I-30 Corridor Project

LITTLE ROCK/ NORTH LITTLE ROCK I-30 CORRIDOR PROJECT

TIGER VII 2015 GRANT APPLICATION ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WWW.ARKANSASHIGHWAYS.COM TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. OVERVIEW...... 3 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 4 C. PROJECT LOCATION...... 6 D. PROJECT PARTIES...... 9 E. GRANT FUNDS AND SOURCES/USES OF PROJECT FUNDS...... 12 F. SELECTION CRITERIA...... 13 I) PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA...... 13 a) State of Good Repair...... 13 b) Quality of Life...... 16 d) Safety...... 22 II) SECONDARY SELECTION CRITERIA...... 24 a) Innovation...... 24 b) Partnership...... 25 G. RESULTS OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS...... 27 H. PROJECT READINESS...... 28 I. FEDERAL WAGE RATE CERTIFICATION...... 29 J. NOTICE OF REVISION...... 30

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 [I-30 Corridor Project Map]...... 4 Figure 10 [Beam Corrosion]...... 15 Table 1 [Needs and Purpose]...... 4 Figure 11 [Navigation Channel Obstruction]...... 15 Figure 2 [PEL Recommendation]...... 5 Figure 12 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Mobility]...... 17 Figure 3 [I-30 Corridor Project Area] ...... 6 Figure 13 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Speed Profiles]...... 17 Table 2 [Population]...... 6 Figure 14 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Mobility]...... 19 Table 3 [Median Income]...... 6 Figure 15 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Speed Profiles].... 19 Table 4 [Population by Race]...... 7 Figure 16 [Future 2041 PEL Recommended Alternative Table 5 [Metropolitan Statistical Areas]...... 7 Mobility]...... 20 Table 6 [Major Employers in Central Arkansas]...... 7 Figure 17 [Future 2041 PEL Recommended Peak Hour Speed Figure 4 [Concentrated Employment Areas]...... 8 Profiles]...... 21 Table 7 [PEL Technical Work Group Members]...... 11 Table 9 [PEL Recommended Alternatives)]...... 21 Table 8 [Funding Source]...... 12 Table 10 [Historic Crash Rates (2010-2012)]...... 22 Figure 5 [I-30 Pavement Condition]...... 13 Figure 18 [I-30/I-40 Main Lane KA Crash Types (2010-2012]] ... 23 Figure 6 [I-40 Pavement Condition]...... 13 Table 11 [Improvement Alternatives Comparison]...... 24 Figure 7 [Functional Deficiencies]...... 14 Table 12 [List of Partners]...... 26 Figure 8 [I-30 Arkansas River Bridge]...... 14 Table 13 [Results of Benefit-Cost Analysis]...... 27 Figure 9 [Spalled Bearing Pad]...... 15 Table 14 [Project Readiness]...... 28 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

A. OVERVIEW

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 not only the largest of the group, but 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 to a budget method, and is the first to incorporate the Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) study process into the overall development, in order to determine possible viable alternatives for a long-term solution, and recommend alternatives that can be carried forward seamlessly into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study for this Project.

The Project seeks to widen and reconstruct 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 utilized 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 increase capacity through widening of the roadway; increase safety through redesign of access; and increase connectivity of the local communities. 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 incorporate three main lanes in each direction, and a set of new collector/distributor (C/D) lanes in each direction, providing a connectedness to the revitalized downtown areas of Little Rock and North Little Rock. At the same time, bridge piers will be relocated to clear the navigational path for river freight of the only structure currently in that path in downtown Little Rock.

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 to the larger region. These connections make the Project both locally and regionally significant. See “Figure 1 [I-30 Corridor Project Map]”.

Total cost of this Project is $650,000,000—larger than the annual federal construction budget of AHTD. The dollar amount and large scope of this project makes funding difficult. AHTD is requesting $200,000,000 in TIGER funds. The balance of funding will come from CAP funds, and $22 million from AHTD’s Interstate Rehabilitation Program (IRP). Unless full TIGER funding is received, many items in the project scope will have to be removed.

| 3 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

B. 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 to lengthen weaving distances and decision making time, and to increase accessibility with Figure 1 [I-30 Corridor Project Map]

Cincinnati additional possible ramps.

Topeka Kansas City 70 Independence Columbia Frontage roads will be St. Louis Olathe INTRODUCTION 35 ille connected, and include new Evansv ayette Lexington-F Wichita 49 44 connections to collector/ Springfield distributors on the Arkansas 67 Clarksville son 55 Nashville-David Knoxville Tulsa River Bridge. Murfreesboro Broken Arrow 40 49 Visioning Workshop Oklahoma City 67 40 anooga Norman Chatt INTRO TO VISIONING40 WORKSHOPMemphis Quick Facts Little Rock Huntsville Following the PEL process, 59 575 Conway WHAT: I-30 Visioning Workshop 530 Atlanta 67 outlined in Section D, the 30 Birmingham Cabot Visioning Workshop Purpose and Scope 675 JOB: CA0602 I-530-Hwy. 67 40 recommended alternative Denton 359 85 (Widening & Reconst.) (I-30 & I-40) Lewisville Garland 55 Jacksonville s SherwoCoodlumbu 16 identifies the full scope of 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 the Project as set out in 430 Highway and Transportation 231630 preservingW andaco enhancing aesthetic, historic, and community resources. A 440 Littl6e5 Rock Department“Figure 2 [PEL Recom- 84 second KVisioningilleen Workshop will be49 held during the NEPA/Schematic phase 30 obile ahassee DATE: November 19, 2014 M 30 Brya1nt0 Tall mendation]” A VISSIM 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 model for showing the Houston Project Corridor CSS/aesthetic guidelinesPasadena will be developed following this second Visioning WHEREextent : Garver of the Project can be Workshop and included in the Design-Build request for proposals, pending Miles ADDRESS:found 4701 at https://vimeo.Northshore Drive, AHTD approval.0 50 100 CA0602 Northcom/125509867 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

| 4 5 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

Figure 2 [PEL Recommendation] CA0602 CA0602 Recommendation Design: Recommendation Alternatives Incorporated into PEL Incorporated Alternatives 21 Figure 8. PEL Recommendation Lane Configurations I-30 PEL Report

| 5 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

C. PROJECT LOCATION

Figure 3 [I-30 Corridor Project Area]

n M o cC ain 1 The Project is located in obins R 1B

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 Central Arkansas, on I-30 and A 40 107 L

152 M acA

r pr t P hu Baptist Health i starts at the junction with er nghil Medical Center r cy 153A 161 M JFK l

ac ills h in h H t

N 155 Pershing 153B e ik 40 I-530 in the South as shown in P

Ft. Roots VA Hospital 153B 156 157 ain

M 154 “Figure 3 [I-30 Corridor 143B

143A E. 19th Project Area]”. From there the 365 30 E . 15th Curtis Sykes North Project moves north through E. 13th 142

B A R I N G LIttle C R O S S downtown Little Rock and its A R 141B Rock K E. 7th Bishop Lindsey 70

t A s N es

ocus

y junction with I-630 and, after

S . L

. C

A N S E. Broadway R O S E Dickey- Stephens Verizon 70 Park Arena 141B C I T Y River crossing the Arkansas River, front 100 North Little 165 2010 Census, PopulationOld Little Rock State into North Little Rock. There 10 House M arkham Rock Statehouse Convention 141A State Center Capitol Clinton Presidential RIVER it continues from the junction Library E. 3r White Markha d 46.7% 51.6% m 2B 141A Heifer 630 70 Village 2A E. 6th

Way y of I-30 and I-40, heading East

Blackt or African American 42.3% 39.7%

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 Native AmericanC S w 0.4% 0.4% on I-40 to the interchange

oad

B ana

i t

cot 139A S Louis

Asian / Pacific Islanderce 2.8% 1.0% 140 with Highway 67. E. 15th mmer

o 1

C 139B 139B LHispanicITTLE or Latino E. 17th 6.8% 5.7% TwoRO CorK More Races E. 21st 1.7% 2.1%

139A Clinton The project area is considered 70 E Data from United States365 Census. Roosevelt Bureau National

139A Airport

t a

E. 28th r Urban, centered as it is within

e d e

f n

o C 367 440 Arkansas’ largest Metropoli- 4 3 138B 1

. t tan Statistical Area (MSA)

ch S r 138 . A

r e g n

r p

S North Little with a population of 724,385. Median Income Little Rock National 138A 365 Rock Little Rock is the capitol and 30 Median household income $44,896 $40,170 $53,046 the most populous city of Population367 below the630

Miles Arkansas and the county seat 18.6% 21.9% 0 15.4%0.5 1 poverty Line PM: PS: AJD: 3-10-2015 of Pulaski County. North DataCon fromnec Unitedting A Statesrka nCensussas JBureauob CA0602 Little Rock & North Little Rock, AR North Little Little Rock is situated across 2010 Census, Population Little Rock Rock the Arkansas River from Table 2 [Population]White 46.7% 51.6% Little Rock, and the two cities Black2013 or African est. Census, American 42.3% North39.7% Little are connected centrally by the Little Rock Total Nativepopulation American 0.4% Rock0.4% I-30 Arkansas River Bridge. Asian / PacificPeople Islander 197,3572.8% 66,0751.0% 255,828 Hispanic or Latino 6.8% 5.7% Households 79,263 25,772 102,894 Statistical data and economic DensityTwo or More(peo./mile Races2) 4,6241.7% 1,2102.1% Data from United States Census Bureau information for the Little Data from United States Census Bureau Rock/ North Little Rock areas are provided in Tables 2 Table 3 [Median Income] through 5. Data compiled by North Little MedianYear Income LittleMSA Rock National Metroplan, using the Metro- Rock 2013 724,385 politan Planning Organization Median household2010 income $44,896 699,757 $40,170 $53,046 (MPO) for Central Arkansas, Population2000 below the 610,518 18.6% 21.9% 15.4% Data frompoverty United StatesLine Census Bureau U.S. Census data shows that Data from United States Census Bureau approximately 56,000 commuters from the closest

| 6 2013 est. Census, North Little Little Rock Total population Rock People 197,357 66,075 255,828 Households 79,263 25,772 102,894 Density (peo./mile2) 4,624 1,210 Data from United States Census Bureau

Year MSA 2013 724,385 2010 699,757 2000 610,518 Data from United States Census Bureau 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 Median Income Little Rock National Rock Median household income $44,896 $40,170 $53,046 Population below the 18.6% 21.9% 15.4% poverty Line

Data from United States Census Bureau TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

Table 4 [Population by Race] North Little neighboring counties travel 20102013 Census, est. Population Census, Little Rock North Little to Pulaski County each day Little Rock Rock Total populationWhite 46.7% 51.6%Rock for work. Residents of Black or AfricanPeople American 42.3%197,357 39.7%66,075 255,828Pulaski County who remain NativeHouseholds American 0.4%79,263 0.4%25,772 102,894in the county for work total 2 171,000. Of the approximate- AsianDensity / Pacific (peo./mile Islander) 2.8%4,624 1.0%1,210 ly 227,000 persons working Data Hispanicfrom United or Latino States Census Bureau6.8% 5.7% Two or More Races 1.7% 2.1% in Pulaski County, at least Data from United States Census Bureau 25% of those are employed Table 5 [Metropolitan Statistical Area] at the major employment centers highlighted in red in Year MSA “Figure 4 [Concentrated 2013 724,385 North Little Employment Areas]”on the Median2010 Income Little Rock 699,757 National Rock following page. These 2000 610,518 Median household income $44,896 $40,170 $53,046 commuters are likely travel- Data from United States Census Bureau Population below the ing to one of the area’s major 18.6% 21.9% 15.4% Table 6 [Majorpoverty Employers Line in Central Arkansas] employers as identified in “Table 6 [Major Employers Data from United States Census Bureau MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN CENTRAL ARKANSAS in Central Arkansas]”. (Excluding State, Federal, and Local Government Employees)

Company Name Product Employment State of2013 Arkansas est.* Census,Government North Little32,200 Little Rock Total City of Little populationRock* Government Rock28,800 United States of America* Government 9,200 University of ArkansasPeople for 197,357 66,075 255,828 Education/ Medical Services 8,500 Medical Sciences*Households 79,263 25,772 102,894 Baptist Health* Healthcare 7,000 Density (peo./mile2) 4,624 1,210 Little Rock Air Force Base* Government 4,500 Data from United States Census Bureau Acxiom* Data Processing 4,380 Little Rock School District* Schools/Colleges/Education 3,500 Central Arkansas Veteran’s Medical Services 3,500 Health Care System* Entergy Arkansas* Utility (Electric) 2,740 Pulaski County SpecialYear School MSA Schools/Colleges/Education 2,700 District 2013 724,385 AT&T* 2010 Utility (Telephone) 699,757 2,600 St. Vincent Health System* Medical Services 2,600 2000 610,518 Arkansas Children’s Hospital* Medical Services 2,470 Data from United States Census Bureau Dillard’s Inc.* Department Stores 2,400 Verizon Wireless* Communications/Telecommunications 2,000 Union Pacific Railroad* Transportation (Railroad) 2,000 Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Insurance 1,800 Shield* Dassault Falcon Jet* Falcon Aircraft 1,700 Centerpoint Entergy* Utility (Natural Gas) 1,600 University of Arkansas at Little Schools/Colleges/Education 1,380 Rock University of Central Arkansas Schools/Colleges/Education 1,250 North Little Rock Public Schools Schools/Colleges/Education 1,200 Fidelity National Information Data Processing 1,170 Services *indicates business is within 3 miles of the project area

| 7 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

Figure 4 [Concentrated Employment Areas]

| 8 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

D. 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 dollars.

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 expected to support $1.2 billion in construction on our interstate highways over the life of the program. This program will provide $22 million for the Project.

Connecting Arkansas Program • This program 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. Thirty-five projects in 19 corridors will improve Arkansas’ transportation system by expanding selected two-lane roadways to four-lane highways, adding new lanes to identified interstate highways, and building two new highways. The $1.8 billion CAP receives revenue from a temporary half-cent sales tax that will end after 10 years 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 gas. This program provides $427 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 involvement has brought the surrounding areas and the businesses, schools, and attractions, together as

I u d o l y e a s w

B e i r l s d tt p 38th y co L Desoto C o il e c Mccain l l partners with the AHTD in seeking funding for the Project. h h P G l

e S op l 36 i th th s 7 ang h 3 36th s r e n m F 67 g u

u O n

r de i G r R r

G a a l E r a p n lan R 365 p W S i o c i d o D Lake Number Two ha r

P r a d F W s l M a Martin o C te r ara c a B rs rb i i Ba t l d A e s Lakewood Lake Number One u Cherry Hill S e R kyline ar C S Dooley lth c Be a en lm He Lori ic o nt Pershing lor 25th Calvary Tay 40 23rd P e e

i Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Activities r c 21st P y PLANNING AND Bethany M 20th a c lls h 20th i i H 18th n a 19th r 19th

o e

F i 18th

r v

i G Long 17 n Th l a ENVIRONMENTAL

O ego

M North Little Rock B

16th s

r d • A PEL Study was conducted by AHTD to conduct analysis and planning activities with

r n

y he Curt is Sykes o

n m k 14th u th a

2 d r 1

V n

an E i

C r s

a e F 13th la i

x M e LINKAGES g i

n u

i R o D iv 11th P CA0602 D a

e l 10th Ir a

r I

t s T e Study Area u

D V r ne resource agencies and the public in order to produce transportation planning products to 9th t H r

h t REPORT nu e l

c s 8th Sam Evans o a P a

i e u

c e r o W

o h B e t n n

8 L r k P g r e w 6th e h do a t a r o y i m a l l o l P l M l e i D i

a p G W R k

5th i A x s i W P ve c t i k u rf e in ron 4th B 4th s t

m l

l e S e c effectively serve the communities’ transportation needs. By following the PEL process, E n hoo

z 2nd i l a P 70 y

r 2n H d y y Wa r a shington e a 100 e C K h an v w trel i l l Arkansas d C Bau

10 O y a coln cu o Ferry Lin e m r l k n B i a 165 t s l

h s il 5 O L c u aha r

i M rpe Gribble J 2nd B y 30 r fewer negative impacts and more effective environmental stewardship and decisions are o t Ark c an i s Pre as River V sident 3r Clinton d t o 4th t l o 2nd ng c o i t i S p R a C 4th 6th Capitol World r

e 630 8 n th i d

8 n th a

d 7 e M t d h r expected to result. An added benefit is significant public involvement in project develop- i

B s 10th y k y

a en 9t B s h 8t g rr h s a m h n e n l t i 9 P u F n 11 w n t ho r i h r c P o o o e T r F s t T o r C n a n s a

p e e i r e 10t C c h po h n C r t ho i

1 e a s s a i 10th 2 s i th n s

G m m a B t o n

c L r m

C o M e 12th C hou

l e

l ment arising from a number of public meetings. eg a d l

l r p 17th C 1 o a 6t h m z C

I e T

1 g 15th Wrigh 7th g t a g r

B i r 1 t 19th 7th 17 r r th p

e S po b 18th ir r r A a B J e 30 on 21st c B t r d s tt e e 2 an 2nd a t e f ll V s Little Rock e e an K h i 22nd h c und s

i r r

A B G

ou 24th o L d m e lt i a o v D n a d ag e

r t D ch a t r 26th on 26th r z r I Tuxedo ou 2 F po F 7th r CA0602 i

28th Roosevelt A y

e n g

t o r a n a i

t Interstate 530 – Highway 67 g e

r L u S 30th p

D S osevelt ng 31st Ro i R Fourc he Creek L 33rd Inte i rstate 440 nd 33rd 0 44 May 2015 440 s 34 ate e th rst y Inte s n hen

o t a d

l A v a

F n h h he t g e i k

H 5 k G | 9

367 n 3

i c an l e k B

a h r 38t F Arkansas State Highway & 39th 3 M rs Frazier TransportationWalte Department Sloane

Springe Trust s r arter G y C ra a y H 2nd

365 b a

l e

G a

C 3 Pulaski County 30 CA0602

TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

RED TEAM Public Meetings •Economic AHTD Development held five Public Involvement• Deckmeetings park between to discuss 6th and 9th. this Infrastructure Project, for between future development. Splitting lanes to make wide • AHTDAugust likely will 14, not have2014 money and for Aprilfull wish list.16, How 2015. to The first two meetings were held to enough for future column line. comediscuss up with theextra I-30funding PEL to improve Study neighborhood on August 12 and 14, 2014. These two meetings connectivity and character of corridor. Options: bond • Divided boulevard at Cantrell. Make a usable space. issues,served TIF improvement, to gather speak information to general funds, from create the public regarding need for improve- regionalments, mobility identification authority, and/or other of improvementhistorical sites and environmental constraints, and district. Take away is AHTD doesn’t have the funding for MASON ELLIS (GREEN) suggested improvements. These two meetings were identical in content, but all we want to do. Need to pick up improvements above Economic Development andwere beyond held basic onimprovements. different nights and in different cities in order to reach the • Future economic developments – Hanger Hill greatest number of citizens. People whoneighborhood attended redevelopment. these initial Assisted meetings living Connectivity included 190 members of the general public,neighborhood. eight elected officials, and five • Depending where you live impacts whether you want • TIF/TRZ mobilitymedia or connectivity.representatives. Connectivity is important at • Growth on eastern side as development comes south neighborhoods. • On November 6, 2014 and January 29,from 2015, Clinton two Library. more public meetings were • Needs to be considered for better improvement – held to report back to the community• on 9th progress Street turning madeinto important regarding corridor, the PEL lighting, visibility, safety. access to airport. • LRstudy side - visual and connectivity the Project. across the Attendees corridor from consisted of 116 members of the general • Cloverleaf development at Cantrell – better use riverpublic, to I-630 23interchange. agencies, Past that, one southern elected end of official, and four media representatives. The of space. corridor,purpose future of possibility these of meetingsimprovement at was Hasting to allow the public to provide further feedback property. Future trolley lines possible, too. • MacArthur Park area – prime development area for campus feel. • Jeffon Hathaway transportation said reworking needsramps at Riverand Market. possible solutions in the study area as the PEL Chrisprocess East said continued taking out circular to turnfurther arounds evaluate for split •and Dark screenHollow location the –alternatives. Pentecostal school and • hybrid.On April Removing 16, parking 2015, under athose fifth bridges. Public Make Involvementdevelopment. Inaccessiblemeeting towas this area.held Need to accesspresent to space for people. future development. information on the evaluation and screening of the Reasonable Alternatives and the resulting PEL Recommendation. • Summaries of all meetings can be found at the CAP website at https://connect- 28 ingarkansasprogram.com/meetings/I-30-pulaski-county/.

The significant public involvement and support is evidenced by the 24 tentative support letters submitted with this application as an additional attachment. This 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 7 [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. The purpose of this group is to provide discipline specific input and expertise throughout the development of this project.

| 10 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

Table 7 [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

| 11 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

E. GRANT FUNDS AND SOURCES/USES OF PROJECT FUNDS

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 $650 million. AHTD is requesting $200 million in TIGER funds. The remaining balance of funding will come from the CAP and the IRP. 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 TIGER funds are received. Congress approved a $1 million earmark under SAFETEA-LU for this project. The dollar amount and large scope of this project makes it difficult to fully fund. If TIGER funds are not received, many aspects of the Project scope will have to be removed. The table below shows funding sources and their percent of the Project.

Table 8 [Funding Source] Cost % of Total Funding Source Funding Status (Millions) Funds TIGER VII Funds $200 Applied For 30.8% Connecting Arkansas Program $427 Committed 65.7% Interstate Rehabilition Program $22 Committed 3.4% SAFETEA-LU Earmark $1 Committed 0.2%

Total Project Funds $650

As shown in the “Table 8 [Funding Source]”, CAP will be primary funding source for this Proj- ect. 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 TIGER funds.

| 12 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

F. SELECTION CRITERIA

I) PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA

a) State of Good Repair

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 Structural and Functional Deficiencies of I-30 and I-40 overlaid with a one-half inch stress absorbing membrane and 5.5 inches of asphalt. Likewise, the This portion of I-30 was originally constructed in the 1960s with 10-inch jointed concrete pavementI-40 pavement over eight inches section of aggregate was originally base material. constructed In the early 1980s, in the this 1960ssection waswith 10 inches of concrete pave- overlaidment withover a one9 to-half 11 inch inches stress absorbingof aggregate membrane material. and 5.5 inches In the of asphalt.mid-1980s, Likewise, the the section was overlaid with I-one40 pavement inch of section asphalt was originally and six constructed inches of in continuouslythe 1960s with 10 inchesreinforced of concrete concrete pavement. 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. CurrentlyCurrently,, the existing the existing surface shows surface moderate shows to severe moderate levels of crackingto severe along levels both I- 30of andcracking along both I-30 and I-I-40,40, including including alligator alligator cracking, jointcracking, reflective joint cracking, reflective longitudinal cracking, and transverse longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking, andand linear linear cracking. cracking. Other roadway Other distress roadwayes include distresses lane and shoulder include separation lane and and patchshoulder separation and patch deterioration. Portions of I-30 and I-40 within the study area will likely require some level of pavementdeterioration. rehabilitation Portions within the of expected I-30 and timeframe I-40 ofwithin this project the instudy order toarea meet will adequate likely require some level of structuralpavement performance rehabilitation for the typical within 20-year the design expected life utilized time for pavementframe of analysis. this Project in order to meet adequate MAPstructural-21 requires performance states to have infrastructure for the typical condition 20-year performance design measures life toutilized determine for how pavement analysis. well they perform from year to year. AHTD uses the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) as one of the tools to evaluate the conditions of highways. The PCI is calculated based on International RoughnessMAP-21 Ind requiresex (IRI), rutting states and to cracking. have Theinfrastructure PCI for the proj conditionect segment alongperformance I-30 and measures to determine how I-well40 is considered they perform poor. Figure froms XXX year and to XXX year. show AHTD the pavement uses conditionthe Pavement along I-30 Condition and I- Index (PCI) as one of 40. Figure 5 [I-30 Pavement Condition] the tools to evaluate the conditions of highways. Reflective Cracking The PCI is calculated based on International Fatigue Cracking Roughness Index (IRI), rutting, and cracking. Shoulder Fatigue The PCI for the project Cracking segment along I-30 and Joint Failure I-40 is considered poor. Figure XXX – I-30 Pavement condition. “Figure 5 [I-30 Pave- Figure 6 [I-40 Pavement Condition] ment Condition]”and CRCP Failure (pavement view) “Figure 6 [I-40 Pave- ment Condition]” show the pavement condition along I-30 and I-40. The functional deficiencies in the project area are also Increased Transverse extremely problematic. The Cracking Frequency existing I-30 facility contains two horizontal

curves that have Figure XXX – I-40 Pavement condition. The functional deficiencies in the project area are 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 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015 inadequate stopping sight distance due Figure 7 [Functional Deficiencies] 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 American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) recom- mendedations. 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. 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 Figure 8 [I-30 Arkansas River Bridge] 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 completed in 1962. It currently has a sufficiency rating of 55.0 and is classified as structurally deficient and is fracture-critical.

| 14 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

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. 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. Figure XXX – Corner of bearing pad has spalled. Figure 9 [Spalled Bearing Pad] Figure 10 [Beam Corrosion]

Figure XXX – Corner of bearing pad has spalled. Figure XXX – Corrosion of Beam has rusted through. 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 discomfortIn andaddition in turn to the result structural in decreased deficiencies, speed there are and also several functional deficiencies. increased congestion. This reduced bridge width can Aalso look lead at the to functional an increase deficiencies in crashes of the becausesuperstructure show that while the width meets there is no additional space to maneuver around an obstacleminimum in standards, the roadway it is less. Further,than desirable. the lack The shouldersof are below current standards and adequate shoulders does not allow for the storage of disabledreduced shoulder vehicles width and can the lead passage to driver discomfortof emer- and in turn result in decreased speed and increased congestion. This reduced bridge width can also lead to an increase in traffic accidents gency response vehicles, causing further congestion followingbecause there a iscrash. 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 In addition to the structural deficiencies, there are alsoemergency several response functional vehicles, deficiencies. causing furtherThe congestion following a crash. configuration of the piers supporting the bridge obstructsThe configuration river navigation of the piers due supporting to the placement the bridge obstructs of river navigation due to the a pier near the middle of the navigation channel. Theplacement United States of a pier Coast near the Guard middle (USCG) of the navigation pre- channel. The United States Coast Guard scribes a minimum of 300 feet horizontal clearance between piers. Horizontal clearance between the piers of the I-30 River Bridge is only 174.5 feet in the navigation channel. At times when a Figure XXX – Corrosion of Beam has rusted through. pusher craft is attempting to navi- Figure 11 [Navigation Channel Obstruction] gate the channel with three barges side-by-side (which is normal), there In addition to the structural deficiencies, there are also several functional deficiencies. is only about 32 feet of clearance on A look at the functional deficiencies of the superstructure show that while theeither width side. meets The horizontal clearance minimum standards, it is less than desirable. The shoulders are below currentand standards pier obstruction and is cumbersome 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 increaseto in navigate, traffic accidents restricts the operational because there is no additional space to maneuver around an obstacle in the speedroadway. of Further, the barges, the poses a danger lack of adequate shoulders does not allow for the storage of disabled vehicltoes workers,and the passage and ofcreates a risk of emergency response vehicles, causing further congestion following a crash. property loss. Barge collision data, The configuration of the piers supporting the bridge obstructs river navigationprovided due to the by the USCG, indicates placement of a pier near the middle of the navigation channel. The United Statesfive Coastbarge Guard strikes have occurred at this bridge site since 2001.

| 15 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015 b) Quality of Life

The I-30 Corridor Project seeks to make a significant difference in the quality of life for the residents of Central Arkansas. The primary vehicle for this difference will be increased capacity, with corresponding reduced congestion, which is ultimately the overarching goal of the Project. In addition to the benefits that come from reduced congestion, other features will be incorporated that will increase the effectiveness of local transit; will increase connectedness of vibrant retail districts; and set the groundwork for future and continued implementation of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the local community.

Traffic Congestion 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.

Existing Conditions The ease of mobility within the existing PEL study corridor was analyzed using a variety of measures of effectiveness (MOEs), including microsimulation modeling. “Figure 12 [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/TIGER/T7/Final_Docs_I30/Interstate 30_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.

| 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 2014TIGER Peak Hour VII Discretionary Mobility Grant Application 2015

Figure 12 [Existing 2014 Peak Hour Mobility] AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

FigureFigure 13 [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

The average speed for vehicles on 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 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

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 13 [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 sizeable queues upstream of the congested area. This congestion limits the amount of traffic able to get downstream of the congested area.

In the westbound 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 through the study area. 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 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 With no improvements, “Figure 14 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Mobility]” summarizes the mobility in the PEL corridor during the most congested time of each peak hour in 2041. The 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 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 Bridge are causing artificial downstream free flow conditions.

Occurrences of bottlenecking are more evident in the speed profiles in“Figure 15 [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 segment operates at LOS F.

| 18

No Action Future Conditions

With no improvements, Figure XXX summarizes the mobility in the PEL corridor during the most congested time of each peak hour in 2041. The 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 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 Bridge are causing artificial downstream free flow conditions.

Figure XXX: Future 2041 No ActionTIGER Peak VII Discretionary Hour Mobility Grant Application 2015

Figure 14 [Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Mobility] AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Figure XXXX: Future 2041 No Action Peak Hour Speed Profiles Figure 15 [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

PEL Recommended Alternative Future Conditions | 19 It was determined that a corridor improvement with a 10-Lane cross section and Downtown C/D system near the Arkansas River Bridge between 3rd Street in Little Rock and Broadway Street in North Little Rock would provide the best mobility and safety solution for the I-30 PEL study corridor. The northern limits of the C/D system are far enough to the south that it creates a longer weaving distance between the C/D system and the I-40 interchange.

Figure XXXXX summarizes the 10-Lane Downtown C/D mobility in the PEL corridor during the most congested time of each peak hour. This scenario experiences 5-10 percent congestion. The two areas where reduced speeds are evident are related to constraints outside of the study area. In the AM peak (eastbound) direction, traffic experiences a slowdown just south of I-630. This is because the demand exceeds the capacity for vehicles using 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.

TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

PEL Recommended Alternative Future Conditions It was determined that a corridor improvement with a 10-Lane cross section and Downtown C/D system near the Arkansas River Bridge between 3rd Street in Little Rock and Broadway Street in North Little Rock would provide the best mobility and safety solution for the I-30 PEL study corridor. The northern limits of the C/D system are far enough to the south that it creates a longer weaving distance between the C/D system and the I-40 interchange.

“Figure 16 [Future 2041 PEL Recommended Alternative Mobility]”summarizes the 10-Lane Downtown C/D mobility in the PEL corridor during the most congested time of each peak hour. This scenario experiences 5-10 percent congestion. The two areas where reduced speeds are evident are related to constraints outside of the study area. In the AM peak (eastbound) direction, traffic experiences a slowdown just south of I-630. This is because the demand exceeds the capacity for vehicles using 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.Figure XXXXX: Future 2041 PEL Recommended Alternative Mobility

Figure 16 [Future 2041 PEL Recommended Alternative Mobility] AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

“Figure 17 [Future 2041 PEL Recommended Peak Hour Speed Profiles]”, speeds for each peak In Figure XXXXXX, speeds for each peak period are shown throughout the length of the corridor over period are shown throughout the length of the corridor over the entire simulation duration. The the entire simulation duration. The previously mentioned speed reductions only occur for a brief amount previouslyof time inmentioned the simulation. speed Compared reductions to the only future occur No Action for a and brief even amount the existing of time scenarios, in the the simulation. duration Comparedand severity to the of futurecongestion No isAction minimal and in thiseven 10 -theLane existing with Downtown scenarios, C/D the scenario. duration and severity of congestion is minimal in this 10-Lane with Downtown C/D scenario.

Table X provides a summary of several key MOEs for the No Action and PEL Recommended Alternatives for 2041. For a more complete list of MOEs, see Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 in the | 20 Planning and Environmental Linkages Traffic and Safety Report Appendices at this location: www.arkansashighways.com/

Figure XXXXXX: Future 2041 PEL Recommended Alternative Peak Hour Speed Profiles

AM (Eastbound) TIGER VII DiscretionaryPM (Westbound Grant) Application 2015 Highway 67 at McCain Highway 67 at McCain Figure XXXXX 17 [FutureX: Future 2041 2041 PELPEL Recommended Recommended Alternative Peak Hour Peak SpeedHour Speed Profiles] Profiles

I-40 at Hwy 67 Merge AM (Eastbound) I-40 at Hwy 67 MergePM (Westb ound) 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 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 SpeedsI-30 at River drop Bridge as low as 20-30 mph I-30 atthe River majority Bridge of the congestion lies outside of the study area) Approx. 1.5 hours of speeds <40 mph I-30 at I-630Approx. 0.5 hours of speeds <40 mph I-30 at ISpeeds-630 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 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 at 65th Street I-30 at 65th Street

Table X: Future 2041 Measures of Effectiveness Summary Table 9 [PEL Recommended Alternatives] Table X: Future 2041 Measures of Effectiveness Summary PEL Measure Description No Action RecommendedPEL Measure Description No Action RecommendedAlternative Mobility in PEL Study Distance and duration of LOS E or F (Miles/Minutes Alternative 9.67/120 0/0 Area Mobility in PEL Study duringDistance PM Peak) and duration of LOS E or F (Miles/Minutes 9.67/120 0/0 Area during PM Peak) Highway 67 to I-530/I-440 Interchange AM Total Travel Time Highway 67 to I-530/I-440 Interchange AM 16/17 6/6 Total Travel Time (westbound)/PM (eastbound) travel time (minutes) 16/17 6/6 (westbound)/PM (eastbound) travel time (minutes) Average Peak Hour Average Peak Hour Highway 67 to I-530/I-440 Interchange AM Travel Speed through Highway 67 to I-530/I-440 Interchange AM 22/20 58/58 Travel Speed through (westbound)/PM (eastbound) average speed (mph) 22/20 58/58 Corridor (westbound)/PM (eastbound) average speed (mph) Corridor TravelTravel Time Timeto Key to Key BetweenBetween McCain McCain and and Capitol Capitol (To (To Capitol Capitol in in the the AM DestinationsDestinations in PEL in PEL 24/3724/37 8/88/8 and andFrom From Capitol Capitol in thein the PM) PM) (minutes) (minutes) Study StudyArea Area

“Table 9 [PEL Recommended Alternatives]” provides a summary of several key MOEs for the No Action and PEL Recommended Alternatives for 2041. For a more complete list of MOEs, see Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 in the Planning and Environmental Linkages Traffic and Safety Report Appendices at this location: http://www.arkansashighways.com/TIGER/T7/Final_Docs_ I30/Interstate 30_PELReport.pdf.

| 21 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

Other Quality Of Life Impacts The recommendations include implementation and utilization of bus-on-shoulders, increasing the efficiency and ride ability of available transit. This provides additional methods of transportation in an area where residential information indicates a significant portion of residents are classified as low income.

The connector distributor lanes incorporated into the I-30 Arkansas River Bridge will provide an ease of connectivity not previously available to these two cities, and provide north-south connections for both cities’ downtown areas.

Opportunities to enhance safety and reconnect east and west sides of I-30 would be heightened through better visual connections and safe sight lines and vistas over and under the interstate. Where possible, longer bridge spans will be explored, including minimizing column placements and depressing of corridor sections at strategic locations. Visibility under bridges should be developed to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. This could be achieved 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.

c) 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. Table 10 [Historic Crash Rates (2010-2012)]

PEL Crash Rate/ AR Avg. Crash Number of Crashes Crash Rate (MVMT)* AR Avg. Crash Rate Rate Length (miles) Weighted ADT All All Severity All Severity All Severity KA Severity KA KA Type KA Types Types Types Types I-30, Section 230, Log Mile 138.39-139.67 (I-530/I-440 to I-630) Six-Lane Access 1.28 96,000 224 16 1.66 0.12 1.23 0.06 1.35 2.2 Control I-30, Section 230, Log Mile 139.67-142.02 (I-630 to I-40) Six-Lane Access 2.35 113,000 1247 44 4.28 0.15 1.23 0.06 3.58 2.73 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 0.8 1.4 Control *MVMT – Million Vehicle Miles Traveled | 22 Safety

Historic Crash Rates (2010-2012)

PEL Crash Number of Crash Rate AR Avg. Crash Rate Rate/ AR Avg Crashes (MVMT*) Crash Rate All All All All Length Weighted Severity KA Severity KA Severity KA Type Severity KA (miles) ADT Types Types Types Types I-30, Section 230, Log Mile 138.39-139.67 (I-530/I-440 to I-630) Six-Lane Access 1.28 96,000 224 16 1.66 0.12 1.23 0.06 1.35 2.20 Control I-30, Section 230, Log Mile 139.67-142.02 (I-630 to I-40) Six-Lane Access 2.35 113,000 1247 44 4.28 0.15 1.23 0.06 3.58 2.73 Control I-40, Section 330, Log Mile 153.25TIGER-154.88 VII (I -Discretionary30 to Highway 67) Grant Application 2015 Six-Lane Access 1.63 116,000 199 16 0.96 0.08 1.23 0.06 0.80 1.40 Control A total of* MVMT76 KA – Million crashes Vehicle occurred Miles Traveled from 2010- Figure 18 [I-30/I-40 Main Lane 2012 within the study corridor. Rear-end crashes KA Crash Types (2010-2012)] wereA thetotal predominant of 76 KA crashes type occurred of crash from out 2010of all- I-30/I-40 Main Lane KA Crash Types 2012 within the study corridor. Rear-end crashes resulting in severe or fatal injury. This (2010-2012) crashes were the predominant type of crash type of crash is typically associated with severe HEAD ON that resulted in severe or fatal injuries. This ANGLE 1.3% congestion as vehicles experience sudden stops 2.6% in traffictype of andcrash typically is typically leave associated less headway with severe be- congestion as vehicles experience sudden stops tween themselves and the vehicle in front of in traffic and typically leave less headway SINGLE them. Single vehicle and sideswipe-same direc- VEHICLE between themselves and the vehicle in front of CRASH tionthem. crashes Single also vehicle comprised and sideswipe a notable-same percentage 31.6% REAR END of thedirection total KA crashes crashes. also comprisedThese types a notable of crashes 40.8% can also be attributed to congestion as vehicles SIDESWIPE percentage of the total KA crashes. These types SAME makeof suddencrashes couldmaneuvers also be to attributed change lanesto and/or DIRECTION avoidcongestion another asvehicle. vehicles make sudden maneuvers 23.7% to change lanes and/or avoid another vehicle.

The existing acceleration and deceleration lengths were measured in order to identify which interchange ramps do not meet the current minimum design standards. There are seven ramps with acceleration lengths that do not meet the current minimum standards and eight existing ramps with no measurable deceleration lane. This causes an interruption to the overall flow on the facility and to the speed of vehicles which are entering and 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. Ultimately, a 10-Lane 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 11 [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 Environmental Linkages Traffic and Safety Report at this location: http://www.arkansashighways.com/TIGER/T7/Final_Docs_I30/Interstate 30_PELReport.pdf

| 23 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

The existing acceleration and deceleration lengths were measured in order to identify which II)interchange SECONDARY ramps SELECTIONcurrently do not CRITERIA meet the minimum requirements. There are seven ramps with acceleration lengths that do not currently meet the minimum standards and eight existing ramps a)with Innovation no measurable deceleration lane. This causes an interruption to the overall flow and speed of vehicles. This Project has been transformative from the beginning. It is Arkansas’ first time to incorporate theO nlyPEL one study existing process weaving into project location development. meets the minimum The PEL AASHTO process helpedrequirement. to streamline The existing the planningplacement and of environmental ramps throughout phases the toentire determine corridor feasible creates alternativesseveral areas that of weavingwill provide with long-term solutionsinadequate that length will address to accommodate the purpose safe and execution need of of the the Project necessary and movements.recommend Thealternatives that canrecommended be carried forward alternative seamlessly will address into manythe National of the weaving Environmental length issues Policy throughout Act (NEPA) the study for corridor. this Project. Furthermore, this Project will be the first in Arkansas to utilize the design-build to a budgetSeveral method corridor of improvementdesign and construction. alternatives wereBoth studiedof these during innovative the safety methods analysis. have Ultimately, been proven a to10 save-Lane time with and Downtown money by C reducingollector/Distributor overall project (C/D) delivery alternative time was by proposedthe Federal as Highwaythe PEL Ad- ministration’sRecommendation. (FHWA) This Every alternative Day Countsproposes (EDC) 10 Main initiative. Lanes withEDC a is C/D a state-based system that model serves used the to identifydowntown and arearapidly of Littledeploy Rock proven and butNorth underutilized Little Rock. innovations It has fewer toarterial shorten conflict the Project’ points sper timeframe,intersection enhance and roadway fewer deficient safety, reduce weaving congestion, lengths than and the improve other alternatives environmental considered sustainability.. In theComparison recent years, aspects AHTD for has several adopted of the EDC alternatives as a standard. are shown Both below. PEL and design-build help reduce the time it takes to deliver highway projects to the public and reduce construction-related risks. Improvement Alternatives Comparison Table 11 [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

PlanningIn predicting and theEnvironmental potential crash Linkages reductions Study from a high level, crash modification factors were Aused PEL forStudy the differentwas conducted design byelements AHTD of to the conduct improvement analysis alternative and planning. For activities this analysis, with the resource agenciesprojected and crashes the public for 2041 in order were to developed produce usingtransportation the crash planningrates for 2010products-2012 to and more projected effectively servetraffic the volumes communities’ for 2041. transportation These were brokenneeds. Thedown PEL by segmentStudy is andbeing location. used to CMFs inform were a subse then- quentapplied project-specific to quantify the NEPApotential process. crash reductionsLinking planning in the proposed and NEPA alternatives. is the purpose of the PEL process and is followed in order to minimize duplication of effort, promote environmental stew- A more in depth analysis will be performed using the Highway Safety Manual 2010 (HSM) ardship, and reduce delays in project implementation. during the NEPA process. Further safety and crash analysis details can be found in the Planning and Environmental Linkages Traffic and Safety Report at this location: Thewww.arkansashighways.com 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.

| 24 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

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.

The design-build to a budget method has been deemed the best fit for the Project because of the Project’s size and limited budget. The method will allow a contractor to propose a cost-effective, innovative engineering and construction solution for a project of this scale. Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC), another EDC innovation, are commonly used processes in design-build project delivery, and may be utilized during the course of this Project. ATCs are typically used on large design build projects where the best-value selection may depend on the degree of innovation in the technical solution offered.

b) Partnership

Sir Isaac Newton championed collaboration by saying “We build too many walls and not enough bridges.” AHTD builds highways and bridges by collaborating with various partners throughout the state and the nation. However, the citizens of Arkansas are AHTD’s most important partners. In November 2012, those partners voted to approve the Connecting Arkansas Program, a ten- year, half-cent sales tax to improve highway and infrastructure projects throughout the state. The Project was included as an integral part of the Connecting Arkansas Program. As a result, the citizens of Arkansas are prepared to fund over 60% of the Project, if TIGER funding is awarded.

AHTD held public meetings regarding the Project, 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 12 [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.

| 25 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

Table 12 [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

| 26 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

G. RESULTS OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

The Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) was performed in accordance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) guidance provided in the Federal Register. These benefits and costs were quantified in accordance with the Federal Register Volume 78, Number 81, Docket No. DOT-OST-2013-09889 and Circular A 94. [see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/]

The BCA compared the cost of building 10 lanes (five in each direction including 2 collector distributer lanes) to the cost of not doing anything outside of routine maintenance. The analysis considers a 20-year project life (2021 through 2041).

It should be noted that many benefits that would be provided by this project are not easily quanti- fiable. The economic benefits of connecting cities in the largest metropolitan area of Arkansas are significant. Providing an improved transportation network in the region does make an impact in terms of improving the per capita income in the project areas that are below the national average, which is a goal of the TIGER Discretionary Grant program.

In summary, the proposed project to widen, reconstruct, and rehabilitate portions of Interstates 30 and 40, including replacing and widening the Arkansas River Bridge exhibit a net positive economic impact of 5.0 for the three percent discount and 3.17 for the seven percent discount. See attachment for a detailed discussion of the BCA for this Project.

Table 13 [Results of Benefit-Cost Analysis] No Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Costs $650,000,000 $569,354,784 $480,759,742 Benefits $4,788,914,763 $2,845,498,684 $1,523,454,775 B/C Ratio 7.37 5.00 3.17 Note: Discount rate is above and beyond inflation (as stated in regulations)

| 27 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

H. 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 recommendation will streamline the NEPA process thus reducing the timeframe for environmental clearance. By use of the design build process; design, utility relocation and construction will occur concurrently resulting in a greatly reduced project timeline. Environmental clearance for this Project is expected in July of 2016. Following environmental clearance, a design build firm will be selected in early 2017 with construction expected to begin in early 2018. Project completion is expected in late 2021 and will be facilitated by the use of a time element in the design build selection criteria.

Table 14 [Project Readiness]

| 28 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

I. FEDERAL WAGE RATE CERTIFICATION

| 29 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Application 2015

J. NOTICE OF REVISION

Department of Transportation’s National Infrastructure Investments under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2015 TIGER VII Discretionary Grant Program Notice of Revision The following application has been revised: Project Name: Interstate 30 and Interstate 40, Interstate 530-Highway 67

Project Location: Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas Pulaski County Unites States Congressional District 2

Location Type: Urban

Pre-app Amount Corrected Amount Total Funds Requested: $200,000,000 $200,000,000 Total State/Local Funds: $400,000,000 $427,000,000 Interstate Rehabilitation Program: $22,000,000 Federal Earmark: $1,000,000 Total Project Cost: $650,000,000 $650,000,000

Revision type: Cost

Reason for revision: Revised amounts to account for all types of funding being utilized.

Kevin Thornton, P.E. Assistant Chief Engineer - Planning Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 501-569-2241 Email: [email protected]

June 2015

| 30