I-69 CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY · 2009. 4. 21. · FINAL REPORT INTERSTATE 69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY DREW, ASHLEY & CHICOT COUNTIES, ARKANSAS MOREHOUSE, OUACHITA,

INTERSTATE 69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION

FEASIBILITY STUDY

DREW, ASHLEY & CHICOT COUNTIES, ARKANSAS MOREHOUSE, OUACHITA, RICHLAND & WEST

CARROLL PARISHES, LOUISIANA

AHTD Job Number 012062 FAP Number SECT-AR57(1)

January, 2009

Prepared for

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

FINAL REPORT


FEASIBILITY STUDY

DREW, ASHLEY & CHICOT COUNTIES, ARKANSAS MOREHOUSE, OUACHITA, RICHLAND & WEST

CARROLL PARISHES, LOUISIANA

AHTD Job Number 012062 FAP Number SECT-AR57(1)

Prepared By

PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.

January, 2009

Prepared for

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

In Cooperation With: United States Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

FINAL REPORT I-69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY

Ashley, Drew, and Chicot Counties, Arkansas Morehouse, Ouachita, and Richland Parishes, Louisiana

January, 2009

Prepared for: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department


In Cooperation with: United States Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

By: Parsons

Jacobs Carter Burgess C.H. Fenstermaker & Assoc.

ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF NONDISCRIMINATION

The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation (Department) complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal equal opportunity laws and therefore does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, age, national origin, religion or disability, in admission or access to and treatment in Department programs and activities, as well as the Department’s hiring or employment practices. Complaints of alleged discrimination and inquiries regarding the Department’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to James B. Moore, Jr., Section Head - EEO/DBE (ADA/504/Title VI Coordinator), P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, (501) 569-2298, (Voice/TTY 711), or the following email address: [email protected]. This notice is available from the ADA/504/Title VI Coordinator in large print, on audiotape and in Braille.

mailto:[email protected]

I-69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY

i

Table of Contents

Section Page Executive Summary .....................................................................................................S-1 1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................2 1.2 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................2 2.0 Draft Project Purpose and Need…………………………………………………5 3.0 Representative Corridors .....................................................................................7 3.1 Study Corridors ...........................................................................................7 4.0 Anticipated Traffic Operations ............................................................................12 4.1 Forecast Methodology …………………………………….. ......................12 4.2 Traffic Flow Characteristics ........................................................................23 5.0 Environmental Concerns......................................................................................28 5.1 NEPA Process .............................................................................................28 5.2 GIS Analysis................................................................................................28 5.3 Physical Environment..................................................................................30 5.4 Social Environment .....................................................................................34 5.5 Economic Considerations............................................................................39 6.0 Engineering Assessment ......................................................................................44 6.1 Highway Design and Construction Issues...................................................44 6.2 Corridor A ...................................................................................................44 6.3 Corridor B....................................................................................................47 6.4 Corridor Comparison...................................................................................50 6.5 Estimated Costs ...........................................................................................51 6.6 Estimated Benefits.......................................................................................55 6.7 Benefit/ Cost Analysis.................................................................................59 7.0 Potential Funding Sources ...................................................................................61 8.0 Findings................................................................................................................63 8.1 Comparative Matrix.....................................................................................63 8.2 Feasibility Criteria .......................................................................................65 8.3 Remarks.......................................................................................................65


ii

Figures

Figure Page Figure S.1 Study Area...............................................................................................S-2 Figure S.2 Corridor Alternatives A and B ................................................................S-4 Figure S.3 Corridor A Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service .............................S-6 Figure S.4 Corridor B Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service..............................S-7 Figure 1.1 Study Area...............................................................................................3 Figure 3.1 Initial Review Corridor Alternatives.......................................................8 Figure 3.2 Preliminary Corridors..............................................................................9 Figure 3.3 Corridor Alternatives A and B ................................................................11 Figure 4.1 I-69 Corridor ...........................................................................................14 Figure 4.2 No-Build Condition Forecast Volumes...................................................19 Figure 4.3 No-Build Condition Levels of Service....................................................20 Figure 4.4 Corridor A Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service .............................21 Figure 4.5 Corridor B Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service..............................22 Figure 5.1 Potential Environmental Justice Issues ...................................................38

Tables Table Page Table S.1 Key Study Findings.................................................................................S-2 Table 1.1 Cities With Populations Greater Than 3,000 ..........................................4 Table 4.1 Possible Locations of Interchanges .........................................................18 Table 4.2 Estimated 2030 Travel Times .................................................................24 Table 4.3 Crash Rates from 2004 to 2006 For Arkansas Highway Segments ........26 Table 4.4 Crash Rates from 2004 to 2006 For Louisiana Highway Segments .......27 Table 5.1 Results of GIS Analysis of Corridors A and B .......................................29 Table 5.2 Median Household Income .....................................................................35 Table 5.3 Population Characteristics, 2000…………………………………..36 - 37 Table 5.4 Annual Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment Rate, 2006................40 Table 5.5 Major Employers.....................................................................................41 Table 6.1 Corridor Cost Estimates ..........................................................................51 Table 6.2 Corridor A Annual Quantifiable Benefits ..............................................58 Table 6.3 Corridor B Annual Quantifiable Benefits ...............................................58 Table 8.1 Comparative Matrix ................................................................................64

Appendices

Appendix A - Study Process and Level of Service Definitions Appendix B - Tabulations Appendix C - GIS Map – Corridor A and Corridor B (map is not bound into the report)


Executive Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine the need for and feasibility of constructing a new freeway connection in southeastern Arkansas and northeastern Louisiana. This study is undertaken for the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD), in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The new freeway would begin at the southern end of the I-69 Connector (Interstate 530) at the interchange with U.S. 278 just west of Monticello, Arkansas, and would proceed southwardly to intersect Interstate 20 (I-20) in Louisiana. The south terminus of the new facility would be located along the 40 mile stretch of I-20 between the cities of Monroe and Delhi. This new freeway would serve as a connector between Future Interstate 69 (I-69) and I-20 in southeastern Arkansas and northeastern Louisiana. The study area for this project included parts of three counties in Arkansas and four parishes in Louisiana. Figure S.1 shows the study area. Within this study area environmental constraints were identified so that they could be avoided if possible during the development of potential study corridors. These constraints were compiled from various sources recommended by each state, from agencies with information about the area and from comments made by local residents at public meetings. A Steering Committee was formed to guide the investigations needed to make a determination regarding the feasibility of the proposed project. This is a technical committee composed primarily of representatives from various divisions of the AHTD, along with representatives from LADOTD and FHWA. Sixteen study corridors were prepared and sent to the Steering Committee for initial review and comment.

S-1

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·Æ·

Æ·

MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

enthal

Portland

Parkdale

ge

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Arkans

Jerome

Epps

Jones

Terry

Haile

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman

Bastrop PioneerSpencer

Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge

orne

PerryvilleCollinstonSterlington

Monroe

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Saline River

Oua

chita

Bayou

Barth

olomew

Boue

f Ri

ver

Rive

r

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

Morehouse ParishWest Carroll Parish

Richland Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

142

172

133

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

. Study Area

Primary North/South RouteInterstateAll Other HighwaysFuture InterstateStream

Figure S.1 Study Area

Future I-69

I-69 Connector

S-2


Based on initial findings regarding potential constraints, two corridors were selected for further review. These corridors are known as Corridor A and Corridor B, and are shown in Figure S.2. Two-mile wide corridors were carried forward to permit alignment adjustments to avoid sensitive environmental constraints. When considering potential impacts to sensitive lands, a width of one half mile was used. The actual width of the proposed facility was estimated at approximately 300 feet, which is a standard width for rural freeways. A width of 300 feet was used for right-of-way estimates. Although only two corridors were carried forward in the study to help make a determination of feasibility, this does not mean that any of the corridors that were considered have been eliminated from future consideration should the project be deemed feasible. If the proposed project is determined to be feasible, further project development studies would be required when funds become available, including the determination of alignment alternatives that could potentially be located within any portion of the study area. Analyses of Corridor A and B included Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses, cost estimates, traffic and safety analyses, environmental review, engineering review, and benefit/ cost analysis. Some of the findings are presented in Table S.1. Table S.1 Key Study Findings

Item Corridor A Corridor B

2030 Estimated Traffic (ADT) 15,300

to 61,600

13,700 to

22,700 Approximate corridor length (miles) 75.2 82.5 Estimated Opening Day Costs in 2008 Dollars ($ Millions) $1,368 $1,452 Benefit/ cost Ratio 1.5 1.2 The cost estimates shown in Table S.1 include preliminary engineering, construction engineering, right-of-way and utility relocation costs in addition to construction costs. These estimates are made in 2008 dollars and are based on average 2008 costs for similar projects in their respective states. The benefit/ cost ratio represents an estimated dollar amount of benefits incurred for every dollar spent.

S - 3

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

.2-Mile Wide Corridor

Primary North/South RouteInterstateAll Other HighwaysFuture Interstate

Figure S.2 Corridor Alternatives A and B

Corridor A

Corridor B

Corridor B

Corridor A

S-4


In Table S-1, Corridor A appears to be shorter and less costly than Corridor B. This is because, for purposes of benefit/ cost analyses, the southernmost six miles of Corridor A were not included in the comparison. U.S. 165 through urban Monroe in Louisiana is forecast for traffic congestion, even though the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRP) of the Ouachita Council Of Governments includes proposed projects that are expected to divert traffic away from this facility. A finding of the study is that this portion of U.S. 165 will need widening in order to preserve a good level of traffic operations. However, there is no such widening project included in the LRP. The costs and benefits associated with this potential project are of such a magnitude that it was determined that this short urban portion of Corridor A would dominate the decision-making regarding feasibility, in comparison to the rural nature of the majority of the project. If the urban portion of Monroe is considered with Corridor A, then the length is 81 miles, and the projected cost would be $ 1,624 million, with a benefit/ cost ratio of 2.4. A key reason for the high cost estimate for this short urban stretch is that, in addition to conversion from an expressway to a freeway, it was assumed that this segment would be widened from four to six lanes to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. For traffic analyses, traffic was forecast for the year 2030 based on historic traffic growth rates. From this forecast, diversions from local highways to a new freeway were estimated. These diversions, along with estimated diversions of traffic from Future I-69 and the I-69 Connector, and other sources, were used to create forecasts for freeway traffic in both corridors. Levels of Service were determined for the proposed new freeway and for local highways within the study area. Resulting Levels of Service were improved for most of the study area, except in Monroe, Louisiana where forecast traffic for U.S. 165 converted to a freeway north of I-20 reaches 100,000 vehicles per day. Figures S.3 and S.4 show projected daily traffic and Levels of Service for each corridor. For the safety analyses, crash experience on local highways was evaluated. Crash rates were derived using data from both states for the years 2004-2006. Using crash rates and travel forecasts, estimates of crashes were made for the year 2030 for both No-build and Build conditions. These forecast crash estimates included a breakdown of crash severities prepared using crash experience average rates.

S - 5

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

1000LOS B

1400LOS B

1000LOS B

2800LOS C

3700LOS C

7000LOS A

2600LOS B

5100LOS A

1500LOS B

1400LOS B

5000LOS A

5000LOS D

1200LOS B

100,000LOS F

61,600LOS E

6800LOS C

7400LOS C

3800LOS B

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

2700LOS B

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

1000LOS A

13,950LOS A

40,700LOS C

15,300LOS A

19,200LOS A

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

2030 ADT2030 LOS

.Primary North/South RouteInterstateAll Other HighwaysFuture Interstate

2-Mile Wide Corridor

Figure S.3 Corridor A Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service

S-6

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

2700LOS B

4100LOS C

1200LOS B

2400LOS C

3600LOS C

6800LOS A

1500LOS B

4500LOS A

2000LOS B

2500LOS B

9400LOS A

1000LOS B

1000LOS B

14,000LOS A

43,300LOS D

3500LOS B

6800LOS C

3400LOS B

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

2300LOS B

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

1000LOS A

13,950LOS A

22,700LOS B

22,100LOS A

13,700LOS A

18,300LOS A

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

2030ADT2030 LOS


2- Mile Wide corridor

Figure S.4 Corridor B Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service

S-7


Crash estimates for 2030 show a reduction in crashes for both corridors versus anticipated No-build conditions. Using values recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the estimated benefits due to avoided crashes were estimated for Corridor A as $78 million and $58 million for Corridor B. Limited environmental analyses of both corridors revealed the following:

• State and federally listed threatened or endangered species may be affected by a freeway within either corridor.

• Potentially, no National Register of Historic Places listed properties or known archaeological sites would be affected by the building of a freeway in either corridor.

• A freeway within Corridor A could potentially impact a Wildlife Management Area in Louisiana.

• There is the potential for environmental justice issues within both corridors. Benefit/ cost analyses were prepared for both corridors based on quantifiable benefits and costs. It is recognized that there are other potential benefits to having a freeway such as improved access to industries and recreational facilities, but these benefits cannot be quantified in these analyses. Likewise there are non-quantifiable costs such as noise pollution. The quantifiable benefits of having a freeway in this area are travel time savings, crash avoidance savings, and vehicle operating costs savings. The quantifiable costs of having a freeway in this area are construction, engineering, right-of-way and utility relocation costs, and annual maintenance costs for a 25-year analysis period. Costs were amortized with an interest rate of three percent. Based on annual benefits and costs, a benefit/ cost ratio was calculated for each corridor. The estimated ratio for Corridor A is 1.5, while the ratio for corridor B is 1.2. Conclusions. Based on the traffic and safety analyses that were conducted for this study, no imminent need was found for the creation of a safer or more effective means to travel north and south through the study area. The safety analysis indicated that local crash rates are consistently lower than the statewide average crash rates for similar facilities. However,

S - 8


S - 9

there is a strong indication that building a freeway in this area would further reduce crashes. Analyses of travel patterns throughout the study area do not indicate a great need for a high-speed connector from Future I-69 or the I-69 Connector to I-20. No environmental constraints were identified that would prevent the construction of the proposed project. There is a strong desire for an interstate highway for purposes of commerce. Local officials have stated that possible industrial developments have bypassed the area due to the lack of an interstate facility. An interstate highway would benefit existing industries in the area by improving shipping routes and expediting cargo delivery. It would enhance the attractiveness of the area as a potential for new or expanded industries. The assessment of feasibility is: • Projected benefits would be higher than estimated costs. Corridor A shows a greater

benefit than Corridor B.

• The environmental impacts appear to be manageable or could be mitigated. There would be definite social and economic benefits to travelers and to the residents and businesses in the region. There is strong local support for the project.

• Funding sources have not been identified at this time. The high costs anticipated for the proposed project would be prohibitive for further project development.


FEASIBILITY STUDY


1.0 Introduction The purpose of this study is to determine the need for and feasibility of constructing a four-lane access controlled interstate-type freeway facility in southeast Arkansas and northeast Louisiana. This study is undertaken for the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD), in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The new freeway would be a north-south route that would provide a new connection between the Future Interstate 69 (I-69) in Arkansas and Interstate 20 (I-20) in Louisiana. A Steering Committee was formed to guide the investigations needed to make a determination regarding the feasibility of the proposed project. This is a technical committee composed primarily of representatives of the various divisions of the AHTD, along with representatives from LADOTD and FHWA. Future I-69 is “the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) super-highway.” It will connect Canada near Detroit Michigan, with Mexico near McAllen, Texas. Parts of Future I-69 are completed and open to traffic, and other parts are in various study phases. I-530 currently connects Little Rock with Pine Bluff. The I-69 Connector, which is an extension of I-530, is in progress and will connect Pine Bluff to the Future I-69. The I-69 Connector currently ends at a recently-completed interchange with U.S. 278 west of Monticello. It will be extended a short distance to an interchange with Future I-69 as part of the Future I-69 construction. The proposed new freeway, known as the I-69 Connector Extension, would begin at this interchange, and proceed southward to an interchange with I-20. The proposed southern end of the I-69 Connector Extension would be located somewhere along the 40 mile stretch of I-20 between the cities of Monroe and Delhi.

I-69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY

1.1 Study Area The study area is illustrated on Figure 1.1. It is approximately 80 miles in length from north to south. In Arkansas, the study area includes the southern portion of Drew County, the western portion of Chicot County, and all of Ashley County. The eastern portions of Bradley and Union Counties were originally included, but an early decision was made to omit these areas from the study for two reasons. First, potential routes that included any portion of these counties would probably be too close to the proposed alignment of Future I-69 to serve as a useful alternative route. Second, any such potential route would require two major river crossings with possible impacts to wetlands and increased bridge costs. In Louisiana, the study area includes the northern portions of Ouachita Parish and Richland Parish, the western portions of West Carroll Parish, and all of Morehouse Parish. The eastern portions of Union Parish were omitted from the study area for the same reasons as the eastern portions of Union and Bradley Counties in Arkansas. The resulting study area is generally 30 to 40 miles wide from west to east, but stretches up to 50 miles across at its widest place. Analysis of the impacts that a new freeway would have on several factors in the region was crucial for determining feasibility. These factors include safety needs, traffic demands, economic enhancement, cultural and environmental concerns, and cost. 1.2 Existing Conditions Population The study area is mostly rural and thinly populated. The largest city within the study area is Monroe Louisiana, with a population of over 53,000. Monroe is the center of the Ouachita Council of Governments, which serves as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), that also includes the City of West Monroe, the Town of Richwood and the Town of Sterlington. In addition, the Ouachita Parish Police Jury is represented in the MPO. It is the only MPO in the study area. Cities in the study area with populations greater than 3,000 are shown in Table 1.1.


(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Haile

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge

rne


onroe

MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

nthal

Portland

Parkdale

e

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Arkansa

Jerome

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Saline River

Oua

chita

Bayou

Barth

olomew

Boue

f Ri

ver

Rive

r

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County


Richland Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

142

172

133

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

. Study Area

Primary North/South RouteInterstateAll Other HighwaysFuture InterstateStream

Figure 1.1 Study Area

Future I-69

I-69 Connector

3

Table 1.1. Cities With Populations Greater Than 3,000

City Population Crossett, Arkansas 6,097 Hamburg, Arkansas 3,039

Monticello, Arkansas 9,146 Bastrop, Louisiana 12,988 Monroe, Louisiana 53,107 Rayville, Louisiana 4,234

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File 1

Highways Currently, traveling the study area in the north-south direction is primarily achieved on two-lane highways. Arkansas Highway 133, Louisiana Route 142, Louisiana Route 17, and U.S. Highways 425, 165 and 65 are the main highways used for north-south travel through the study area. For the most part, all of these highways are in good condition and adequately accommodate current traffic demands. There are no glaring safety issues for any of these highways other than the lack of paved shoulders in Louisiana. Only U.S. 165 south of Bastrop is a four-lane highway for any great length (approximately 21 miles). The other four-lane segments are short urban segments in Bastrop and Hamburg. The existing route from south of Monticello to I-20 in Monroe is approximately 82 miles, using U.S.425 and U.S.165. Approximately 28 miles of that route are on four-lane facilities. The existing route from south of Monticello to I-20 in Rayville is approximately 87 miles, following U.S. 425, with approximately six miles on four-lane facilities. Travel in the east-west direction is principally carried on U.S. 278 and U.S. 82 through Arkansas, and on Louisiana Route 2, U.S. 80, and I-20 in Louisiana.


2.0 Draft Project Purpose and Need There are three main purposes that were considered during this study of the proposed I-69 Connector Extension. • To provide safe and effective transportation facilities for projected traffic in the project

area.

• To provide a freeway connection between I-20, Future I-69, and the I-69 Connector (I-530).

• To enable and promote economic development within the study area by providing an Interstate Highway connection for the purposes of commerce.

This proposed project is to be undertaken in accordance with Federal Highway Administration policies for granting new or modified Interstate Highway access. Further detailed analyses of the anticipated traffic effects and environmental effects would be required before project design could begin. This Feasibility Study identified a number of issues that would require investigation as part of further study efforts to advance the proposed project. The process that would potentially lead to project approval is governed by guidances that have been developed by the State of Arkansas and the State of Louisiana. The AHTD and LADOTD have worked with a variety of state and federal agencies, in consultation with the FHWA, to craft project development processes that comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Further information can be found in the section on Environmental Concerns (Chapter 5). Planning and Legislation The proposed I-69 Connector Extension is not on the Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan for either Arkansas or Louisiana. No legislation has been adopted by either state regarding this proposed project. The portion of Corridor A that is described below as the “Bastrop Bypass” is on the Louisiana statewide plan (LSTP-013), with “Funding Priority B.” The Louisiana Long Range Transportation Plan


has identified candidate projects with priority categories A, B, C, and D, with Priority A and B projects having a higher priority than category C and D projects. However, a potential funding stream has only been identified for a portion of the Priority A and Priority B projects. The funding status of any particular Priority B project is not known at this time. Funding for this study was provided in the Omnibus Spending Bill for Fiscal Year 2005, which passed the House of Representatives as H.B. 4818, and was signed by President Bush on December 8, 2004. Details of the bill are contained in Conference Report 108–792. (The conference agreement included a provision (Sec. 117) that set-aside funding for Delta Regional Authority and National Highway Traffic Safety activities. Additional funding was provided for individual projects and programs. Included in the list of projects was: “I–530 (AR) Extension to I–20 (LA), Arkansas.” )


3.0 Representative Corridors 3.1 Study Corridors The entire study area was considered available for the development of prospective corridor alternatives in a north-south orientation. In order to focus on corridors with greater potential for further development, a base map of environmental constraints was prepared using aerial photography and mapping. Environmental constraints cover a broad number of categories, including wildlife management areas, wetlands, hazardous materials sites, cemeteries, and many other items that ideally would be avoided if possible. Five main north-south corridors with connections between each other made a total of sixteen possible corridor alternatives that were initially developed. These alternatives can be seen in Figure 3.1. These sixteen possible corridors were not intended to be an exhaustive review of potential corridors, but served as an adequate representation of the potential corridors for the purpose of determining feasibility. Maps showing the corridor alternatives and identified environmental constraints were sent to the Steering Committee members for review and comments. Based on the Steering Committee comments, one corridor and various segments of the other 16 corridor alternatives were dropped from further consideration. The farthest west corridor alternative was dropped due to its proximity to the Saline and Ouachita River lowlands and potential impacts to the Crossett sewage lagoon in Arkansas. The northern segment of the farthest east corridor was dropped due to its potential impacts to wetland resources close to U.S. 165. Connectors were revised where recommended, resulting in eight corridors to be considered for further investigation. Preliminary cost estimates were calculated and a Geographic Information System (GIS) screening was performed for each of the eight potential corridor alternatives. GIS is a means for displaying and analyzing geographically-referenced information. The GIS review is discussed in Section 5.2. The eight potential corridors are illustrated in Figure 3.2.


(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:


Primary North/South RouteInterstateAll Other HighwaysFuture Interstate

Figure 3.1 Initial Review Corridor Alternatives

8

Figure 3.2 Preliminary Corridors

A Steering Committee meeting was held on December 12, 2007, at the AHTD central offices in Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting notes are included in Appendix A. At the meeting, it was determined that no corridor segment would be used that required the conversion of a two-lane highway into a freeway. This decision was made due to development that exists along the two-lane highways. Roadway conversion would potentially lead to many displacements of homes and businesses. For example, the corridor segment that would convert existing U.S. 425 into a freeway in Drew and Ashley Counties was not used as a representative corridor for this study, due to high numbers of possible displacements. It was decided that only two corridors would need to be carried forward in the study to determine the feasibility of constructing a freeway connection between I-20 and Future I-69. The two that were carried forward are referred to as Corridor A and Corridor B. Both corridors are roughly 80 miles long and either make use of four-lane highways or are primarily on new alignment. They are shown in Figure 3.3. These corridors were broken into segments for analytical purposes. Corridor A is divided into segments A1, A2, and A3, while Corridor B is divided into segments A1, B1, and B2. Segment A1 begins at the intersection of the I-69 Connector and U.S. 278 west of Monticello. From there it proceeds southwardly, to the point where Corridors A and B split from each other. Segments A2 and B1 are the remaining portions of each corridor in Arkansas, and segments A3 and B2 are the portions of each corridor in Louisiana. Each corridor is illustrated with a width of two miles, to indicate that alignments have not been developed, and that the analysis performed is on a conceptual level. Although only two of the eight corridors were further analyzed, this does not exclude any of the other corridor alternatives from being considered if the project is in fact deemed feasible. If the project is determined to be feasible, then a full highway-development study would be needed, including creation of preliminary alternatives.


(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:


Primary North/South RouteInterstateAll Other HighwaysFuture InterstateCorridor Segment Boundary

Figure 3.3 Corridor Alternatives A and B

Corridor A

Corridor B

Corridor B

Corridor A

SEGMENT A-1

SEGMENT A-2 SEGMENT B-1

SEGMENT B-1SEGMENT A-2

SEGMENT A-3SEGMENT B-2

Þ

Þ

Þ

Þ

Þ

Þ

Þ

11

4.0 Anticipated Traffic Operations 4.1 Forecast Methodology Historic Growth Trends Traffic count data were obtained from AHTD and LADOTD from count stations in the region. Historical counts dating back to 1986 were obtained from both states. Data from count stations on the north-south routes and a representative number of other locations were extrapolated to estimate future traffic flow levels for the existing highway system. This was done using linear regression according to the “least squares” method, using the FORECAST function of Microsoft Excel. Extrapolation values were used to develop base year traffic flow conditions for the year 2008. Growth rates were derived from the slopes of the least-squares regression lines. These were noted, and then “smoothed” by averaging and rounding to prepare future growth rates. These smoothed rates were applied to 2008 values to reach a 2030 projection. This projection was then adjusted based on the anticipated effects of the Future I-69 and the I-69 Connector. In order to complete the projections for the study area, supplemental traffic counts were conducted. Turning movement counts were performed at five locations in order to gain a better understanding of regional traffic flows and to confirm K and D factors, which are the percentage of daily travel and directional distribution of traffic during the peak hour. Future Projects The forecast was developed with certain future transportation projects assumed to be constructed by the horizon year of 2030. These include the projects identified in the Long Range Transportation Plans for Arkansas, Louisiana, and the Ouchita Council of Governments. Only those projects with funding identified were included, except that the completion of Future I-69 was assumed. Many of these future projects have been planned and have associated forecasts, which were reviewed. Some of the named projects have not had project forecasts prepared.


Effects of Future I-69 Interstate 69 is a future Interstate Highway that will extend from Mexico to Canada, and will pass through the northern portion of the study area. It is anticipated to take many years to construct. Some main line segments have been constructed in other states, but no construction has yet taken place in Arkansas or Louisiana. Future I-69 will connect Shreveport with Memphis, crossing the Mississippi River near Arkansas City in Desha County. Future I-69 will pass to the south of Monticello. It is anticipated that, once completed, Future I-69 will divert some through trips from U.S. 82, since east-west traffic that crosses the Mississippi River will be attracted to the Interstate Highway facility. For north-south travel, some travelers may be diverted out of the study corridor onto Future I-69, so that the net effect of Future I-69 is mixed for projected travel volumes in the study corridor. Traffic on U.S. 425 north of U.S. 82 is expected to increase, while traffic south of U.S. 82 is expected to decrease. In the preparation of the study of Future I-69, a travel model was developed by Wilbur Smith Associates. The model covered the Future I-69 study area from Toronto, Canada, to Monterey, Mexico, and was named the Corridor 18 study model. Assigned network files were obtained from this model for their base year 2000 and for 2030 Build and No-build networks. The 2030 No-build assignments were compared to the year 2000 assignments to derive growth rates. The 2030 Build and No-build assignments were compared to determine the anticipated effects of the construction of Future I-69. Also included in the Corridor 18 study model was information about regional trip diversions. Those trips that were estimated in the Corridor 18 study model to be diverted onto Future I-69 from U.S. 425 and U.S. 65 were assessed, and portions of those diversions were reassigned to the proposed I-69 Connector Extension. For U.S. 425, it was assumed that about 90 percent of this traffic that would be diverted to Future I-69 would be attracted onto the I-69 Connector Extension. This equated to about 3,500 vehicles per day. For U.S. 65, it was assumed that two-thirds of the traffic that would be diverted to Future I-69 would be diverted to the I-69 Connector Extension. This resulted in around 500 vehicles per day. Figure 4.1 shows Future I-69 from Memphis to Shreveport. Effects of the I-69 Connector AHTD is in the process of constructing the I-69 Connector, or “Pine Bluff Connector,” in stages. A 4.5-mile segment is open between Arkansas Highway 35 and U.S. 278 near Wilmar, and at the time of development of this study a seven-mile segment is under


tu

tutu

tu

tu tutututu

tututu

tu

tu

tutu

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

Memphis

Jackson

Vicksburg

Greenville

MonroeShreveport

Pine Bluff

Hot Springs

Little Rock

Natchez

Ruston

Alexandria

Lake Village

82

79

79

63

79 82 61

65

278

167

425

16549W

167

425

165

40

55

40

30

49

20

530

Louisiana

ArkansasMississippi

Tennessee

Mis

siss

ippi

Riv

er

Legend

InterstateUS Highway

Future I-69

.Figure 4.1 Future I-69

14

I-69 Connector

construction near Pine Bluff. Other segments will be constructed as funding levels allow. When completed, it will connect Pine Bluff with the Future I-69, and will be designated as an extension of I-530. It will pass to the west of Monticello, and it is anticipated to divert traffic away from existing north-south routes in the region, primarily U.S. 425. Most of the new and induced trips that are forecast for the I-69 Connector are trips that will turn onto Future I-69. Some travel will be diverted into the study area because of the availability of the I-69 Connector. A review of the travel forecast for the I-69 Connector indicates a volume north of Arkansas Highway 35 (north of the study area) as 20,300 daily trips (ADT) in the year 2020. Of this, it appears that approximately 6,000 daily trips are expected to be diverted from the two major north-south parallel routes, U.S. 63 and U.S. 425. The remaining estimated 14,300 daily trips are comprised of trips diverted from other routes and new trips. Trips diverted from other routes are those diverted from highways outside the corridor (U.S. 79 and U.S. 65), trips diverted from local county roads and new trips attracted onto the I-69 Connector as a way to get to Future I-69. The new trips are those trips that are expected to be generated in that corridor due to the presence of a freeway. It appears that approximately twenty percent of these trips have origins or destinations in the area of Warren, Wilmar, or Monticello. It is estimated that at least fifty percent of these trips will use Future I-69. It is also estimated that approximately thirty percent of these trips would continue through the study area south of Future I-69. The estimate for this future travel is 3,600 vehicles per day. Assuming two percent per year growth in travel outside the corridor, this estimate is increased to 4,400 daily trips in the year 2030. The two-percent travel growth figure is consistent with the “Final Environmental Impact Statement, I-69 Section of Independent Utility 13 El Dorado to McGehee, Arkansas.” Long-distance Trip Diversions There are almost no very long-distance trips made through the study area in the north-south direction. For example, the apparent route of choice from Delhi, LA, to Kansas City would be to take Louisiana Route 17 to U.S. 65 north to Pine Bluff to then continue on I-530. The route of choice from Ruston, Louisiana, to Kansas City would be to take U.S. 167 through Little Rock. The route for travelers from Alexandria, Louisiana, to Kansas City would be through Shreveport. The apparent route of choice from Delhi to St. Louis would be to travel through Mississippi, crossing the Mississippi River either on the I-20 bridge or by taking Louisiana Route 17 to U.S. 65 to the U.S. 82 bridge at Lake Village.


The construction of Future I-69 and the I-69 Connector will change some of these patterns. Travelers from Delhi and Monroe to Kansas City would likely be diverted to U.S. 425 to the I-69 Connector for their trip. Likewise, some travelers from Ruston, Alexandria and Monroe to St. Louis would be attracted to this route also. A majority of the travelers that cross the U.S. 82 bridge over the Mississippi River would likely divert to the Future I-69 river crossing. Estimates of macro-level travel were obtained from the Corridor 18 study model that was prepared for Future I-69. These are estimates of changes in corridor-level traffic. These estimates indicate increases in travel in the northern portion of the study area as the existing routes are used as access routes for travel on Future I-69. Travel in the southern portion of the study area is anticipated to decline as trips are diverted to the Future I-69 corridor to the west. The only major east-west highway in the study area, U.S. 82, is anticipated to have a substantial decline in travel as many trips are diverted onto Future I-69. Truck Trips There are substantial volumes of truck trips on the highways in the study area. Truck trips may be characterized as either local trips or long-haul trips. Most of the study area truck trips have an origin or destination within the study area. Many are local trips for trucks that haul logs to the paper mills in Bastrop and Crossett. There is little in the way of long-haul trips traveling north-south through the corridor. There are long-haul truck trips traveling east-west through the study area on U.S. 82 that use the U.S. 82 bridge over the Mississippi River at Lake Village east of the study area. Substantial portions of the long-haul truck trips would be diverted to Future I-69 or the I-69 Connector once those facilities are constructed. Diversions of truck trips were modeled explicitly in the Corridor 18 Study model, and these diversions were used to represent the effects of Future I-69. For this study, the No-build estimates of truck trips were extrapolated from the truck percentages in the traffic count database information supplied by AHTD and LADOTD. These were adjusted using the Corridor 18 data and adjusted to account for travel diversions to the I-69 Connector. It is estimated that 2,200 trucks per day would be diverted from Future I-69 to the I-69 Connector Extension. Estimates of truck diversions from other highways to the proposed I-69 Connector Extension reach as much as 8,800 per day for Corridor A and 4,700 per day for Corridor B.


Effects of Interstate Designation If a new facility were to be constructed through the study area as an extension of the I-69 Connector, some traffic would be expected to be attracted to the facility because it would appear on the Interstate Highway system. A review of the travel forecasts for Future I-69 revealed that the value estimated for these new trips is 800 vehicles per day. It is anticipated that this value would be less for the proposed I-69 Connector Extension. However, since the estimate of 800 vehicles per day was forecast for 2015, an estimate of 800 vehicles per day was used for the proposed I-69 Connector Extension for anticipated year 2030 conditions. Travel Assignments to Study Corridors Two Study Corridors were established to examine the proposal for feasibility. Both Study Corridors begin at the intersection of the I-69 Connector with U.S. 278, and proceed south to I-20. Corridor A is the “western” corridor, passing between Hamburg and Crossett, and then following the proposed Bastrop Bypass and existing U.S. 165 from Bastrop south through Monroe. Corridor B is the “eastern” corridor, passing east of Hamburg, east of Mer Rouge, and then west of Rayville to I-20. For each of these Corridors, the “build” travel forecast estimates were compiled from these component elements: Diversions of trips from other north-south roads in the corridor, Diversions of trips from Future I-69, Continuation of trips from the I-69 Connector (I-530) that appear not to be destined to

Monticello, Wilmar, or to Future I-69, Trips estimated to use the proposed facility as a route to access either Future I-69 or

the I-69 Connector, New trips (800 vehicles per day due to designation as an Interstate Highway).

Each of the components of expected traffic flow were reviewed to determine segment volumes. Entry and departure points for some of the trips were determined using the possible interchange locations shown in Table 4.1. Compared to Corridor B, a freeway within Corridor A would carry larger volumes of local traffic. These volumes would grow to be very large in Monroe.


Table 4.1 Possible Locations of Interchanges on Proposed I-69 Connector Extension Corridor A Corridor B Drew County Drew County

U.S. 278 U.S. 278 Future I-69 Future I-69 AR 172 AR 172 AR 133 U.S. 425 Ashley County Ashley County

AR 8 U.S. 82 AR 189 AR 8 AR 52 Old Highway 52 U.S. 82 Morehouse Parish Morehouse Parish

LA 142 LA 834 Local road near U.S. 425 LA 140 LA 593 U.S. 165 Local road LA 2 LA 592 U.S. 425/ LA 3051 Ouachita Parish LA 134 LA 554 Richland Parish

LA 2 U.S. 425 LA 134 I-20 LA 553 3 in Downtown Monroe I-20

Traffic forecasts for No-build conditions are illustrated in Figure 4.2. Traffic forecasts for Build Corridor A are illustrated in Figure 4.4. Traffic forecasts for Build Corridor B are illustrated in Figure 4.5.


(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

32003900

34006800

20006800

37809400

598012,100

970015,900

26003000

68007700

14002200

440014,300

880017,700

35006700

15001900

13,80024,400

27,30044,900

540010,000

59008900

36005300

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

340011,000

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

38001000

N/A13,950

N/A23,200

60,70086,900

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

2008 ADT2030 ADT


Figure 4.2 No-Build Condition Forecast Volumes

19

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

tu

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

LOS BLOS B

LOS CLOS C

LOS BLOS C

LOS CLOS D

LOS CLOS D

LOS ALOS A

LOS BLOS C

LOS ALOS B

LOS CLOS E

LOS BLOS E

LOS DLOS B

LOS CLOS D

LOS BLOS B

LOS ALOS B

LOS ALOS D

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

LOS BLOS D

LOS CLOS E

LOS CLOS A

LOS DLOS D

LOS ELOS B

LOS DLOS F

LOS BLOS F

LOS CLOS E

LOS BLOS B

LOS FLOS F

LOS ALOS B

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha CountyWarren

Monticello

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Arkansas City

Jerome

82

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Warden

Monroe

Beekman

PioneerSpencer

Darnell

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge

Perryville

CollinstonSterlington

Legend:

2008 Level Of Service2030 Level Of Service


ArkansasLouisiana

Figure 4.3 No-Build Condition Levels Of Service

20

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

1000LOS B

1400LOS B

1000LOS B

2800LOS C

3700LOS C

7000LOS A

2600LOS B

5100LOS A

1500LOS B

1400LOS B

5000LOS A

5000LOS D

1200LOS B

100,000LOS F

61,600LOS E

6800LOS C

7400LOS C

3800LOS B

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

2700LOS B

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

1000LOS A

13,950LOS A

40,700LOS C

15,300LOS A

19,200LOS A

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

2030 ADT2030 LOS


2-Mile Wide Corridor

Figure 4.4 Corridor A Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service

21

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge


MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

2700LOS B

4100LOS C

1200LOS B

2400LOS C

3600LOS C

6800LOS A

1500LOS B

4500LOS A

2000LOS B

2500LOS B

9400LOS A

1000LOS B

1000LOS B

14,000LOS A

43,300LOS D

3500LOS B

6800LOS C

3400LOS B

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

2300LOS B

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

1000LOS A

13,950LOS A

22,700LOS B

22,100LOS A

13,700LOS A

18,300LOS A

Morehouse Parish

Richland Parish

West Carroll Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

Legend:

2030ADT2030 LOS


2- Mile Wide corridor

Figure 4.5 Corridor B Forecast Volumes and Levels of Service

22

4.2 Traffic Flow Characteristics Levels of Service Traffic flow characteristics were determined using analytical methods recommended by the Transportation Research Board, which is a branch of the National Academies of Science and Engineering. These study methods, called capacity analysis, have been approved by the FHWA and adopted by the AHTD and LADOTD. Capacity analyses use traffic volumes and character, and roadway conditions to evaluate such service measures as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Capacity analysis findings are presented as Levels of Service, which indicate levels of anticipated traffic congestion. Level of Service is a qualitative measure that describes operating conditions in a traffic stream. Six Levels of Service, LOS A through LOS F, are defined in Appendix A. Level of Service A (LOS A) indicates no traffic congestion, and Level of Service F (LOS F) indicates extreme traffic congestion with associated travel delays. In general, LOS C or better is considered to be the design target for rural highways. LOS D is considered to be the appropriate design target for urban highways. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Software was used to perform capacity analyses. This is a suite of programs that was originally prepared by the FHWA and which is now available through the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. Level of Service Findings No-build condition Levels of Service are shown in Figure 4.3. Levels of Service that are forecast for Corridor A are shown in Figure 4.4. Levels of Service that are forecast for Corridor B are shown in Figure 4.5. Travel Time A capacity analysis process was used to estimate future travel times through the corridor. This study effort was first calibrated to the existing travel time of approximately two hours from Monticello to Monroe or Rayville. The analytical assumption, and the assumption tested in the calibration, is that most travelers will desire to travel at five miles per hour faster than the posted speed, whatever the posted speed. The calibration runs found this to


be easily achievable during non-peak times in the corridor, and verified that a portion of the travel in the corridor occurs at even higher speeds. The northern end of both trips is the intersection of U.S. 425 and Arkansas Highway 172 south of Monticello. The southern end of the trip is the intersection of U.S. 165 and I-20 in Monroe for Corridor A, and at the intersection of U.S. 425/ Louisiana Route 137 and I-20 in Rayville for Corridor B. The travel times estimated for future year 2030 conditions are shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Estimated 2030 Travel Times

Corridor

Trip From Monticello

To

No-build Time

(minutes)

No-build Vehicle-Hours

Per Day

Build Time (minutes)

Build Vehicle-Hours Per Day

A Monroe 101 29,800 70 19,700 B Rayville 127 17,900 68 7,400

If the proposed I-69 Connector Extension is constructed in Corridor A, then there would be an expected travel time savings of approximately one half-hour between Monticello and Monroe. If constructed in Corridor B, then there would be an expected travel time savings of approximately one hour between Monticello and Rayville. These savings translate into large amounts of vehicle-hours saved for each Corridor. See Tables 6.2 and 6.3 in the Engineering Assessment section for expected monetary values of these savings.

Crash Analysis

Crash data were provided by AHTD and LADOTD for the three-year period, 2004-2006. Crash rates were determined for several segments of the north-south highways throughout the study area for each of these three years. Analysis segments purposely omitted highway segments through cities such as Crossett and Hamburg to gain better perspective on the crash experience of the corridor without being unfairly biased by local city crashes. The average crash rate for each segment for the three year period was then computed. The crash rates are expressed in terms of the number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled. These were compared to statewide average rates for similar highways for the same three year period.


The crash rates for the Arkansas portion of the study area are summarized in Table 4.3. The statewide average crash rates for similar highway segments for 2004-2006 are also shown for each segment.

Two of the highway segments examined in the Arkansas portion of the study area have crash rates higher than the statewide average for comparable highway segments. One segment is Arkansas Highway 133 from Arkansas Highway 189 to Arkansas Highway 8, which has a crash rate that is 32 percent higher than the statewide averages. The other segment is U.S. 425 from U.S. 82 to Arkansas Highway 8. It exhibits a crash rate that is 10 percent higher than the statewide average crash rate for comparable rural roadway sections.

The crash rates for the Louisiana portion of the study area are summarized in Table 4.4. The segment of U.S. 165 south of Louisiana Route 2 exhibits a crash rate that is 36 percent higher than the statewide average crash rate for comparable rural roadway sections.

Hamburg


Table 4.3: Crash Rates from 2004 to 2006 For Arkansas Highway Segments

Traffic Average Statewide ADT Crash Rate Rate Delta

Route Segment 2006 2004-2006 2004-2006 from

133 Arkansas / Louisiana State Line 2900 0.98 1.25 0.27 to King Circle

133 from AR Highway 189 2800 1.64 1.24 -0.40 to AR Highway 8 from

425 Arkansas / Louisiana State Line 1600 0.99 1.25 0.25 to U.S. 82

82/ 425 From U.S. 82 3600 1.08 1.25 0.17 AR Highway 52

82/ 425 From AR Highway 52 4700 0.52 1.25 0.73 to County Road 22

425 From U.S. 82 2900 1.37 1.25 -0.12 to AR Highway 8 from

425 Ashley/ Drew County Line 3800 0.68 1.25 0.56 to AR Highway 172 from

165 Arkansas / Louisiana State Line 1400 0.73 1.25 0.53 to AR Highway 160

165 from AR Highway 160 2500 0.67 1.25 0.58 to U.S. 82

165 From U.S. 82 1300 0.59 1.25 0.67 to Drew County Line


Table 4.4 Crash Rates from 2004 to 2006 For Louisiana Highway Segments

ADT Average Statewide Crash Rate Rate Delta

Route Segment 2006 2004-2006 2004-2006

142 North of 5100 1.01 1.30 0.29 U.S. Highway 425

425 South of 2100 0.00 1.30 1.30 Arkansas / Louisiana State Line

425 South of 8400 0.50 1.30 0.80 LA Route 142

425 North of 2800 0.00 1.30 1.30 LA Route 134

425 North of 1900 0.00 1.30 1.30 U.S. Highway 80

165 South of 1600 0.29 1.30 1.01 Arkansas / Louisiana State Line

165 South of 2700 0.52 1.30 0.78 LA Route 599

165 South of 16600 1.43 1.07 -0.36 LA Route 2


5.0 Environmental Concerns 5.1 NEPA Process The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes environmental review procedures for expenditures of government funds. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FHWA have agreed on guidance that has been promulgated by the FHWA for NEPA documentation. Both AHTD and LADOTD have worked with their FHWA District Offices to prepare policies that govern environmental studies of transportation projects. This study is not a “NEPA document” since the initial determination of feasibility does not require the detailed investigations that are needed to satisfy the NEPA process. This Feasibility Study is intended to advise AHTD and LADOTD of the potential for the development of the proposed I-69 Connector Extension, to identify major issues and to provide some initial information that could be used to guide any future NEPA investigations. 5.2 GIS Analysis In order to carry out the GIS analysis of study corridors, a wealth of GIS data were collected from various state and federal agencies. These data were obtained from various websites recommended by each state or received directly from the agencies involved. All known constraints were compiled into a single GIS base map. For analysis purposes, a total right-of-way width of 300 feet based about the centerline of each corridor was used as a representative sample for determining potential displacements and constraint impacts that would typically be incurred by construction of this type of facility. Table 5.1 shows the results of the analysis for Corridors A and B.


Tab

le 5

.1 R

esul

ts o

f GIS

Ana

lysi

s of C

orri

dors

A a

nd B

CO

RR

IDO

R A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ER

esid

entia

lB

usin

ess

Chu

rche

sC

emet

erie

s(e

ach)

(eac

h)(e

ach)

(eac

h)(e

ach)

(eac

h)(a

cres

)(a

cres

)

Cor

ridor

A (S

egm

ents

A1,

A2,

A3)

7558

11

1010

1169

7C

orrid

or B

(Seg

men

ts A

1,B

1,B

2)26

31

03

80

562

Not

es: C

onst

rain

t cat

egor

ies t

hat w

ere

not a

ffec

ted

are

not l

iste

d in

the

tabl

e.

29

Bot

h co

rrid

ors a

re sh

own

in F

igur

e 3.

3

W

MA

= W

ildlif

e M

anag

emen

t Are

a

Hyd

ric S

oils

Pote

ntia

l Dis

plac

emen

tsR

ail C

ross

ings

Wat

erw

ay C

ross

ings

WM

A

5.3 Physical Environment Water Quality An initial assessment of the water quality of potentially affected streams within the study area was performed. From data obtained from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2004 303(d) list, two potentially affected streams, the Saline River and the Ouachita River, are listed as impaired waterbodies. The Saline River is also designated as Ecologically Sensitive, as an Extraordinary Resource Water, and as an Arkansas Natural and Scenic Waterway. Three other streams, Ten Mile Creek, Clear Creek and Chemin-A-Haut Creek, are listed as “water quality limited.” From data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 2004 303(d) list, potentially affected streams listed as impaired waterbodies include the Ouachita River, Bayou De Siard, the Bouef River, and Bayou Bartholomew. Bayou Bartholomew is designated as a “Scenic Stream” and any crossing of it would require coordination with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Wetlands An environmental screening of the study area was used to prevent any corridor alternative from entering any Wetlands Reserve Program areas. In the absence of information on wetlands delineations, it was determined to use hydric soil types as an indicator of the presence of wetlands in the corridors. See the following section on Soils and Geology for a discussion on hydric soils. Soils and Geology An escarpment that separates the Mississippi Delta from the Coastal Plain runs northeast-southwest through the study area. This escarpment can be found just east of Monroe and oriented in a southwest-to-northeast direction, eventually bordering the west side of Overflow National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Ashley County and Cut-Off Creek Wildlife Management Area in eastern Drew County. West of the escarpment is an alluvial terrace from the Late Pleistocene epoch. East of the escarpment is alluvium from the Holocene epoch.


A substantial amount of the soils within the study area are classified as hydric. Hydric soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as having formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydric soils indicate areas with a higher probability for wetlands to form. Because the extent of existing wetlands is not known, the presence of hydric soils was used as an indicator of the potential for wetlands. The area of each corridor that crosses known areas of hydric soils was determined through the GIS analysis process. Corridor A crosses approximately 697 acres of hydric soils, and Corridor B crosses approximately 562 acres of hydric soils. If the proposed I-69 Connector Extension is determined to be feasible, existing wetlands would be delineated for avoidance, minimization of impacts, or mitigation, to be determined during the NEPA process. Floodplains An evaluation of the potential for 100-year floodplain encroachment was made for each of the corridors using Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In Arkansas, Corridor A crosses the floodplains of several tributaries of the Saline and Ouachita Rivers, including Ten Mile Creek, Clear Creek, Brown Creek, Fountain Creek and Big Brushy Creek, while Corridor B crosses the floodplains of Brown Creek, Chemin-A-Haut Creek and its tributaries, and some of the tributaries of Bearhouse Creek. In Louisiana, Corridor A crosses the floodplains of the Ouachita River and several of its tributaries including Bayou De Siard, and it crosses the floodplains of Bayou Bartholomew and some of its tributaries, while Corridor B crosses the floodplain of Bayou Galion, the Boeuf River and some of its tributaries, and Bayou Bartholomew and some of its tributaries. Wildlife There are several national wildlife refuges (NWR) and wildlife management areas (WMA) located within the study area, as well as many wetland reserve program sites. Some are quite large, and include Felsenthal NWR, Beryl Anthony/ Lower Ouachita WMA, Overflow NWR, Upper Ouachita NWR, and Russell Sage WMA. These sites host a wide array of wildlife, including deer, waterfowl, and fish. These areas were identified during the environmental screening portion of the study, and an attempt was made to prevent corridor encroachment on these areas. During the GIS analysis of Corridor A, a potential encroachment of Russell Sage WMA was identified. This WMA is located north of


Monroe, Louisiana on U.S. Highway 165 between Louisiana Route 840-6 and Louisiana Route 553. Threatened and Endangered Species The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) and the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP) were contacted to obtain a list of state and Federally-listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species that are known to occur in Corridors A and B. In Arkansas, two elements of special concern were cited, one of which appears on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) T&E list. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) has been reported at three locations along Corridor A, all in Ashley County. This woodpecker is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The Goldstripe Darter (Etheostoma parvipinne), a species of state conservation concern, was located within Corridor B in Drew County. It was reported in Clear Creek, a tributary of the Saline River that runs through the northern portion of both corridors. The ANHC also stated concerns that were not listed specifically on its T&E list, such as potential impacts to pine-hardwood flatwoods, high natural quality forests, remnant prairies, and rare plant species. Should this project be deemed feasible, a NEPA document would be prepared that would address environmental concerns for potential roadway alignments. In Louisiana, eight species of critically imperiled mussels were listed by LNHP as occurring within Corridor A. One of these species, the Pink Mucket, is listed as federally endangered. It has been found at one place in Morehouse Parish. The other seven species are the Butterfly, Hickorynut, Monkeyface, Ouachita Kidneyshell, Rabbitsfoot, Plain Pocketbook and Fat Mucket mussels. Four other mussel species were listed as imperiled to rare, including the Pyramid Pigtoe, Silty Hornsnail, Spike and Ebonyshell mussels. They have also been confirmed within Corridor A. It is noted that there is suitable habitat for most of these mussels, along with another critically imperiled mussel species, the Black Sandshell, within Corridor B. The endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker has been located along both corridors in Louisiana. There have been five confirmations of the bird’s presence within Corridor A, and one confirmation within Corridor B. There are also numerous citations of suitable habitat for the bird listed within both corridors. In Corridor A there have been single confirmations of the Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongates), Bigeye Shiner (Notropis boops),


and the Crystal Darter (Crystallaria asprella), all listed as imperiled to rare within the state. Also of concern is the Western Worm Snake located within Corridor B in Morehouse Parish, listed as critically imperiled. Powdery Thalia, an imperiled to rare plant within Louisiana, has been located within Corridor B in Morehouse Parish. Also listed was the possible presence of Mesic Hardwood Flatwoods in Richland Parish, and rosinweed sunflowers in Morehouse Parish. Cultural Resources A records check and a literature review were conducted for recorded prehistoric and historic archeological sites and architectural sites in the three Arkansas counties and four Louisiana parishes of the study area. All properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that are on file with the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer (AR-SHPO), the Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation, and the Office of the State Archeologist in Arkansas (AAS), and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology (LDA) were recorded on USGS quadrangle maps. One hundred ten (110) NRHP-listed properties were identified in the study area. After recommendation from the Steering Committee that corridor alternatives should be reduced to two corridors, a more detailed review of the two potential corridors was conducted. For this, a corridor width of one half mile based about the centerlines of Corridors A and B was used as a representative area that may be affected by construction of a freeway within either corridor. In Arkansas, one NRHP listed property, Veasey-DeArmond House, is found within Corridor A. None were listed in Corridor B. In Louisiana, no NRHP listed properties were located within the half-mile width for either corridor. In addition to NRHP properties, previously recorded archeological and historic structures were determined for the Arkansas counties. For this purpose, thirty USGS Quadrangles in southeast Arkansas were analyzed. 118 historical and 583 archaeological sites were identified in the thirty quadrangles. For closer inspection of Corridors A and B, a corridor width of one half mile based about the centerlines of each was used as a representative area that may be affected by construction of a freeway within either corridor. Three archaeological sites are located within the A-1 section of both corridors. Six additional sites and one historic structure are located within Corridor B.


In Louisiana, cultural resources within the study area were searched using the Louisiana Cultural Resources website. No historic or archeological sites were listed on the website within the four parish area. The GIS Analysis revealed the possibility of Corridor A encroaching on Burton Cemetery. This cemetery is located in Ouachita Parish on US 165. It is immediately adjacent to the existing highway. It is not anticipated that any graves would be relocated to accommodate highway construction, though mitigation measures may become appropriate at this location. 5.4 Social Environment The study area was evaluated for existing social conditions and environmental concerns. Environmental Justice was analyzed in further detail utilizing census information.

Median Household Income According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the median household income in 1999 within the three-county, four-parish study area ranged from $22,024 in Chicot County to $32,047 in Ouachita Parish. Median household incomes in the largest cities in the study area can be seen in Table 5.2. The median household income for all of the counties and parishes was below the medians for Arkansas and Louisiana, by as much as 30 percent in Chicot County. Median household incomes generally increased approximately 35 percent in the study area during the ten year period between 1990 and 2000. Environmental Justice Considerations

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. This Order was issued to provide that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” A minority community is classified by the U.S. Census as African American, Hispanic American, Asian and Pacific American,


Table 5.2. Median Household Income. Jurisdiction 2000 1990

Ashley County, AR $31,758 $20,609 Chicot County, AR $22,024 $12,680 Drew County, AR $28,627 $18,906 Morehouse Parish, LA $25,124 $17,309 Ouachita Parish, LA $32,047 $21,129 Richland Parish, LA $23,668 $15,298 West Carroll Parish, LA $24,637 $14,924 Average $26,841 $17,265 Crossett, AR $35,442 $25,248 Hamburg, AR $26,189 $18,353 Bastrop, LA $20,418 $12,781 Monroe, LA $25,864 $16,223 Rayville, LA $14,309 $10,900 Arkansas $32,182 $21,147 Louisiana $32,566 $21,949 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census, Summary Files 3 and 4.

Native American, Eskimo, or Aleut, and other non-white persons whose composition is at least 25 percent or more of the total population of a defined area or jurisdiction. A low-income community or population was classified as having an aggregate mean annual income level for a family of four correlating to $17,463 in 2000, adjusted for inflation, whose composition is at least 25 percent or more of the total population of a defined area or jurisdiction. The threshold of poverty for a family of four in 2007 as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau was $21,027.

The initial step in the environmental justice analysis process is the identification of minority and low-income populations that might be affected by implementation of the proposed action. Potential environmental justice issues were evaluated for the two corridor alternatives. Table 5.3 shows the percent of minority population and low-income population for the total study area, and for the two corridor alternatives. These percentages were determined using U.S. census data from the year 2000. The data obtained were on the census tract level, a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county or parish that is designed to be relatively homogenous with respect to population


characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The minority and poverty level percentages for the total study area were obtained by summing the applicable census tract data of those tracts within the study area. The percentages of each corridor alternative were obtained by summing up the applicable census tract data for those census tracts touched by each corridor. Table 5.3 also lists census tracts within each corridor for which the percentages of minority or poverty level inhabitants exceed those of the study area within their respective states.

There are fifteen census tracts touched by Corridor A that have either a higher minority population or higher poverty level than that of their respective states within the study area. By comparison, only five of the census tracts that are traversed by Corridor B fall into that same category. These census tracts are illustrated in Figure 5.1.

Table 5.3. Population Characteristics, 2000

Geographic Area Total

Population Percent Minority

Population Percent Below Poverty Level

Total Study Area 161,925 38 22 Within Arkansas 45,393 31 19 Within Louisiana 116,532 41 24

Corridor B 34,439 34 24 Within Arkansas 17,399 28 19 Tracts Above Study Area Percentages

Census Tract 9601 2,457 43 23 Census Tract 9604 2,192 39 23

Within Louisiana 17,040 39 30 Tracts Above Study Area Percentages

Census Tract 9501 2,298 36 28 Census Tract 9506 3,322 39 30 Census Tract 9705 5,381 64 45


Table 5.3, continued

Geographic Area Total

Population Percent Minority

Population Percent Below Poverty Level

Corridor A 102,580 41 22 Within Arkansas 29,438 26 18 Tracts Above Study Area Percentages

Census Tract 9603 4,975 31 20 Census Tract 9604 2,192 39 23 Census Tract 9605 3,233 12 19 Census Tract 9606 6,346 36 16

Within Louisiana 73,142 47 23 Tracts Above Study Area Percentages

Census Tract 9501 2,298 36 28 Census Tract 9504 4,145 82 43 Census Tract 9508 4,856 82 34 Census Tract 3 1,346 94 42 Census Tract 4.01 2,791 57 15 Census Tract 4.02 3,141 50 27 Census Tract 6 4,459 100 54 Census Tract 7 2,144 100 51 Census Tract 9 1,655 99 54 Census Tract 10.02 1,046 96 21 Census Tract 106.03 5,876 81 32 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary Files 1 and 3.


(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Alto

Jones

Terry

Haile

Start

Delhi

troe

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge

Claiborne

Archibald


onroe

MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Ark

Jerome

I-69 Connector

Future I-69

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Morehouse

RichlandOuachita

West Carroll

Union

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

183

553

189

142

172

133

133

160

137

835

160

133

140

143

133

160

Legend:


Census Tracts With PotentialEnvironmental Justice Issues

Primary North/South RouteInterstateAll Other HighwaysFuture InterstateCorridor Segment Boundary

Figure 5.1 Potential Environmental Justice Issues

Corridor A

Corridor B

Corridor B

Corridor A

38

Public Input

Public meetings were held in June of 2007 to introduce the study to the public and to seek input from interested individuals in the study area. These were held in Crossett and Monroe. The comments received were positive and in favor of the project. Separate meetings were held with local officials to discuss the study scope and to review sources of information needed for the study. There was strong support for the project expressed by the local officials. In response to a specific request, a supplemental meeting with local officials was held in Rayville in May, 2008.

Another round of public meetings was held in June, 2008. The meetings were held in Crossett and Bastrop. Representative Corridors A and B were presented to the public, along with a summary of study findings. Summaries of the comments received at these meetings can be found in Appendix A. Separate meetings were held for local officials from the area. Again, strong support for the project was displayed, with most attendees having the opinion that Corridor A was a better option for the region. Summaries of the local officials’ meetings can also be found in Appendix A.

5.5 Economic Considerations The various key indicators of economic conditions and growth within an area include changes in labor force and employment. These economic variables are discussed in the context of the three-county / four-parish study area. Labor Force The labor force within the study area is estimated at 120,290 workers for 2006 with a total employment estimated at 114,340 (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). The average annual unemployment rate in the study area in 2006 was 4.9 percent, which is lower than the statewide average of 5.3 percent for Arkansas and higher than the four percent for Louisiana. The current labor force represents a 0.1 percent decrease since 2000, which is not as large as the decrease for Louisiana, but is well below the 7.6 percent increase in labor force seen in Arkansas. The majority of the labor force decrease occurred in Ashley County and Morehouse Parish, while there was significant increase in Ouachita Parish during that same period. The annual civilian labor force and


unemployment rates in 2006 for the three-county/ four-parish project area and totals for Arkansas and Louisiana are displayed on Table 5.4. The average unemployment rate for the entire project area is 4.9 percent.

Table 5.4. Annual Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment Rate, 2006.

Jurisdiction 2006 Labor

Force

Percent Increase

2000-2006

Unemployment Rate (percent)

Ashley County 9,710 -7.6 7.7 Chicot County 4,920 -9.5 8.8 Drew County 8,480 -3.0 8.3 Morehouse Parish 11,480 -7.7 6.0 Ouachita Parish 71,950 3.1 3.7 Richland Parish 8,560 -1.1 4.7 West Carroll Parish 5,200 7.7 5.8 Total 120,290 -0.1 Arkansas 1,364,600 7.6 5.3 Louisiana 1,990,100 -2.1 4.0 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Employment Major industries within the study area include manufacturing, retail trade, and educational, health, and social services. These industries account for nearly fifty percent of employment within the study area. No other employment category comprises more than eight percent of total employment. Major employers within the study area are listed in Table 5.5. For this study, major employers were classified as having more than 100 employees. School districts were not listed in the table since their workforce is spread throughout the study area. Potential Economic Consequences Direct Impacts. Short-term direct economic benefits would result during the construction phase of the project. Employment generated by project construction activities would result



Table 5.5. Major Employers

Location Employer

Ashley County Georgia Pacific Corporation Bemis Company, Inc. Ashley Memorial Hospital Ram-Fab, Inc. Chicot County Eudora Garment Chicot Memorial Hospital Harvest Select Catfish Drew County University of Arkansas at Monticello Wal-Mart Drew Memorial Hospital Southeast Arkansas Educational Service Cooperative Morehouse Parish International Paper Wal-Mart Ditto Apparel of California, Inc. Morehouse General Hospital Ouachita Parish Chase Manhattan Mortgage / J.P. Morgan Chase St. Francis Medical Center Graphics Packaging CenturyTel Glenwood Regional Medical Center Entergy Bancroft Bag Tyco ANGUS Chemical Company University of Louisiana at Monroe Richland Parish SUPA/Tifton Aluminum Richardson Medical Center Delta American Health Care Richland Parish Hospital Delhi Guest Home Rayville Guest House Wal-Mart West Carroll Parish Ruffin Building Systems, Inc. Wal-Mart

PROPOSED I-69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION 42 FEASIBILITY STUDY

in direct and indirect employment in other sectors. Direct employment represents jobs initially created in the retail, service, wholesale and other industry sectors in response to the additional demands from the construction project and construction workers. The additional direct and indirect employment created by project implementation would in turn generate an increase in personal income as a result of the additional wages paid; an increase in local and regional business volume resulting from purchases with the additional income; and additional expenditures for local and regional services and supplies related to project construction. Long-term economic benefits would also be realized by implementation of a freeway facility within either corridor alternative. Interchanges and intersections are usually the initial areas subject to retail, commercial, and industrial growth and an associated expanded employment base. Business, and therefore labor force, growth can occur in the manufacturing, service, wholesale, and retail sectors of the economy through the expansion of existing businesses, attraction of new businesses to the area, reduction in the cost of moving goods and raw materials, and the servicing of inter-regional traffic flows that can encourage development of transportation-related businesses. The impacts on business are reflected in increases in sales, income, employment, and other economic indicators. An overall growth in employment would attract additional workers and families to an area, thereby creating an increased demand for housing. This development would in turn create a demand for an expansion of existing and new public infrastructure and services (e.g., utilities, police, and fire). Highway investments are frequently intended as a means to increase the size of the regional economy rather than just redistribute existing pieces of economic activities. In most instances, both an increase and redistribution of economic activity occurs when a major highway investment is made. It can be anticipated that the construction along either of the corridor alternatives could cause some relocation of existing business activity in addition to the generation of new business activity within the immediate area.

Indirect Impacts. A freeway within either of the corridor alternatives would serve primarily as a more direct route from Southeast Arkansas to Northeast Louisiana than is provided now by U.S Highways 425 and 165. Consequently, it is expected that there may be a transfer of business volume, employment, and personal income associated with existing highway-oriented and other types of retail and commercial establishments along these highways to new interchange locations. Indirect employment represents additional jobs created as a result of the new direct employment.

There could be several indirect long-term beneficial economic impacts resulting from project implementation. Induced development could result in a local increase in employment and personal income, and an increase in sales. Lack of the Project. If the project does not get constructed, then the study area region is likely to continue to suffer from a lack of employment. As traffic volumes grow, travel times will increase due to travel delay in some areas.

Mer Rouge



6.0 Engineering Assessment 6.1 Highway Design and Construction Issues Construction of the proposed I-69 Connector Extension would present a number of issues for designers and contractors. These issues include bridges for interchanges and stream crossings, earthwork, paving, and utilities. Maintaining traffic flow through workzones as the proposed I-69 Connector Extension is constructed would be an issue for all cross-roads. Construction would most assuredly create many challenges in the areas where the corridor would follow existing roadways. Below is a segment-by-segment review of potential concerns. 6.2 Corridor A Maintenance of Traffic Section A1, from U.S. 278 to South of Future I-69: In section A1, maintenance of traffic (MOT) through workzones would be a consideration at U.S. 278. The at-grade intersection would be converted to a grade-separated interchange. The construction would have impacts to the traffic flow along U.S. 278 during construction. These impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant. If Future I-69 is constructed prior to the extension of the I-69 Connector, then MOT will be a consideration for Future I-69 as well. The interchange at this location is likely to be a fully directional interchange which would require MOT operations during the construction of the interchange. These operations would impact traffic flow along Future I-69; however, these impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant. Section A2, from South of Future I-69 to the Louisiana state line: In section A2, much of the corridor is in rural areas with minimal impacts to traffic. There are interchanges planned for the crossings on Arkansas Highway 172 and Arkansas Highway 133 in Drew County. Interchanges are also planned for Arkansas Highway 8/


Highway 160, Arkansas Highway 189, Arkansas Highway 52, and U.S. 82 in Ashley County. There are bridges planned for crossings at one highway and eight local roads within corridor segment A2. If the design of these interchanges and bridge locations requires the bridge structure to be located on the existing highway or local road, then a detour would be required at that location. If the design places the bridge on the I-69 Connector Extension, then a detour would not be required. In either case, traffic operations would be affected along the existing highway or local road during construction; however, these impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant. Section A3, from the Arkansas state line to I-20: In the northern portion of section A3, the corridor continues on what would be a new alignment through rural areas. Interchanges are planned at Louisiana Route 142 and at a local road north of Bastrop. The Bastrop Bypass portion of Corridor A is anticipated to have interchanges at Louisiana Route 593 and Louisiana Route 592. There are bridges planned for crossings at Louisiana Route 830-2 and Louisiana Route 830-1 in Bastrop. As described for Section A2, traffic operations would be affected along the existing highway or local road during construction; however, these impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant. South of Louisiana Route 592 in Bastrop, Corridor A is proposed to follow the existing U.S. 165 to its interchange with Interstate 20. In the rural areas between Bastrop and Monroe, there is a 60-foot wide median. This would permit freeway construction within the existing right-of-way, and may only require reconstruction of one side of the existing highway as frontage road, allowing the existing roadway on the other side to become the frontage road. Interchanges are anticipated for Louisiana Route 554, Louisiana Route 2/ 143, and Louisiana Route 134 in this area. In the suburban areas of North Monroe, the median width of the existing U.S. 165 is not as wide. It drops to 40 feet wide in the vicinity of Ouachita Christian School. An interchange is anticipated for Louisiana Route 553 in this area. In the urban areas of Monroe, workzone MOT issues will have a significant impact. Three interchanges are expected for urban Monroe, along with improvements to the existing I-20 interchange. The construction required to convert the existing four-lane U.S. 165 to a four-lane controlled access facility with frontage roads would require MOT plans that


provided lane closures for significant periods of time with significant disruptions to local traffic patterns. These impacts are typical for improvements in urban areas. Unlike the rural areas, these impacts would be significant. Railroad Overpasses In Corridor A, there are several railroad bridge crossings including the Arkansas Midland Railroad (A-M RR) near Wilmar and the Arkansas Louisiana and Missouri Railroad (AL&M RR) near Crossett. In Louisiana, the anticipated crossings are the AL&M RR near Beekman, the AL&M RR near Shelton and the AL&M RR in Monroe. Construction within railroad right of way presents unique requirements including flagging for the rail operations and time limitations when construction can occur. Railroads do not allow their operations to be adversely affected by construction by others within their right of way. Extra care must be taken during construction in these areas to ensure that rail operations are not negatively affected. One area of particular concern is the crossing of the AL&M RR south of Bayou De Siard in Monroe. This location is in an urban area and has a large skew between the railroad and the proposed roadway. Particular care will be required for the construction at this site. Overall, the construction issues related to the railroad overpasses are not unusual for this type of construction, but these issues do require extra care. Waterway Bridges In Corridor A, there is one significant waterway bridge crossing at Bayou Bartholomew near Wardville, LA. Bridge construction in this area will require additional permitting and safety operations. Extra precautions would be required to insure worker safety as it relates to potential high water issues and to ensure public safety related to construction equipment and materials that could be washed out during a flood. Overall, the construction issues related to the waterway bridges are not unusual for this type of construction, but these issues do incur additional risk and require extra care. There are several areas where existing U.S. 165 is very close to existing waterways, so that widening associated with freeway conversion would need to occur on the side of the highway away from the water.


Earthwork Although it is difficult at the planning level to know how much earthwork would be required and what type of soils would be encountered along this 83 mile corridor, some general observations can be made. First, the soils in this area are generally sandy, silty, clayey soils with poor stability characteristics for use as a subgrade material for the proposed roadbed. Second, due to the relative flatness of the terrain especially in Louisiana, there is high potential that there would be more embankment material than excavated material, requiring borrow material. The poor quality of the existing soils may require select material to be brought in from outside of the study area as part of the borrow material. This type of earthwork construction is not uncommon in this area, but it would require additional effort to obtain embankment material that is suitable for highway construction. This condition would probably not be as severe in locations where the proposed corridor follows the existing U.S. 165 alignment since the roadbed is already in place. Utility Relocations A large portion of Corridor A is in a rural setting with minimal utilities. There are two urban areas where utility relocations will be significant. These are in Bastrop and Monroe. These areas will require major utility relocations to accommodate the new facility. These relocations are common for work in urban areas and the impacts will be moderate in the urban areas and very minor in the rural areas. 6.3 Corridor B Maintenance of Traffic Section A1, from U.S. 278 to south of Future I-69: In section A1, maintenance of traffic (MOT) would be a consideration at U.S. 278, where the at-grade intersection will be converted to a grade separated interchange. The construction would have impacts to the traffic flow along U.S. 278 during construction; however, these impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant.


If Future I-69 is constructed prior to the extension of the I-69 Connector, then MOT will be a consideration for Future I-69 as well. The interchange at this location is likely to be a fully directional interchange which would require MOT operations during the construction of the interchange. This anticipated interchange would be the same for either Corridor B or Corridor A. Impacts to the Future I-69 would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant. Section B1, from south of Future I-69 to the Louisiana state line: Much of this corridor is rural, and would present minimal impacts to traffic. Interchanges are anticipated for the crossings on Arkansas Highway 172, U.S. 425, U.S. 82, Arkansas Highway 8, and also for Old Highway 52, which is now a local road east of the intersection of U.S. 425 with U.S. 82. Bridges are expected for crossings at 14 local roads within the corridor. If the design of these interchanges and bridge locations requires the bridge structure to be located on the local road, then a detour would be required for the crossroad. If the respective design places the bridge on the I-69 Connector Extension, then a detour would not be required. In either case, traffic operations would be affected along the existing local road during construction. These impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant. Section B2, from the Arkansas state line to I-20: As in section B1, much of this section of Corridor B is in rural areas with minimal impacts to traffic. There are interchanges anticipated for the crossings of Louisiana Route 834, Louisiana Route 140, U.S. 165, Louisiana Route 2, Grabault Road, Louisiana Route 134, and U.S. 425 north of Rayville. There are bridges planned for crossings at U.S. 80 and five local roads within the corridor. Traffic operations would be affected along the existing highways and local roads during construction; however, these impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are not considered significant. Interchange improvements would be needed at I-20. The construction of this interchange will likely require lane closures on I-20. Traffic operations would be affected along existing I-20 during construction; however, these impacts would be typical for this type of construction and are considered moderately significant. Railroad Overpasses In Corridor B, there are two anticipated railroad bridge crossings including the Arkansas Midland Railroad near Wilmar and the Kansas City – Southern Railroad (KCS RR) near


Rayville. (The Union Pacific Railroad would be crossed near Galion as part of the interchange with U.S. 165.) Construction within railroad right of way presents unique requirements including flagging for the rail operations and time limitations when construction can occur. Extra care must be taken during construction at the rail crossings. Overall, the construction issues related to the railroad overpasses are not unusual for this type of construction, but these issues do require extra care and coordination. Waterway Bridges In Corridor B, there are two significant waterway bridge crossings. One is at Bayou Bartholomew west of Bonita. The other is at the Boeuf River between Oak Ridge and Rayville. Bridge construction in these areas would require additional permitting and safety operations. Extra precautions would be required to insure worker safety and public safety related to potential flooding. Overall, the construction issues related to the waterway bridges are not unusual for this type of construction, but these issues do incur additional risk. Earthwork Although it is difficult at the planning level to know how much earthwork would be required and what type of soils will be encountered along this 83-mile corridor, some general observations can be made. As in Corridor A, the soils in this area generally have poor stability characteristics for use as a subgrade material for the proposed roadbed. Borrow material would be required. The poor quality of the existing soils may require select material to be brought in from outside of the study area as part of the borrow material. This type of earthwork construction is not uncommon in this area but it would require additional effort to obtain embankment material that is suitable for highway construction. Utility Relocations A vast majority of Corridor B is in a rural setting with minimal utilities. These relocations are common for work in rural areas and the impacts would be very minor along this corridor.


6.4 Corridor Comparison Maintenance of Traffic: On Corridor A, workzone MOT will have significant impacts in the urban areas of Monroe. In comparison, Corridor B does not appear to have any significant impacts due to MOT.

Railroad Overpasses: Corridor A has five railroad overpass bridges, with one in Monroe having unique concerns. Corridor B has only two railroad bridges that are not part of interchanges.

Waterway Bridge Construction: Both corridors have bridge crossings over Bayou Bartholomew that should be very similar in regards to design and construction issues. One major difference between the corridors is the Boeuf River crossing on Corridor B. Although the impacts to the construction of the bridges over these waterways are normal for this type of construction, it is clear that the effort required to for this type of advanced construction is less for Corridor A.

Earthwork: Both corridors have similar characteristics with regards to design/ construction issues related to earthwork. The soils on both corridors are not considered suitable for roadway construction and the terrain would probably lead to the need for borrow material on each corridor. Corridor A does have a potential advantage in the area from Bastrop to Monroe due the use of the existing roadbed. Otherwise, the earthwork impacts are typical for this type of construction along both corridors.

Utility Relocation: Along Corridor B, the existing utilities are minimal and relocation of these facilities should be a very minor impact to the construction phase of this corridor. Along corridor A, the existing utilities are minimal except in the urban areas of Bastrop and Monroe. These two areas will have major utility relocations of a nature that are common for urban roadway construction. These impacts would be substantially greater than those expected for Corridor B.

Overall, it appears that the design and construction issues are slightly less severe along Corridor B than along Corridor A.


6.5 Estimated Costs Cost estimates include construction, engineering design, utilities relocations, right-of-way, construction engineering, and long term maintenance costs. The construction costs include roadway, bridges, and interchanges. A contingency is added as a percentage of the construction and engineering costs. Utility relocation costs are based on type of roadway construction. Right of way costs account for property acquired, as well as relocations of residences, businesses, and other types of facilities. Table 6.1 shows estimated costs for engineering and construction, and right-of-way and utilities relocations for both corridors in 2008 dollars. Table 6.1. Corridor Cost Estimates (in Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Corridor Length (Miles)

Engineering and Construction

Right-of-Way and Utilities

Cost Estimate 2008

A with urban Monroe

81.0 $1,547,400 $76,800 $1,624,200

A without Monroe

75.2 $1,311,800 $41,500 $1,368,100

B 82.5 $1,416,800 $35,600 $1,452,400

At the south end of Corridor A, six miles are located either in or immediately outside of the city limits of Monroe. When estimating costs and benefits for Corridor A it was apparent that both were increased significantly due to forecasted traffic congestion on US 165 in Monroe. The Long Range Transportation Plan for the Monroe urbanized area that is maintained by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at the Ouachita Council of Governments does not feature a future project to improve US 165 in this area. There are future projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan that are anticipated to divert traffic away from US 165 north of I-20, but high levels of traffic congestion are still expected. If a future freeway north of Monroe were to be tied in to US 165, it would be expected to widen the US 165 roadway to six lanes in order to provide an adequate Level of Service for traffic flow. The anticipated costs and associated benefits that would accompany widening of this urban portion of existing US 165 are both relatively high, and were determined to be overwhelming when compared to the remaining rural portions of the Corridor A proposal. It is apparent that a stand-alone widening of


US 165 from Louisiana Route 553 south to I-20 should be considered by the Monroe Area MPO. The southernmost portion of Corridor A was omitted from consideration in the benefit/ cost analysis, to avoid a distortion of the consideration of a primarily rural project with high numbers associated with an urban project. Roadway Construction Roadway costs are based on length of main line roadway less the length of the proposed bridges. Construction costs were estimated using planning-level information that was supplied by AHTD and LADOTD for 2007 and adjusted to 2008 dollars by raising all costs by six percent. Bridge Construction Bridge locations were determined by placing a bridge on either Corridor at any waterway where a bridge was found on an existing roadway near the respective corridor. Bridges were also anticipated at locations where the Corridors cross local roads and state highways where interchanges were not assigned. An additional number of bridges are included for creeks that will likely require a bridge. Bridge lengths are based on existing adjacent structures for waterway crossings and common lengths for bridges over local roads and state highways.

Estimated costs were determined by multiplying bridge lengths by the expected width of 80 feet (two 12-foot lanes, 6-foot inside shoulder and 10-foot outside shoulder, with two bridges at each location). Current (2008) cost estimates were used, with $160 per square foot in Arkansas and $165 per square foot in Louisiana. Interchanges Interchanges are located at each Interstate Highway, U.S. Highway and state highway crossing. The only state highways that are not anticipated to have an interchange are in locations where they are too close to other interchanges to provide for adequate spacing of ramp junctions. There are a couple of local road crossings for which interchanges are expected.


The cost estimated for interchanges on new location in Arkansas is $6.9 million per diamond interchange. Higher costs were allocated to fully directional interchanges. Diamond interchanges in Louisiana were estimated to cost $14.8 million each. Studies and Design The preliminary engineering and construction engineering costs are based on 15 percent of the construction costs. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) cost was estimated separately, based on input from AHTD and LADOTD, and is estimated at $4.0 million for Corridor A and $2.9 million for Corridor B. A higher environmental study cost is expected for Corridor A in part because of cultural resources near the existing U.S. 165 and because more of Corridor A is urban. Contingency A 15 percent contingency is added to the subtotal of construction and engineering costs. These costs were presented to the Steering Committee in December 2007 and are approved. Utilities Relocations Utility relocation costs are estimated according to type of roadway construction. These costs are based on input from various state agencies. The costs are assigned as follows:

new location - urban = $ 210,000 per mile, new location - rural = $ 160,000 per mile, widening - urban = $ 530,000 per mile, and widening - rural = $ 265,000 per mile.

These costs were reviewed by AHTD and LaDOTD in December 2007. Maintenance Costs for maintaining the proposed facilities are based on 2007 costs from AHTD. The cost of maintaining an Interstate Highway is $10,600 per four-lane mile per year. Maintenance costs will be incurred each year of the 25-year analysis period of the facility. One pavement rehabilitation project was included in the total costs for maintenance as well. This project was assumed to occur at the end of the 25-year analysis period, and was


valued at $4,000,000 per four-lane mile in Arkansas and $6,000,000 per four-lane mile in Louisiana. Right of Way Land: Cost for land required for right-of-way is based on the length of the roadway segment times 300 feet for new location and 200 feet on existing roadway. A cost of $4,250 per acre was used, based on prices recently paid for comparable land on AHTD projects in the southeast part of Arkansas. Prices for land in urban areas are higher, and this fact was taken into account in the estimated costs of displacements. Displacements: Estimated costs for relocating residential, business and public facilities are based on information obtained from AHTD for similar projects. The cost estimates were assigned as follows:

potential residential displacement = $210,000 each, potential business displacement = $530,000 each, church displacement = $1.1 million each, cemetery displacement = $200,000 each, school displacement = $3.2 million each, and airport displacement = $2.1 million each.

The costs used in the study are for planning purposes to estimate these potential impacts. Both school and airport displacements were found in the review of the initial preliminary corridors. The two representative corridors that were selected for the purpose of the determination of feasibility were both modified to avoid school or airport displacements. Non-Quantifiable Costs There are non-quantifiable costs associated with a project such as this as well. The freeway will be a barrier that cuts off existing unpaved roads, forcing some motorists to find alternative roadways to cross it. This will require additional travel for those motorists, leading to increased travel time and fuel consumption. There will also be noise pollution attributable to the freeway that will not be mitigated due to the low density of the residential population.


6.6 Estimated Benefits Travel time The proposed I-69 Connector Extension is intended to improve travel, and would reduce the time needed to travel through the study area. The savings of time by travelers on the proposed freeway is one of the primary benefits that would accrue from the construction of the facility. The value of the time saved was computed for three classes of travelers. These are intercity trips, commercial trips, and local trips. Suggested hourly values of travel time for each class were provided in the revised departmental guidance for Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis published by the U.S. Department of Transportation. These values were $11.20 per hour for local travel, $15.60 per hour for intercity travel, and $18.10 per hour for commercial travel. The highest value is placed on commercial trips, since these travelers are on schedule and “on the clock.” An additional 45 cents per hour was added to truckers’ wages operating under no-build conditions to account for possible savings incurred due to quicker delivery of cargo if a freeway facility were built. This amount was determined using inventory costs derived from methodologies described in the User Benefit Analysis for Highways, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 2003. Travel times were considered for two sets of travelers. The first set considered are those travelers that are expected to traverse the entire study area in the No-build condition, using either U.S. 425 or U.S. 165/ U.S. 425 as their route. These travelers would be anticipated to enjoy a substantial time savings if the proposed I-69 Connector Extension were constructed. In fact, they would be anticipated to save as much as half of the time required to traverse the entire study area from Future I-69 to I-20, which would be a two-hour trip in the No-build condition. The second set of travelers that would be anticipated to save time by using the proposed freeway are those travelers who would traverse only part of the study area, and those travelers that would divert from some other route in order to save time by using the freeway. Their travel time savings would be much less than for the first set of travelers discussed above. This is expected to be a larger group of travelers than the first set of travelers, but the anticipated trips represent a wide variety of travel patterns. Some simplifying assumptions were made during this analysis. Since some of these travelers divert from other routes, it is expected that they will travel extra distances for their trips in order to use a freeway facility, and therefore their overall travel time savings will not be as


much, due to the extra length of travel. Some of these travelers will only traverse a portion of the proposed freeway length. The value of travel time saved for this set of travelers will be offset to a greater degree by the costs of additional fuel consumption due to the extra distances they travel at the beginning and end of their trip in order to use the access-controlled facility. It was not reasonable to attempt to forecast the travel of all of the subgroups of travelers in the second set described above. Instead, it was determined to aggregate the whole set, but to discount it to account for reduced overall travel time savings and to provide for the offsetting value of additional fuel consumption. Travel time savings were estimated for the entire set as if traversing the entire study area, and then reduced by three-fourths (3/4). This is intended to reasonably estimate the overall benefits to these travelers. Crash Avoidance To estimate crash avoidance savings, crashes were forecasted for the 2030 No-build and Build scenarios. The No-build forecast of crashes was created using the current crash rates for highways in the study area multiplied by the projected 2030 ADT for those highways. For the Build option for each corridor, crash forecasts were estimated from two sources. First, crashes were forecasted for existing highways using the current crash rates for the highways, multiplied by the forecast ADT for the highway. Secondly, crashes were forecasted for the proposed I-69 Connector Extension using the current statewide crash rates for rural Interstate Highways. The number of Build forecast crashes were subtracted from the number of No-Build forecast crashes to obtain an estimated number of avoided crashes. To determine monetary values for crash avoidance savings, a willingness to pay (WTP) value of $5.8 million dollars per fatality averted was used. This value was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation revised departmental guidance for the Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses, dated February 5, 2008. Since all crashes do not result in fatalities, forecasted crash numbers were broken down in to categories of injury severity based on prior crash experience in the area. The categories range from fatal to minor. Each category specifies a fraction of the WTP value to use in economic analyses based on injury severity. This number is given as a multiplier, ranging from 1.0 for a fatal injury, to 0.002 for a minor injury. For example, WTP to avert a fatal injury would be $5.8 million x 1.000 = $5.8 million, while WTP to


avert a minor injury would only be $5.8 million x 0.0020 = $11,600. Expected crash avoidance savings are shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. Vehicle Operating Costs Although there are several items that can be considered when determining vehicle operating costs, such as maintenance and tire wear, the only element that was calculated explicitly for this study was fuel consumption. Prices of $3.52 per gallon of gasoline and $3.94 per gallon of diesel fuel were used based on the projection for calendar year 2008 provided by the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy in May of 2008. Ten percent was added to these prices to account for other operating costs mentioned above. The cost difference in fuel consumption for the first set of travelers described in the Travel Time section above was computed, and the results were plugged in to the cost/ benefit analysis. Fuel consumption for the second set of travelers was considered as a cost for both corridors and was built in as a reduction of the travel time savings benefit. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 show the estimated benefits of changed fuel consumption. Substantial fuel consumption savings are expected for Corridor A. This is attributed to the delays that would be avoided on US 165 when traffic signals are eliminated. Fuel is consumed at a generous rate when accelerating from a stop condition, especially in trucks. Elimination of stops translates into large fuel savings. The annual quantifiable benefits anticipated as described above are shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. Non- Quantifiable Benefits There are also benefits that cannot be quantified such as expected economic benefits. These benefits are based on the expectation that a new Interstate Highway in the region would lure new industries to the area that previously would not have considered the area due to the lack of such a roadway. There are industrial parks in the study area that could benefit by being considered by more potential industries. There is a recognized “megasite” for possible development by a large industrial user located in Richland Parish north of I-20 (Franklin Farm Megasite). The assumption is that these locations would become more marketable, and would therefore develop to a greater extent due to the presence of an Interstate Highway through the study area. This is partly due to the site selection process of large industrial companies. There are conceivably large numbers of candidate sites in any region under consideration. The site selection process looks to screen out many of


Table 6.2 Corridor A Annual Quantifiable Benefits (in Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Including Urban Monroe

Without Monroe

Category No-build

Corridor A

Build Corridor

A Savings

No-build Corridor

A

Build Corridor

A Savings

Travel Time $184,420 $106,920 $77,500 $122,940 $71,960 $50,980

Crashes $179,130 $101,540 $77,590 $179,130 $101,540 $77,590

Fuel Consumption

$313,810 $170,020 $143,780 $147,140 $116,580 $30,560

Total $677,360 $378,480 $298,870 $449,210 $290,080 $159,130

Note: for a discussion of the impacts of the urban portion of Corridor A, see Section 6.5.

Table 6.3 Corridor B Annual Quantifiable Benefits (in Thousands of 2008 Dollars)

Category No-build Corridor

B

Build Corridor

B Savings

Travel Time $98,770 $39,880 $58,890

Crashes $179,130 $120,710 $58,420

Fuel Consumption

$98,270 $81,280 $17,000

Total $376,170 $241,870 $134,310


these sites in order to focus on a smaller number of candidate sites that have the characteristics that are desired by the developers. One of these screening tools is the site distance to the site from an Interstate Highway interchange. The presence of the proposed I-69 Connector Extension would help the industrial parks in Crossett and Bastrop to make it past that initial screening criterion and possibly be considered for industrial development. In order for this change in site screening to work, the proposed facility would need to be an Interstate Highway, and not just an improved arterial highway or even a new expressway. It is recognized that both Arkansas and Louisiana have many other industrial parks available in other areas outside the study area. The presumption is that any advantage to industrial development within the study area would simply put the study area sites at a competitive advantage against other industrial parks in other parts of Arkansas or Louisiana. Quantification of expected benefits from anticipated industrial development was not computed since it would require evaluation of the competitive disadvantages afforded to regional industrial parks outside the study area. Other non-quantifiable benefits include improved access into the region for recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and nature watching at the numerous wildlife management areas, national wildlife refuges, and hunting clubs within the study area. Indirect benefits may include lower prices for goods and higher wages for workers within the study area due to a reduced cost for transportation of goods to the study area. 6.7 Benefit/ Cost Analysis A benefit/ cost analysis was performed for Corridors A and B. An assumed interest rate of three percent per year was used throughout the analysis. The estimated construction costs were amortized over 25 years to calculate an equivalent annual cost. That annuity cost was then expressed in 2008 dollars for use in the analysis, to provide a consistent comparison with estimated maintenance costs and the estimated values of quantifiable benefits. Both Corridor A and Corridor B are justified with benefit/ cost ratios greater than one. For Corridor A this ratio is 1.5. That means that for every dollar spent on the project, there would be approximately 1.5 dollars of benefits that would be anticipated to accrue to the

various users of the facility and residents of the study area. The benefit/ cost ratio for Corridor B is 1.2. The benefit/ cost ratio for Corridor A including the urban section of Monroe is 2.4.

Bastrop



7.0 Potential Funding Sources There is no funding in place for further study, design, right-of-way purchase, or construction of the proposed facility. Since the proposed I-69 Connector Extension would be part of the Interstate Highway System, it would be eligible for federal funds through the National Highway System (NHS) program if approved. However, the large costs associated with the project would come from the NHS distributions that are available for Arkansas and Louisiana, and would have to be secured for the project in consideration with all of the NHS projects proposed for each state. It is likely that, even if approved, funding would not become available until far into the future. It should be noted that it will be many years before funding is accumulated under current rates in order to construct the Future I-69. An assumption built into this study is that Future I-69 would be constructed before beginning development of the proposed I-69 Connector Extension. A recent study by AHTD indicated that they have already recognized needs for transportation projects in Arkansas that total an amount approximately five times the funding that is anticipated to become available over the next twenty years. The Louisiana Long Range Transportation Plan has identified candidate highway “Megaprojects” with priority categories A, B, C, and D, with Priority A and B projects having a higher priority than Priority C and D projects. However, LADOTD has only identified a potential funding stream for Priority A and Priority B projects. While progress has been made to implement some Priority A and B projects, at this time a total funding package for completion of the entire Priority A and B categories has not been identified. The proposed I-69 Connector Extension project is currently eligible only for Federal-aid Demonstration Project funding. To be eligible for Federal-aid Highway funding through the National Highway System (NHS) Program, the new freeway corridor would have to be added to the NHS by action of the states of Arkansas and Louisiana and approved by FHWA. Moreover, the large costs associated with the project would have to come from current and future NHS funds allocated to Arkansas and Louisiana, and project funding would have to compete with all of the existing NHS projects proposed for each state. Since overall funding is limited, competition for NHS funding is intense. It is likely that,

even with NHS route designation, funding would not become available until far into the future. It could be possible to construct the project as a future toll facility, using innovative funding strategies. The projected traffic volumes are far too low to anticipate full or even a significant partial recovery of construction and maintenance costs by tolls alone. A future toll revenue study would be needed in order to determine the likely revenue stream that might be expected as part of a total innovative funding package.



8.0 Findings 8.1 Comparative Matrix The data shown in Table 8.1 should be viewed as indicators of potential impacts to environmental, socioeconomic and cultural resources should this project be deemed feasible. These numbers reflect the kind of impacts that may be incurred by construction of this sort of facility, but are based on representative alignments within Corridors A and B. Since a new roadway would occupy a relatively small portion of the corridor width (assumed 300-foot right-of-way width), the data should not be considered as indication that a shown resource would, in fact, be adversely affected. Similarly, the relative prevalence of a resource in a particular corridor (as compared to the other corridor) does not suggest the degree to which that resource could be affected by a new roadway if one were to be developed in the corridor. This information was compiled from the GIS analysis, and other planning and engineering analyses performed during the course of this Feasibility Study. Sources of information include AHTD, LADOTD, the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office, the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, and the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program.


Table 8.1 Comparative Matrix

Matrix Item Corridor A 1 Corridor B

General Length Along Approximate Corridor Centerline (Miles) 75.2 82.5

2030 Estimated Traffic (ADT)

15,300 to

61,600

13,700 to

22,700 Estimated Opening Day Costs in 2008 Dollars (Millions) $1,368 $1,452 Potential Displacements: Approximate Potential Residential Displacements 58 26 Approximate Potential Business Displacements 33 3 Approximate Potential Church Displacements 1 1 Approximate Potential Cemetery Displacements 1 0 Potential Environmental Effects Potential Wetland (Hydric Soils) Acres Impacted 670 560 Potential WMA, NWR, or State Lands Acres Impacted 0 0 Approximate Acres Needed for New Roadway 2,480 2,940 Potentially Affected Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 1 0 Potentially Affected Recorded Archaeological Sites 3 9 Potentially Affected Known Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 Potentially Affected Known Threatened or Endangered Species

1 1

Benefits and Costs: Estimated Travel Time Savings From I-69 to I-20 (hours) 0.5 1.0 Annual Value of Estimated Travel Time Savings (millions)

$51.0 $58.9

Estimated Annual Avoided Crashes 84 63 Annual Value of Estimated Avoided Crashes (millions) $77.6 $58.4 Annual Value of Estimated Vehicle Operating Costs Savings (millions)

$30.6 $17.0

Total Annual Quantifiable Benefits (millions) $159.2 $134.3 Annual Equivalent Opening Day Costs (millions) $78.6 $83.4 Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs (millions) $27.0 $29.8 Total Annual Quantifiable Costs (millions) $105.6 $113.2 Benefit/ Cost Ratio 1.5 2 1.2 Note 1: Corridor A values do not include urban Monroe. Note 2: Benefit/ cost ratio for Corridor A with Monroe included is 2.4.


8.2 Feasibility Criteria In determining the feasibility of a roadway project such as this, the FHWA has identified three required elements that must be considered: • The degree to which a given alternative mode, management strategy, design or

location is economically justified, • The degree to which such an alternative is considered preferable from an

environmental or social perspective, and, • The degree to which eventual construction and operation of such an alternative can be

financed and managed. 8.3 Remarks Based on the traffic and safety analyses that were conducted for this study, an imminent need was not found for the creation of a safer or more effective means to travel through the study area. Analyses of travel patterns throughout the study area do not indicate a great need for a high-speed connector from Future I-69 or the I-69 Connector to I-20. The safety analysis indicated local crash rates that were consistently lower than the statewide crash rates for similar facilities. Traffic analyses show projected traffic volumes would be maintained at acceptable Levels of Service on the existing highway system with few exceptions. There does appear to be a need for an Interstate Highway for purposes of commerce. Local officials have stated that possible industrial developments have bypassed the area due to the lack of an Interstate Highway. An Interstate Highway would benefit existing industries in the area by improving shipping routes and expediting cargo delivery. It may also serve to discourage existing industries from relocating to a site outside of the study area that is closer to such a roadway facility. For these reasons, it is believed that an Interstate Highway could improve stabilization of local economies within the study area.


The assessment of feasibility is: • The degree to which a given alternative mode, management strategy, design or

location is economically justified?

Projected benefits would be higher than estimated costs. Corridor A shows a greater benefit than Corridor B.

• The degree to which such an alternative is considered preferable from an

environmental or social perspective?

The environmental effects appear to be manageable or could be mitigated. There would be definite social and economic benefits to travelers and to the residents and businesses in the region. There is strong local support for the project.

• The degree to which eventual construction and operation of such an alternative can be

financed and managed?

Funding sources have not been identified at this time. The high costs anticipated for the proposed project would be prohibitive for further project development.


FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX A

Study Process: Public Meetings Summaries Local Officials Meetings Steering Committee Meeting Agency Correspondence

Levels of Service Definitions

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

(/

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·

Æ·Æ·

Æ·

Epps

Jones

Terry

Haile

Start

Delhi

Bonita

Galion

Forest

Swartz

Warden

SicardMonroe

Beekman


Darnell

Sheltons

Rayville

Richwood

Kilbourne

Wardville Oak Grove

Mer Rouge

Oak Ridge

rne


onroe

MonticelloWarren

Crossett

McGehee

Dermott

Eudora

Hamburg

Wilmot

Wilmar

Lake Village

nthal

Portland

Parkdale

e

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Arkansa

Jerome

ArkansasLouisiana

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Ashley County

Drew County

Chicot County

Bradley County

Desha County


Richland Parish

Ouachita Parish

Union Parish

82

80

80

82

65

65

82

425

425

425

165

165

425

165

165

278

425

8

2

8

8

35

52

52

17

142

172

133

137

835

160

133

140

133

160

.

Figure A.1 Preliminary Corridors

Future I-69

I-69 Connector

1-A

1-B

1-C

1-D

3-B

3-A

2-B

2-A

4-A

Legend:

PreliminaryCorridor


FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX B

Tabulations

Proposed I-69 Connector Feasibility Study

Conceptual Cost Estimates

(Corridor A North of LA 553)

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 46.5 $8,000,000 $372,000,000 0 $1,500,000 $0 36.9 $10,600,000 $391,100,000 0 $1,900,000 $0Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 44.6 $8,000,000 $356,800,000 0 $1,500,000 $0 32.7 $10,600,000 $346,600,000 0 $8,500,000 $200,000

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 3630 80 290400 $160 $46,500,000 3980 80 318400 $165 $52,500,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 3635 80 290800 $160 $46,500,000 4110 80 328800 $165 $54,300,000

CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 8.5 $6,900,000 $58,700,000 10 $14,800,000 $148,000,000 $1,068,800,000 $160,300,000 $2,900,000 $184,800,000 $1,416,800,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 9.5 $6,900,000 $65,600,000 8 $14,800,000 $118,400,000 $988,400,000 $148,300,000 $4,000,000 $171,100,000 $1,311,800,000

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) $0 $11,600,000 $0 $3,300,000 $14,900,000 2935 $4,250 $12,500,000 26 $210,000 $5,500,000 3 $530,000 $1,600,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) $0 $10,100,000 $1,100,000 $3,600,000 $14,800,000 2480 $4,250 $10,500,000 58 $210,000 $12,200,000 33 $530,000 $17,500,000

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 1 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 0 $200,000 $0 0 $3,200,000 $0 0 $2,100,000 $0 $8,200,000 $35,600,000 $1,452,400,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 1 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 1 $200,000 $200,000 0 $3,200,000 $0 0 $2,100,000 $0 $31,000,000 $56,300,000 $1,368,100,000

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVECemetery

(each)

Cost per Cemetery

Displacement

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVEWidening Urban

($530K/mile)

Widening Rural

($265K/mile)

Church (each)

Church Displacement

Cost

RIGHT OF WAYPotential Displacements

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE

Arkansas Main Lane Length (mi)

Arkansas Cost/ mile

Arkansas Main Lane

Cost

ROADWAY

Louisiana Frontage

Road Cost

Arkansas Frontage Rd. Length (mi)

Arkansas Frontage Rd.

Cost/ mile

Arkansas Frontage Road

CostLouisiana Frontage

Rd. Length (mi)



Louisiana Length (ft) Width (ft)

Louisiana Interchange

CostCost/ Each

Arkansas Interchange

CostArkasas Number

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

BRIDGE

Louisiana Frontage Rd.

Cost/ mileLouisiana Main

Lane Length (mi)Louisiana Cost/

mile

Louisiana Main Lane

Cost

CONTINGENCY (15%)

Cost/ Acre

Environmental Impact

Statement

Arkansas Length (ft)

Arkansas Bridge CostWidth (ft) Area (sf)

Louisiana Cost/ SF

Louisiana Bridge Cost

Arkansas Cost/ SF

UTILITIES

New Location Urban

($210K/mile)

New Location Rural

($160K/mile)


Utilities CostBusiness

(each)

Cost per Business

Displacement

Business Displacement

Cost

TOTAL INITIAL COST

Potential Displacement

Cost

Land CostAcres

RIGHT OF WAY AND UTLITIES

SUBTOTAL

School Displacement

CostAirport (each)

Residential (each)

Cost per Residential

Displacement

Residential Displacement

Cost

Cemetery Displacement

Cost

Cost per Church

DisplacementSchool (each)

Airport Displacement

Cost

Cost per Ariport

DisplacementCost per School Displacement

ENGINEERING

Area (sf)

Louisiana Number Cost/ Each

INTERCHANGESDesign and

Construction Engineering

(15% of Construction)

09/05/2008

Prepared for Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department


byJacobs Carter Burgess

Parsons

Proposed I-69 ConnectorFeasibility Study


Proposed I-69 Connector Feasibility Study


Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 46.5 $8,000,000 $372,000,000 0 $1,500,000 $0 36.9 $10,600,000 $391,100,000 0 $1,900,000 $0Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 44.6 $8,000,000 $356,800,000 0 $1,500,000 $0 38.3 $10,600,000 $406,000,000 6 $8,500,000 $49,300,000

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 3630 80 290400 $160 $46,500,000 3980 80 318400 $165 $52,500,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 3635 80 290800 $160 $46,500,000 4910 80 392800 $165 $64,800,000

CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 8.5 $6,900,000 $58,700,000 10 $14,800,000 $148,000,000 $1,068,800,000 $160,300,000 $2,900,000 $184,800,000 $1,416,800,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 9.5 $6,900,000 $65,600,000 12 $14,800,000 $177,600,000 $1,166,600,000 $175,000,000 $4,000,000 $201,800,000 $1,547,400,000

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) $0 $11,600,000 $0 $3,300,000 $14,900,000 2935 $4,250 $12,500,000 26 $210,000 $5,500,000 3 $530,000 $1,600,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) $0 $10,100,000 $4,200,000 $3,600,000 $17,900,000 2620 $4,250 $11,100,000 75 $210,000 $15,800,000 58 $530,000 $30,700,000

Corridor B (A1/ B1/ B2) 1 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 0 $200,000 $0 0 $3,200,000 $0 0 $2,100,000 $0 $8,200,000 $35,600,000 $1,452,400,000Corridor A (A1/ A2/ A3) 1 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 1 $200,000 $200,000 0 $3,200,000 $0 0 $2,100,000 $0 $47,800,000 $76,800,000 $1,624,200,000

ENGINEERING

Area (sf)

Louisiana Number Cost/ Each

INTERCHANGESDesign and

Construction Engineering

(15% of Construction)

Cemetery Displacement

Cost

Cost per Church

DisplacementSchool (each)

Airport Displacement

Cost

Cost per Ariport

DisplacementCost per School Displacement

TOTAL INITIAL COST

Potential Displacement

Cost

Land CostAcres

RIGHT OF WAY AND UTLITIES

SUBTOTAL

School Displacement

CostAirport (each)

Residential (each)

Cost per Residential

Displacement

Residential Displacement

Cost

UTILITIES

New Location Urban

($210K/mile)

New Location Rural

($160K/mile)


Utilities CostBusiness

(each)

Cost per Business

Displacement

Business Displacement

Cost

CONTINGENCY (15%)

Cost/ Acre

Environmental Impact

Statement

Arkansas Length (ft)

Arkansas Bridge CostWidth (ft) Area (sf)

Louisiana Cost/ SF

Louisiana Bridge Cost

Arkansas Cost/ SF

Louisiana Frontage Rd.

Cost/ mileLouisiana Main

Lane Length (mi)Louisiana Cost/

mile

Louisiana Main Lane

Cost



Louisiana Length (ft) Width (ft)

Louisiana Interchange

CostCost/ Each

Arkansas Interchange

CostArkasas Number

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

BRIDGE


Arkansas Main Lane Length (mi)

Arkansas Cost/ mile

Arkansas Main Lane

Cost

ROADWAY

Louisiana Frontage

Road Cost

Arkansas Frontage Rd. Length (mi)

Arkansas Frontage Rd.

Cost/ mile

Arkansas Frontage Road

CostLouisiana Frontage

Rd. Length (mi)

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVECemetery

(each)

Cost per Cemetery

Displacement

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVEWidening Urban

($530K/mile)

Widening Rural

($265K/mile)

Church (each)

Church Displacement

Cost


09/05/2008

Prepared for Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department


byJacobs Carter Burgess

Parsons

Proposed I-69 ConnectorFeasibility Study


INTERSTATE 69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY

I-69 CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY · 2009. 4. 21. · FINAL REPORT INTERSTATE 69 CONNECTOR EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY DREW, ASHLEY & CHICOT COUNTIES, ARKANSAS MOREHOUSE, OUACHITA,

Documents