Today's Paper Search Latest Coronavirus Families Core values App Listen Story ideas iPad Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles Archive
story.lead_photo.caption FILE — Traffic flows along Interstate 630 in Little Rock on Jan. 4, as construction crews work on a widening project. ( Arkansas Democrat-Gazette / Thomas Metthe)

Opening statements are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. today in a lawsuit challenging the legality of state spending on two Pulaski County interstate widening projects.

Circuit Judge Chip Welch has reserved one day for the trial over the lawsuit that says a "plain reading" of Amendment 91 to the Arkansas Constitution limits improvements to four-lane highways or two-lane highways being widened to four lanes under the Arkansas Department of Transportation's $1.8 billion Connecting Arkansas program.

Projects to widen a section of Interstate 30 in downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock and Interstate 630 in west Little Rock are thus ineligible for program funding because they are being widened beyond four lanes, according to the lawsuit.

Defendants, led by the highway department, had argued that a "plain reading" would lead to "absurd results." They cited, for example, projects on highways that are four lanes in most places but also have a center-turn lane, or fifth lane, in some places.

Such a "narrow and limited interpretation" would preclude spending on any projects being funded under Amendment 91, they said in their legal arguments.

Lawyers for both sides spent less than an hour before Welch on Tuesday to argue for their pretrial motions, which focused on limiting evidence either party could introduce at trial. Welch denied the motions.

"I'm inclined to let it all in and sort it out," the judge said from the bench.

Welch also said he will keep time and try to evenly divide it between the plaintiffs and defendants.

The trial comes after Welch in May denied motions from both sides seeking summary judgments.

"After consideration of the undisputed facts herein, and giving full deference to the constitutional amendment when possible, the only thing clear to the Court is that reasonable minds could very well reach different conclusions" on the meaning of 'four-lane highways,'" the judge wrote in his decision.

The two projects at the center of the lawsuit include the $87.4 million widening of a 2.2-mile section of Interstate 630 in west Little Rock to eight lanes from six. The work began last summer and is scheduled to be completed next year.

The other is a 6.7-mile section of Interstate 30 through downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock. Construction won't begin until next year under the $631.7 million project, which will replace the I-30 bridge over the Arkansas River and widen some sections to 10 lanes from six.

Both projects rely on significant funds from the Connecting Arkansas Program, which focuses on regionally significant jobs around the state. The program is financed in large part by a half-percent sales tax contained in Amendment 91, which voters approved in 2012. The tax is in place for 10 years.

The amendment language defines "four-lane highway improvements" to include "four-lane roadways, bridges, tunnels, engineering, rights of way and other related capital improvements and facilities appurtenant or pertaining thereto, including costs of rights-of-way acquisition and utility adjustments."

The language also includes "the maintenance of four-lane highway improvements constructed with proceeds of the bond" within the definition of "four-lane highway improvements."

The amendment contains other references to four-lane highways, including that the bonds issued as part of the program are payable from the Arkansas Four-Lane Highway Construction and Improvement Bond Account.

Justin Zachary, a Conway attorney, represents four Arkansas residents who sued to stop any Amendment 91 monies from being used on the projects.

They are Shelley Buonauito and Sara B. Thompson, both of Fayetteville; Mary Weeks of Little Rock; and Verlon Abram of the Cleburne County community of Wilburn. A fifth plaintiff, Richard Mason of El Dorado, dropped out of the lawsuit.

Defendants include the highway department, the Arkansas Highway Commission, Gov. Asa Hutchinson, state Auditor Andrea Lea, Treasurer Dennis Milligan and Larry Walther, director of the state Department of Finance and Administration.

Metro on 08/14/2019

Print Headline: Judge to hear lawsuit challenging I-30, I-630 projects


Sponsor Content

Archived Comments

    August 14, 2019 at 6:22 a.m.

    I need to clean up the wagon and get the horses in from pasture. A few good tracks and I can get where I'm going. Don't need no stink'n highways.

  • haphog
    August 14, 2019 at 7:52 a.m.

    Most cities these days have built by-passes around their cities to reduce the traffic congestion of the interstate highway systems in the area. I can't imagine why the powers-that-be in Little Rock want to take a major interstate project through downtown. IIMO, I-30 should continue on past hillbilly airport (get rid of the I-440 name) and connect to I-40 East of Little Rock. Use the I-530 S exit to go to Pine Bluff; and, then use a I-530 N exit for Little Rock. This is the same type of thing that makes I-430 N so nice taking traffic west of Little Rock that is heading north toward Conway, Fort Smith, etc. This project will devastate the city of Little Rock. Use your heads planners. Please.

    August 14, 2019 at 8:25 a.m.

    This project fits almost entirely within the existing I-30 footprint. It increases the River Market/Clinton Park area. It provides non-Interstate lanes for crossing the river. It does NOT add any additional separation of the east/west Interstate 'neighborhoods.' It provides for LOWER air/noise pollution by reducing the congestion that causes vehicles to stop/idle on the Interstate. The obsolete river bridge MUST be replaced. It greatly improves the north and south interchanges. The longer we wait, the more it will cost.
    The bypasses (I-430 / I-440) already exist. Traffic from Memphis to Dallas already uses I-440. Commuters from NLR/Sherwood/Jacksonville/Cabot/Beebe/Searcy and even Mayflower/Conway/Redfield/Bryant/Benton need an efficient way to get to work in Central LR. Perhaps the I-630 project will help some of that, but just moving people from west LR to downtown will fill 430.
    Good project --- get on with it.

  • hah406
    August 14, 2019 at 8:34 a.m.

    I am with MBAIV. Haphog, if you think most cities have built by-passes around their downtown areas, you haven't driven in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, or Chicago lately. All have a major multi-interstate highway dispersal system going right through the downtown corridor. And for those of us living in or near downtown, utilizing I-430 or I-440 to head to Fayetteville is just stupid.

  • haphog
    August 14, 2019 at 9:34 a.m.

    HAH406......I lived in Dallas when the interstates were basically country areas. The cities have grown immensely in the last 40 years. Nashville, TN is a city that finally (in spite of the downtown promoters) opened the long anticipated bypass around the city. I just feel that we do not need to create such a monstrosity in downtown LR. As for going to Fayetteville, simply take the current route, I-30 (hopefully to be I-530N) to I-40 in NLR, turn left and have a nice drive to see the Hogs. I certainly respect your opinions and I think we need more discussion in the area of construction.

  • RBBrittain
    August 14, 2019 at 10:46 a.m.

    Haphog, you are delusional about the source of I-30 traffic downtown. Most of the thru traffic between Memphis & Dallas (especially trucks), or even between, say, Bryant & Cabot, already bypasses downtown on I-440. Most traffic on I-30 downtown is going either to or from points in the LR city limits; most of the rest (a small part of the total) is coming from I-530 because I-430 is too far out of the way for those going between I-530 and points north & west of LR. Moving the I-30 shields over to I-440 will have virtually no impact on downtown traffic; building the South Loop will have only negligible impact by connecting I-530 with I-430. Only 30 Crossing will reasonably alleviate the traffic issues on I-30 downtown.