that fall short of the recommended rate of vertical curvature for the current 60 miles per hour (mph) speed limit. Increased Transverse Cracking Frequency The existing interstate facilities within the study corridor contain nine Figure XXX – I-40 Pavement condition. TheI-30 functional CROSSING deficiencies PROJECT in the project | AHTD area are 2016 currently more problematic than the structural | 13 deficiencies. The existing I-30 facility contains two horizontal curves that have inadequate stopping sight distance due to the median barrier obstructing the driver’s vision in the inside travel lane, and the vertical profile contains three sag curves that fall short of the recommended rate of vertical curvature for the current 60 miles per hour (mph) speed limit. The existing interstate facilities within the study corridor contain nine locations where shoulder widths do not meet current design standards. This includes several locations where outside shoulder widths range from zero to four feet, and two locations where the curb and gutter is immediately adjacent to the travel lanes. Most of the interchange locations do not meet the minimum one-mile spacing that is recommended between urban interchanges. This corridor has 33 ramps within a five-mile section which is 70 percent higher than recommended. These interchange areas contain inadequate features, including three exit ramps lacking recommended deceleration lane lengths, and 12 locations between entrance and exit ramps that lack the required spacing to safely allow weaving operations. One major weaving area of concern is located between the I-30/I-40 interchange and the I-40/Highway 67 interchange. Traffic wishing to travel from the outside lane of I-30 to locations where shoulder widths do Figure 9 [Functional Deficiencies] not meet current design standards. This includes several locations where outside shoulder widths range from zero to four feet, and two locations where the curb and gutter is immediately adjacent to the travel lanes.

Most of the interchange locations do not meet the minimum one-mile spacing that is recommended between urban interchanges. This corridor has 33 ramps within a five-mile section which is 70 percent higher thanAmerican Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) recommendations. These interchange areas contain inadequate features, including three exit ramps lacking recommended deceleration lane lengths, and 12 locations between entrance and exit ramps that lack the required spacing to safely allow weaving operations. One major weaving area of concern is located between the I-30/I-40 interchange and the I-40/Highway 67 interchange. Traffic wishing to travel from the outside lane of I-30 to Highway 67 and vice versa must make two lane shifts in under a mile. This movement is complicated by the existence of the North Hills Boulevard interchange located within this weaving section, which is approximately a half mile from the adjacent interchanges.

Structural and Functional Deficiencies of I-30 Arkansas River Bridge The I-30 Arkansas River Bridge is one of six bridge structures that cross the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) within a 1.4 mile stretch of the Arkansas River in the downtown areas of Little Rock and North Little Rock. The Arkansas River was recently designated Marine Highway 40 from the Mississippi River to the Port of Catoosa near Tulsa, OK. Having a total length of 445 miles, the MKARNS provides a means for the transportation of commodities from Oklahoma through Arkansas to the Mississippi River. According the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 12 billion tons of commodities are transported annually via this economically- vital navigation system.

Construction of the existing I-30 river bridge began in 1958 and was Figure 10 [I-30 Arkansas River Bridge] completed in 1962. It currently has a sufficiency rating of 55.0 and is classified as structurally deficient and is fracture-critical. The structure has numerous deficiencies including hundreds of fatigue cracks, a large horizontal crack that passes through an entire footing and is visible on both sides, and the steel bent caps have cracks and section loss from corrosion.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 14 Further, the structure is not designed for seismic resistance, and is located in an area influenced by the New Madrid seismic zone. Extensive modifications required for rehabilitating these structural deficiencies are not cost effective for a bridge of this age. Therefore, the bridge must be replaced. A look at the functional deficiencies of the superstructure show that while the width meets minimum standards, it is less than desirable. The shoulder widths are below current standards. Reduced shoulder width can lead to driver discomfort and in turn result in decreased speed and increased congestion. This reduced bridge width can also lead to an increase in crashes because there is no additional space to maneuver around an obstacle in the roadway. Further, the lack of adequate shoulders does not allow for the storage of disabled vehicles and the passage of emergency response vehicles, causing further congestion followingFigure XXX a– crash.Corner of bearing pad has spalled.

Figure 11 [Spalled Bearing Pad] Figure 12 [Beam Corrosion]

Figure XXX – Corner of bearing pad has spalled. Figure XXX – Corrosion of Beam has rusted through. In addition to the structural deficiencies, there are also several functional deficiencies.The configuration of the piers supporting the bridge obstructsIn addition river to navigationthe structural deficiencies,due to the placementthere are also ofseveral functional deficiencies. a pier near the middle of the navigation channel. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) pre- scribes a minimum of 300 feet horizontal clearance betweenA look at thepiers. functional Horizontal deficiencies clearance of the superstructure between show that while the width meets minimum standards, it is less than desirable. The shoulders are below current standards and the piers of the I-30 River Bridge is only 174.5 feet inreduced the navigation shoulder width channel. can lead At to drivertimes discomfort when a and in turn result in decreased speed and increased congestion.pusher This craft reduced is attemptingbridge width canto also lead to an increase in traffic accidents because there is nonavigate additional the space channel to maneuver with around an obstacle in the roadway. Further, the Figure 13 [Navigation Channel Obstruction] lack of adequate shoulders does not allow for the storage of disabled vehicles and the passage of emergency responsethree vehicles, barges causing side-by-side further congestion following a crash. (which is normal), there is The configuration of the piers supporting the bridge obstructs river navigation due to the placement of a pieronly near about the middle 32 feet of the of navigation clearance channel. The United States Coast Guard on either side. The horizontal clearance and pier obstruction Figure XXX – Corrosion of Beam has rusted through. is cumbersome to navigate, restricts the operational speed of the barges, poses a danger In addition to the structural deficiencies, there are also several functional deficiencies.to workers, and creates a risk A look at the functional deficiencies of the superstructure show that while the widthof meets property loss. Barge colli- minimum standards, it is less than desirable. The shoulders are below current standardssion anddata, provided by the reduced shoulder width can lead to driver discomfort and in turn result in decreasedUSCG, speed and indicates five barge increased congestion. This reduced bridge width can also lead to an increase in traffic accidents because there is no additional space to maneuver around an obstacle in the roadway.strikes Further, have the occurred at this lack of adequate shoulders does not allow for the storage of disabled vehicles and thebridge passage site of since 2001. emergency response vehicles, causing further congestion following a crash. I-30The configurationCROSSING ofPROJECT the piers supporting | AHTD 2016the bridge obstructs river navigation due to the | 15 placement of a pier near the middle of the navigation channel. The United States Coast Guard Perhaps no element of highway transportation has as great an impact on individual well-being and quality of life as the issue of congestion. These are well documented in any number of studies and reports—from the well-known annual Urban Mobility Report of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute to what are seemingly monthly studies showing adverse effects from congestion. Increased commute lengths from congestion have surprisingly negative impacts. A 2011 study published in the journal BMC Public Health found that commute lengths have adverse physical health costs, with the primary ill-effects being poor sleep quality, exhaustion, and low general health. Stress was understandably apparent as well.

Traffic congestion also has an increasingly negative impact upon the quality of life of families. In a 2005 survey, for example, 52% of Northern Virginia commuters reported that their travel times to work had increased in the past year, leading 70% of working parents to report having insufficient time to spend with their children and 63% of respondents to report having insufficient time to spend with their spouses.

The list could go on and on, from time estimates lost (38 hours per year nationally, on average) to lack of reliability resulting in an inability to know how long a regular trip will take. This project will address one of the most congested areas of the state, and analyses performed show significant improvement to congestion, and hence congestion related quality of life issues, as a result of the recommended improvements.

The ease of mobility within the existing PEL study corridor was analyzed using a variety of measures of effectiveness (MOEs), including microsimulation modeling. “Figure 14 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Mobility]” gives a high-level overview of the levels of service (LOS) in the PEL corridor during the most congested time of each peak hour. In this figure, green represents free- flow conditions (LOS A-C), and red represents high levels of congestion (LOS F). Detailed and precise information for the corridor’s existing levels of service can be found in the Planning and Environmental Linkages Traffic and Safety Report Appendices at this location:http://www. arkansashighways.com/FastLane/I30/Interstate30_PELReport.pdf. Stakeholder feedback, field observations, and data revealed a common mobility trend of congestion heading into the Little Rock and North Little Rock downtown areas in the AM and heading away from the downtown areas in the PM.

Another useful measure of mobility relates to speed and duration. Speeds for each peak period are shown throughout the length of the corridor over the entire two-hour period in “Figure 15 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Speed Profiles]”. Colors ranging from green to dark red represent speeds ranging from free-flow to standstill, respectively.

The average speed for vehicles on I-30 eastbound between I-630 and the Arkansas River at 5:00 pm on a typical day is approximately 20-30 mph. The graphs also show the progression of backups and location of bottlenecks on the freeway main lanes. Bottlenecks occur when traffic is congested in a particular section of a roadway segment, causing sizable queues upstream of the congested area. This congestion limits the amount of traffic able to get downstream of the congested area.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 16 mobility trend of congestion heading into the Little Rock and North Little Rock downtown areas in the AM and heading away from the downtown areas in the PM.

Figure X: Existing 2014 Peak Hour Mobility

Figure 14 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Mobility] AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

FigureFigure 15 [Existing XX: Existing 2014 2014 Peak Peak Hour Hour Speed Speed Profiles]Profiles

Another useful measure of mobility relates to speed and duration. Speeds for each peak period are shown AM (Westbound) PM (Eastbound) throughout the length of the corridor over the entire two-hour period in Figure XX. Colors ranging from Highway 67 at McCain Highway 67 at McCain green to dark red represent speeds ranging from free-flow to standstill, respectively.

I-40 at Hwy 67 Merge I-40 at Hwy 67 Merge

Approx. 1.5 hours of speeds <40 mph Speeds drop as low as 10-20 mph

I-30 at I-40 Merge I-30 at I-40 Merge

I-30 at River Bridge I-30 at River Bridge

I-30 at I-630 I-30 at I-630 Approx. 1.5 hours of speeds <40 mph Speeds drop as low as 10-20 mph

I-30 at I-530/I-440 Interchange I-30 at I-530/I-440 Interchange

I-30 at 65th Street I-30 at 65th Street

I-30 CROSSINGThe average PROJECT speed for |vehicles AHTD on2016 I-30 eastbound between I-630 and the Arkansas River at 5:00 pm on a | 17 typical day is approximately 20-30 mph. The graphs also show the progression of backups and location of bottlenecks on the freeway main lanes. Bottlenecks occur when traffic is congested in a particular section of a roadway segment, causing sizeable queues upstream of the congested area. This congestion limits the amount of traffic able to get downstream of the congested area.

In the southbound direction during the AM peak, it is evident that the Arkansas River Bridge is the location of a bottleneck. North of the bridge, queues related to congestion slowly build from the bridge all the way back to Highway 67. Because of the backup, traffic south of this point is able to move at free flow speed.

Peak direction travel speeds were approximately 30-40 miles per hour on average which resulted in travel times of approximately 11-12 minutes. Since corridor travel times during free flow conditions are approximately 5-7 minutes, peak hour travel times are almost twice as long as free flow travel. For each 15-minute subdivision within the two-hour study period, at least one LOS segment in the corridor operates at LOS F. Most of the analyzed intersections in the corridor performed at LOS A-D.

No Action Future Conditions

PIneak the direction westbound travel direction speeds were during approximately the AM peak, 30-4 it0 milesis evident per hour that on the average Arkansas which River resulted Bridge in travel is timesthe location of approximately of a bottleneck. 11-12 minutes North ofthrough the bridge, the study queues area. relatedSince corridor to congestion travel times slowly during build free from flow conditionsthe bridge are all approximately the way back 5 to-7 Highwayminutes, peak 67. hourBecause travel of times the backup, are almost traffic twice southas long of as this free point flow is travel.able to For move each at 15 free-minute flow subdivision speed. within the two-hour study period, at least one segment in the corridor operates at LOS F. Most of the analyzed intersections in the corridor performed at LOS A-D. Peak direction travel speeds were approximately 30-40 miles per hour on average which resulted in travel times of approximately 11-12 minutes through the study area. Since corridor travel times during free flow conditions are approximately 5-7 minutes, peak hour travel times are No Action Future Conditions almost twice as long as free flow travel. For each 15-minute subdivision within the two-hour Withstudy no period, improvemen at leastts, oneFigure segment XXX summarizes in the corridor the mobility operates in at the LOS PEL F. corridor Most of during the analyzed the most inter- congestedsections intime the of corridor each peak performed hour in 2041. at LOS The A-D. problem areas with high congestion that were evident in the existing model are now extending to the model limits and new areas of concern are beginning to emerge“Figure as 16 side [Future street congestion 2041 No Actioncauses vehiclesPeak Hour to back Mobility]” up onto thesummarizes freeway in the both mobility peak and in off the-peak PEL directions.corridor during It is important the most to congested note that in time this scenario,of each peaksevere hour bottlenecks in 2041 in with certain no improvements.areas such as The westboundproblem areas I-30 atwith the highArkansas congestion River Bridge that were are causing evident artificial in the existingdownstream model free are flow now conditions. extending to the model limits and new areas of concern are beginning to emerge as side street congestion causes vehicles to back up onto the freeway in both peak and off-peak directions. It is important to note that in this scenario, severe bottlenecks in certain areas such as westbound I-30 at the Arkansas River BridgeFigure are causingXXX: Future artificial 2041 downstreamNo Action Peak free Hourflow Mobility conditions.

Figure 16 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Mobility] AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 18 Occurrences of bottlenecking are more evident in the speed profiles in“Figure 17 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Speed Profiles]” This figure shows bottlenecks in several locations throughout the 6-lane corridor which cause backups to extend outside the model area. In all cases, the congestion lasts through the end of the two-hour simulation. Peak direction travel speeds have decreased to 20-30 mph, and corridor-wide travel time is now 16-18 minutes (nearly three times that of free flow conditions). For each 15-minute subdivision within the two-hour simulation, at least one segmentFigure XXX operatesX: Future 2041at LOS No Action F. Peak Hour Speed Profiles Figure 17 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Speed Profiles] AM (Eastbound) PM (Westbound) Highway 67 at McCain Highway 67 at McCain

I-40 at Hwy 67 Merge I-40 at Hwy 67 Merge Over 2 hours of speeds <40 mph Speeds drop as low as 10-20 mph

I-30 at I-40 Merge I-30 at I-40 Merge

I-30 at River Bridge I-30 at River Bridge

I-30 at I-630 I-30 at I-630 Over 2 hours of speeds <40 mph Speeds drop as low as 10-20 mph for approx. 1.5 hours I-30 at I-530/I-440 I-30 at I-530/I-440 Interchange Interchange

th I-30 at 65 Street I-30 at 65th Street

It was determined that a corridor improvement with a 10-Lane cross section and Downtown C/D system PELnear Recommended the Arkansas Alternative River Bridge Future Conditionsbetween 3rd Street in Little Rock and Broadway Street in It was determined that a corridor improvement with a 10-Lane cross section and Downtown C/D system North Littlenear the Rock Arkansas would River provide Bridge between the best 3rd mobility Street in Littleand safetyRock and solution Broadway for Street the in I-30 North PEL Little study corridor.Rock The would northern provide limits the best of mobility the C/D and system safety solutio are farn for enough the I-30 to PEL the study south corridor. that Theit creates northern a longer weavinglimits distance of the C/Dbetween system theare farC/D enough system to the and south the that I-40 it createinterchange.s a longer weaving distance between the C/D system and the I-40 interchange.

“FigureFigure 18 [Future XXXXX summarizes 2041 PEL the 10-Lane 10-Lane Downtown Recommended C/D mobility Alternative in the PEL Mobility]”corridor duringsummarizes the most the 10-Lanecongested Downtown time ofC/D each mobility peak hour. in This the scenario PEL corridor experiences during 5-10 percentthe most congestion. congested The twotime areas of each peak hour.where This reduced scenario speeds experiences are evident are 5-10 related percent to constraints congestion. outside The of the two study areas area. where In the AM reduced peak speeds are(eastbound) evident direction, are related traffic to experiences constraints a slowdown outside justof thesouth study of I-630. area. This In is thebecause AM the peak demand (east - exceeds the capacity for vehicles using the flyover ramp to westbound I-630. In the PM peak bound) (westbound)direction, trafficdirection, experiences reduced speeds a slowdownoccur mostly justoutside south of the of study I-630. areaThis due isto becausedemand exceeding the demand exceedscapacity the capacity on westbound for vehicles I-30 at 65 usingth street. the flyover ramp to westbound I-630. In the PM peak (westbound) direction, reduced speeds occur mostly outside of the study area due to demand exceeding capacity on westbound I-30 at 65th street. Both of these areas are slated for additional traffic operations studies.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 19 Figure XXXXX: Future 2041 PEL Recommended Alternative Mobility

Figure 18 [Future 2041 PEL 10-Lane Recommended Alternative Mobility] AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Figure 19 illustrates speeds for each peak period throughout the length of the corridor over the entire simulation duration. The previously mentioned speed reductions only occur for a brief amountIn Figure of time XXXXXX in the simulation., speeds for each Compared peak period to theare futureshown throughoutNo Action the and length even of the the existingcorridor over scenarios, the durationthe entire and simulation severity duration. of congestion The previously is minimal mentioned in this speed 10-L reductionsane with only Downtown occur for a C/Dbrief scenario.amount of time in the simulation. Compared to the future No Action and even the existing scenarios, the duration Onlyand one severity existing of congestion weaving islocation minimal meetsin this 10the-Lane current with Downtownminimum C/Dstandards. scenario. The existing placement of ramps throughout the entire corridor creates several areas of weaving with inadequate length to accommodate safe execution of the necessary movements. The recommended alternative willTable address X provides the a weavingsummary oflength several issues key MOEs that forare the present No Action throughout and PEL theRecommended corridor. Alternatives for 2041. For a more complete list of MOEs, see Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 in the SeveralPlanning corridor and Environmentalimprovement Linkages alternatives Traffic were and Safety studied Report in theAppendices safety analysis.at this location: Ultimately, a 10-Lanewww.arkansashighways.com/ with downtown collector/distributor (C/D) alternative was proposed as the PEL Recom- mendation. This alternative proposes 10 main lanes with a C/D system that serves the downtown area of Little Rock and North Little Rock. It has fewer arterial conflict points per intersection and fewer deficient weaving lengths than the other alternatives considered. Comparison aspects for several of the alternatives are shown in “Table 12 [Improvement Alternatives Comparison]”. In predicting the potential crash reductions from a high level, Crash Modification Factors (CMF) were used for the different design elements of the improvement alternative. For this analysis, the projected crashes for 2041 were developed using the crash rates for 2010-2012 and projected traffic volumes for 2041. These were broken down by segment and location. CMFs were then applied to quantify the potential crash reductions in the proposed alternatives. A more in depth analysis will be performed using the Highway Safety Manual 2010 (HSM) during the NEPA process. Further safety and crash analysis details can be found in the Planning and Environmen- tal Linkages Traffic and Safety Report at this location: http://www.arkansashighways.com/ FastLane/I30/Interstate30_PELReport.pdf

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 20

FigureFigure 19 XXXXX[FutureX: Future2041 PEL2041 PEL10-Lane Recommended Recommended Alternative Peak Peak Hour Hour SpeedSpeed ProfilesProfiles]

AM (Eastbound) PM (Westbound) Highway 67 at McCain Highway 67 at McCain

I-40 at Hwy 67 Merge I-40 at Hwy 67 Merge

I-30 at I-40 Merge I-30 at I-40 Merge

I-30 at River Bridge I-30 at River Bridge Approx. 1.5 hours of speeds <40 mph Approx. 0.5 hours of speeds <40 mph Speeds drop as low as 30-40 mph (note that Speeds drop as low as 20-30 mph the majority of the congestion lies outside of the study area) I-30 at I-630 I-30 at I-630

I-30 at I-530/I-440 Interchange I-30 at I-530/I-440 Interchange

I-30 at 65th Street I-30 at 65th Street

Table X: Future 2041 Measures of Effectiveness Summary

SAFETY OUTCOMES PEL Measure Description No Action Recommended The planned improvements to the I-30/I-40 Corridors will have a positive impactAlternative on the safety of Mobility in PEL Study Distance and duration of LOS E or F (Miles/Minutes road users. Crash data from 2010, 2011, and 2012 (the latest three years9.67/120 of available 0/0 data) were Area during PM Peak) reviewed for the analysis within the PEL study limits. A few key locations between I-630 and Highway 67 to I-530/I-440 Interchange AM I-40 exhibitTotal large Travel Timeclusters of crashes consistently throughout the three 16/17year study period,6/6 such as I-30 at Broadway Street, I-30(westbound at Markham)/PM (eastbound Street )and travel I-30 time (minutes)at Curtis Sykes Drive. Average Peak Hour Highway 67 to I-530/I-440 Interchange AM Travel Speed through 22/20 58/58 (westbound)/PM (eastbound) average speed (mph) Crash ratesCorridor for I-30 and I-40 were calculated and compared to the statewide averages for similar Travel Time to Key types of corridors. This informationBetween McCain is shown and Capitol in Table (To Capitol 12 inon the the AM following page. Crash rates Destinations in PEL 24/37 8/8 and From Capitol in the PM) (minutes) were calculatedStudy Area for total collisions with all severity types as well as collisions with only fatal (K) and severe injury (A) (KA Crash Rate). The fatal and serious injury crash rates on this segment of I-30 are more than double the statewide average crash rates for six-lane controlled access facilities. The overall crash rate on the portion of I-30 between I-630 and I-40 is more than three times the statewide average crash rate for similar facilities. These elevated crash rates are directly linked to congestion and demonstrate a great need for operational improvements along I-30.

A total of 76 KA crashes occurred from 2010-2012 within the study corridor. Rear-end crashes were the predominant type of crash out of all crashes resulting in severe or fatal injury. This type of crash is typically associated with severe congestion as vehicles experience sudden stops in traffic and typically leave less headway between themselves and the vehicle in front of them.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 21 Safety

The planned improvements to the I-30/I-40 Corridors will have a positive impact on the safety of road users. Crash data from 2010, 2011, and 2012 (the latest three years of available data) were reviewed for the analysis within the PEL study limits. A few key locations between I-630 and I-40 exhibit large clusters of crashes consistently throughout the three year study period, such as I-30 at Broadway Street, I-30 at Markham Street and I-30 at Curtis Sykes Drive.

Crash rates for I-30 and I-40 were calculated and compared to the statewide averages for similar types of corridors. Crash rates were calculated for total collisions with all severity types as well as collisions with only fatal (K) and severe injury (A) (KA Crash Rate). The fatal and serious injury crash rates on this segment of I-30 are more than double the statewide average crash rates for six-lane controlled access facilities. The overall crash rate on the portion of I-30 between I-630 and I-40 is more than three times the statewide average crash rate for similar facilities. These elevated crash rates are directly linked to congestion and demonstrate a great need for operational improvements along I-30.

Historic Crash Rates (2010-2012) Table 11 [Historic Crash Rates (2010-2012)] PEL Crash Rate/ AR PELAvg. Crash Number ofNumber Crashes of Crash RateCrash (MVMT)* Rate AR Avg. Crash Rate AR Avg. Crash Rate RateRate/ AR Avg Crashes (MVMT*) Length (miles) Weighted ADT All All Severity All Severity All Severity Crash Rate KA Severity KA KA Type KA Types All All Types All Types All Length Weighted Types Severity KA Severity KA Severity KA Type Severity KA (miles) ADT I-30, Section 230, Log Mile 138.39-139.67 (I-530/I-440 to I-630) Types Types Types Six-Lane Access Types 1.28 96,000 224 16 1.66 0.12 1.23 0.06 1.35 2.2 Control I-30,I-30, Section Section 230, 230, Log Log Mile Mile 139.67-142.02 138.39 (I-630-139.67 to I-40) (I-530/I-440 to I-630) Six-Lane SixAccess-Lane Access 2.35 1.28 113,00096,000 1247 224 44 16 4.28 1.660.15 0.121.23 1.230.06 0.06 3.58 1.352.73 2.20 Control Control I-40, Section 330, Log Mile 153.25-154.88 (I-30 to Highway 67) I-30, Section 230, Log Mile 139.67-142.02 (I-630Six-Lane to AccessI-40) 1.63 116,000 199 16 0.96 0.08 1.23 0.06 0.8 1.4 ControlSix-Lane Access 2.35 113,000 1247 44 4.28 0.15 1.23 0.06 3.58 2.73 *MVMT – Million Vehicle Miles Traveled Control I-40, Section 330, Log Mile 153.25-154.88 (I-30 to Highway 67) Six-Lane Access 1.63 116,000 199 16 0.96 0.08 1.23 0.06 0.80 1.40 Single vehicle and sideswipe-same direction crashes Control also comprised *MVMT a – notableMillion Vehicle percentage Miles Traveled of the total KA Figure 20 [I-30/I-40 Main Lane KA Crashes] crashes. These types of crashes can also be attributed A total of 76 KA crashes occurred from 2010- I-30/I-40 Main Lane KA Crash Types to congestion2012 within as thevehicles study makecorridor. sudden Rear- endmaneuvers to (2010-2012) changecrashes lanes were and/or the avoid predominant another type vehicle. of crash HEAD ON that resulted in severe or fatal injuries. This ANGLE 1.3% The existingtype of crash acceleration is typically and associated deceleration with severe lengths 2.6% were congestionmeasured inas vehiclesorder to experience identify which sudden inter stops- SINGLE changein trafficramps and do typicallynot meet leave the currentless headway minimum VEHICLE designbetween standards. themselv Therees areand seven the vehicle ramps in withfront accelof - CRASH 31.6% erationthem. lengths Single that vehicle do not and meet sideswipe the current-same mini- REAR END 40.8% mum directionstandards crashes and eight also comprisedexisting ramps a notable with no percentage of the total KA crashes. These types SIDESWIPE measurable deceleration lane. This causes an inter- SAME of crashes could also be attributed to DIRECTION ruptioncongestion to the overall as vehicles flow make on the sudden facility maneuvers and to the 23.7% speedto of change vehicles lanes which and/or are avoid entering another and vehicle. exiting this roadway. Only one existing weaving location meets the current minimum standards. The existing placement of ramps throughout the entire corridor creates several areas of weaving with inadequate length to accommodate safe execution of the necessary movements. The recommended alternative will address the weaving length issues that are present throughout the corridor.

Several corridor improvement alternatives were studied in the safety analysis. Although the 8-Lane alternative is still being considered, the 10-Lane with downtown collector/distributor (C/D) was proposed as the PEL Recommendation. This alternative proposes 10 main lanes with a C/D system that serves the downtown area of Little Rock and North Little Rock. It has fewer arterial conflict points per intersection and fewer deficient weaving lengths than the other alternatives considered. Comparison aspects for several of the alternatives are shown in “Table 12 [Improvement Alternatives Comparison]”.

In predicting the potential crash reductions from a high level, Crash Modification Factors (CMF) were used for the different design elements of the improvement alternative. For this analysis, the projected crashes for 2041 were developed using the crash rates for 2010-2012 and projected

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 22 The existing acceleration and deceleration lengths were measured in order to identify which interchange ramps currently do not meet the minimum requirements. There are seven ramps with acceleration lengths that do not currently meet the minimum standards and eight existing ramps with no measurable deceleration lane. This causes an interruption to the overall flow and speed of vehicles.

Only one existing weaving location meets the minimum AASHTO requirement. The existing placement of ramps throughout the entire corridor creates several areas of weaving with inadequate length to accommodate safe execution of the necessary movements. The trafficrecommended volumes alternativefor 2041. willThese address were brokenmany of down the weaving by segment length and issues location. throughout CMFs thewere then appliedcorridor. to quantify the potential crash reductions in the proposed alternatives.

A Severalmore in corridor depth analysis improvement will be alternatives performed were using studied the Highway during theSafety safety Manual analysis. 2010 Ultimately, (HSM) a during10-Lane the withNEPA Downtown process. FurtherCollector/Distributor safety and crash (C/D) analysis alternative details was can proposed be found as inthe the PEL Planning andRecommendation. Environmental LinkagesThis alternative Traffic proposes and Safety 10 Main Report Lanes at this with location: a C/D systemhttp://www.arkansashigh that serves the - ways.com/FastLane/I30/Interstate30_PELReport.pdfdowntown area of Little Rock and North Little Rock. It has fewer arterial conflict points per intersection and fewer deficient weaving lengths than the other alternatives considered. Comparison aspects for several of the alternatives are shown below.

Improvement Alternatives Comparison Table 12 [Improvement Alternatives Comparison] Alternatives PEL Recommended 10- Comparison Measure No 8-Lane 10 Main 10-Lane Action C/D Lane C/D Lane Downtown C/D Potential Crash Reduction 0 175 159 229 197 Total Main Lane Conflict Points 31 20 26 19 21 Total C/D Conflict Points 0 6 0 7 4 Non-standard Weaving Lengths 11 6 6 7 6 Total Arterial Conflict Points 411 515 515 515 483 Total Number of Intersections 21 28 28 28 27 Avg. Conflict Points/Intersection 19.6 18.4 18.4 18.4 17.9

In predicting the potential crash reductions from a high level, crash modification factors were used for the different design elements of the improvement alternative. For this analysis, the projected crashes for 2041 were developed using the crash rates for 2010-2012 and projected COMMUNITYtraffic volumes for 2041. AND These ENVIRONMENTAL were broken down by segment andOUTCOMES location. CMFs were then applied to quantify the potential crash reductions in the proposed alternatives. A Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study was conducted by AHTD to conduct analysisA more and in depth planning analysis activities will be with performed resource using agencies the Highw and theay Safetypublic Manualin order 2010 to produce (HSM) trans - portationduring the planning NEPA productsprocess. Further to more safety effectively and crash serve analysis the communities’ details can be transportation found in the Planningneeds. The PELand Study Environmental is being used Linkages to inform Traffic a subsequent and Safety Reportproject-specific at this location: NEPA process. Linking planning andwww.arkansashighways.com NEPA is the purpose of the/ PEL process and is followed in order to minimize duplication of effort, promote environmental stewardship, and reduce delays in project implementation.

The PEL process framework includes: identification of purpose, needs, goals, and objectives; roles and responsibilities of stakeholders; evaluating and screening alternatives; performance measures; environmental impacts; and alternative modes of travel. In addition to these practical objectives, the PEL process in Central Arkansas presented intangible results including opening lines of communication between residents, agencies, and officials.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 23 PARTNERSHIP AND INNOVATION

This Project has been transformative from the beginning. It is Arkansas’ first time to incorporate the PEL study process into project development. The PEL process helped to streamline the planning and environmental phases to determine feasible alternatives that will provide long-term solutions that will address the purpose and need of the Project and recommend alternatives that can be carried forward seamlessly into NEPA. Furthermore, this Project will be the first in Arkansas to utilize the design-build-finance method of design and construction. Both of these innovative methods have been proven to save time and money by reducing overall project delivery time by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative.

Design-Build For the first time in Arkansas history, a project will be constructed using an innovative type of project delivery known as design-build. The design-build method of procurement will be benefi- cial to the state of Arkansas and developers because, under this construction method, the design build firm has an incentive to reduce costs across a facility’s entire lifecycle, such as using innovative design that reduces construction costs, high-quality project delivery that lowers the cost of construction.

Public Outreach AHTD held a number of public meetings regarding the Project as part of the PEL process, where hundreds of stakeholders expressed concerns including congestion, safety, and mobility. These concerns were integral to planning this Project. The Department also conducted a “visioning workshop” to gain perspective and ideas from multiple, diverse, stakeholders including the Partners in “Table 13 [List of Partners]”

While the foregoing stakeholders brought unique perspectives, project benefits will reach far beyond these individual stakeholders to visitors to the region and all of the citizens of Arkansas. The Interstate 30 corridor serves the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport, Little Rock Port facilities and rail facilities including Union Pacific and Amtrak. All Arkansas citizens directly or indirectly depend on the multi-modal facilities served by the Project for the movement of goods and services. Considering the multiple perspectives of stakeholders was imperative to planning the Project. However, the citizens of Arkansas ultimately supported this Project ideally and financially, by voting to allow the state to fund CAP projects such as this one.

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 24 Table 13 [List of Partners]

Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County, and Arkansas State Officials Mark Stodola - Little Rock Mayor Brad Cazort - Little Rock Board of Directors Dean Kumpuris - Little Rock Board of Directors Bruce Moore - Little Rock City Manager Joe Smith - North Little Rock Mayor Buddy Villines - Pulaski County Judge Fredrick Love - State Representative

Non-Profit, State, and Municipal Organizations Gretchen Hall - Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau Sharon Priest - Downtown Little Rock Partnership Stephanie Streett, Clinton Foundation Bill Worthen - Historic Arkansas Museum Tony Curtis - Little Rock Downtown Neighborhood Association Donna Hardcastle - Argenta Downtown Council Terry Hartwick - North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Bob Major, North Little Rock Visitors Bureau Ronnie Dedman - The Arkansas Innovation Hub Jeff Hathaway - Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Bobby Roberts - Central Arkansas Library System

Educational Organizations Gregg Thompson - North Little Rock School District Jerome Green - Shorter College Lawrence Finn - The Village at Hendrix

Transit Organizations Ann Gilbert - Executive Director of the Arkansas Transit Association Jarrod Varner - Executive Director of the Central Arkansas Transit Association

Business Organizations Charley Foster - TAGGART Architects Chris East - studioMAIN and Cromwell Architects Engineers Michael Eliason - Acxiom Corporation Clark McGlothin - CBM Construction Sandra Brown - Verizon Arena Mason Ellis, Witsell - Evans and Rasco Architects Jennifer Herron - Herron, Horton Architects Jimmy Moses - Moses, Tucker Real Estate Martie North - Simmons First National Bank

Residents and property owners Belinda Burney - Resident George Glover - Property Owner

I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016 | 25 I-30 CROSSING PROJECT | AHTD 2016