Community members got a chance to ask questions and share their concerns about the third option for replacing the Arkansas Highway 59 bridge over the Illinois River during a virtual public meeting on March 2.
A total of 43 people participated in the online meeting, according to Karla Sims, ARDOT advanced public involvement specialist. As of Tuesday, 11 people had submitted comment forms about the project, she said. Public comments will continue to be accepted through March 17.
The first two options were presented during an online public involvement and comment session in November. Improvements for option one would have followed the current route of Arkansas Highway 59, crossing the river approximately 70 feet west of the existing structure, while improvements for option two would have followed a straighter path toward a new bridge location 500 feet east of the current bridge.
After receiving a number of comments that were not in favor of the first two designs, ARDOT went back to the drawing board to come up with a third option, Sims said.
The third option will make changes to a half mile of roadway and will replace the existing Highway 59 bridge with a new bridge about 95 feet east of the current structure, according to the online presentation. Traffic will be maintained during construction, which is slated to begin in the summer of 2022, it states.
Removing the current bridge and rebuilding a new one in the exact same spot is not an option because the road would have to be closed down for two years, said Mike Burns, executive vice president of transportation with Crafton Tull. There aren't really any viable detours for traffic, without rerouting traffic through Oklahoma or down Arkansas Highway 16, he said.
Option three will impact Highway 59 Canoe, Burns said. Once the right away position is established, the extent of the impact will be determined, he said.
Brian Moore, an ARDOT appraiser, said appraisers inspect the properties that are impacted and after talking to property owners, find comparable sales to help with valuation of the property. The department may see if there are any alternatives to relocating the canoe rental business, he said.
Commenter Jacqueline Myers brought up concerns that ARDOT is showing favoritism to Gypsy Camp and Canoe on the west side of the highway, which would have been impacted by option one, over Highway 59 Canoe & Rafting on the east side of the highway, which will be impacted by option three.
"The new route, is not as different as the last two designs, but we do not believe we are showing favorability or that it would have a negative economic impact," Sims said.
Sims also encouraged Myers to put her concerns on her comment form so ARDOT can address them. ARDOT officials do their best not to impose financial burden or negative financial impact on properties, and try to have systems in place to compensate property owners, she said. A link to the right-of-way manual is available on the project website, she said.
A number of other people commented and asked questions during the meeting. A commenter with the screen name PA Miller said option three is very destructive to the people who live and work in the area. She suggested building a ramp on the north and south sides of the bridge to connect the highway with Old Goforth Road.
Resident Arthur Hulbert asked if the proposed changes will have any impact on flooding upriver, and whether the space under the bridge would be larger or smaller, which could affect the flow of water during floods.
Burns said the area under the bridge will be slightly larger and the bridge will be slightly higher on the north end. Computer models have shown the new bridge will not cause flooding upstream, he said.
Edward Fite, of the Grand River Dam Authority, asked if it would be possible to create a new public access area under the bridge, pointing out the Siloam Springs Kayak Park is just upstream from the bridge and the new WOKA Whitewater will be just downstream when it is completed.
"Given the projected increase in numbers of the public that will be using the river for recreational activities, I'd recommend it for your consideration," Fite said.
Terry Tucker, ARDOT advanced environmental impact analyst, said the department has been on contact with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission about putting in a boat ramp and access point under the new bridge. More than likely, the access point will be on the side where the old bridge will be taken out.
"We are looking and actively pursuing getting a boat ramp," he said.
A commenter with the screen name Moon Gypsy, asked if dynamite will be used on the bluffs. Burns said that the department doesn't know if will hit rock or not, so they can't answer the question until the project is underway.
Natasha Goforth said the best alternative for her extended family would be option one with a light deviation at the Farrow residence. She brought up concerns about how close option three brings the highway to her family's buildings.
Goforth also asked what the final decision will be based on.
Tucker said cost, feasibility, public opinion and comments, and business and residential impacts will all be taken into consideration.
"Yes we are looking at the all the impacts and making an informed decision of which side we are going to go to and how we are going to do it," Tucker said. "That's why we came back at this time, because we realized that public opinion said 'Let's look at this again,' so that's why we are here right now."
More information about option three, public comment forms and a recording of the public meeting are available on the Arkansas Department of Transportation website. Comment forms can also be printed and mailed to P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203-2261.
Contact Karla Sims at 501-569-2000 or [email protected] to ask questions about the proposed project and how to access project information.