I've written quite a bit about about why it is worse than a waste of taxpayer money to widen I-630 and I-30 and provided some discussion of better ideas that would save money and have positive impacts on our community and state. Today I want to focus on the I-30 project, now also referred to as "30 Crossing".
Showing posts with label Planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Planning. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Razorback Greenway Vs. The River Trail
As we approach the Grand Opening of the Razorback Greenway (most of which has been done for some time) I thought I'd write-up a comparison of Arkansas' two premier paved trails. I want to confess upfront that one reason for writing this is that I hope it helps spur some friendly competition between the two most populated metropolitan areas of the state to keep improving their trail and active transportation systems. Cities often boast about their trail systems when trying to lure companies and which of these trail systems is the best might be a deciding factor in where some companies decide to locate in the future.
My analysis below looks at length, connectivity, and how much of the trail is actually physically separated from roads (you know, like a trail rather than a bike lane or bike route). I've included interactive maps of both at the end so you can perform your own research.
My analysis below looks at length, connectivity, and how much of the trail is actually physically separated from roads (you know, like a trail rather than a bike lane or bike route). I've included interactive maps of both at the end so you can perform your own research.
Monday, March 2, 2015
The Benefits of Density
Little Rock has a low population density compared to most cities in the United States (and elsewhere). This is true for the majority of cities in Arkansas. How does this relate to trails you might ask? Read on.
I've created maps of Little Rock showing how much smaller the city limits would be if the city had the same population density as other well-known cities. Bear in mind that density and population statistics vary widely depending on methodology (e.g. use of city or MSA boundaries, or population data from the 2010 Census or more recent estimates). For the maps below, I used proper city limits and 2010 census data.
I've created maps of Little Rock showing how much smaller the city limits would be if the city had the same population density as other well-known cities. Bear in mind that density and population statistics vary widely depending on methodology (e.g. use of city or MSA boundaries, or population data from the 2010 Census or more recent estimates). For the maps below, I used proper city limits and 2010 census data.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Emerald Park / Big Rock Quarry / Burns Park News
Updated 1/27/15: Added map provided by NLR Parks.
Yesterday, I read some interesting news about a land deal that was recently approved by the National Park Service. With the few details in that document, I was a bit worried about the idea of converting 73 acres of Burns Park into commercial property in exchange for adding ~50 acres of Big Rock Quarry to the park system, but I called North Little Rock Parks and got some details about the deal.
First, if it seems odd that the National Park Service was involved in approving this deal, that is the result of Burns Park having received federal funding in the past.
Second, the land Burns Park is losing, is shown on the map below as the yellow bed. Located on the south side of Charles Boyer Dr. and the east side of the interstate, the land isn't well connected to the rest of the park and is currently unused. Plans call for part of the land to be used for a lodge.
Finally, it is great news that Big Rock Quarry is becoming park land officially. People have enjoyed this scenic area for a long time and it was recently threatened with private development.
I've got photos and other information on the Emerald Park, Big Rock Quarry area at the links below and in the book Trails of Central Arkansas:
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2012/03/waterfalls-of-little-rock.html
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2012/08/emerald-park-and-river-trail-news.html
More information:
http://www.northlr.org/userfiles/Servers/Server_63092/file/City%20Clerk/Council%20Agendas/1-26-15/Comm%20%231.pdf
http://www.katv.com/story/23808526/mayor-seeks-to-build-lodge-at-burns-park
Yesterday, I read some interesting news about a land deal that was recently approved by the National Park Service. With the few details in that document, I was a bit worried about the idea of converting 73 acres of Burns Park into commercial property in exchange for adding ~50 acres of Big Rock Quarry to the park system, but I called North Little Rock Parks and got some details about the deal.
First, if it seems odd that the National Park Service was involved in approving this deal, that is the result of Burns Park having received federal funding in the past.
Second, the land Burns Park is losing, is shown on the map below as the yellow bed. Located on the south side of Charles Boyer Dr. and the east side of the interstate, the land isn't well connected to the rest of the park and is currently unused. Plans call for part of the land to be used for a lodge.
Finally, it is great news that Big Rock Quarry is becoming park land officially. People have enjoyed this scenic area for a long time and it was recently threatened with private development.
I've got photos and other information on the Emerald Park, Big Rock Quarry area at the links below and in the book Trails of Central Arkansas:
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2012/03/waterfalls-of-little-rock.html
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2012/08/emerald-park-and-river-trail-news.html
More information:
http://www.northlr.org/userfiles/Servers/Server_63092/file/City%20Clerk/Council%20Agendas/1-26-15/Comm%20%231.pdf
http://www.katv.com/story/23808526/mayor-seeks-to-build-lodge-at-burns-park
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
The Need for Complete Streets and Greater Active Transportation Funding in Arkansas
Updated 4/22/2015: Little Rock passed a Complete Streets Ordinance
I found out today that the Little Rock City Board of Directors voted last night to defer voting on a complete streets ordinance. North Little Rock and Conway (updated from comments) are the only Arkansas cities I know of with complete street policies or ordinances (let me know if there are more) so I wanted to share some thoughts on why communities in Arkansas need them and why developers shouldn't be scared of them.
First, what are Complete Streets?
"Complete Streets ... are designed to encourage safe street access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders."
Worded differently, they place pedestrians, bicyclists, bus users, baby strollers, and wheelchair users at the same priority level as automobiles.
So why does Arkansas need them?
1. Too many bicyclists and pedestrians are being killed by collisions with cars and many of these deaths could be prevented with better street/trail design.
2. Whether city directors or developers like it or not, people, in particular younger educated people, millennials, and the "creative class" that all states and cities fight to attract, want to live in walkable communities. Arkansas cities currently rank very low in terms of walkability and this needs to improve if we want to continue to attract young professionals and keep our best and brightest from fleeing to the coasts.
3. This article by Drew Linder, a Fort Smith banker, highlights many of the economic and social benefits of active transportation infrastructure and gives great reasons for why funding for such infrastructure needs to be increased in Forth Smith (and Arkansas as a whole).
Some key takeaways:
"A nationwide study by the University of Massachusetts, Amherst found that $1 million invested in bicycle infrastructure resulted in 11.4 new jobs. That’s more than the 7.8 jobs for $1 million invested in road-only projects."
I found out today that the Little Rock City Board of Directors voted last night to defer voting on a complete streets ordinance. North Little Rock and Conway (updated from comments) are the only Arkansas cities I know of with complete street policies or ordinances (let me know if there are more) so I wanted to share some thoughts on why communities in Arkansas need them and why developers shouldn't be scared of them.
First, what are Complete Streets?
"Complete Streets ... are designed to encourage safe street access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders."
Worded differently, they place pedestrians, bicyclists, bus users, baby strollers, and wheelchair users at the same priority level as automobiles.
So why does Arkansas need them?
1. Too many bicyclists and pedestrians are being killed by collisions with cars and many of these deaths could be prevented with better street/trail design.
2. Whether city directors or developers like it or not, people, in particular younger educated people, millennials, and the "creative class" that all states and cities fight to attract, want to live in walkable communities. Arkansas cities currently rank very low in terms of walkability and this needs to improve if we want to continue to attract young professionals and keep our best and brightest from fleeing to the coasts.
3. This article by Drew Linder, a Fort Smith banker, highlights many of the economic and social benefits of active transportation infrastructure and gives great reasons for why funding for such infrastructure needs to be increased in Forth Smith (and Arkansas as a whole).
Some key takeaways:
"A nationwide study by the University of Massachusetts, Amherst found that $1 million invested in bicycle infrastructure resulted in 11.4 new jobs. That’s more than the 7.8 jobs for $1 million invested in road-only projects."
"The September 26, 2014 Wall Street Journal had an article about how trails and bike lanes are spurring real estate development in a number of cities. They appeal to both '20 and 30-somethings who want to live closer to work and to older baby boomers looking for a more walkable, bike-able lifestyle.'"
"On a more local level, the Executive Director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission noted the importance of quality of life amenities as a recruiting and retention tool. The two specific examples he gave were craft breweries and trails systems. He said they provide a “cool factor” that cities need in order to be competitive. "
4. Complete Streets, protected bike lanes, and bike trails spur economic growth and development. It is ironic then that much of the opposition to complete streets ordinances seems to come from developers. Putting these policies in place will improve public safety and boost our local economies. Over 700 jurisdictions have enacted complete streets policies, with over 70 communities doing so in 2014. This is not some newfangled untested concept that heaps unbearable expenses on developers, as some would have us believe.
If you believe Arkansas needs complete streets and better funding for active transportation infrastructure, please let your local elected officials know and pass this information along to anyone you think might benefit from reading it.
4. Complete Streets, protected bike lanes, and bike trails spur economic growth and development. It is ironic then that much of the opposition to complete streets ordinances seems to come from developers. Putting these policies in place will improve public safety and boost our local economies. Over 700 jurisdictions have enacted complete streets policies, with over 70 communities doing so in 2014. This is not some newfangled untested concept that heaps unbearable expenses on developers, as some would have us believe.
If you believe Arkansas needs complete streets and better funding for active transportation infrastructure, please let your local elected officials know and pass this information along to anyone you think might benefit from reading it.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Arkansas' Roads: Dangerous By Design. We Can Do Better.
Bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities are on the rise in Arkansas and the United States as a whole. We can and must do better. Better street design, wider sidewalk, more protected bike lanes or separate trails, and lower speed limits in areas with heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic would help immensely.
The following information was taken largely from Smart Growth America's Dangerous by Design report. It has detailed information on pedestrian fatalities nationwide and provides policy recommendations for addressing this horrible problem. Please read on or visit their pages to learn more about the issue and what you can do to help.
Smart Growth America - Dangerous by Design: Arkansas Report
Smart Growth America - Dangerous by Design: Fatalities Map
League of American Bicyclists Report via Bicycling.com
Here are some key quotes from the report:
"Between 2003 and 2012, 403 people were killed while walking in Arkansas, representing 6.5% of the 6,181 traffic-related fatalities in the state during this period." (nearly 10% for the Little Rock MSA)
"Arkansas’s overall Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) is 79.98, which places it 14th nationally."
"40.6% of these people were killed on arterial roads, which are eligible to receive federal funding for construction or improvement, with federal design guidance or oversight."
"Over that decade, 73.4% of pedestrian deaths occurred on roadways with a speed limit of 40 mph or higher. 3.3% were on streets with a posted speed limit under 30 mph and just 0.8% of pedestrians died on streets with a speed limit of 20 mph or lower."
Speed limits have a major impact on fatality rates in bike accidents as well and Americans are 3-5 times more likely to die while biking than their Western European counterparts. This is largely due to speed limits on roads that bikes share with cars and with the lack of protected/separate bike lanes in the United States.
Here are screenshots of the fatalities map for Northwest Arkansas and Central Arkansas:
Monday, June 30, 2014
Big Opportunity to Promote Active Transportation in Central Arkansas
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. When AHTD gives you traffic nightmares, promote active/alternative transportation! Already jokingly dubbed #LRpocalypse by @ArkansasBlog, it is looking like traffic in Central Arkansas could get really nasty for much of 2015-2019. Here is why:
1. Broadway Bridge replacement - Scheduled to start in 2015 and take two years to complete.
2. I-30 Downtown Bridge Replacement - AHTD says they will try to wait until the Broadway Bridge is done to begin this $300-400 million project, but they may not have a choice due to funding-related requirements. I've heard reports that preliminary work on the I-30 bridge will start while Broadway Bridge is still out of service.
3. I-630 widening/"improvements" - I've written extensively on my opposition to widening I-630 and this is just one more reason for people to hate the project. Though plans are still being finalized (and will hopefully be canceled) construction work is scheduled to begin in 2017 and run into 2019.
So to recap, starting sometime in 2015, maybe the spring, the Broadway Bridge will close, making traffic in downtown Little Rock worse. Before the bridge is finished (don't these things always take longer and cost more than predicted?) it is likely that work on I-30 in the downtown area will begin. Around the same time, AHTD will probably be closing lanes of I-630 in order to add lanes that won't offer any long-term congestion benefits. In short we are looking at 4 years of at least one major highway project (Broadway is Hwy-67/70b) impacting traffic in Little Rock/North Little Rock and probably 2-3 years of overlapping projects.
So, what's the upside? Well, if you look at a map of downtown Little Rock, you'll notice that there are two pedestrian bridges near the Broadway and I-30 bridges, and these won't be closed! Nor will the pedestrian lane on the Main St. bridge. People tired of sitting in traffic forever will be looking for better ways to get downtown. Those that live within 2-10 miles might be looking at biking. People who live closer could walk or take the trolley. This 4-5 year traffic nightmare presents a great opportunity to increase the number of people who commute by bike, foot, or bus in Central Arkansas, but there are some things Little Rock and North Little Rock should do in order to make this time easier on residents and to make it simple for people interested in exploring new modes of transportation to do so:
1. Improve the Trail System - Little Rock needs to "Close the Loop" on the River Trail and build more spur trails to link more neighborhoods to the trail system.
2. Expand education and outreach efforts - People need to know that trails exist and can get them where they want to go.
3. Encourage employers to provide shower facilities. The city could even build a public facility downtown, maybe at the Bus Terminal, the River Market, or on the River Trail.
4. Create a Bike Share program. People are more likely to use bikes if they don't have to worry about storage, parking, maintenance, theft, or large upfront costs. Lots of cities have these, but the City of Little Rock claims they are too difficult to implement. With more cities adding Bike Share programs all the time, this argument doesn't seem to hold any water.
If you care about active transportation, help get the word out. Little Rock is looking at years of horrible traffic congestion and residents do have other choices for getting to work.
Here is a piece I did on when bike commuting beats driving in Little Rock (and elsewhere):
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2011/09/when-bikes-beat-cars.html
Nice background on benefits of Bike Share programs:
http://theairspace.net/insight/bikesharing-is-caring-how-personal-transportation-is-changing/
1. Broadway Bridge replacement - Scheduled to start in 2015 and take two years to complete.
2. I-30 Downtown Bridge Replacement - AHTD says they will try to wait until the Broadway Bridge is done to begin this $300-400 million project, but they may not have a choice due to funding-related requirements. I've heard reports that preliminary work on the I-30 bridge will start while Broadway Bridge is still out of service.
3. I-630 widening/"improvements" - I've written extensively on my opposition to widening I-630 and this is just one more reason for people to hate the project. Though plans are still being finalized (and will hopefully be canceled) construction work is scheduled to begin in 2017 and run into 2019.
So to recap, starting sometime in 2015, maybe the spring, the Broadway Bridge will close, making traffic in downtown Little Rock worse. Before the bridge is finished (don't these things always take longer and cost more than predicted?) it is likely that work on I-30 in the downtown area will begin. Around the same time, AHTD will probably be closing lanes of I-630 in order to add lanes that won't offer any long-term congestion benefits. In short we are looking at 4 years of at least one major highway project (Broadway is Hwy-67/70b) impacting traffic in Little Rock/North Little Rock and probably 2-3 years of overlapping projects.
So, what's the upside? Well, if you look at a map of downtown Little Rock, you'll notice that there are two pedestrian bridges near the Broadway and I-30 bridges, and these won't be closed! Nor will the pedestrian lane on the Main St. bridge. People tired of sitting in traffic forever will be looking for better ways to get downtown. Those that live within 2-10 miles might be looking at biking. People who live closer could walk or take the trolley. This 4-5 year traffic nightmare presents a great opportunity to increase the number of people who commute by bike, foot, or bus in Central Arkansas, but there are some things Little Rock and North Little Rock should do in order to make this time easier on residents and to make it simple for people interested in exploring new modes of transportation to do so:
1. Improve the Trail System - Little Rock needs to "Close the Loop" on the River Trail and build more spur trails to link more neighborhoods to the trail system.
2. Expand education and outreach efforts - People need to know that trails exist and can get them where they want to go.
3. Encourage employers to provide shower facilities. The city could even build a public facility downtown, maybe at the Bus Terminal, the River Market, or on the River Trail.
4. Create a Bike Share program. People are more likely to use bikes if they don't have to worry about storage, parking, maintenance, theft, or large upfront costs. Lots of cities have these, but the City of Little Rock claims they are too difficult to implement. With more cities adding Bike Share programs all the time, this argument doesn't seem to hold any water.
If you care about active transportation, help get the word out. Little Rock is looking at years of horrible traffic congestion and residents do have other choices for getting to work.
Here is a piece I did on when bike commuting beats driving in Little Rock (and elsewhere):
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2011/09/when-bikes-beat-cars.html
Nice background on benefits of Bike Share programs:
http://theairspace.net/insight/bikesharing-is-caring-how-personal-transportation-is-changing/
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Why I Oppose Widening I-630 (and now I-30) in Little Rock
Short Update 1/10/2019
Oh weird, ArDOT's cost estimate for 30 Crossing turned out to be way too low. Who could have guessed that?! (Answer: everyone)
Having originally provided a figure of $325 million, bids recently came in at about $1 billion for just the 30 Crossing part (which doesn't cover the inevitable fixes to future bottlenecks the project will cause on adjacent sections of highway).
This means trouble for the proposed (and completely unnecessary) widening of I-30. If they can't find more money, they'll have to figure out what they can get for $500-$600 million (hint: a lot less). Then there is the issue of whether they can legally spend money dedicated to building 4-lane highways to build a 10-lane one. Then there is the issue of whether making large changes to the plan will require a new environmental assessment, which takes time. You can bet that the same amount of work will only get more expensive as time passes and that getting new estimates in 6-12 months will only make their problems worse.
The right thing to do would be for ArDOT to drop this terrible idea and work with Little Rock on the boulevard concept that would be way better for the city and cheaper for Arkansas taxpayers. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to make that decision, but it sounds like they'll at least have a tougher time moving forward with this boondoggle.
https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2019/01/10/whoops-dramatic-cost-overrun-and-change-in-scope-for-the-i-30-concrete-gulch-in-little-rock
Updated 10/2015
This post has gotten long and unwieldy from all the updates, but I want to leave all the info below and add this brief summary.
1. Arkansas has the 12th largest highway system in the US, yet we rank 32nd in population and 29th in area. Given that we consistently rank near the bottom in education and health, the last thing we need to spend more money on is more highways or lanes on highways! According to that AHTD document, we have more miles of highway than California, New York, or Florida. (Loved this stat from MoveArkansas: 25: the number of traffic lanes connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan today. 26: the number of traffic lanes connecting Little Rock to North Little Rock today. Brooklyn and Manhattan combined have 10X the population of Central Arkansas. Also, more lanes connect LR&NLR than SF & Oakland)
2. AHTD complains about lack of highway funding while proposing unnecessary multi-billion dollar projects that will damage our communities, won't improve traffic in the long-term, and will boost the cost of future maintenance when we already can't afford to maintain what we've got. The widening of I-30 stands to be the single most expensive undertaking in AHTD's history.
3. Our state's approach to transportation is stuck in the past. While other states are closing urban freeways, putting roads on diets, and focusing on prioritizing active and mass transportation while maintaining roads and bridges; Arkansas still seems to think widening highways and interstates is the way to go. We are prioritizing long commutes and sprawl over local communities and quality of life. Look at these incredible examples and then imagine what we could do with I-630 or that section of I-30. Let's route just-passing-through traffic around the city on I-440 and get rid of these things.
4. The plans to widen more of I-630 and I-30 (to 10 lanes?!) are a huge waste of money and will damage the character of downtown Little Rock. They will make it harder to get around by bike or rail and will make the RiverMarket and Clinton Library less scenic. These projects are in direct conflict with AHTD's Mission: "Provide a safe, efficient, aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sound intermodal transportation system for the user." Adding Interstate lanes at the expense of rail, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure is the opposite of intermodal. Watch the video or visit the Facebook page below to get an idea for how "aesthetically pleasing" these projects will be.
What you can do:
Please read on for some history and other resources.
Updated 4/21/2015 & 10/12/2015 to reflect new proposal to widen I-30 to 10 lanes in Central Arkansas & impact that would have on existing rail.
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department is looking hard at widening I-630, first from Baptist Hospital to University Ave. and then all the way to I-30 downtown. They are also reportedly considering widening I-30 around downtown to 10 lanes. These are all horrible ideas and worse than a complete waste of taxpayer money. While this post may seem a bit off-topic at first, allow me to explain why it isn't:
1. AHTD funds roads and alternative transportation projects (including trails) in the state. Wasting money on highway projects takes away funding from projects that actually improve traffic, public health, and quality of life. Widening projects not only waste money upfront, but guarantee that it will be wasted for maintenance and repairs for decades into the future. Funding for interstates and alternative transportation often comes from different pools of federal money, but AHTD does have some discretion on where money is spent and wasting taxpayer money is not a good thing. These interstate projects around Little Rock will cost hundreds of millions of dollars if built, enough for light rail between downtown and West Little Rock or a thousand miles of bike trail (which have lower maintenance costs due to the lower weight of bikes and pedestrians). Given that the United States Highway Trust fund has not been fully solvent since 2008, we should at most be talking about maintaining current highway infrastructure and fixing failing bridges rather than expanding these highways at great upfront and future cost. Income from the gas tax that funds the Highway Fund has been declining for the past decade; as people continue to drive less and drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, funds raised from the tax will continue to decline.
2. Widening highways never improves traffic in the medium or long-term; in fact it makes traffic worse. This counter-intuitive fact has been supported by numerous studies and isn't questioned by professional traffic engineers. AHTD likes these kinds of projects because building highways is their job. Interestingly enough, no one on the Arkansas State Highway Commission has a degree relating to traffic engineering. Given how long the work at the I-630/I-430 interchange is taking, I'd be surprised if the short-term decrease in traffic (congestion benefits typically last less than 3 years) from this proposed widening lasted any longer than the period of increased delays during its construction. This widening project is part of the Connecting Arkansas Program, which has been contracted out to a private engineering firm. Even 'public comments' sent through the CAP website that has AHTD logos all over it actually go to a employee of that private company. I'm waiting to hear how/when/if those comments will be seen by an actual state employee.
3. Widening highways increases sprawl, driving up costs of city services while depleting the tax-base which pays for those services. Thanks to I-630, Little Rock is already obligated to provide fire, police, water, sewer, and roads for a much larger area (West Little Rock, SW Little Rock) all while the population of the city grew at a much lower rate than its area. Widening the interstate will only make this problem worse. Sprawl costs the United States $1 trillion every year.
4. In particular, urban auxiliary interstates like I-630 harm areas closest to downtown. This highway spurred white-flight and helped segregate Little Rock, while encouraging the growth of west and southwest LR as well as Conway and Maumelle; which lead the Little Rock Metropolitan area to its current Top-10 position as one the worst sprawling mid-sized cities in the country.
5. AHTD should actually close I-630 or convert it to a multi-modal boulevard or "complete-street". San Francisco and other cities around the world have seen improved traffic, greater development, and boosted walkability from closing similar highways. A Metroplan report on walkability in Central Arkansas states "Cities that have taken out urban freeways have seen neighborhoods blossom in their place, with reductions in congestion...Examples include Harbor Drive in Portland, the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, and the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. With many U.S. freeways reaching the end of their service lives, and Federal Highway Trust Fund money drying up, Speck [author of Walkable City] foresees an opportunity to replace more freeways with conventional streets, perhaps reconfigured into “best practice” walkable mixed-use landscapes."
If Arkansas wants better traffic, more walkable/bikeable cities, and improved air-quality and health; then it needs to embrace modern transportation planning and stop focusing on widening roads and start focusing on building better trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes, constructing light-rail projects, and improving mass transit options.
Useful Links/Information
10 lane I-30 would kill rail east of the Interstate.
Metroplan Walkability Report (great statistics, demographic trends, etc)
Walkability of Arkansas Cities and Neighborhoods
The Atlantic covers the issue
Warwick Sabin Statement on I-30 Proposal
Another Arkansas Times piece on the I-30 expansion
Six Freeway Removals That Improved Cities
MoveArkansas Blog
Very basic information on the widening project
Arkansas Times story on the history and negative impacts of I-630
Information on I-630 and potential light-rail, BRT, or Streetcar alternatives to adding lanes via Metroplan.
The next link wasn't working, so here is an article about the same idea.
Scientific Paper on Highway Widening and Traffic Response. (Contains numerous great references to additional studies)
Easier to read Wired story on the same.
ArkansasMatters.com story on the issue
The Case For Tearing Down Urban Freeways - Vox.com
Old Material:
The following information was collected from e-mail/Twitter correspondence with officials at CAP, Metroplan, AHTD, Pulaski County, etc.:
Baptist to University Section:
The project to add lanes between Baptist and University Ave. was funded (and in a sense "approved") by the 1/2 cent tax passed in 2012 that funded all CAP projects. Viewing this as public approval of widening I-630 seems like a bit of stretch even before you get into which citizens should have the most say in what to do with the interstate; those that live nearby or those that live far away.
The need for this particular project was "identified and the widening recommended in a 1999 I-630 corridor study commissioned by Metroplan". Metroplan board has apparently supported this project.
Currently "in preliminary design", construction on this section will likely begin in 2-3 years, though there should be a public involvement meeting scheduled "for late 2014 or early 2015" to present the preliminary plans to the public for comment.
University to I-30 (Downtown) Section:
This section is not nearly as far along in the planning process. "At the April 16, 2014, meeting of the Arkansas Highway Commission, a Minute Order (that’s the name of an official action of the Highway Commission) was passed authorizing a study to be undertaken to “determine the need for and feasibility of improvements to Interstate 630 between University Avenue and Interstate 30 in Little Rock.”
"The next step in the process will be for the AHTD to solicit proposals from qualified consultants to conduct the study, then ... go through the consultant selection process, then ... negotiate specific terms of the contract, and finally enter into a contractual agreement with the consultant. All that will take several months."
Once the consultant begins the study, it will likely take over a year and the completed study will be used as a guide in developing future construction programs. The study will look at cost/benefit, other pros and cons, and explore several concepts in addition to widening including HOV, ramp metering, enhanced public transportation, etc.
Even if the study determines improvements are needed in this section, AHTD currently has no timeline in place for implementing them.
Public Meetings:
AHTD employees will meet with the Coalition of Greater Little Rock Neighborhoods on Saturday, June 14th at 10 a.m. at the Wilie Hinton Resource Center on 12th Street, to discuss the process that will be used to study I-630 and I-30 in the coming months/years. The meeting is open to the public.
Leaders/Groups Opposed to Widening I-630 (Let me know if I am missing any!):
Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines
Downtown Neighborhood Association (I think)
For the section from University to I-30, Metroplan recommended "extensive public involvement, 3D renderings w/ alternatives to weigh in on, and further analysis"
Oh weird, ArDOT's cost estimate for 30 Crossing turned out to be way too low. Who could have guessed that?! (Answer: everyone)
Having originally provided a figure of $325 million, bids recently came in at about $1 billion for just the 30 Crossing part (which doesn't cover the inevitable fixes to future bottlenecks the project will cause on adjacent sections of highway).
This means trouble for the proposed (and completely unnecessary) widening of I-30. If they can't find more money, they'll have to figure out what they can get for $500-$600 million (hint: a lot less). Then there is the issue of whether they can legally spend money dedicated to building 4-lane highways to build a 10-lane one. Then there is the issue of whether making large changes to the plan will require a new environmental assessment, which takes time. You can bet that the same amount of work will only get more expensive as time passes and that getting new estimates in 6-12 months will only make their problems worse.
The right thing to do would be for ArDOT to drop this terrible idea and work with Little Rock on the boulevard concept that would be way better for the city and cheaper for Arkansas taxpayers. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to make that decision, but it sounds like they'll at least have a tougher time moving forward with this boondoggle.
https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2019/01/10/whoops-dramatic-cost-overrun-and-change-in-scope-for-the-i-30-concrete-gulch-in-little-rock
Updated 10/2015
This post has gotten long and unwieldy from all the updates, but I want to leave all the info below and add this brief summary.
1. Arkansas has the 12th largest highway system in the US, yet we rank 32nd in population and 29th in area. Given that we consistently rank near the bottom in education and health, the last thing we need to spend more money on is more highways or lanes on highways! According to that AHTD document, we have more miles of highway than California, New York, or Florida. (Loved this stat from MoveArkansas: 25: the number of traffic lanes connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan today. 26: the number of traffic lanes connecting Little Rock to North Little Rock today. Brooklyn and Manhattan combined have 10X the population of Central Arkansas. Also, more lanes connect LR&NLR than SF & Oakland)
2. AHTD complains about lack of highway funding while proposing unnecessary multi-billion dollar projects that will damage our communities, won't improve traffic in the long-term, and will boost the cost of future maintenance when we already can't afford to maintain what we've got. The widening of I-30 stands to be the single most expensive undertaking in AHTD's history.
3. Our state's approach to transportation is stuck in the past. While other states are closing urban freeways, putting roads on diets, and focusing on prioritizing active and mass transportation while maintaining roads and bridges; Arkansas still seems to think widening highways and interstates is the way to go. We are prioritizing long commutes and sprawl over local communities and quality of life. Look at these incredible examples and then imagine what we could do with I-630 or that section of I-30. Let's route just-passing-through traffic around the city on I-440 and get rid of these things.
4. The plans to widen more of I-630 and I-30 (to 10 lanes?!) are a huge waste of money and will damage the character of downtown Little Rock. They will make it harder to get around by bike or rail and will make the RiverMarket and Clinton Library less scenic. These projects are in direct conflict with AHTD's Mission: "Provide a safe, efficient, aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sound intermodal transportation system for the user." Adding Interstate lanes at the expense of rail, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure is the opposite of intermodal. Watch the video or visit the Facebook page below to get an idea for how "aesthetically pleasing" these projects will be.
What you can do:
- Join this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1625941031012464/
- Visit http://www.30crossing.com/ and send in a public comment to info@30Crossing.com
- Contact the Arkansas State Highway Commission and let them know you are unhappy about the proposed widening and the fact that Director Bennett seems unaware of the connection between highway expansion and sprawl.
- Contact your local and state elected officials. Local officials in Little Rock should come out in opposition to this project. State level officials have the power to improve highway funding so that we have more money for maintenance and repairs and less for unnecessary projects like these.
Please read on for some history and other resources.
I-30 – 10 Lanes with Downtown Collector/Distributor Roads from Connecting Arkansas Program on Vimeo.
Updated 4/21/2015 & 10/12/2015 to reflect new proposal to widen I-30 to 10 lanes in Central Arkansas & impact that would have on existing rail.
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department is looking hard at widening I-630, first from Baptist Hospital to University Ave. and then all the way to I-30 downtown. They are also reportedly considering widening I-30 around downtown to 10 lanes. These are all horrible ideas and worse than a complete waste of taxpayer money. While this post may seem a bit off-topic at first, allow me to explain why it isn't:
1. AHTD funds roads and alternative transportation projects (including trails) in the state. Wasting money on highway projects takes away funding from projects that actually improve traffic, public health, and quality of life. Widening projects not only waste money upfront, but guarantee that it will be wasted for maintenance and repairs for decades into the future. Funding for interstates and alternative transportation often comes from different pools of federal money, but AHTD does have some discretion on where money is spent and wasting taxpayer money is not a good thing. These interstate projects around Little Rock will cost hundreds of millions of dollars if built, enough for light rail between downtown and West Little Rock or a thousand miles of bike trail (which have lower maintenance costs due to the lower weight of bikes and pedestrians). Given that the United States Highway Trust fund has not been fully solvent since 2008, we should at most be talking about maintaining current highway infrastructure and fixing failing bridges rather than expanding these highways at great upfront and future cost. Income from the gas tax that funds the Highway Fund has been declining for the past decade; as people continue to drive less and drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, funds raised from the tax will continue to decline.
2. Widening highways never improves traffic in the medium or long-term; in fact it makes traffic worse. This counter-intuitive fact has been supported by numerous studies and isn't questioned by professional traffic engineers. AHTD likes these kinds of projects because building highways is their job. Interestingly enough, no one on the Arkansas State Highway Commission has a degree relating to traffic engineering. Given how long the work at the I-630/I-430 interchange is taking, I'd be surprised if the short-term decrease in traffic (congestion benefits typically last less than 3 years) from this proposed widening lasted any longer than the period of increased delays during its construction. This widening project is part of the Connecting Arkansas Program, which has been contracted out to a private engineering firm. Even 'public comments' sent through the CAP website that has AHTD logos all over it actually go to a employee of that private company. I'm waiting to hear how/when/if those comments will be seen by an actual state employee.
3. Widening highways increases sprawl, driving up costs of city services while depleting the tax-base which pays for those services. Thanks to I-630, Little Rock is already obligated to provide fire, police, water, sewer, and roads for a much larger area (West Little Rock, SW Little Rock) all while the population of the city grew at a much lower rate than its area. Widening the interstate will only make this problem worse. Sprawl costs the United States $1 trillion every year.
4. In particular, urban auxiliary interstates like I-630 harm areas closest to downtown. This highway spurred white-flight and helped segregate Little Rock, while encouraging the growth of west and southwest LR as well as Conway and Maumelle; which lead the Little Rock Metropolitan area to its current Top-10 position as one the worst sprawling mid-sized cities in the country.
5. AHTD should actually close I-630 or convert it to a multi-modal boulevard or "complete-street". San Francisco and other cities around the world have seen improved traffic, greater development, and boosted walkability from closing similar highways. A Metroplan report on walkability in Central Arkansas states "Cities that have taken out urban freeways have seen neighborhoods blossom in their place, with reductions in congestion...Examples include Harbor Drive in Portland, the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, and the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. With many U.S. freeways reaching the end of their service lives, and Federal Highway Trust Fund money drying up, Speck [author of Walkable City] foresees an opportunity to replace more freeways with conventional streets, perhaps reconfigured into “best practice” walkable mixed-use landscapes."
If Arkansas wants better traffic, more walkable/bikeable cities, and improved air-quality and health; then it needs to embrace modern transportation planning and stop focusing on widening roads and start focusing on building better trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes, constructing light-rail projects, and improving mass transit options.
Useful Links/Information
10 lane I-30 would kill rail east of the Interstate.
Metroplan Walkability Report (great statistics, demographic trends, etc)
Walkability of Arkansas Cities and Neighborhoods
The Atlantic covers the issue
Warwick Sabin Statement on I-30 Proposal
Another Arkansas Times piece on the I-30 expansion
Six Freeway Removals That Improved Cities
MoveArkansas Blog
Very basic information on the widening project
Arkansas Times story on the history and negative impacts of I-630
Information on I-630 and potential light-rail, BRT, or Streetcar alternatives to adding lanes via Metroplan.
The next link wasn't working, so here is an article about the same idea.
Scientific Paper on Highway Widening and Traffic Response. (Contains numerous great references to additional studies)
Easier to read Wired story on the same.
ArkansasMatters.com story on the issue
The Case For Tearing Down Urban Freeways - Vox.com
Old Material:
The following information was collected from e-mail/Twitter correspondence with officials at CAP, Metroplan, AHTD, Pulaski County, etc.:
Baptist to University Section:
The project to add lanes between Baptist and University Ave. was funded (and in a sense "approved") by the 1/2 cent tax passed in 2012 that funded all CAP projects. Viewing this as public approval of widening I-630 seems like a bit of stretch even before you get into which citizens should have the most say in what to do with the interstate; those that live nearby or those that live far away.
The need for this particular project was "identified and the widening recommended in a 1999 I-630 corridor study commissioned by Metroplan". Metroplan board has apparently supported this project.
Currently "in preliminary design", construction on this section will likely begin in 2-3 years, though there should be a public involvement meeting scheduled "for late 2014 or early 2015" to present the preliminary plans to the public for comment.
University to I-30 (Downtown) Section:
This section is not nearly as far along in the planning process. "At the April 16, 2014, meeting of the Arkansas Highway Commission, a Minute Order (that’s the name of an official action of the Highway Commission) was passed authorizing a study to be undertaken to “determine the need for and feasibility of improvements to Interstate 630 between University Avenue and Interstate 30 in Little Rock.”
Once the consultant begins the study, it will likely take over a year and the completed study will be used as a guide in developing future construction programs. The study will look at cost/benefit, other pros and cons, and explore several concepts in addition to widening including HOV, ramp metering, enhanced public transportation, etc.
Even if the study determines improvements are needed in this section, AHTD currently has no timeline in place for implementing them.
Public Meetings:
AHTD employees will meet with the Coalition of Greater Little Rock Neighborhoods on Saturday, June 14th at 10 a.m. at the Wilie Hinton Resource Center on 12th Street, to discuss the process that will be used to study I-630 and I-30 in the coming months/years. The meeting is open to the public.
Leaders/Groups Opposed to Widening I-630 (Let me know if I am missing any!):
Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines
Downtown Neighborhood Association (I think)
For the section from University to I-30, Metroplan recommended "extensive public involvement, 3D renderings w/ alternatives to weigh in on, and further analysis"
Monday, March 10, 2014
Central Arkansas Trail Alliance
If you haven't heard about the Central Arkansas Trail Alliance, I encourage you to visit their website or their Facebook page. This relatively new group really seems to be getting things done in Central Arkansas. Their mission is "to establish and maintain multi-use trails in Central Arkansas that are open for mountain biking and to link all trail user groups for this purpose". They've organized multiple trail construction/maintenance days in Burns Park, Pinnacle Mountain State Park, Western Hills/Hindman Park, and probably many others.
Check them out and then help them out:
http://www.centralartrail.com/
https://www.facebook.com/CentralARTrail
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Walkability Ranking of Arkansas Cities and Neighborhoods
This blog focuses on getting people outside and active. My books and blog articles have an emphasis on trails located in and near heavily populated areas of the state. I also frequently write about the future of trails as part of an alternative/active transportation system that allows people to break their dependence on cars to accomplish everyday tasks like getting to work or buying groceries. "Walkability" is a popular newish term that attempts to quantify how easy it is to do things without using a car. If your neighborhood has lots of mixed-use developments with housing, shopping, restaurants, and office buildings nearby then it will have a high walkability score. If you live in stereotypical suburbia with just homes and subdivisions as far as the eye can see (or the feet can walk) then your area will have a low walkability score since you need a car to get anywhere.
Here is a list of cities and neighborhoods ranked by walkability score. Scores and maps are from http://www.walkscore.com/ The site also has similar scoring systems for transit and biking which I will cover in the future. Let me know in the comments any cities you want me to add!
Examples:
New York City - 88
Berkeley, CA - 79
Houston - 44
Memphis - 33
Tulsa - 36
Austin - 35
Arkansas Cities:
Eureka Springs - 70's (I could only get scores for specific addresses in town, so this may be skewed high, still no wonder why everyone loves visiting!)
Fort Smith - 33
North Little Rock - 32
Little Rock - 31
Hot Springs - 29
Fayetteville - 27
Texarkana - 27
Conway - 25
Bentonville - 24
Pine Bluff - 23
Springdale - 23
Jonesboro - 21
Rogers - 18
Maumelle - 16
Bryant - 15
Note: While cities like Fort Smith and Little Rock have scores twice as high as places like Maumelle and Bryant, scores in the 30's are still considered very low and earn cities the label of "Car-Dependent". This label shouldn't surprise anyone living in any of these cities.
Best Arkansas Neighborhoods:
Little Rock:
Downtown ranks the highest reaching the 90's (but I think it could stand more housing options)
Honorable Mentions: Argenta, Heights, Hillcrest, and some surprising (to me) spots in WLR around W. Markham/Bowman/Chenal and Rodney Parham/Treasure Hills
Fayetteville:
Downtown/Dickson St./MLK Area scores in the 80's
One I didn't think of: the area along Township between College and Gregg ranked highly as well.
Eureka Springs:
Main St. scores in the high 70's
Springdale:
Highest around Emma/Holcomb/Thompson/Maple area (Low 60's)
Here is a list of cities and neighborhoods ranked by walkability score. Scores and maps are from http://www.walkscore.com/ The site also has similar scoring systems for transit and biking which I will cover in the future. Let me know in the comments any cities you want me to add!
 |
| Little Rock Walkability Map - From Walkscore.com |
New York City - 88
Berkeley, CA - 79
Houston - 44
Memphis - 33
Tulsa - 36
Austin - 35
Arkansas Cities:
 |
| Fayetteville Walkability Map - From Walkscore.com |
 |
| Conway Walkability Map - From Walkscore.com |
North Little Rock - 32
Little Rock - 31
Hot Springs - 29
Fayetteville - 27
Texarkana - 27
Conway - 25
Bentonville - 24
Pine Bluff - 23
Springdale - 23
Jonesboro - 21
Rogers - 18
Maumelle - 16
Bryant - 15
Note: While cities like Fort Smith and Little Rock have scores twice as high as places like Maumelle and Bryant, scores in the 30's are still considered very low and earn cities the label of "Car-Dependent". This label shouldn't surprise anyone living in any of these cities.
Best Arkansas Neighborhoods:
Little Rock:
Downtown ranks the highest reaching the 90's (but I think it could stand more housing options)
 |
| Fort Smith Walkability Map - From Walkscore.com |
Fayetteville:
Downtown/Dickson St./MLK Area scores in the 80's
One I didn't think of: the area along Township between College and Gregg ranked highly as well.
Eureka Springs:
Main St. scores in the high 70's
Springdale:
Highest around Emma/Holcomb/Thompson/Maple area (Low 60's)
Monday, December 2, 2013
Great Reasons to Increase Trail Funding
 |
| The only thing within walking distance: 3,000 homes just like yours. Where are the parks and stores? |
decisions have placed a high priority on the automobile; typically with little or no thought (or funding) going to alternative forms of transportation including feet, bikes, buses, and rail. This shortsightedness lead to massive sprawled out, low-density cities whose residents are dependent on cars to get groceries, visit friends, and get to work.
This form of city structure is not common in Europe or Asia and makes the United States particularly vulnerable to spikes in the price of crude oil and gasoline. It also ensures that most Americans get little exercise when going about their daily routines.
 |
| Walkable Neighborhood via OpticosDesign |
hours stuck in traffic during their commute or having to drive 20 minutes to get to a restaurant or grocery store. While Arkansas has been slower than places like California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, and New York to adopt a higher priority for active/alternative forms of transportation, cities like Fayetteville, Bentonville, and Little Rock have put some impressive trail infrastructure in place and are starting to see the benefits.
Here are some big reasons Arkansas should boost funding for trails and place alternative forms of transportation on the same priority level as cars and highways:
1. People are driving less. This is particularly true for younger people who are waiting longer to get a license and are looking to live in locations that don't require as much driving. More proof that per capita driving is dropping lies in the fact that per capita gasoline consumption is dropping as well.
2. People are walking and biking more. Data collected from the RiverTrail in Little Rock and the Scull Creek/Frisco trail in Fayetteville show steadily climbing usage numbers over the last 5 years. It is clear that adding and connecting trails has helped boost numbers as more people have access to trails that take them more places. The bridge to Two Rivers park off of the River Trail has boosted traffic both on the trails in Two Rivers and along the River Trail. The extensions of the Scull Creek/Frisco/Mud Creek/Lake Fayetteville trail have increased traffic by connecting more and more residential areas, shopping centers, and parks. When complete in 2014, the Razorback Greenway, and the trails networks connected to it, will provide a viable transportation alternative for large numbers of area commuters and shoppers in addition to the thousands of recreational bikers, joggers, and strollers that already make use of the currently completed sections of trail every day.
3. People want walkable, livable communities and see trails as a big part of that. Sprawl in the Fayetteville area has largely been on hold since 2008, while the last five years have seen an explosion in large apartment complexes near the University and The Square. These complexes also happen to be on or near trails or planned trail corridors. In fact, proximity to trails plays a role in LEED certification, something developers of new apartments and office buildings are increasingly seeking.
4. As mentioned elsewhere on this site, trails get people outside and improve our mental and physical health; lowering our medical bills and improving our quality of life. Arkansas is the least active state and one of the least healthy with one of the highest rates of obesity. Spending money prioritizing active transportation and recreation will save our state money on health costs and improve the quality of life of our citizens.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
The Southwest Trail
Plans are being developed for a trail between Little Rock and Hot Springs. This 50-mile trail would follow the old Rock Island Railroad track and would be one of the longest Rails-to-Trails projects in the country. One of the great things about using old railroad beds is that much of the earth-moving and grading work is already done and you are guaranteed a trail with no steep slopes (which is no easy task when passing through the Ouachitas).
Many local officials from counties and cities along the path have expressed interest, so now the big question is where the ~$20 million will come from. Funds for these types of projects often come from a variety of sources including federal transportation dollars, as well as state, county, and city funds. Arkansas gets roughly $10 million a year in federal Transportation Alternatives funds, but these don't go just to trails. It should be noted that funds for trails via this program and from more local sources are under constant threat these days by political parties and groups that think all transportation dollars should go towards expanding highways and repaving roads as part of an unbalanced "cars only" approach to transportation policy. If we want more funding for trails, we need to encourage our lawmakers to protect existing funding sources and pass local initiatives similar to the statewide 1/8th cent conservation sales tax and the sales tax increase that Little Rock recently passed in part to fund parks and trails.
This trail would help complete the second side of the "city-in-a-park" trail triangle that is part of the Little Rock Parks Master Plan.
The Prezi below, by Mason Ellis, has more details on the project.
Many local officials from counties and cities along the path have expressed interest, so now the big question is where the ~$20 million will come from. Funds for these types of projects often come from a variety of sources including federal transportation dollars, as well as state, county, and city funds. Arkansas gets roughly $10 million a year in federal Transportation Alternatives funds, but these don't go just to trails. It should be noted that funds for trails via this program and from more local sources are under constant threat these days by political parties and groups that think all transportation dollars should go towards expanding highways and repaving roads as part of an unbalanced "cars only" approach to transportation policy. If we want more funding for trails, we need to encourage our lawmakers to protect existing funding sources and pass local initiatives similar to the statewide 1/8th cent conservation sales tax and the sales tax increase that Little Rock recently passed in part to fund parks and trails.
This trail would help complete the second side of the "city-in-a-park" trail triangle that is part of the Little Rock Parks Master Plan.
The Prezi below, by Mason Ellis, has more details on the project.
Friday, October 4, 2013
River Trail Updates
On a recent trip to the bridge at Two Rivers Park, I noticed the large scale sculpture/model of the Arkansas River showing major points of interest along the trail. The concept of the River Trail has recently been extended to Pinnacle Mountain State Park on the south side of the river and to Palarm Park on the north. In fact, plans are in place for a "Grand Loop" (shown below) that would reach Conway. Much of the existing River Trail and the Grand Loop follow roads. As long as the speed limits on these roads are 20-25 mph, that is pretty safe, but hopefully a separate trail will be built for the stretches on larger roads with faster moving traffic.
Key Points:
The original map and up-to-date info can be found at: http://arkansasrivertrail.org/maps/
Key Points:
- The trail follows Crystal Hill Rd. in Maumelle for a while. This allows it to be closer to the river and gets bikers off of busy, fast moving, Maumelle Blvd.
- It looks like they are making a real trail along the edge of parts of Maumelle Blvd.
- Maumelle has a great network of existing trails that will either form part of the River Trail or make for interesting, scenic detours. This will also make it easier and safer for residents of Maumelle to commute by bike to work in North Little Rock and Little Rock.
- On the south side, the trail extends to Two Rivers Park via the new bridge, and then to Maumelle Park. I believe the separate trail ends there and the River Trail follows Pinnacle Valley Rd., AR-300, AR-113, AR-60, and AR-89 for most of the Grand Loop.
The original map and up-to-date info can be found at: http://arkansasrivertrail.org/maps/
View River Trail Expanded in a larger map
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Good News for Water Quality in Arkansas
Update 10/21/13: After seeing that warnings from policy experts and scientists were true, the cosponsors of Act 954 (which sought to weaken water quality protections) asked Gov. Beebe to call a special session and allow them to vote to repeal their own bill.
The EPA recently threatened to remove some of Arkansas' authority to enact and enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA) after finding that a bill from the most recent state legislative session weakening water quality protection in the state was in clear violation of the CWA. This means that our state government's attempts to allow much higher levels of pollutants into most of our state's waterways has been thwarted, which is great news for people who enjoy spending time in and around those waterways.
________________________________________________________________
The EPA recently threatened to remove some of Arkansas' authority to enact and enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA) after finding that a bill from the most recent state legislative session weakening water quality protection in the state was in clear violation of the CWA. This means that our state government's attempts to allow much higher levels of pollutants into most of our state's waterways has been thwarted, which is great news for people who enjoy spending time in and around those waterways.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Bike-Friendly Role Models
Though several cities in Arkansas claim to be bike-friendly and even have signs to prove it, anyone who has traveled much or lived elsewhere knows we have a long ways to go. I once read an article that ranked the Little Rock/North Little Rock metropolitan area as the 49th most bike friendly city in America. My excitement at this statistic quickly dwindled after the author explained that in reality the top 50 were mostly in California and Oregon, but he wanted to cover more of the country.
So what is an Arkansan to do if they want more bike trails, protected bike lanes, a bike share, and more bike parking?
1. Get active in the bike community. Join Bicycle Advocacy of Central Arkansas (BACA) or Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks (BCO).
2. Be visible. Bike to work or the grocery store. Go to city council or other community meetings and let them know you bike and want better bicycle infrastructure.
3. Talk to your elected representatives at all levels. Provide them with examples of good transportation bills or bicycle master plans. Talk about what features other great cities have that ours lack. Does your town have an official Bicycle or Alternative Transportation Committee? How about a master plans for bicycles and trails? Are local laws regarding bikes actually safe? Ohio passed a state-level bill after finding that roughly half of all communities surveyed mandated one or more unsafe biking practices.
4. Learn the law and bike safely!
5. Advocate for zoning and development laws that discourage sprawl, encourage higher density infill, and reflect the values of New Urbanism which create conditions more favorable for biking and decrease the need for car trips.
Resources:
Examples of good statewide, regional, and local bike plans and laws.
Read what makes some of the best bike cities great.
Learn about the rapid growth (elsewhere) of protected bike lanes and why separate lanes and trails are best.
See what Montreal has in terms of bike infrastructure.
Protected Intersections are a good idea too.
Let me know of any other resources I missed using the comment form below.
So what is an Arkansan to do if they want more bike trails, protected bike lanes, a bike share, and more bike parking?
1. Get active in the bike community. Join Bicycle Advocacy of Central Arkansas (BACA) or Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks (BCO).
2. Be visible. Bike to work or the grocery store. Go to city council or other community meetings and let them know you bike and want better bicycle infrastructure.
3. Talk to your elected representatives at all levels. Provide them with examples of good transportation bills or bicycle master plans. Talk about what features other great cities have that ours lack. Does your town have an official Bicycle or Alternative Transportation Committee? How about a master plans for bicycles and trails? Are local laws regarding bikes actually safe? Ohio passed a state-level bill after finding that roughly half of all communities surveyed mandated one or more unsafe biking practices.
4. Learn the law and bike safely!
5. Advocate for zoning and development laws that discourage sprawl, encourage higher density infill, and reflect the values of New Urbanism which create conditions more favorable for biking and decrease the need for car trips.
Resources:
Examples of good statewide, regional, and local bike plans and laws.
Read what makes some of the best bike cities great.
Learn about the rapid growth (elsewhere) of protected bike lanes and why separate lanes and trails are best.
See what Montreal has in terms of bike infrastructure.
Protected Intersections are a good idea too.
Let me know of any other resources I missed using the comment form below.
 |
| Protected Bike Lane - Indianapolis |
Monday, September 10, 2012
Learn and Protect Little Rock's Creeks
Water quality is important to both wildlife and humans. As I mentioned here and here, streams and their floodplains are a logical place to build trails due to their scenic value and the fact that development shouldn't take place in a floodplain. Preserving or establishing wide buffers of mature vegetation along all creeks and rivers is a good method for protecting water quality, since that vegetation helps slow erosion, filter out pollutants, and regulate water temperature. Since it is more attractive and provides more shade than mowed grass or concrete, this mature vegetation has the added benefit of being more fun to hike, bike, or float under.
Little Rock and many other communities in our state haven't done a great job of protecting local creeks from development, but you can help change that by becoming aware of your local streams and watersheds and advocating for their protection and pointing to the fact that protected waterways with trails along them have positive health, economic, and environmental impacts on a community.
Little Rock and many other communities in our state haven't done a great job of protecting local creeks from development, but you can help change that by becoming aware of your local streams and watersheds and advocating for their protection and pointing to the fact that protected waterways with trails along them have positive health, economic, and environmental impacts on a community.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Emerald Park and River Trail News
Update 2/3/15: Big News on Emerald Park and Big Rock Quarry can be found here.
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2015/01/emerald-park-big-rock-quarry-burns-park.html
Emerald Park and the River Trail both receive lots of coverage on this blog and in Trails of Central Arkansas. Emerald Park has some great trails and some of the most incredible scenery Arkansas has to offer, which is why its waterfalls are included on the cover of my book. The River Trail is one of the best and smartest things the governments of central Arkansas have ever done. It helps attract businesses and people back into our urban core and improves residents' quality of life.
For these reasons it is shocking that the city of North Little Rock would consider marring this priceless view and recreational resource by selling greenspace to a private developer. Parkland is rarely recovered from developed land, so cities should be careful about selling their openspace to developers. Anyone who has biked the entire River Trail knows that the North Little Rock side is vastly superior to the Little Rock side due to the large parks and natural areas on that side as well as the fact that you have to compete with traffic for a large section of the Little Rock side. This plan would hurt the North Little Rock section of the trail in both these categories by removing greenspace from a section of the trail and increasing vehicular traffic to River Road and the park area.
If you live in North Little Rock, let your elected officials know how you feel about selling greenspace to private developers or attend the City Council meeting this Monday (August 13, 2012) where the sale and development plans will be discussed.
Here are some other sites with information on the proposed sale:
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/222056/2/At-6-New-proposed-development-along-River-Trail-
http://jbarcycling.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-quarry-land-saledevelopment-proposal.html
And a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/savebigrockquarry/
UPDATE:
The development proposal has been pulled from the agenda for the next city council meeting. I don't know if that means the plan is dead or just in hibernation. If you live in North Little Rock you should push to have that area officially zoned as parkland so this type of plan won't pop-up again.
Do we really want to ruin this?
http://trailsofarkansas.blogspot.com/2015/01/emerald-park-big-rock-quarry-burns-park.html
Emerald Park and the River Trail both receive lots of coverage on this blog and in Trails of Central Arkansas. Emerald Park has some great trails and some of the most incredible scenery Arkansas has to offer, which is why its waterfalls are included on the cover of my book. The River Trail is one of the best and smartest things the governments of central Arkansas have ever done. It helps attract businesses and people back into our urban core and improves residents' quality of life.
For these reasons it is shocking that the city of North Little Rock would consider marring this priceless view and recreational resource by selling greenspace to a private developer. Parkland is rarely recovered from developed land, so cities should be careful about selling their openspace to developers. Anyone who has biked the entire River Trail knows that the North Little Rock side is vastly superior to the Little Rock side due to the large parks and natural areas on that side as well as the fact that you have to compete with traffic for a large section of the Little Rock side. This plan would hurt the North Little Rock section of the trail in both these categories by removing greenspace from a section of the trail and increasing vehicular traffic to River Road and the park area.
If you live in North Little Rock, let your elected officials know how you feel about selling greenspace to private developers or attend the City Council meeting this Monday (August 13, 2012) where the sale and development plans will be discussed.
Here are some other sites with information on the proposed sale:
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/222056/2/At-6-New-proposed-development-along-River-Trail-
http://jbarcycling.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-quarry-land-saledevelopment-proposal.html
And a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/savebigrockquarry/
UPDATE:
The development proposal has been pulled from the agenda for the next city council meeting. I don't know if that means the plan is dead or just in hibernation. If you live in North Little Rock you should push to have that area officially zoned as parkland so this type of plan won't pop-up again.
Do we really want to ruin this?
Friday, July 27, 2012
Town Branch Creek Trail
Today, Buddy and I walked the Town Branch Creek Trail. This short, 0.3 mi. asphalt trail runs along Town Branch near the Crowne Apartments at Razorback Rd. The Fayetteville Master Trails Plan shows that this trail will one day stretch much further (zoom out on the map below) as part of the Town Branch Corridor and may eventually connect to the Frisco Trail via the Walker Park Connection.
If you drive to get to the trail, be sure to park in visitor parking.
If you drive to get to the trail, be sure to park in visitor parking.
Monday, July 16, 2012
UA Farm Link To Scull Creek Trail
The UA Farm Link, as it is called on the Fayetteville Master Trails Plan, is nearing completion. It connects the Frisco trail to more apartment complexes, the UA Farm, the AMP, and the county fairgrounds. This roughly two-mile section of trail has some nice open views as it travels through different parts of the UA Agricultural Research Farm. Hopefully the route navigating the interstate will be completed soon and this trail will connect to the Hamestring Creek Trail, which will in turn, one day connect to Bryce Davis Park and the dog park there. A valuable aspect of these trails is that they will connect the large residential areas west of I-540 to the main trail network, providing more residents with the option of commuting to work (or shopping or Dickson St.) by foot or bike.
When deciding what types of trails to include in my books and on this blog, I made a decision not to include wide sidewalks or trails that just parallel roads; partly because I prefer trails that take you places a car can't and partly to focus my work. Much of this trail does follow existing roads, but it also goes places cars can't. Importantly, the section along Knapp Dr. is a dedicated bike lane with a physical curb separating bikes from cars. As I've written elsewhere (here, here, and here), this is a much better idea than simply marking bike symbols on roads and hoping for the best.
There are not a lot of great places to park to access this trail. If you want to check it out but don't live nearby, the Agricultural Park at Knapp and Garland has some roadside parking.
When deciding what types of trails to include in my books and on this blog, I made a decision not to include wide sidewalks or trails that just parallel roads; partly because I prefer trails that take you places a car can't and partly to focus my work. Much of this trail does follow existing roads, but it also goes places cars can't. Importantly, the section along Knapp Dr. is a dedicated bike lane with a physical curb separating bikes from cars. As I've written elsewhere (here, here, and here), this is a much better idea than simply marking bike symbols on roads and hoping for the best.
There are not a lot of great places to park to access this trail. If you want to check it out but don't live nearby, the Agricultural Park at Knapp and Garland has some roadside parking.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Arkansas Ranks Poorly In Trail Spending
A new report by the League of American Bicyclists shows that Arkansas ranks near the bottom of the pack in using their federal transportation dollars for bike and pedestrian projects. The study looked at four major streams of federal transportation funds that go to states and the percent of each funding source that states put towards bike and pedestrian projects. Looking at the percent of a state's total federal transportation dollars helps control for population differences and the data shows that in 2011 Arkansas spent less than 1% of its federal transportation dollars on bike/pedestrian infrastructure, while Vermont and Washington each spent roughly 10%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)