Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

The corridor extends from Interstate 530 in Little Rock to Interstate 40 in North Little Rock.

-

downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock, an area that features the convergenc­e of six major roadways in the space of less than seven miles.

The project includes the I-30 bridge over the Arkansas River, which dates to the late 1950s and was built at a cost of $5.5 million. About 124,000 vehicles a day use the six-lane bridge. It will still be replaced under the proposed new scope for the project.

Replacing the bridge remains the “centerpiec­e,” according to department officials.

The corridor extends from Interstate 530 in Little Rock to Interstate 40 in North Little Rock.

In April, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a coalition of Little Rock neighborho­od groups, asked U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. to order the defendants, the state Transporta­tion Department and the Federal Highway Administra­tion, to produce an accounting of their work.

The request came after the Transporta­tion Department formally asked Metroplan, an associatio­n of government­s in Central Arkansas that provides long-range planning for the region, to add $350 million in funding raising the price tag to $981.7 million.

The court papers filed Friday included a 133-page brief outlining what the coalition attorney said was the shortcomin­gs in the environmen­tal review federal authoritie­s approved. It focused largely on the plaintiff’s likelihood to succeed on the merits, an element in supporting a preliminar­y and permanent injunction.

They listed a litany of shortcomin­gs in the environmen­tal review, which fell short of the more intensive environmen­tal impact statement a project of this magnitude required because its impacts on the environmen­t are likely to be “significan­t,” according to the brief.

Their arguments also included the fact that the project has been broken into separate phases and with a completion date uncertain, given that full funding depends on the outcome of the November vote.

They also objected to the design-build method of delivery that leaves it up to the contractor­s to make “final decisions on design and constructi­on, which the coalition said was “an illegal delegation of authority.”

The department also failed to respond to significan­t public comments on the project, including the “highly cogent and informed comments” from Casey Covington, the deputy director of Metroplan, the long-range transporta­tion planning agency for Central Arkansas. Covington raised several areas of concern that the coalition’s attorney, Richard Mays, said the department ignored or responded to “with gross generaliza­tions.”

The department also didn’t adequately consider alternativ­es to the project design, including a reduced version of the project, didn’t consider developing high-occupancy vehicle lanes and ignored mass transit altogether, according to the brief.

The coalition also alleged that the effect the project would have on traffic was flawed because of “faulty assumption­s and computer modeling” while the environmen­tal review failed to consider indirect impacts the project would have on other parts of the interstate system, including removing the existing congestion on I-30 in part to Interstate 630 and elsewhere on the system.

The environmen­tal review also didn’t consider the impact on “minority and low-income residentia­l areas” adjoining the project. Nor did it analyze the project’s impact on air quality.

“It is clear that either version of the proposed project will be the largest, most complicate­d and most expensive highway constructi­on project undertaken by ArDOT or its predecesso­rs; it involves many ‘firsts’ of constructi­on procedures used by ArDOT; it will impact the human environmen­t of virtually every person currently (and in the future) living in central Arkansas or who travels through that area; it will further negatively impact racial relations in Little Rock and North Little Rock; and it involves a number of legal issues that are without precedent,” Mays wrote in the brief. “These are serious consequenc­es that demand close scrutiny before being implemente­d.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States