Opinions on the latest rendering of what a new Broadway bridge would look like are all over the map, according to a review of the final round of comments state highway officials solicited from the general public.
The opinions are supposed to help guide bridge engineers in finalizing the design for the roughly $78 million bridge that is expected to start going up some time next year.
But it appeared they would have difficulty in divining a consensus on some aspects of the design, judging from the roughly 40 written comments that the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department received before the April 22 deadline.
Take, for instance, the potential color of the new span.
“The dark blue is best,” one commenter wrote.
Said another: “I like either tan and brown or light blue and taupe the best.”
“Silver or white should be chosen if the county plans on installing lights for better reflecting,” still another said.
Commenters weren’t required to identify themselves when submitting their comments.
The much-maligned color scheme Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines proposed a few months back to make the bridge a homage to the nation’s veterans and a tourist attraction even got a vote:
“I would have loved for the bridge to be red, white and blue,” one commenter said.
But not from Villines, who wrote that he now prefers the white paint with “maybe gray girders.” The red, white and blue scheme the county judge had earlier advocated wasn’t an option the department presented at the third and final public meeting on the bridge on March 28. About 100 people attended the meeting in North Little Rock.
None of the commenters struck as strident a tone as Jim McKenzie, the director of Metroplan, did in his comments disclosed earlier this month in which he accused the agency of willfully neglecting to address issues of pedestrian and bicyclist safety regarding plans for the future Broadway Bridge.
In the 2½-page letter, McKenzie, who said he has worked for years with the cities of Little Rock, North Little Rock and with Pulaski County to help develop the Broadway Bridge plans, pointed out what he considers safety issues, design flaws and what he referred to as a “kill zone” included in the current design plan.
His concerns primarily focus on what he sees as a bridge design that is conducive to high traffic speeds, the potential use of 4-foot roadway shoulders as bike lanes without proper protective railing, incorrect design standards for the pedestrian/bicycle lane, and dangerous areas where bicycle and vehicle traffic merges or intersects.
“For southbound cyclists, using the shoulder lures them into the kill zone of the wide throat of the La Harpe (Boulevard) off-ramp where auto traffic will be exiting at high speed from the cyclists’ blind side,” McKenzie wrote in the letter. “This design is the result of an intentional refusal to exercise independent engineering judgment and is, therefore, in my opinion, an act of willful negligence on the part of the Department.”
A handful of commenters, including Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola, agreed with McKenzie that the La Harpe Boulevard off-ramp, in the words of one, represented a “dangerous user conflict.” A “stop off area for bicyclists … will greatly enhance the safety of everyone,” the mayor noted.
Many of the commenters also agreed that the shared bicycle and pedestrian facility should be wider than the 16 feet the department has proposed.
“I appreciate the overall design the thought taken to consider pedestrian travel and access,” a commenter wrote. “However, I would strongly urge a wider pedestrian area to 20 [feet] to give comfortable space to bikes, runners and walkers.”
Separately, a coalition of bicycle enthusiasts submitted a letter urging the department to, among other things, include five-foot bicycle lanes on the new bridge instead of the four-foot shoulders there now.
“Cyclists accustomed to riding in street traffic will likely use the shoulders next to the motor vehicle lanes as bike lanes,l so please design the bridge to accommodate these cyclists safely,” the coalition said.
But at this late stage, widening the bridge is no longer an option, said Randy Ort, a department spokesman.
“I think we’re past the point of no return on that,” Ort said. “It’s a complex bridge to design. To change the width of the deck now would create major structural changes to the arch, too.
“We have never said no. We simply said someone needs to pay for it. We were willing to accommodate those opinions if someone was willing to fund them.”
At least one commenter acknowledged the financial hurdle.
“If you are designing the bridge to last 50 years, I think a case could be made for expanding the width of the shared use path from 16 feet,” the commenter said. “I personally would support such an expansion, but I understand that the additional funding for the expansion might not be easy to find, so I’m not going to insist on it, especially since your 16-foot design is a great improvement over the existing two sidewalks.”
At 16 feet, the shared use path is wider than what American Association of State Highway Officials guidelines say. It also is wider than the shared-use path on the Big Dam Bridge.
At least one commenter thought that was enough. “I appreciate the accommodations for walkers and bikers.”
And one thought it was too much. “I think the expenditures for cyclist ramps are excessive,” this commenter said. “Have we now spent $50 million on cyclists crossings in Little Rock?”
In September, after months of back and forth the Highway and Transportation Department reached a broad agreement with Villines and the mayors of Little Rock and North Little Rock on a concept that incorporates two arches into the design of the new bridge and that would require local entities to cover any costs above the $58 million state highway officials have estimated.
The twin arch will cost about $20 million more than a more economical plate-girder bridge that was one of the department’s original proposals more than a year ago. Villines later agreed to commit county road and bridge funds over the next few years to cover the added cost.
The agreed-to design is a far cry from the signature structure some community leaders and activists envisioned almost three years ago when the department disclosed it would either heavily reconstruct or replace the structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridge.
While department officials insist it remains a safe crossing, they say the rising costs to maintain it make replacing it feasible.
The present bridge was opened to traffic on March 14, 1923. It carries about 24,000 vehicles daily.
Many commented favorably on the overall design.
“It’s a great look,” said a familiar refrain.
Again, however, not everyone agreed.
“I think that the arch design is nice, but it [doesn’t] make Little Rock look more appealing,” one commenter said. “You need to design a better bridge.
“Thanks.”
Northwest Arkansas, Pages 7 on 04/29/2013