JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY Craighead County May 2007
JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY Craighead County May 2007 Prepared by Planning and Research Division Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department In Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration AHTD:P&R:SP:CH:05.04.07
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Introduction... 4 Overview... 4 PURPOSE AND NEED... 5 Existing Roadway System... 5 Traffic and Level of Service... 6 Safety Analysis... 8 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS... 10 No-Build Alternative... 10 Alternative I... 10 Improvement Alternatives... 10 Alternative II... 10 Alternative III... 12 Alternative IV... 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS... 17 FINDINGS... 18 APPENDIX... 20 i
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area... 2 Figure 2. Average Daily Traffic... 7 Figure 3. Alternative II... 11 Figure 4. Alternative III... 14 Figure 5. Alternative IV... 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Crash Rates... 9 Table 2. Corridor Comparisons... 18 ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Arkansas Highway Commission passed Minute Order 2005-042, which authorized a study to determine the need for and feasibility of a connecting route between Highway 63 (Joe N. Martin Expressway) and Highway 18 (Highland Drive) in southeast Jonesboro that would divert east-west through traffic that currently travels through Jonesboro on Highway 18. Highway 18 is the most direct east-west connection between three access controlled, four-lane facilities in the region: Highway 67 in Newport, Highway 63 in Jonesboro and Interstate 55 in Blytheville. Improvements would result in allowing this through traffic, especially large trucks, to avoid traveling along Highway 18 through more developed areas of the City. Large trucks routinely use Highway 18 to travel through Jonesboro causing undue congestion and unsafe operating conditions. A more efficient route for east-west through traffic would, by diverting traffic to Highway 63, reduce congestion and enhance safety along Highway 18 in Jonesboro. Both local and regional traffic flow would also be improved by either upgrading existing roadways or constructing a route on new location. This study analyzes the need for and the feasibility of the proposed connector. The study area is bounded on the east by Nestle Road and Nestle Way, on the west by Highway 18 Spur (Commerce Drive), on the north by Highway 18 and on the south by Highway 63 as shown in Figure 1. This study considered a total of four alternatives; the no-build alternative and three improvement alternatives that extend between various locations along Highway 63 and Highway 18. Alternative I is the no-build alternative where no improvements would be made. Although there are no direct construction costs associated with this alternative, indirect costs would include additional vehicle operating costs due to unwarranted and excessive delays and the costs from crashes on existing roadways. 1
Alternative II, the westernmost alternative, is approximately 1.2 miles in length and would widen the existing two-lane Highway 18 Spur to four 12-foot travel lanes with curb and gutters and a 12-foot, continuous, two-way left turn lane. This alternative is estimated to cost $8.2 million in 2006 dollars including construction, right-of-way and utilities, preliminary engineering and an upgrade to the at-grade railroad crossing warning signals. Figure 1. Study Area 2
Alternative III is approximately 1.8 miles in length on new location between Highway 18 near the intersection with Heath Lane and Highway 18 Spur near the Highway 63 interchange. The proposed cross section would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes, a 12-foot, continuous, two-way left turn lane, 8-foot shoulders and no control of access. Alternative III is estimated to cost $9.7 million in 2006 dollars including construction, right-of-way and utilities, preliminary engineering and installation of warning signals at a new at-grade railroad crossing. Alternative IV, the easternmost alternative, is approximately 3.1 miles in length and would consist of improvements to Nestle Road and Nestle Way. The proposed cross section would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes, a 12-foot, continuous, two-way left turn lane, 8-foot shoulders and no control of access. Alternative IV is estimated to cost $11.4 million in 2006 dollars including construction, right-of-way and utilities, preliminary engineering and an upgrade to the at-grade railroad crossing warning signals. This alternative was found not to be viable because it would result in a far more circuitous and far less appealing route for eastwest traffic. 3
INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Highway Commission passed Minute Order 2005-042, which authorized a study to determine the need for and feasibility of a connecting route between Highway 63 and Highway 18 in southeast Jonesboro that would divert east-west through traffic that currently travels through Jonesboro on Highway 18 (Southwest and Highland Drives). In the City of Jonesboro, Highway 18 is classified as a principal arterial with lower, urban speed limits and no control of access. It is the most direct east-west connection between three access controlled four-lane facilities in the region: Highway 67 in Newport, Highway 63 in Jonesboro and Interstate 55 in Blytheville. Also, traffic volumes are expected to increase due to the anticipated growth in commercial and industrial developments along Highway 18. This development will compound traffic congestion, which will add to delay. Overview Jonesboro is located in Craighead County on Highway 63, approximately 133 miles northeast of Little Rock. It serves Northeast Arkansas as a regional provider of education, medical and commercial services. Jonesboro is home to the second largest state-supported institution of higher education (Arkansas State University) as well as two major medical facilities, St. Bernard s Medical Center and Northeast Arkansas Medical Center. Major employers include medical facilities, educational institutions, social services, manufacturing plants and retail stores. Based on the 1990 and 2000 Census, the population of Craighead County has increased 19.1%, from 68,956 to 82,148. During the same time, the population of Jonesboro increased from 46,535 to 55,515, or 19.3%. The statewide population growth for the same ten-year period was 13.7%. 4
PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this study is to determine the need for and feasibility of a more efficient connector route between Highway 63 and Highway 18 in southeast Jonesboro. A more desirable connector route would improve traffic flow and reduce traffic and traffic related congestion caused by large trucks traveling along Highway 18 through more developed sections of the City. A more appealing connector route would also enhance traffic safety and provide a good level of service to those motorists traveling east-west through the study area. Existing Roadway System Highway 63 (future I-555), also known as the Joe N. Martin Expressway, is the key northsouth arterial and the region s only limited access highway. It also provides regional connections to Missouri and to Tennessee via I-55 to the southeast. Highway 63 is a fourlane, Interstate-quality facility with a 65 mile per hour (mph) speed limit. In the study area, there are currently interchanges with Highway 18 Spur and Nestle Road. Highway 18 (Highland Drive) consists of four 11-foot lanes, a 12-foot continuous, two-way left turn lane and curb and gutter. The speed limit is 45 mph along Highway 18 in the study area, but decreases to 40 mph in the more developed areas of the City west of Highway 18 Spur. There is a signal along Highway 18 at the intersection with Highway 18 Spur. Another signal is scheduled to be installed at the intersection with Nestle Way in late 2007. Business, residential and industrial developments with associated driveways characterize the land use along this highway in the study area. Highway 18 Spur (Commerce Drive) is a north-south highway that connects Highway 63 and Highway 18. It consists of two 11-foot lanes and 4-foot open shoulders with no control of access. The speed limit along this segment of roadway is 40 mph. The land use along this 5
roadway is characterized by residential areas toward the north and industrial plants in the mid and southern sections of the highway. Nestle Road and Nestle Way are local north-south streets that connect Highway 63 and Highway 18. They consist of two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot open shoulders. The speed limit is 35 mph on Nestle Way from the intersection of Highway 18 to the intersection of Nestle Road. The speed limit increases to 45 mph along Nestle Road south of the intersection with Nestle Way. A large industry is located just south of the intersection of Highway 18 and Nestle Way, and there are nine houses south of this industrial facility. Land use is primarily agricultural in this area. Traffic and Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels of service, A through F, are defined and described in the Appendix. For urban roadways such as the roadways examined in this study, LOS C is considered acceptable. A capacity analysis using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Software was conducted on selected portions of the existing roadway network in the study area. The current (2006) average daily traffic (ADT) and traffic forecasts for the year 2026 along selected segments of the existing roadway system are shown in Figure 2. A peak hour analysis was performed on four segments of the existing roadway network in the study area. The four roadway segments analyzed were Highway 18 from its intersection with Highway 63 Business to Highway 18 Spur, Highway 18 from Highway 18 Spur to Nestle Way, Highway 18 Spur from the Highway 63 interchange to Highway 18 and the local roads Nestle Road and Nestle Way from Highway 63 to Highway 18. 6
Figure 2. Average Daily Traffic 7
Analysis of the western segment of Highway 18 from Highway 63B to Highway 18 Spur found that traffic is currently operating at LOS B and will continue to operate at LOS B based on 20-year traffic projections. This western segment of Highway 18 is considerably more developed than the eastern segment of Highway 18, which was also found to be currently operating at LOS B. This segment will continue to operate at LOS B based on 20- year traffic projections as well. This indicates that Highway 18 has the ability to satisfactorily meet present and projected traffic demands. A peak hour analysis of Highway 18 Spur from the Highway 63 interchange to Highway 18 found that traffic is currently operating at LOS C. However, traffic will operate at LOS D in 2026 based on 20-year traffic projections. This analysis indicates that Highway 18 Spur can adequately meet present traffic demands, but will operate at less than satisfactorily levels in 20 years. The local roads Nestle Road and Nestle Way were also examined to determine level of service. Presently, these two roadways operate at LOS A and will continue to operate at LOS A based on 20-year traffic projections. These two local roads have the ability to satisfactorily meet current and future traffic demands. Safety Analysis The relative safety of a route can be determined by comparing the crash rate in crashes per million vehicle miles (MVM) traveled to a statewide average for similar routes. Crash data for 2002, 2003, and 2004, the three most recent years for which data are available, were analyzed to determine crash rates for various highway segments in the study area. There were no crash data available for local roads. The crash rates for each year for the highway segments were lower than the statewide average rates for similar types of roadways. Therefore, the crash data show that safety does not appear to be a problem in the study area. The results are summarized in Table 1. 8
Table 1. Crash Rates Type of Crash Statewide Avg. Hwy Segment Roadway Year Crashes Rates* Crash Rates* (Length) 18 2002 31 1.80 7.78 Urban, four-lane, Highway 18 Spur to undivided 2003 26 1.55 6.87 Jonesboro City Limits (4.06 miles) 2004 24 1.32 7.09 18 2002 5 2.22 4.47 Urban, two-lane, Spur Highway 18 undivided 2003 3 1.36 4.07 to Highway 63 (1.21 miles) 2004 5 2.26 4.26 * Crash rates are crashes per million vehicle miles. 9
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS The lack of a convenient route connecting Highway 63 to Highway 18 in eastern Jonesboro has been identified as a contributing factor to the increasing traffic congestion along Highway 18 in the City, from Highway 63 in west Jonesboro to Highway 18 Spur. Four alternative corridors have been considered, including a no-build alternative. Three improvement alternatives begin at various locations along Highway 63 and terminate at different locations along Highway 18. This study examined these three corridors in terms of traffic service, potential environmental impacts, and costs. No-Build Alternative Alternative I By taking no action, there would be no adverse impacts such as land use changes, relocations, and environmental disruptions caused by new construction. Although there are no direct construction costs with this alternative, indirect costs would include additional maintenance costs, additional vehicle operating costs due to an increase in delays, and increased costs from crashes on the existing roadway network. Improvement Alternatives Alternative II Alternative II would include widening existing Highway 18 Spur (Commerce Drive) between Highway 63 and Highway 18. See Figure 3. Alternative II would widen Highway 18 Spur to include four 12-foot travel lanes, curb and gutters and a 12-foot, continuous, two-way left turn lane. It was reasoned to propose using four 12-foot travel lanes as opposed to the standard 11-foot due to the high volume and percentage of trucks that are projected to use this improved roadway. This alternative is approximately 1.2 miles in length and is 10
estimated to cost $8.2 million in 2006 dollars including construction, right-of-way (ROW) and utilities, preliminary engineering and upgrades to the at-grade railroad crossing warning signals. Figure 3. Alternative II 11
A turning movement survey was performed at the intersection of Highway 18 and Highway 18 Spur to better determine the flow of traffic in the study area. Examination of the turning movement survey found that a substantial number of large trucks, but relatively few passenger cars, are currently using Highway 18 Spur as a connector route to Highway 63. If Highway 18 Spur were improved as proposed in Alternative II, then it is estimated that an additional 2,800 vehicles per day (vpd) would use Highway 18 Spur to travel between Highway 18 and Highway 63, using Highway 63 to get to and from the west side of Jonesboro instead of using Highway 18 through the City. Widening Highway 18 Spur would improve traffic flow to LOS B and would continue to operate at LOS B based on a 20-year traffic projection. Alternative III Alternative III would provide an approximately 1.8 mile long route on new location from the Highway 18 Spur (Commerce Drive) interchange with Highway 63 to Highway 18 (Highland Drive) near Heath Lane. See Figure 4. The proposed cross section would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with a 12-foot, continuous, two-way left turn lane and 8-foot shoulders. Although this proposed facility would have no control of access, an access management strategy comprised of a minimum distance between successive driveways, between driveways and intersecting roadways and inclusion of a center turn lane should be used to ensure good traffic flow and safe travel. Alternative III is estimated to cost $9.7 million in 2006 dollars including construction, ROW and utilities, preliminary engineering and installation of warning signals at a new at-grade railroad crossing. It was assumed that an at-grade railroad crossing would be constructed with this alternative as opposed to an overpass. Projected traffic using this alternative may not warrant the extra expense of constructing an overpass. The City of Jonesboro owns the rail line that this alternative would cross and may ask that a different at-grade crossing in the same area be closed if a new at-grade crossing this alternative was constructed. 12
The projected traffic forecast for Alternative III was similar to that of Alternative II. As many as 4,400 vpd were assumed to travel along this connector route on new location. This includes the approximately 2,800 vpd that were assumed to travel along an improved Highway 18 Spur, plus some of the traffic that presently uses Highway 18 Spur. Based on this assumed traffic, the new location connector route would operate at LOS C and continue to operate at LOS C based on 20-year traffic projections in the study area. Since it was assumed that some traffic currently using Highway 18 Spur would travel along this new location, an analysis of Highway 18 Spur found that it would operate at LOS C and continue to operate at LOS C based on 20-year traffic projections instead of declining to LOS D if no improvements (either Alternative II or III) were made. 13
Figure 4. Alternative III 14
Alternative IV Alternative IV covers approximately 3.1 miles along the existing city streets of Nestle Road and Nestle Way from Highway 63 to Highway 18 (Highland Drive). See Figure 5. The proposed cross section would have two 12-foot travel lanes with a 12-foot continuous, twoway, left turn lane and 8-foot shoulders. Alternative IV is estimated to cost $11.4 million in 2006 dollars including construction, ROW and utilities, preliminary engineering and upgrades to the warning signals at the existing at-grade railroad crossing. Since Alternative IV is located on the far eastern edge of the City of Jonesboro, traffic to and from the west would have to detour a great distance to use this alternative compared to the other alternatives proposed. This indirect travel would make a far more circuitous route for motorists, resulting in a much less appealing alternative. With this alternative, a trip from the intersection of Highway 18 and Nestle Way to the Highway 63 interchange with Highway 18 Spur would be approximately 2.0 miles longer than Alternative II, and approximately 3.5 miles longer than Alternative III. Alternative IV would most likely not be considered by east-west through travelers, especially out-of-town traffic, because it would require vehicles to detour some distance to travel in this direction through Jonesboro. It may be more feasible to construct improvements to these local roads for use as part of an eastern bypass around town for north-south traffic. For this reason and the fact that this alternative has the highest estimated cost of the three improvement alternatives studied, Alternative IV is not considered viable. 15
Figure 5. Alternative IV 16
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A cursory environmental review of the study area resulted in a determination that no substantial environmental impacts would be expected during construction of any of the proposed improvement alternatives. Further surveys will be necessary to determine the measures needed to ensure compliance with environmental regulations when design begins. 17
FINDINGS This study considered the feasibility of constructing a more efficient connector route between Highway 63 and Highway 18 in southeast Jonesboro to allow through traffic, especially large trucks, to avoid traveling along Highway 18 through more developed areas of the City. The population of Jonesboro is continuing to grow, as reflected by the 19% growth between 1990 and 2000. Along with the growth, local traffic volumes will continue to increase, as will the through traffic volumes on Highway 18 through the City. In addition, traffic volumes are expected to increase due to the anticipated growth in commercial and industrial developments to the east along Highway 18. Based on a level of service analysis, the existing roadway network in the study area is currently operating at an acceptable level. Based on 20-year traffic volume projections, most roadways will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service in the future, except for Highway 18 Spur which will decline to LOS D. Three proposed corridor alternatives were analyzed and Alternatives II and III were determined feasible and would meet the purpose and need of this study. However, Alternative IV was determined not to fulfill the purpose and need because east-west motorists would not likely find this route appealing, nor would it serve to alleviate traffic along Highway 18 through the City because of its circuitous route. The findings are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Corridor Comparisons Corridor Length (miles) Proposed Cross-section Total Cost (million, in 2006 dollars) Alternative II 1.2 5-Lanes w/c&g $8.2 Alternative III 1.8 3-Lanes w/shoulders $9.7 Alternative IV 3.1 3-Lanes w/shoulders $11.4 18
The two alternatives that were found to meet the purpose and need are not expected to have substantial environmental impacts. Further surveys will need to be conducted to assess levels of environmental impacts before selection of a preferred alternative. Funding sources for the improvements have not been determined at this time. Once a preferred corridor is chosen, all jurisdictions involved should work cooperatively to preserve the right-of-way until funding becomes available. 19
APPENDIX 20
DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE Two-Lane Highway LOS A - LOS A represents traffic flow where motorists are able to travel at their desired speed. Passing is rarely affected and motorists are delayed no more than 35% of the time by slower motorists. LOS B - Traffic speeds in LOS B drop and motorists are delayed up to 50% of the time by other motorists. LOS C - At LOS C, speeds are slower than at LOS B. Although traffic flow is stable, it is susceptible to congestion due to turning traffic and slow-moving vehicles. Motorists may be delayed up to 65% of the time by slower motorists. LOS D - LOS D describes unstable flow and passing becomes extremely difficult. Motorists are delayed nearly 80% of the time by slower motorists. LOS E - At LOS E passing becomes nearly impossible and speeds can drop dramatically. LOS F - LOS F represents heavily congested flow where traffic demand exceeds capacity and speeds are highly variable. Multi-Lane Highway LOS A - LOS A represents free flow conditions where individual users are unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. LOS B - Traffic flow in LOS B is stable, but other users in the traffic stream are noticeable. LOS C - At LOS C, maneuverability begins to be significantly affected by other vehicles. LOS D - LOS D represents dense but stable flow where speed and maneuverability are severely restricted. LOS E - Traffic volumes approach peak capacity for given operating conditions at LOS E; speeds are low and operation at this level is unstable. LOS F - Minor interruptions in the traffic stream will cause breakdown in the flow and deterioration to LOS F, which is characterized by forced flow operation at low speeds and an unstable stop-and-go traffic stream. 21