LITTLE ROCK — The Metroplan board of directors on Wednesday formally approved a new agreement on a design for a new Broadway Bridge, in the form of an amendment to its 2013-2016 transportation improvement plan.
The language, adopted unanimously and with no discussion, essentially cemented a broad agreement between Mayor Mark Stodola of Little Rock, Mayor Pat Hays of North Little Rock and Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines, and Scott Bennett, the director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, on a concept for the new bridge that incorporates two arches into the design.
It also confirmed that local money will be used to cover any costs above the $58 million state highway officials have pegged as the estimated project cost.
The approval came even though Bennett said a proposal to build the bridge in sections off-site is not feasible and the crossing will be unavailable for thousands of commuters for up to 18 months.
Stodola, Hays and Villines now say they want a twin-arch bridge, which will cost about $20 million more than a more economical plate-girder design that was one of the original concepts the Highway Department offered more than a year ago.
The amendment specifically adds the sentence, “Additional funds to meet local goal of constructing twin-arch bridge will be provided based on a costsharing agreement with local governments.”
Precisely how much money Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County would have to contribute won’t be certain until further negotiations are held over the next six weeks. Bennett, in an interview after Wednesday’s vote, said the $58 million is up to negotiation, too.
For downtown commuters, the bad news is that the bridge likely will be built only after the old one is torn down, a process that could keep the route closed to the 24,000 vehicles a day it now carries.
Bennett ruled out Stodola’s suggestion that the bridge could be built off-site and floated into place when ready, saying the project is too large to float on the river at that point because of the other bridges on both sides of the Broadway bridge.
“The bottom line is the way you make a construction project go faster is you offer more incentives to the contractor,” he said. “You pay more money.”
Both Bennett and Villines said water flow would be a factor in how long the crossing is closed.
“They have to have barges with cranes on the water,” Villines said. “They can’t stay out on the river if the water is too high. Even if you paid someone an incentive, it’s not going to make any difference if the water is high. You can’t get out there.”
Wednesday’s vote capped months of back-and-forth wrangling over replacing the 90-year-old span there now. State highway officials concluded in January 2011 that renovation of the bridge was cost-prohibitive and it had to be replaced.
The Highway Department said it wouldn’t provide any money above $58 million in federal and state money to pay for anything beyond a safe and aesthetically pleasing crossing. Local officials pitched various alternatives after the department consultants said that the bridge-replacement project would shut down traffic at the Arkansas River crossing for up to 18 months and incur $40 million in estimated congestion costs.
The alternatives included building a new bridge at Chester Street, rehabilitating the Broadway Bridge, and building a new bridge next to the old one, which would remain as a pedestrian and bicycle crossing. State officials nixed the Chester Street crossing and rehabbing the bridge as unworkable. Local officials said they couldn’t afford to maintain the old bridge if it remained.
“All the weaving around everywhere has been trying to coordinate with local officials over the whole project development process,” Bennett said. “We’re on track, but we’ve got to keep moving.”
Villines said the Highway Department has given some ground, too.
“They are saying they will work with us” on how much the local entities will have to share in the project cost, he said. “I think they will.”
Bennett estimates that the cost-sharing agreement would have to be in place within six weeks in order for the department to obligate its share of federal bridge money for the project by Sept. 30, 2013, the end of the federal fiscal year. The department needs time to design the bridge and obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard, agencies that both have jurisdiction on the river at the site of the bridge.
“This is a big project,” he said. “It takes time to get all of the permits and the clearances that you need.”
Villines said the county has some money from its road and bridge fund that could be used on the project. It also could include money from Metroplan under the new federal transportation bill. A portion of that money will be committed to individual jurisdictions within Metroplan.
“We’ll see if we can cobble together whatever the difference is,” Villines said.
Villines also said that the local costs could be divided among three budget years, which he said “makes it feasible” for local governments.
Stodola said he was relying on Villines’ judgment as far as the financing is concerned, noting that while he has not ruled out Little Rock participating financially, it already has committed its additional sales tax money as well as proceeds from a bond issue.
“He believes it can be done,” Stodola said. “I am going to trust him. He has some latitude that the cities don’t have.”
They all will have more latitude if voters statewide adopt a temporary half-percent sales tax on the general election ballot in November. Under the proposal, Pulaski County and its eight major cities would get an additional $80 million annually if it is adopted..
That money is in addition to several projects of regional significance around the state that would be built if the tax is adopted. The tax would be in place for 10 years and finance $1.3 billion in general obligation bonds targeted at the construction of four-lane highways or additional capacity to four-lane highways. The department estimates the added tax would cost each household in the state about $5 a month.
Stodola said he and Hays ceded ground to the Highway Department but “the focus should be on the fact that the function of the bridge and the form of the bridge has the agreement of the two mayors, the county and the state on what ultimately is built. That’s the primary focus at this point in time.”
They ceded in part because a mismatch between the regional transportation improvement plan and the statewide transportation improvement plan risked stopping the flow of federal transportation dollars into the region, Stodola said.
“Other jurisdictions in our Metroplan area would be subject to some consequences,” he said. “The result is how can we meet some objectives that we think are long-term and visionary for the city that follow an appropriate function and form result on the bridge and continue to move the ball forward.”
Front Section, Pages 1 on 09/27/2012