Subscribe Register Login
Saturday, June 23, 2018, 3:34 a.m.

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Mobile App

Clock ticking on resolving I-30 job scope

Amending long-range plan on Metroplan panel agenda

By Noel Oman

This article was originally published March 19, 2017 at 3:10 a.m. Updated March 20, 2017 at 4:30 a.m.

The time for regional leaders to reach key decisions on the scope of the Interstate 30 corridor project is fast approaching, the top official at Metroplan says.

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Print Headline: Clock ticking on resolving I-30 job scope

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments on: Clock ticking on resolving I-30 job scope

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 total comments

KnuckleBall says... March 19, 2017 at 9:31 a.m.

This is a joke and if like The Big Rock Interchange will be a waste of money... on that project they didn't do anything to help the traffic going East, if anything it is worse. This patch work of roads is not designed very well...!!!! 630 and 440 should have been continuous, they have set on their hands for 50 years and let the chance for a loop around the Metro area to be way to costly. It was on the drawing board for years, but Metro Plan nor the Highway Dept would buy the property while it was available. Now 50 years later instead of the loop going through between North Little Rock and Sherwood or Jacksonville it would have to circle Cabot... I-30 through Dallas was not widened to 8 or 10 lanes and the last time I checked Dallas is a lot larger than Little Rock...

( | suggest removal )

RBear says... March 19, 2017 at 1:58 p.m.

KnuckleBall, actually IH-30 through downtown Dallas is 8 lanes, sometimes expanding to 10-12 when you add in connector lanes. Dallas also has a different traffic model than Little Rock with multiple entry points. Dallas did do the right thing and have DART purchase the land for rail well before it was necessary. As such, they have been able to put in a growing transit system.
...
Little Rock will not have a transit system of such magnitude for decades because the urban concentration doesn't exist yet. What is really needed is more urban development to help increase the population downtown. That being said, what I've discovered is most in Little Rock take an antiquated view of urbanization. I've seen three different urban projects get attacked or require outrageous modifications by the historic design review board, mostly due to anti-development agendas by downtown neighborhood groups. Those are the same groups who attack 30 Crossing.
...
Those same type of groups plagued San Antonio for decades until Mayor Julian Castro finally ushered in the Decade of Downtown and they lost their muscle. Since then, San Antonio has been seeing record urban growth that is starting to transform the downtown area into one where businesses are relocating to and people are starting to live in. That's helping prompt relooks at transportation and traffic.

( | suggest removal )

RBBrittain says... March 19, 2017 at 6:03 p.m.

KnuckleBall, bids on the project to alleviate I-630 traffic east of Big Rock will be opened July 19. If anything, 30 Crossing alleviates the problems caused by traffic growth from the other freeways, especially I-630. Neither 440 nor the North Belt will sufficiently relieve traffic demands; they certainly won't help traffic TO or FROM downtown. And the "boulevard" crowd misread how the Martha Mitchell "Expressway" ruined Pine Bluff, because they drank the Kool-Aid in the word "expressway": In LR terms Martha Mitchell is a BOULEVARD, not a freeway; NOT building a freeway ruined Pine Bluff!

( | suggest removal )

RBBrittain says... March 19, 2017 at 6:14 p.m.

RBall, I think you got it exactly right; 30 Crossing is needed FOR downtown's future. The boulevard crowd is using the same anti-development arguments against 30 Crossing that they used against widening I-30 to Benton years ago; they were clearly wrong. Most of the extra lanes are needed for proper merge distances coming in & out of freeway-to-freeway interchanges, which anyone going between I-30 from the north & I-630 can appreciate; they will take care of both the dangerous merges from the I-30 bridge to I-630 in mornings and the backups on I-630 heading to the bridge in afternoons. They will also eliminate most of the increasingly dangerous weaves on I-40 in front of the "big church" in NLR, currently required for thru traffic on both I-40 and I-30/US 67.

( | suggest removal )

RBBrittain says... March 19, 2017 at 6:15 p.m.

*RBear

( | suggest removal )

RBear says... March 19, 2017 at 6:44 p.m.

RBBrittain, I agree with you. I travel down Cantrell to I-30 South and feel like I'm taking my life in my hands trying to get on the freeway there sometimes. Exiting at Cantrell is a challenge also, even though I come through at 6:30 a.m. in the morning. To have problems as early as 6:30 a.m. shows there's an issue that needs to be dealt with. I also look across the freeway to see the long line of traffic heading north from I-630 across the river. Most of these anti-freeway folks don't even work downtown. They want their downtown to be like the Heights. I love the charm of the Quapaw Quarter, but that charm ends at I-630. North of 630 should be an urban environment.

( | suggest removal )

  • page
  • 1
Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

SHOPPING

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Mobile App
Arkansas Online