Metroplan's sometimes bitter struggle to meld competing voices in helping shape the state's $630.7 million project to remake the Interstate 30 corridor through the heart of central Arkansas has prompted the long-range transportation planning agency to look at reshaping itself.
Is the 34-member board too cumbersome? Or could that be said of its Regional Planning Advisory Council, which has almost 40 volunteer community members -- all appointed to no set terms -- though fewer than 20 regularly participate? Why does there seem to be such a disconnect between the two?
Meanwhile, the city and county planners and engineers who constitute the board's Technical Coordinating Committee feel their expertise has been left out of the planning that takes up much of the agency's responsibilities.
The board, composed of the region's mayors and county judges, has spent the past several months studying a series of white papers outlining the agency's 63-year history and how its structure has evolved; anonymous critiques of the agency offered by board members, committee members and staff; how other well-regarded metropolitan planning organizations around the nation are structured; and how might a new Metroplan organization look.
No concrete proposals have surfaced so far, but board members likely will narrow down the potential changes to a few ideas when they meet at their annual retreat this month at Hot Springs Village.
What is clear is the debate over the I-30 project, known as 30 Crossing, exposed some weaknesses in the Metroplan organization.
"Had 30 Crossing not been so divisive, [the weaknesses] would not have been so evident," said Amy Whitehead, the Conway representative on the Regional Planning Advisory Council, often called RPAC. "There is a real need for some restructuring, clarifying the role of the RPAC and to improve communication among all stakeholders."
Planning on the 6.7-mile project to improve the congested and aging corridor between Interstate 40 in North Little Rock and Interstate 530 in Little Rock has been ongoing for four years. The I-30 corridor features the convergence of six major highways and a bridge over the Arkansas River that dates to the late 1950s and carries 124,000 vehicles daily.
While most agree improvements are necessary, opponents -- including many residents of downtown Little Rock -- object to the magnitude of the project, the costliest civil engineering project the Arkansas Department of Transportation has undertaken, and its expected impact on their quality of life and property values. The project likely will require 10 lanes, with six of them through lanes as the corridor has now and an additional four lanes for local traffic between the two cities.
The project has the backing of a range of interests, including the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Central Arkansas Library System and the Clinton Presidential Center.
The Regional Planning Advisory Council, composed of volunteers, devotes most of its time to developing or updating the federally mandated long-range transportation plan for the region, the latest of which is called Imagine Central Arkansas. Any changes to the plan require a recommendation from the council, although the recommendations aren't binding on the board.
The council overwhelmingly opposed, for example, exempting the project from a regionwide policy limiting area freeways to six lanes until the region's major non-interstate routes were improved to handle additional traffic, the idea being that improving those routes would take traffic off the freeways and delay the time they would need to be widened.
The board, meanwhile, voted to exempt 30 Crossing from the policy. That and other votes exposed a deep divide between the two bodies.
A critique of the board, council and staff, based on anonymous interviews with members of all three bodies, is helping guide the look at the restructuring. In a section on the council's weaknesses, the critique said:
"Lack of communication with the Metroplan Board undermines the effectiveness of the RPAC and its usefulness to the Board as a resource. At present, they feel disconnected from the Board's mission. There is a strong desire to understand the Board's mission and to receive direction from the Board.
"At present, there is not a formal mechanism for Council members to report to their appointing jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the 30 Crossing process, members, including some long-time members, were left unclear as to their role and responsibilities."
Meanwhile, the former Metroplan executive director, Jim McKenzie, has been retained by his successor, Tab Townsell, to author a series of white papers on the agency.
His latest white papers were presented last month. They included a look at the structures of other metropolitan planning agencies around the nation as well as suggested improvements to Metroplan to jump-start the discussion.
They range from establishing an executive committee at the board level, including a representative of the governor's office on the board, extending the board president's term from one year to two and merging the Technical Coordinating Committee and Regional Planning Advisory Council with a more workable number of members.
"It's always healthy to go through and look at systems and see how effective they are," said Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola, who is a board member. "Looking at some of the other models around the country is certainly a healthy exercise. I'm not sure whether that will result in any changes."
Stodola said that the organization as constituted has been effective on a range of regional issues, including air quality, water and sustainability, and even 30 Crossing, too.
"The whole Metroplan planning process is designed to provide community input to the Federal Highway Administration and the state Department of Transportation, who have the money to spend," he said. "So that balance is best done through engaged conversation and cooperation.
"Sometimes that doesn't always result in unanimity but the process of discussion ultimately will lead to a result everybody can work with."
North Little Rock Mayor Joe Smith said he was skeptical of any proposal that would require additional agency staff, which would require that annual dues paid by member governments based on population would have to increase.
"When you said 'more money,' you lost me on that one," he said.
Other metropolitan planning organizations give more weight to member cities based on their population. Metroplan board policy has a mechanism to use weighted votes, but it has not been used in practice in recent memory.
"I'm interested in looking at the options," said Mike Kemp, who is mayor of the Saline County city of Shannon Hills, which had a population of about 3,600 in 2016, according to the U.S. Census. "I'm concerned about anything that would diminish the impact that small cities could have. I'm going to be watching closely."
Kemp, Smith, Stodola and the other board members will hold a more in-depth discussion of Metroplan as an organization at the board's annual retreat April 15-17.
"I think the introspection of our organization was timely," Townsell said. "It's time we do that.
"What I imagine getting at the retreat is getting some broad ideas. 'This is a good idea,' 'That's not a good idea,' and perhaps putting together a task force to spend more time, drill down if they have time. I'm expecting to come out with a task force because it is so meaty."
The board also will use the retreat to review the Imagine Central Arkansas plan, given the disconnect between the aspirations of the region in the plan versus the reality on the ground, such as 30 Crossing, which is more evidence of a structural problem, Townsell said.
"How can we be structured better to better represent the region, to better communicate, to be transparent in and of ourselves, the left hand and right hand knowing what they're doing?" he said. "And even if that vision is what we aspire to."
Metro on 04/02/2018