PINE BLUFF AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

JEFFERSON COUNTY – PINE BLUFF – WHITE HALL

YEAR 2035

TRANSPORTATION

PLAN

Prepared by:

Southeast Arkansas Regional Planning Commission

In cooperation with:

Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department

Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall

Jefferson County

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

The preparation and publication of this document was financed in part by funds provided by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. The provision of Federal financial assistance should not be construed as denoting U.S. governmental approval of plans, policies, programs, or projects contained herein.

NOTICE OF NONDISCRIMINATION:

The Southeast Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (SARPC) and the Pine Bluff Area Transportation Study (PBATS) comply with all civil rights provisions of federal statutes and related authorities that prohibited discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Therefore, SARPC and PBATS do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, age, national origin, religion, or disability, in the admission, access to and treatment in their programs and activities, as well as their hiring or employment practices. Complaints of alleged discrimination and inquiries regarding their nondiscrimination policies may be directed to Jerre George, Director/Study Director, P.O. Box 8398, Pine Bluff, AR 71611 (870) 534-4247 or the following email address: jerregeorge@cablelynx.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		Page
SECTION 1
AN OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS		1
·	Introduction	2
·	Factors Considered in the Planning Process	3
·	Metropolitan Transportation Plan	3
·	Study Organization	8
·	Public Involvement	11
SECTION 2
INVENTORIES AND FORECASTS		14
·	Population	15
·	Employment	20
·	Vehicle Registration	25
·	Traffic Volumes	26
SECTION 3
CURRENT LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES		32
·	Historical, Cultural, and Natural Resources	33
SECTION 4
LAND USE, MASTER STREET PLAN, & COMMUNITY CONTROLS		37
·	Land Use Plan	38
·	Master Street Plan	52
·	Community Controls and Preservation of Right-of-Way	60
SECTION 5
2035 TRANSPORTATION PLAN		61
·	The Unconstrained Plan	62
·	Constrained Transportation Plan and Capital Improvement Program	64
SECTION 6
BICYCLE PLAN		78
·	Overview	79
·	Bicycle Plan Summary	79
SECTION 7
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ELEMENTS		85
·	Transit	86
·	Intermodal Transportation Facilities	93
·	Intelligent Transportation System	102
·	Pedestrian Movements	104
·	Transportation Enhancement Program	111
·	Social Equity and Environmental Justice	113
·	Management System	114

LIST OF TABLES

Table		Page
1.	Study Area Population as a % of Total County Projected Population	16
2.	Study Area Estimated Population by Census Tract Block Groups	17
3.	Total County Non-Agriculture Employment by Category	20
4.	Estimated Employment of the Study Area by Census Tract Blocks Groups	22
5.	Motor Vehicle Registration	25
6.	Traffic Volumes	27
7.	Estimated Federal Funds Available	65
7a.	Pine Bluff Projected Dedicated Revenue and Other Sources	66
7b.	Jefferson County Projected Dedicated Revenue and Other Sources	67
7c.	White Hall Projected Dedicated Revenue and Other Sources	68
8.	Long Range Transportation Capital Improvement Program	70
9.	Available Funds/Programmed Funds	74
10.	Unconstrained Projects	75
11.	Public Transportation Capital Improvement Program	90
	LIST OF MAPS
Map		Page
1.	Year 2000 Census Tracts	24
2.	Jefferson County Physiographic Regions	35
3.	Environmentally Sensitive Areas	36
4.	Current Land Use	41
5.	Land Use Plan	51
6.	Unconstrained Transportation Plan	63
7.	Constrained Transportation Plan	77
8.	Bicycle Routes	84
9.	Truck Routes	101

	LIST OF FIGURES
Figure		Page
1.	Expressway Cross-Section	54
2.	Freeway Cross-Section	55
3.	Principle Arterial Street Cross-Section	56
4.	Minor Arterial Street Cross-Section	57
5.	High-Density Collector Street Cross-Section	58
6.	Low-Density Collector Street Cross-Section	59

AN OVERVIEW

OF THE

TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING

PROCESS

INTRODUCTION

The Pine Bluff Area Transportation Study Area (PBATS) Program was initiated in 1964 in accordance with the Federal Highway Act of 1962. The intent of the program was to provide a network of transportation facilities capable of providing safe, convenient, effective, and efficient movement of goods and persons throughout the urbanized portion of Jefferson County. The Federal‑Aid Highway Act of 1962 stated:

"After July 1, 1965, the secretary shall not approve under Section 105 of this title any program for projects in any urban area of more than 50,000 population unless he finds that such projects are based on a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried on cooperatively by states and local communities in conformance with objectives stated in this section."

The original participants in the transportation planning process were the City of Pine Bluff, Jefferson County, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, and the Federal Highway Administration, and the original study culminated with the adoption of the recommended 1990 Transportation Plan in April 1969.

The Study Areas have been expanded since the original transportation plan was adopted to reflect the growth in the urbanized area. The City of White Hall became a member of the Study Area shortly after the plan was adopted in 1969. Other participants were included in the planning process in accordance with federal planning requirements. The new members were the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Aviation Administration. Between 1969 and 1995, the transportation plan was updated from time to time to reflect social, economic, and environmental changes affecting the study area.

In 1991, the President signed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This reauthorization act dramatically changed the transportation program from one that dealt primarily with roads to one that addresses a variety of transportation programs. ISTEA covered all forms of surface transportation and related interests: roads, bikeways, pedestrian movement, transit, rail, intermodal transportation and related issues, and pipeline transmission lines. In 1995, PBATS Policy Committee adopted the Year 2025 Transportation Plan which addresses the aforementioned items.

On June 9, 1998, the President signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21). The TEA-21 builds on the initiative established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. This new act combined the continuation and improvement of current programs with new initiatives to improve safety of the transportation systems, protecting and enhancing communities and the natural environment as we provide transportation, and advancing America’s economic growth and competitiveness domestically and internationally through efficient and flexible transportation.

On August 10, 2005, the President signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU essentially represents a continuation of the last two transportation reauthorization bills, however this bill

also requires the planning process to address issues in the area of safety, reducing traffic congestion, improving the efficiency in freight movement, and increasing intermodal connectivity.

FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

The Federal Regulations set forth pursuant to SAFETEA-LU require that plans and programs address the eight factors listed below.

1. Support the economic vitality of the Metropolitan Areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency;

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;

4. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Since 1969, the Pine Bluff Area Transportation Study (PBATS) has conducted a continuing comprehensive, and cooperative (3-C) transportation planning process for the Pine Bluff-White Hall urban area. This fiscally constrained Metropolitan Transportation Plan provides a picture of those transportation improvements that are planned to occur by the year 2035. This plan discusses the transportation planning process, and provides supporting data behind the plan’s development.

PBATS has the responsibility to ensure that the 3-C transportation planning process is appropriately conducted and make decisions related to the planning and funding of transportation projects which are proposed to be constructed with federal, state and local funds. For a project to be eligible to receive federal transportation funds it must be included in the Financial Constrained Long-Range Transportation Improvement Program as identified in this Transportation Plan.

The purpose of the PBATS 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan is to identify and detail the multi-modal transportation improvements and programs to be carried out within the Transportation Study Area during the plan’s timeframe and demonstrate the financial means by which these improvements and programs will be implemented. Prior to the plans adoption and during its development, public open houses were held to obtain citizen opinions. The plan was then prepared by the staff with the assistance of the technical committee and was then adopted by the Policy Committee of PBATS.

This plan addresses the transportation needs, balancing with environmental issues and quality of life issues in the study area. The PBATS, in order to meet the needs of its citizens and in response to federal requirements, has compiled all of the elements that guide transportation planning in this area in a comprehensive long-range transportation plan.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The overall purpose of the transportation planning process is to develop a plan that can assist the units of government within the planning area in improving the quality of life for its citizens. The transportation plan provides a framework that the governmental units can use to improve public access to places of employment, shopping, education, recreation, social services, and other destinations throughout the study area. In the planning process it is also important to consider all aspects of the transportation system and all modes of travel. While the modes of transportation that service individual trips are certainly important and a major part of any transportation system, it is also important to consider the types of transportation that are used to deliver the goods and services required to support the quality of life we enjoy. Also, surface transportation modes - roadways, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and rail - along with air transportation, pipelines, and electrical transmission systems comprise total designed transportation system that fosters the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and energy, enabling the Study Area to be competitive in today’s global market place.

GOALS

In developing any plan, the first step is to develop goals acceptable to the general public that lead to solving the problems perceived by the public. The seven overall goals that the transportation planning process has been designed to meet are as follows:

· To develop a balanced, integrated, safe, energy efficient, and environmentally safe overall transportation system that addresses all modes of transportation used to serve the public needs, including active transportation (bicycle and pedestrian), personal vehicles, short- and long-haul freight (truck), public transit, air, water, rail, and pipeline.

· To develop a transportation system that contributes to the enhancement of desirable social, economic, and environmental qualities of the study area.

· To utilize the existing transportation facilities to the fullest extent possible to ensure that all

opportunities to interconnect land uses and neighborhoods within the Study Area are available.

· To promote a balanced and sustained economic growth in the Study Area by implementing efficient transportation improvements that allow for the movement of people and freight within and through the study area.

· To develop an intermodal transportation system that will provide equity, choice and opportunity for all citizens, and allow the flow of commodities and goods through the community.

· Preserve the existing transportation system facilities and promote efficient system management and operations of all modes of transportation.

· Utilize available personnel and financial resources efficiently so as to meet the public and private sector transportation needs.

OBJECTIVES

1. STREETS AND HIGHWAY

Develop an efficient street and highway network capable of providing an appropriate level of service for a variety of transportation modes.

· Develop streets and highways in a manner consistent with the adopted land use plan.

· Increase the connectivity of the existing street network and improve access throughout the Study Area.

· Develop regionally significant streets and highways in a manner which minimizes travel times and distances.

· Develop visually attractive travel corridors.

· Minimize transportation accidents and severity.

· Include sidewalks and bicycle facilities in the design of roadways to accommodate and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel where appropriate.

· Develop local streets in a manner so as to link one neighborhood with another neighborhood.

2. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Promote a safe, efficient and diverse public transportation system that is accessible to various segments of the population.

· Operate safe and efficient scheduled transit service that minimizes travel time and distance.

· Implement land use strategies that maximize the potential for transit patronage and coverage.

· Establish programs and incentives that encourage transit ridership and ride-sharing.

· Serve the elderly and transit dependent population with convenient transportation to needed services, places of employment and other locations.

· Maximize ADA transit service to the fullest extent possible.

· Maximize transit’s coverage area to provide service in the planning area in a feasible manner.

· Recognize and support the transit services provided by human service agencies and private transit operators.

· Facilitate the integration and coordination of different transportation modes by establishing intermodal facilities.

· Implement the Transportation Coordination Plan.

3. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

Develop a transportation system that integrates pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation with the vehicle transportation.

· Increase the design sensitivity of specific transportation projects to the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.

· Improve the transportation system to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access along roadways through design and facility standards.

· Increase pedestrian and bicycle safety through public awareness programs.

· Provide linkages for pedestrians and/or bicyclists with neighborhoods, employment centers, commercial areas, parks and schools.

· Develop trail facilities where appropriate.

· Develop a funding mechanism to maintain sidewalks, trails and bikeways.

· Develop and implement plans and policies to make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation alternative

4. FREIGHT AND GOODS MOVEMENT

Provide a freight transportation system supporting the movement of goods.

· Develop a transportation system supporting intermodal connectivity that improves access for freight via a network of highways, railroads, airport, and river port.

· Facilitate coordination among transportation modes through the establishment of an intermodal facility.

· Support expansion opportunities at the river port, airport and railroad gravity yard that would attract major cargo facilities.

· Designate safe routes with minimal urban exposure for the transportation of hazardous materials.

· Designate truck routes that minimize exposure to neighborhoods and historic and cultural resources.

· Maintain the airport’s ongoing long range planning process.

5. ENVIRONMENT

Develop a transportation system that preserves and enhances the environment.

· Plan and design transportation systems and facilities that preserve and compliment the area’s natural features and resources.

· Plan and design transportation systems and facilities that protect and preserve the cultural and historic resources.

· Plan and design transportation facilities that minimize neighborhood disruption.

· Design attractive transportation systems that reinforce the study area standards of appearance.

· Plan and design a transportation system and program that maintain or improve the existing air quality.

6. FINANCIAL

Make transportation capital improvement decisions for transportation modes that make the efficient use of limited financial resources.

· Minimize implementation and operation costs of transportation projects.

· Develop transportation projects that enhance the local and regional economy.

· Implement ITS projects in a timely manner.

· Explore new sources of revenue.

7. SAFETY

Create a mechanism to insure that safety issues are addressed in all the modes of transportation.

· When planning and designing transportation projects insure that all safety features are considered in the process.

· Conduct annual safety audits on all the transportation modes.

· Encourage local governments to implement an on-going maintenance system to address transportation safety issues.

· Promote the use of transportation safety awareness programs.

STUDY ORGANIZATION

POLICY COMMITTEE

The Policy Committee has the general responsibility for directing and administering the preparation of the comprehensive study and for implementing the continuing planning process with assistance and advice from the Coordinating Committee and other technical subcommittees. The representatives for the state and federal governments also advise the Coordinating Committee on state and federal policies and regulations.

The Policy Committee's membership during 2010 is as follows:

REPRESENTATIVES NAME AND TITLE

Jefferson County Mike Holcomb, County Judge

Mandy Alford, Quorum Court Member

Pine Bluff Carl Redus Jr., Mayor

Bill Burnett, Alderman

White Hall James Morgan, Mayor , PBATS Chairman

William May, Alderman

Southeast Arkansas Regional

Planning Commission Ken Smith, Chairman

Arkansas Highway and Alan Meadors, Chief, Planning Division

Transportation Department James House, District Engineer

Arkansas River Regional Intermodal Authority Trotter Ford, Chairman

Specifically, the Committee's responsibilities are:

1. Adopt a long‑range transportation plan including priorities for improvement.

2. Adopt a Unified Planning Work Program for the continuing planning process.

3. Adopt a Four-Year Transportation Improvement Plan

4. Adopt a Public Participation Plan.

5. Approve an Annual List of Obligated Projects.

6. Review estimated cost, work task, and funding as proposed.

7. Periodically review the cost of accomplishing the required work and recommend such changes as are necessary.

8. Review each major phase of the study and direct the technical and/or coordinating committees as necessary.

9. Implement its plans by taking steps to obtain official acceptance of its proposals by the units of government involved and by the people of the area.

10. Meet as necessary to review all material pertaining to changing transportation needs in the area and to revise the plan as needed.

11. Support and cooperate with other planning agencies in areas of mutual interest such as updating and implementing comprehensive plans, zoning, subdivision design and controls, official maps and capital improvements programs.

12. Exercise all other functions necessary to implement the continuing transportation planning process in accordance with the SAFETEA-LU.

13. Establish technical committees composed of committee members and other technical personnel involved in transportation within the study area.

14. Certifying the planning process is in compliance with the U.S. Department of

Transportation’s planning regulations.

COORDINATING/TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

The general responsibility of the Coordinating/Technical Committee and its subcommittees is to assist the Policy Committee in carrying out the planning program by reviewing and preparing reports and recommendations. Responsibilities of the various subcommittees involved in the overall comprehensive transportation planning process include the analysis of existing and future conditions relating to economic development, population, land use, transportation facilities, travel patterns, land use and development codes, and social, environmental and community value factors. The committee is also responsible for addressing the eight points required under SAFETEA-LU.

The Technical/Coordinating Committee's membership during 2010 is as follows:

REPRESENTATIVES	NAME AND TITLE
Jefferson County	Ricky Bullard and Angelo Walker, Superintendents, County Road Department
Pine Bluff	J. T. Golden, Manager, Street Department
	Larry Reynolds, Manager, Pine Bluff Transit
White Hall	James Morgan, Mayor
	Jeff Jones, Street Manager
Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department	Ernie Westfall, District Construction Engineer
	Julie Hart, Transportation Planner
	Steve Alexander, Administration Officer
Southeast Arkansas Regional Planning Commission	Jerre George, Director
Pine Bluff Airport Commission	Doug Hale, Manager
Intermodal Representatives	Lou Ann Nisbett, Executive Director, The Alliance
Federal Highway Administration	David Blakeney, Right-of-Way Officer
Office of Emergency Management	Karen Quarles, Director
Area Agency on the Aging	Tony Barr, Transportation Director
Union Pacific Railroad	Charles Falkins
Pine Bluff Police Department	Lt. Robert Roby

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

One of the essential elements in the transportation planning process is public involvement. In order to obtain public involvement ‑ i.e. input from citizens, private providers of transportation, other transportation mode representatives, and various interested parties – to assist in planning and developing the Year 2035 Transportation Plan and other planning activities carried on by PBATS Policy Committee, the following public participation process is used:

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) must be in place for the PBATS Study Area in order to comply with federal guidelines, and in order to facilitate efficient utilization of transportation resources. The MTP must be updated every five years at a minimum.

1. The Technical Committee will meet to develop a draft of the MTP elements.

2. At a minimum, five open houses will be conducted as part of the development of the Long Range Plan. The first four open houses will be held after the Technical Committee has developed a draft of the MTP elements and the Policy Committee approves the draft of the MTP elements. The fifth open house will be held after a draft MTP document has been completed.

3. The first four open houses will be for the public to view the draft MTP elements and to make comments and will be held within a two-week period. In an effort to facilitate maximum public involvement, the open houses will be a different locations and times of day. Two of the first four open houses will be held in predominately minority neighborhoods/areas.

4. Before the first of four open houses to view the MTP element list and before the fifth open house to review the draft MTP document, three display advertisements stating that all surface transportation and transit projects are included will be placed in the Pine Bluff Commercial newspaper over a two-week period stating the time, place and purpose of each open house.

5. A press release for the first four open houses will be sent to the local newspapers and other outlets (radio stations, TV stations and local access cable stations) at least two weeks before the first open house takes place and again two weeks before the fifth open house takes place.

6. The meeting information described above will be placed on the PBATS MPO web site and made available for public viewing at the municipal offices of the Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall, the Jefferson County Courthouse and UAPB.

7. After the fourth open house, the public will have thirty days to submit their written comments on the MTP elements for consideration by the Technical Committee and Policy Committee.

8. The Technical Committee will review all comments received and, if needed, make revisions to the Long Range Plan elements based on those comments. If necessary, a Technical Committee meeting will be held to address public comments. All plan revisions and comments will be submitted to the Policy Committee for its consideration.

9. If necessary, a Policy Committee meeting will be held to address revisions and comments. After the Policy Committee reviews all comments and approves any changes, the PBATS MPO shall prepare a draft MTP document and present it the Technical Committee members for review. Comments will be incorporated into the draft document for presentation to the public.

10. The fifth open house will be held to give the public an opportunity to review revisions to the MTP elements and make comments on the draft MTP document.

11. After the fifth open house, the public will have thirty days to submit their written comments on the draft MTP document for consideration by the Technical Committee and Policy Committee.

12. After reviewing and resolving comments received, the Technical Committee will meet to recommend the MTP document to the Policy Committee for approval and the Policy Committee will meet to consider and adopt the MTP.

13. If significant written comments are received that require changes to the MTP document, another open house will be advertised as above and held to provide an opportunity for public review of the revisions.

14. When significant written comments are received as a result of the public involvement process that are not addressed in the MTP, a report will be prepared indicating the reason the comments were not addressed. Said report shall be submitted to the Policy Committee for information purposes and filed in the MPO office. The Policy Committee will meet to consider and adopt the MTP.

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP)

In the spring of each year, PBATS MPO and AHTD staff will draft a proposed Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for the coming fiscal year. The UPWP must be adopted by the Policy Committee by June 30^th of each year.

1. By the end of April, the proposed UPWP will be provided to the Technical Committee. Once the Technical Committee has reviewed and recommended the document for approval by the Policy Committee, there will be a two-week comment period.

2. The public will be informed of the comment period in the following ways: a legal notice will be placed in the Pine Bluff Commercial and a press release will also be sent to the Pine Bluff Commercial repeating the information in the legal notice; notices of the availability of the document for public review will be posted in the municipal offices of the Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall, the Jefferson County Courthouse, UAPB, the PBATS MPO office, and other local venues as deemed appropriate to fulfill the intent of Environmental Justice.

3. During the public comment period, a copy of the draft UPWP may be obtained from the MPO office or viewed on the PBATS MPO website.

4. After the two-week period, Technical Committee and Policy Committee meetings will be held to review and adopt the UPWP.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)

A Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) must be adopted by the Policy Committee every three years. The TIP covers a four-fiscal-year period and includes all surface transportation and transit projects and must be adopted by September 30^th of update years.

1. In March of update years, the PBATS MPO will call for proposed projects from the jurisdictions within the PBATS boundary to be submitted to the MPO by March 31^st.

2. The MPO will review the proposed projects to ensure that they are in the MTP and on the Functionally Classified Streets Map.

3. By April 15^th, the MPO will compile a draft TIP including all street projects and public transit projects.

4. After the Technical Committee review of the draft TIP, a legal notice stating that all surface transportation and transit projects are included will be placed in the Pine Bluff Commercial newspaper to allow a 30-day period to gather public comment. The public can obtain a copy from the MPO office or view the document on PBATS MPO website.

5. Press releases will be sent to the Pine Bluff Commercial newspaper initiating the 30-day comment period and the TIP approval process.

INVENTORIES

AND

FORECASTS

In order to assess the adequacy of the Transportation Plan for the Year 2035, it is necessary to maintain land use data, socio‑economic data, and transportation system characteristics on a current basis, review the collected data and forecast anticipated changes, and compare and evaluate the existing conditions in relation to the forecasts made in developing the recommended plan. These activities are necessary to determine if the assumptions made during the initial study and subsequent plan updates are holding constant.

Such elements as dwelling units, population, employment, vehicle registration, traffic volumes, crash data and social and environmental concerns are monitored and reviewed annually in order to ascertain trends in residential, commercial, and industrial land use development and its consequential effect on the existing and forecasted transportation systems. The elements contained in this section along with explanatory summaries of each element are as follows:

· Population: 2000 population, projected population for the years 2010, 2020, 2030 and 2035 estimated population by census track located in the planning area.

· Employment: 2000 employment, estimated employment for the years 2010, 2020, 2030 and 2035.

· Vehicle Registration: 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008

· Traffic Volumes: 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2008

POPULATION

The year 2035 population projections for Jefferson County was obtained by using the Arkansas Institute for Economic Advancement – University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Category A and B Population Projections for the years 2005 through 2030. It was determined to use the UALR projections after comparing these projections with the U.S. Census estimated population for Jefferson County. UALR projected population for Jefferson County appears to be higher than what the U.S. Census is estimating for Jefferson County in the short-time period. The population for Jefferson County in 2000 was 84,278. UALR projected population for 2010 is 80,840; in 2020 it is 78,114; and in 2030 it is 74,782. This is a decrease of 9,496 in population over the 30 year period for Jefferson County. Based on UALR population project trends for Jefferson County, our staff estimates that between the year 2030 and 2035 the County may lose another 682 in population which Jefferson County would have a projected population of 73,267. The Study Area’s estimated population would then be 70,068 which would represent 95.6% of the County’s year 2035 population.

To determine the portion of the county’s projected population that will reside in the PBATS Study Area, staff analyzed data obtained from the U.S. Census, PBATS Land Use Plan, and

9-1-1 addressing database. We also analyzed the migration patterns within the county. In 2000, 73,965 people lived within the PBATS Study Area which represents 87.7% of the total county’s population. Based on our analysis of the above mentioned criterion, we estimate that the estimated year 2035 population of the PBATS Study Area will be 70,068, which represents 95.6% of the county’s estimated 2035 population.

Table 1 shows the study area population in the year 2000 and the future estimated population of the study area and county population. Table 2 shows the year 2000 population of the study area by census tracts. Map 1 Census Tracts is shown on page 24.

TABLE 1

STUDY AREA POPULATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COUNTY PROJECTED POPULATION

Year	Study Area Population	County Population	Percentage of County
2010	73,430	80,840	90.8%
2020	72,722	78,114	93.1%
2030	70,750	74,782	94.6%
2035	70,068	73,267	95.6%

TABLE 2

Estimated Population of the Study Area by Census Tract Block Groups

Census Tract	Block	2000 Census	Estimated 2010	Estimated 2020	Estimated 2030	Estimated 2035
2	1000	358	383	490	525	540
	2000	473	508	636	671	681
3.01	1000	942	1173	1383	1414	1429
	2000	977	1163	1325	1364	1380
	3000	1546	1674	1875	1907	1925
3.02	1000	1717	1921	2004	2042	2054
	2000	694	862	1070	1107	1118
	3000	964	964	1026	1303	1323
	4000	644	747	834	868	886
	5000	1214	1265	1288	1324	1340
3.03	1000	1036	1324	1517	1428	1443
	2000	1241	1266	1294	1222	1197
	3000	2150	2210	2303	2235	2197
5.02	1000	1034	892	755	678	653
	2000	1257	1107	885	812	973
	3000	1739	1639	1449	1383	1351
6	1000	409	140	59	54	52
	2000	221	171	128	108	100
	3000	57	37	9	8	7
9	1000	1194	1124	1073	1029	996
	2000	982	897	843	827	796
	3000	642	555	535	488	462
	4000	622	507	445	402	377
10	1000	654	494	442	390	355
	2000	652	494	442	384	357
	3000	673	548	456	397	364
	4000	412	232	205	154	118

Table 2 (continued)

Estimated Population of the Study Area by Census Tract Block Groups

Census Tract	Block	2000 Census	Estimated 2010	Estimated 2020	Estimated 2030	Estimated 2035
12	1000	641	551	469	385	353
	2000	623	543	466	403	375
	3000	1091	1006	924	849	1008
	4000	489	419	362	320	297
	5000	507	437	360	294	270
13	1000	464	388	332	280	248
	2000	560	444	378	312	285
	3000	743	658	571	497	464
	4000	1017	902	750	666	635
14.01	1000	1232	1137	970	849	824
	2000	705	600	533	466	438
14.02	1000	560	440	362	310	286
	2000	654	569	511	455	433
	3000	1314	1315	1202	1138	1100
	4000	700	590	511	468	437
15.01	1000	1838	1862	1814	1769	1748
	2000	1702	1727	1712	1668	1648
	3000	548	608	535	491	472
15.02	1000	765	755	727	674	655
	2000	667	657	679	624	601
	3000	1088	1108	1105	1064	1045
	4000	1147	1166	1010	963	940
16	1000	1139	1039	998	945	923
	2000	1077	1002	969	914	889
	3000	1186	1086	1002	948	917
	4000	1039	944	884	841	811
17	1000	1097	942	909	844	813
	2000	676	649	611	556	531
	3000	1106	991	884	830	799
	4000	626	602	569	523	496
18	1000	1265	1282	1249	1204	1181

Table 2 (continued)

Estimated Population of the Study Area by Census Tract Block Groups

Census Tract	Block	2000 Census	Estimated 2010	Estimated 2020	Estimated 2030	Estimated 2035
18	2000	806	823	820	776	754
	3000	1284	1299	1310	1264	1242
19.01	1000	586	588	575	538	513
	2000	1027	1172	1208	1255	1231
19.03	1000	835	825	812	764	739
	2000	776	826	863	821	796
	3000	373	383	370	325	396
20	1000	910	1000	1183	1214	1222
	2000	1588	1708	1785	1812	1812
	3000	2223	2348	2445	2475	2481
	4000	1065	1185	1192	1220	1229
21.03	1000	1477	1587	1689	1721	1729
	2000	1944	2194	2196	2223	2230
	3000	2190	2260	2327	2360	2370
21.04	1000	1426	1566	1697	1733	1738
	2000	610	708	733	757	766
	3000	2091	2242	2388	2418	2424
TOTAL		73,981	73,430	72,722	70,750	70,068

In summary, during the last twenty years, the north central area of the study area, which is located north of the Martha Mitchell Expressway, the central area adjacent to the central business district, and the west end area have experienced a decrease in population. This trend is expected to continue throughout the planning period. The south/western area located between State Highway 15 running west to the headwaters of Bayou Bartholomew, and the White Hall area are expected to continue to grow.

EMPLOYMENT

The economy of the study area is a key element in determining future growth and stability. As the economy changes, so does the population. Prior to World War II, the economy of the Pine Bluff area was that of a service center serving the agricultural needs of Southeast Arkansas and the rail needs of the Mid-South Delta area of the country. With the construction of the Pine Bluff Arsenal in the early 1940’s, the economy of the Study Area started to change to reflect a more diversified economy. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, with the construction of the International Paper Plant and the opening of the Pine Bluff River Port, the study area economy became a diversified market and provides agricultural goods and manufacturing on a world wide scale.

The following two tables show the past, present and projected category of workers in the Study Area and compares the study area categories to those of the state of Arkansas.

Table 3

Total County Non-Agriculture Employment by Employment Category

	2000		2010		2020		2030		2035
	TOTAL	PERCENTAGE	ESTIMATED TOTAL	PERCENTAGE	ESTIMATED TOTAL	PERCENTAGE	ESTIMATED TOTAL	PERCENTAGE	ESTIMATED TOTAL	PERCENTAGE
Mining and Construction	960	2.7%	990	2.7%	1,100	2.8%	1,180	2.8%	1,220	2.8%
Manufacturing	8,450	23.4%	8,280	22.5%	8,530	21.6%	8,780	20.9%	9,030	20.7%
Transportation, Communication and Utilities	1,800	5.0%	1,800	4.9%	1,900	4.8%	1,970	4.7%	2,050	4.7%
Trade	7,240	19.9%	7,470	20.3%	8,250	20.9%	8,900	21.2%	9,240	21.2%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Banking	1,220	3.3%	1,140	3.1%	1,150	2.9%	1,180	2.8%	1,180	2.7%
Services	8,370	23.5%	9,160	24.9%	10,430	26.4%	11,720	27.9%	12,250	28.1%
Government	8,030	22.2%	7,960	21.6%	8,140	20.6%	8,270	19.7%	8,630	19.8%
TOTAL	36,070		36,800		39,500		42,000		43,600

Employment in the services sector of the study area economy will grow at a faster rate than the other sectors; however, the rate of growth of the services category will be similar to that of the nation as a whole. The main segment of the economy that has provided economic stability for the study area over the years has been the manufacturing sector. Over the next twenty-five years, the manufacturing sector, mining and construction sector, and transportation, communication and utilities section will see a smaller growth in terms of the number of persons employed in these sectors, and the Study Area will continue to be known as a “blue collar” employment center.

“Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.” long range employment projections for Jefferson County, Arkansas Employment Security Department short range employment projections for Southeast Arkansas, U. S. Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) employment data for the Study Area and the population projection for Jefferson County as prepared by the University of Arkansas-Little Rock were used in the evaluated process to estimate the number of workers employed in the Study Area. Based on the evaluation, it is projected that 42,390 people will be employed at places located within the Study Area in 2035 this is ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total number of persons who are employed within Jefferson County. In determining the location of places of work by census tract blocks, the 2000 CTPP, existing land use and proposed land use plan and the Long Range Transportation Plan network, and staff existing knowledge of the area was utilized. The following table show projected number of persons employment in the census tract and block group.

TABLE 4

Estimated Employment of the Study Area by Census Tract Blocks Groups

Census Tract	Block Group	Estimated 2010	Estimated 2035
2	1000	20	30
	2000	10	20
3.01	1000	130	500
	2000	80	160
	3000	80	300
3.02	1000	460	710
	2000	550	750
	3000	290	650
	4000	30	50
	5000	40	60
3.03	1000	1550	1600
	2000	210	220
	3000	740	1110
5.01	1000	360	370
	2000	290	310
	3000	1830	2080
6	1000	40	50
	2000	2450	3250
	3000	50	60
8		1440	1500
9	1000	1780	1900
	2000	150	150
	3000	10	10
	4000	50	20
10	1000	450	470
	2000	720	720
	3000	400	400
	4000	3440	3600
12	1000	80	90
	2000	1300	1340
	3000	220	200
	4000	20	30
	5000	10	10
13	1000	620	650
	2000	740	760
	3000	70	70
	4000	130	150
14.01	1000	610	630
	2000	550	620
14.02	1000	170	180
	2000	100	100
	3000	230	240
	4000	30	30
15.01	1000	320	340
	2000	380	400
	3000	120	130

TABLE 4 (continued)

Estimated Employment of the Study Area by Census Tract Blocks Groups

Census Tract	Block Group	Estimated 2010	Estimated 2035
15.02	1000	1160	1260
	2000	1240	1420
	3000	170	300
	4000	10	20
16	1000	110	110
	2000	90	60
	3000	100	100
	4000	850	860
18	1000	110	40
	2000	250	250
	3000	2800	3690
19.01	1000	530	860
	2000	1700	1850
19.03	1000	620	860
	2000	10	10
	3000	120	150
20	1000	30	500
	2000	50	110
	3000	200	370
	4000	10	10
21.03	1000	880	960
	2000	280	330
	3000	240	270
21.04	1000	430	580
	2000	10	20
	3000	300	380
TOTAL		35,730	42,390

MAP 1. YEAR 2000 CENSUS TRACTS

To see MAP 1. YEAR 2000 CENSUS TRACTS, click here.
VEHICLE REGISTRATION

In 1980, there were 59,043 vehicles registered in Jefferson County; in 2008, there were 57,714 vehicles registered. This represents a 2.3% decrease over a twenty-eight year period. Privately owned automobile and pickup trucks represent the majority of total vehicles registered. The number has decreased from 55,263 to 51,626 (6.6%) over the twenty-eight year period. The number of registered trucks in the county has decreased from 1,929 to 1,526. It is estimated that over 90% of the vehicles registered belong to persons residing in the Study Area.

Table 5 below lists motor vehicle registration by classification for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008. The data for the table was obtained from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department.

TABLE 5

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION

YEAR	Automobile	Other Passenger Cars	Pickups	Other Trucks	Motorcycles	Other Motor Vehicles	Total Motor Vehicles
1980	41,488	232	13,775	1,929	1,387	232	59,043
1990	36,068	841	14,200	1,852	421	204	53,586
2000	37,658	1,620	15,131	1,302	523	730	56,964
2008	37,911	2,713	13,715	1,526	1,309	540	57,714

Based on the historical data of Jefferson County vehicle registration and the projected population of the Study Area, it is estimated that the total vehicle registration in Jefferson County in the year 2035 will be 55,500 of which 49,950 will be located in the Study Area.

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Traffic volumes and the rate at which they are changing are extremely important to transportation planning, design, operating, and implementation. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department currently conducts traffic counts for the Study Area annually after a long standing practice of conducting these counts every three years. The traffic counts determine the average daily traffic (ADT), which is the average total of daily volume during a year.

ADT volumes are used for determining functionally classified street systems, selecting routes for new facilities, determining the priority of street improvements, etc. Table 6 gives the location of traffic counts and shows the ADT for each site for the years 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2008.

TABLE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LOCATION	2008	2004	2000	1995
2^nd Avenue: E. of RR Tracks	2,200	2,900	2,400	2,400
2^nd Avenue: E. of Walnut Street	1,300	1,400	1,800	2,500
2^nd Avenue: W. of Convention Center Drive	1,500	1,600	2,000	2,000
2^nd Avenue: W. of Louisiana	N/A	2,000	2,600	2,900
2^nd Avenue: W. of University	2,200	2,400	2,800	2,700
2^nd Avenue: W. of Walnut Street	1,300	2,300	1,800	1,900
6^th Avenue: At Overpass	7,500	8,700	9,800	5,800
6^th Avenue: E. of Franklin Street	970	1,100	1,500	1,200
8^th Avenue: E. of Beech Street	3,000	3,600	4,200	3,700
8^th Avenue: E. of Convention Center Drive	4,500	5,000	5,300	5,600
8^th Avenue: W. of Convention Center Drive	5,600	5,000	7,000	6,900
10^th Avenue: E. of RR Tracks	2,200	1,600	630	640
13^th Avenue: E. of Bayou Bartholomew	630	580	510	510
13^th Avenue: E. of Georgia Street	590	800	790	830
13^th Avenue: E. of Oakwood Road	2,400	2,800	2,500	1,800
13^th Avenue: E. of RR Tracks	7,900	8,600	8,100	8,200
13^th Avenue: W. of Gum Street	7,100	7,000	7,500	3,200
16^th Avenue: W. of Ash Street	6,000	7,200	6,900	N/A
16^th Avenue: W. of Olive Street	6,700	8,400	7,800	7,900
17^th Avenue: W. of Cedar Street	6,300	7,500	6,800	7,200
17^th Avenue: W. of Cypress	7,200	5,600	7,700	8,600
27^th Avenue: W. of Linden Street	5,800	6,800	6,600	8,400
27^th Avenue: W. of Main Street	1,300	1,200	1,100	900
28^th Avenue: E. of Georgia Street	810	840	790	740
28^th Avenue: E. of Indiana Street	600	1,100	730	570
28^th Avenue: E. of Poplar Street	5,300	6,000	7,800	7,800
28^th Avenue: W. of Ash Street	5,200	6,100	6,100	7,500
28^th Avenue: W. of Fir Street	18,600	19,100	21,000	21,730
31^st Avenue: W. of Locust Street	2,100	5,700	2,200	2,900
31^st Avenue: W. of Magnolia Street	4,700	5,000	4,400	6,000
34^th Avenue: E. of Juniper	N/A	1,800	1,700	2,200
34^th Avenue: W. of Locust Street	1,000	1,200	1,000	960
34^th Avenue: W. of RR Tracks	1,900	1,600	1,800	2,600
38^th Avenue: E. of Ohio Street	1,800	2,100	2,200	4,700
46^th Avenue: W. of Cherry Street	2,700	2,700	2,300	2,900
46^th Avenue: E. of Olive Street	640	400	340	610
46^th Avenue: W. of Hazel Street	250	160	260	370
52^nd Avenue: W. of Ohio Street	590	980	700	1,700
Barraque Avenue: E. of Bay Street	630	500	610	650

TABLE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (continued)
LOCATION				2008				2004			2000	1995
Barraque Avenue: E. of Walnut Street				800				1,200			1,300	3,400
Barraque Avenue: E. of Bryant Street				1,800				2,100			2,000	2,300
Bryant Street: S. of Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell)				2,500				2,500			2,500	3,800
Bryant Street: S. of Princeton Pike				2,200				2,300			2,300	4,300
Catalpa Street: N. of 12^th Avenue				740				1,000			1,100	960
Catalpa Street: S. of 8^th Avenue				530				630			780	720
Cherry Street: N. of 41^st Avenue				4,000				4,100			4,500	5,300
Cherry Street: S. of 15^th Avenue				6,000				8,000			8,000	8,300
Cherry Street: S. of 25^th Avenue				5,300				5,700			5,700	6,200
Cherry Street: S. of Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell)				3,000				3,700			4,100	5,200
Commerce Road: S. of Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell)				3,000				3,300			3,900	4,100
Convention Center Drive: S. of Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell)				3,600				3,900			4,500	4,400
Dollarway Road: N. of Phillips Street				11,000				10,100			10,000	13,000
Dollarway Road: N. of Vaugine Avenue				16,000				14,500			16,000	17,780
Dollarway Road: S. of Roberts Street				13,000				12,000			11,000	10,000
Dollarway Road: W. of Spears Street				14,000				13,800			15,000	18,000
Dollarway Road: W. of Tupelo Street				19,000				19,400			20,000	22,000
Faucett Road: W. of Camden Road				2,300				2,200			2,500	2,600
Grider Field-Ladd Road: E. of Deep Bayou				170				290			220	410
Grider Field-Ladd Road: S. of Hwy. 65 South				680				860			970	1,500
Harding: E. of Chestnut Street				14,000				16,000			15,000	19,510
Harding: S. of U.S. Hwy. 65 Interchange				15,400				N/A			N/A	N/A
Harding: W. of Belmont Drive				14,000				15,400			15,000	17,000
Harding: W. of Commerce Road				13,000				11,700			11,000	12,000
Harding: W. of Georgia				12,600				15,200			14,000	17,550
Harding: W. of Nebraska Street				15,000				17,100			17,000	17,750
Harding: W. of Ohio Street				11,000				13,300			12,000	16,000
Harding: W. of Olive Street				6,700				7,500			7,800	7,900
Harding: W. of Wisconsin Street				14,000				17,000			17,400	16,340
Hazel Street: N. of 16^th Avenue				8,700				8,600			8,000	8,400
Hazel Street: N. of 22^nd Avenue				15,000				14,700			14,000	13,000
Hazel Street: N. of 46^th Avenue				11,000				14,000			13,000	6,800
Hazel Street: N. of Ridgeway Road				7,800				5,400			7,400	6,000
Hazel Street: N. of 29^th Avenue				13,000				N/A			N/A	N/A
Hazel Street: S. of 46^th Avenue				11,000				11,000			9,600	6,700
Howard Drive: S. of Miramar Drive				1,100				1,700			1,500	730
Hutchinson Street: N. of Holsey Avenue				4,200				5,000			5,600	5,900
Hutchinson Street: N. of Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell)				3,900				4,400			4,300	3,700
Hutchinson Street: N. of Industrial Drive South				2,900				2,800			3,200	3,500
Hutchinson Street: N. of Short 3^rd Avenue				1,900				1,900			1,700	1,500
TABLE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (continued)
LOCATION			2008				2004				2000	1995
Hwy. 256 (Hoadley Rd.): at Pine Bluff Arsenal Entrance			2,400				3,300				2,400	1,800
Hwy. 256 (Hoadley Rd.): W. of Hwy. 365 (Dollarway Rd.)			4,600				5,800				3,000	1,700
Hwy. 79B (Blake Street): N. of 13th Avenue			17,000				16,900				17,000	24,000
Hwy. 79B (Blake Street): S. of 2^nd Avenue			19,000				18,500				19,000	23,170
Hwy. 190 (5^th & 6^th Avenues): E. of Main Street			7,800				10,000				10,400	7,700
Hwy. 190 (5^th & 6^th Avenues): W. of Ohio Street			5,900				5,900				6,400	6,900
Hwy. 190 (5^th & 6^th Avenues): E. of Mulberry			13,600				13,500				14,000	15,000
Hwy. 190 (5^th & 6^th Avenues): W. of Chestnut			5,000				7,900				9,300	11,000
Hwy. 190 (5^th & 6^th Avenues): W. of Beech			10,200				13,000				14,000	11,000
Hwy. 190 (6^th Avenue): E. of Blake Street			7,500				7,800				8,500	9,500
Hwy. 190 (S. Harding): S. of Pines Mall Drive			9,300				10,500				11,000	9,200
Hwy. 256 (Hoadley): E. of Michaelann Drive			6,200				3,800				4,700	2,700
Hwy. 270: E. of Mockingbird Lane			7,900				8,200				9,200	8,400
Hwy. 270: W. of Monk Road			6,800				7,100				7,800	7,200
Hwy. 365S (Sheridan Road): W. of Gandy Avenue			12,000				11,100				9,900	6,100
Hwy. 365S (Sheridan Road): W. of Hwy. 365 (Dollarway)			5,500				5,200				5,800	7,300
Hwy. 425: N. of Grider Field-Ladd Road			5,000				4,900				5,100	5,000
Hwy. 65 South: E. of Green Meadows			15,700				16,900				12,000	15,100
Hwy. 65 South: N. of Grider Field-Ladd Road			15,400				18,800				N/A	18,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): E. of Bryant Street			7,900				8,700				10,000	21,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): E. of Hutchinson Street			8,600				10,100				12,000	22,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): S. of Market Avenue			5,700				7,000				N/A	10,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Cherry Street			11,000				12,500				16,000	22,780
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Commerce Road			6,300				8,600				12,000	16,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Convention Center			11,000				11,600				15,000	22,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Juniper Street			13,000				14,300				18,000	26,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Michigan Street			7,100				8,300				10,000	17,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Myrtle Street			14,000				15,900				18,000	25,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Pine Street			11,000				12,000				15,000	22,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Port Rd./West 2^nd Ave.			7,800				7,600				12,000	17,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of State Street			11,000				10,300				15,000	2,000
Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell): W. of Walnut Street			10,000				12,700				16,000	22,000
Hwy. 79: N. of Hidden Lake Drive			7,000				9,000				7,900	6,900
Hwy. 79B (Camden Road): N. of 28^th Avenue			11,000				10,700				13,000	12,770
Hwy. 79B (Camden Road): N. of Bayou Bartholomew			15,000				14,400				15,600	15,000
Hwy. 79B (Camden Road): N. of Faucett Road			12,000				11,500				11,000	15,000
Hwy. 79B: S. of the bridge			4,800				3,600				5,400	7,000
Hwy. 81: N. of Hwy. 65 South			3,100				3,100				2,000	4,500
I-530 N. of Hwy. 79			24,000				25,200				22,000	N/A
I-530 N. of Princeton Pike			23,000				22,300				19,000	N/A
TABLE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (continued)
LOCATION	2008				2004				2000			1995
I-530 S. of Hwy. 270	29,000				31,900				25,000			20,000
I-530 S. of Princeton Pike	25,000				24,400				23,000			N/A
I-530 W. of Hazel Street	29,000				22,400				21,000			N/A
I-530 W. of Hwy. 63	25,000				25,100				25,000			N/A
I-530 W. of Hwy. 65	18,000				22,900				17,000			N/A
I-530 W. of Old Warren Road	29,000				27,900				23,000			N/A
I-530 N. of Hwy. 256 (West Holland Avenue	21,000				21,400				20,000			16,000
I-530 N. of Hwy. 270	18,000				22,400				21,000			14,300
Jefferson Parkway: E. of Hutchinson Street	2,500				2,700				2,600			3,200
Jefferson Parkway: W. of Industrial Drive South	5,000				5,700				4,800			1,800
Main Street: N. of 37^th Avenue	2,600				2,800				2,300			2,100
Main Street: N. of Friendswood Drive	1,900				1,500				900			920
Main Street: N. of Martin Avenue	7,000				9,200				9,100			10,000
Main Street: S. of 27^th Avenue	1,200				2,700				2,700			3,600
Michigan Street: N. of Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell)	1,200				1,600				2,000			2,200
Middle Warren Road: S. of Old Warren Road	2,320				2,800				2,300			2,300
Miramar Drive: W. of the RR Tracks	5,800				6,200				5,500			5,800
Missouri Street: S. of 8^th Avenue	1,100				1,400				1,600			1,600
Oakwood Road: S. of 13th Avenue	3,400				3,100				2,300			3,400
Oakwood Road: S. of Bayou Bartholomew	2,300				2,300				1,800			2,520
Ohio Street: N. of 26^th Avenue	4,300				4,700				4,600			4,700
Ohio Street: N. of 7^th Avenue	4,700				3,900				5,000			5,700
Ohio Street: N. of Harding Avenue	6,400				5,800				8,300			7,700
Ohio Street: S. of 38^th Avenue	1,200				1,200				1,200			2,100
Old Warren Road: At Bayou Bartholomew	6,200				6,500				6,100			5,000
Olive Street: N. of 20^th Avenue	17,000				18,200				17,000			18,000
Olive Street: N. of 26^th Avenue	18,000				20,400				18,000			18,000
Olive Street: N. of 28^th Avenue	20,000				22,700				18,000			18,000
Olive Street: N. of 46^th Avenue	13,000				13,300				8,800			8,270
Olive Street: N. of Harding Avenue	6,700				7,700				7,400			7,100
Olive Street: S. of 31^st Avenue	16,000				16,600				13,000			14,000
Olive Street: S. of Friendswood Drive	14,000				13,000				7,300			7,000
Olive Street: S. of Main Street	12,000				11,800				8,100			9,400
Port Road: E. of Michigan Street	2,400				4,200				4,900			2,000
Port Road: W. of RR Tracks	2,100				3,800				4,900			3,800
Princeton Pike: E. of Industrial School Drive	3,000				2,900				3,200			2,800
Pullen Avenue: E. of University	4,500				4,900				4,600			5,100
Pullen Avenue: W. of Catalpa Street	4,300				4,400				4,400			5,000
Pullen Avenue: W. of Oak Street	2,600				2,700				2,400			2,800
Reeker Avenue: E. of Spruce Street	880				860				950			1,100
TABLE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (continued)
LOCATION		2008				2004				2000		1995
Rhinehart Road: W. of RR Tracks		5,20				4,900				5,000		5,600
Ridgway Road: W. of Hazel Street		2,600				2,800				2,900		3,600
Ridgway Road: W. of Olive Street		3,200				2,900				1,800		3,000
Robin Street: N. of Sheridan Road		4,200				3,700				3,000		2,300
Ryburn Road: S. of the RR Tracks		1,100				950				1,000		1,100
Shannon Road: W. of Oakwood Road		1,300				1,500				1,300		2,000
Sorrells Road: E. of the RR Tracks		980				1,300				1,100		1,100
Spruce Street: N. of Scull Avenue		3,300				3,300				2,200		2,400
Spruce Street: S. of Havis Avenue		3,000				3,000				1,800		2,100
Sulphur Springs Road: E. of Oakwood Road		11,006				10,000				9,700		6,800
Sulphur Springs Road: E. of Scenic Drive		5,000				6,900				6,600		6,000
Sulphur Springs Road: W. of Temple Road		4,600				4,800				4,600		4,300
University Avenue: N. of Hwy. 65B (Martha Mitchell)		13,000				13,800				11,000		12,770
University Avenue: S. of 65B (Martha Mitchell)		12,000				12,200				13,000		14,000
University: N. of Fluker Avenue		12,000				12,900				14,000		14,000
University: N. of Oliver Drive		4,900				6,700				6,900		8,180
Walnut Street: S. of 3^rd Avenue		1,500				3,300				4,300		4,300
Walnut Street: S. of 5^th Avenue		3,300				4,600				4,000		5,100
Walnut Street: S. of 6^th Avenue		3,900				5,400				5,300		5,000
White Hall Road: N. of Robin Road		3,400				3,000				3,100		2,200
Wisconsin Street: N. of Westgate Lane		2,100				2,100				2,400		2,300

HISTORICAL,

CULTURAL,

AND

NATURAL

RESOURCES

HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, AND NATURAL RESOURCES

The surface and subsurface geologic resources play a subtle and indirect role in molding the characteristics of the Pine Bluff area. Except for a few sand and gravel operations, the geology of the area has contributed little to the direct economic base of the Study Area. Similarly, there is little in the way of distinctive geologic features and formations that are unique to the Study Area. However, structural geologic hazards in the area have played and will continue to play a role in the growth and development of the Pine Bluff Area Transportation Study Area.

The most critical relationship of geology to the study area is expressed topographic relief. Of key significance is the location of Pine Bluff essentially on the escarpment between the gently rolling coastal plain to the west, the flat alluvial plain to the east, and the dominance of riverside‑sculptured features (see Map 2). This setting has provided Pine Bluff with a diversity of environmental resources, diversity in economic base, and diversity in its social characteristics. The setting has also been the key determinant in the pattern of growth and development of the Study Area and will continue to be so. The major contradictory topographic parts of the area have resulted in many of the current problems (drainage, flood control, and land use) which face the PBATS area.

Environmentally, the narrow, braided streams and the stands of mixed hardwoods and pines on the gently rolling uplands provide an array of habitats for species more commonly associated with the western portions of the State. To the east, the flat alluvial plain with its broad meandering rivers, numerous oxbow lakes and stands of bottom land hardwoods and semi‑swamps provide habitat for lowland species characteristic of the Mississippi Delta system. In close association with the diversity of environs are a variety of recreational opportunities and opportunities for the scientific study of natural history within the Study Area. Map 3 shows environmentally sensitive and recreational areas.

Historically, the dominant elements in the settlement and development patterns of Jefferson County and the PBATS area have been location and physical attributes that provided a favorable setting for the development of a complex pre‑European culture based on farming, hunting of animals, and gathering of edible plants. The same attributes that attracted the pre-European culture led to European settlement in the early 1800's. The rich alluvial plain gave the Study

Area its first economic footing, that of agriculture (principally cotton). Around this base developed many of the early social characteristics of the area, which in large part, still remain today. With the development of the community, industries associated with timber, paper products, and other wood products also developed in response to the abundance of land to the west that could support stands of managed pine. This economically inclined the area toward

split natural land resources, agricultural and forestry. In recent years, many areas once cleared for timber and for farming have been replanted with pine. This has added to the lumber reserves of the region.

Until World War II, the regional economy continued to be based almost exclusively on agriculture. With the war, the Pine Bluff Arsenal was located northwest of Pine Bluff, and an aviation training facility was established at Grider Field. Together, these facilities provided jobs for 3,500 to 3,700 local residents.

In the mid‑1950's, the St. Louis‑Southwestern Railroad built its gravity yards in Pine Bluff and transferred several employees from Tyler, Texas. Also during this period, a state‑operated vocational‑technical school and a regional hospital were built in the city to serve Jefferson County and adjacent counties.

In the 1960's, the Pine Bluff‑Jefferson County Port Authority was created in anticipation of the Arkansas River becoming a major inland water transportation corridor into Oklahoma. With the McClellan‑Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Project, which made the river navigable from Oklahoma to the Mississippi River, the Arkansas River became a major transportation corridor in the county and has attracted new industries to the Port of Pine Bluff and the Jefferson Industrial Park.

The physical development of the area has followed its topographic patterns. Much of the early development was located on the high grounds adjacent to the escarpment and in close proximity to both the alluvial plain and uplands. As the area developed, it spread both westward and eastward. In the latter direction, limitations to development were quickly encountered in the form of poor drainage and chronic flooding. The same limitations persist with the Study Area today.

Still, urban growth causes a demand to convert natural resources into urban land. This conversion process is necessary to maintain the viability and well‑being of the community. However, despite the abundance of land and water resources within the Study Area, these other resources that affect the quality of our environment and identity of the area must be protected. There are a number of environmental, historic, cultural, and aesthetic resources within the Study Area that warrant restoration, preservation, and/or enhancement. During the development of the 2035 Transportation Plan, a review was conducted of all available documents dealing with environmental, historic, cultural, and aesthetically significant resources within the Study Area. In addition, various transportation links were analyzed in terms of meeting the community’s overall economic, social, and environmental needs, and due consideration was given to those identified needs in developing a transportation network that services the community while providing opportunities to ensure that the natural and other resources can be used and enjoyed by future generations.

MAP 2. JEFFERSON COUNTY PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS

To see MAP 2. JEFFERSON COUNTY PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS click here.

MAP 3. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

To see MAP 3. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS click here.

LAND USE PLAN, MASTER STREET PLAN, AND

COMMUNITY CONTROLS

It is a city's right as well as its duty to guide growth and provide for orderly expansions

by regulating where residential, commercial, and industrial growth shall occur and how residents and employees can travel from home to job to shopping to service centers. Cities of the first and second class in Arkansas are empowered by Act 186 of 1957, as amended, to establish a planning commission, prepare plans, adopt the prepared plans, and develop implementing regulations. In fact, each city that utilizes zoning and subdivision regulations must develop at a minimum a land use plan and a master street plan for the city and the extraterritorial jurisdiction that encompasses its planning area. These plans provide the basis of the zoning and subdivision regulations which are the tools a city uses to provide for orderly growth and to provide for access to and from the areas where people reside, work, shop, etc. By having a land use plan and master street plan, and thus zoning and subdivision regulations, a city can provide for adequate area for street expansion, require developers to implement the master street plan when their subdivisions are in areas containing roads on the plan, and preserve right-of-way for future use.

Since the PBATS Study Area encompasses both the Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall Planning Areas, it only makes sense that the Cities would adopt some or all of the PBATS MTP as either their land use plan, master street plan, or both. The City of Pine Bluff has adopted the Year 2030 MTP as its Master Street Plan and has also adopted the Year MTP’s future land use map as its Land Use Plan. The City of White Hall has adopted the MTP as its Master Street Plan for that part of its Planning Area that is also in the PBATS planning area. It is expected that the two cities will also adopt the Year 2035 Plan for those purposes as well. While it is important to understand the role of land use and master street plans to the Year 2035 MTP, because of the way this document is used by Pine Bluff and White Hall, it is important to provide the information required of a Land Use Plan and Master Street Plan.

LAND USE PLAN

An integral part of a city’s plans and policies for growth and development is the Land Use Plan, which sets forth general areas within a city’s planning jurisdiction where residential, commercial, industrial, open space, and other types of development are either expected to occur or should be directed, as well as the location of the major street system necessary to serve the existing and future land uses. The Land Use Plan also consists of policies a city uses when making land use and other development decisions. Adopted by the city planning commission and the city council, the Plan provides a framework upon which individuals and public officials can make development decisions, knowing that they are all working toward a common, compatible goal. The plan is a generalized guide, and its long-term policies and plan map should be viewed and used as a public policy statement to facilitate the orderly growth and development of the city and surrounding area. Since, during the planning process, information was gathered, analyzed, and evaluated from a current land use prospective to determine the practicality of certain areas being used for various urban land uses, the plan map and policies may be amended from time to time to reflect changes that are not or cannot be anticipated at this time.

The goals as stated in this document are broad and show how the Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall desire to grow. The policies are intended to show what action may be taken to achieve these goals. It is essential that this plan is made available to the citizens, developers, and investors to assist them in making their own plans as they relate to the land development.

EXISTING LAND USE

In the past, urban development of the City of Pine Bluff has been relatively compact and quite similar to most urban centers in the mid-south region, originally expanding in a uniform concentric form around the central business district. The Arkansas River and its extensive floodplain in the eastern portion of the study area and the Bayou Bartholomew area were once barriers to unlimited growth in the north, south and east portions of the Study Area. Because of these barriers, the development of the study area was bounded by the Arkansas River on the north, the floodplain on the east, Bayou Bartholomew on the south and Oakwood Road and Claud Road on the western boundary. However, completion of the Southern Bypass (I-530) has improved access to all areas of the study area. This improved access has had a strong influence on the expansion of low density residential, commercial and industrial developments in the Study Area fringe.

Railroads bisect the central core of the Study Area. Most early industrial development occurred in close proximity to the railroads. However, with the advent of better roads and improvements made in the trucking industry, the trend has been towards disbursing industrial locations throughout the core area. The main industrial areas are located in the Pine Bluff Port area, the Jefferson Industrial Park, and along major arterial and collector roads within the core area.

Scenic areas within the study area, and particularly substantial parts of the Arkansas River and Bayou Bartholomew, should be preserved and enhanced as part of the park system. Neighborhood parks should be developed in conjunction with elementary schools. Public and semi‑public uses such as churches, institutions, clubs and golf courses provide the community with necessary open spaces. Where possible, green belt - trail areas need to be set aside that would bisect the residential, commercial and industrial areas.

It has long been a trend within the study area for most growth to occur south and southwest of the Pine Bluff city limits and all around White Hall except to its east (the Pine Bluff Arsenal boundary stops eastern growth in this area). The Year 2035 Transportation Plan was developed partly in relation to existing development and roads, existing travel patterns, and logical road extensions in conjunction with north‑south and east‑west movement as well as other master plans such as Pine Bluff's Master Sewer Plan. In addition, development is more apt to occur in these areas due to the absence of extensive flood‑prone lands and because the soils of the area are more suitable for urban development. Other considerations included anticipated future commercial development near the Pines Mall and the I-530/Olive Street intersection, and existing and anticipated future industrial development in the Port of Pine Bluff and Jefferson Industrial Park.

Map 4 shows the current land use of the Study Area.

MAP 4. CURRENT LAND USE

To see MAP 4. CURRENT LAND USE click here.

FUTURE LAND USE

There are four primary classifications of land uses that are set forth in the Land Use Plan. Their purposes by type are:

1. Residential Land Uses: to provide for the distribution and density of residential uses based on the projected population; the optimum utilization of land based upon physical limitations (floodplains, water resources, soils, and slope, etc.); and the functional relationship of public utilities and facilities and the transportation system.

2. Commercial Land Uses: to provide sufficient commercial land located throughout the community to serve the proposed residential land uses and support the projected

population, and to maintain the existing commercial areas. The location of such land uses should also have a functional relationship with the transportation system and be adequately accessed from the residential areas.

3. Industrial Land Uses: to provide sufficient industrial tracts within the community, to provide employment opportunities for the projected population, and to maintain the existing industrial areas. The location of such tracts should be in areas that have direct access to intermodal transportation systems and be accessible to the residential neighborhoods in the community. The industrial land uses should be environmentally compatible with the surrounding land uses.

4. Open Space: to preserve and acquire open space for a variety of purposes such as recreation, flood control and management, conservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat, preservation of historical, architectural and archeological sites, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

Other land uses include agricultural lands and public and semi-public areas. Following is a summary of the different kinds of land uses established for the Study Area.

RESIDENTIAL AREAS

The Land Use Plan shows two categories of residential use ranging from low and medium density single family dwellings to high intensity multi‑family dwellings. The net density implied in each of these areas is as follows:

· Low to Medium Density: one to two dwelling units per acre;

· High Density: three or more dwelling units per acre.

Net density represents the number of dwelling units per net acre of land devoted to residential buildings and accessory uses on the same lot, excluding land for streets, public parking, playgrounds and non‑residential uses.

The plan assumes that public water and sanitary sewer service would be provided to all but the low end of the density classification. Since there is no county zoning, it is anticipated that urban sprawl will continue outside the two cities.

The plan makes ample provision for the estimated future residential areas needed to serve the projected regional population of 70,068 persons. In other words, the residential areas shown on the land use plan will not be fully developed by the year 2035. The region will still be expanding and growth is expected to take place in the areas shown on the plan.

COMMERCIAL AREAS

The Pine Bluff Central Business District (CBD) is no long a dominant commercial center, but it still remains the center for financial institutions and governmental offices.

Commercial activities have spread throughout the central core of the urban area into

shopping centers and strip commercial development located along the main streets within the Study Area. The commercial land uses designated in the plan to meet the residential land use needs and those of the Pine Bluff marketing area have been located strategically throughout the community adjacent to major street intersections.

INDUSTRIAL AREAS

The location of transportation facilities will influence industrial locations in the future, although additional factors affecting new industrial sites have to be taken into consideration. These factors are the need for large areas to accommodate modern one-story operations and the fact that many industrial processes have been improved to substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the emission of smoke, gas, dust and other objectionable features usually associated with industry. Industrial firms seeking a new location are looking for suitable wide open spaces just as the residential and shopping center developer do. If industrial sites and buildings are well designed and landscaped they can blend in with surrounding commercial and residential land uses. Based on this premise, the land use plan provides for industrial sites which are more than adequate in area, have reasonably pleasant surroundings, and have good and convenient access.

PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC AREAS

Schools, churches, cemeteries, and public facilities comprise the major land uses in this category. Schools will be needed as new development takes place. Wherever possible, elementary school sites should be located close to the center of each neighborhood in connection with a neighborhood park.

OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

These types of areas are important for a community and society as a whole. Open space refers to land which are used for parks and recreation. It also refers to land which is not desirable for urban development because of its topography such as land located in floodplain areas, areas with poor slope and soil conditions, or other assorted problems associated with development. Environmentally sensitive areas refer to those geographic areas that support unique wildlife and flora and fauna, areas with historical significance, and wetlands.

AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Agricultural lands refer to land which is used for primarily agricultural purposes and that should be used for said purpose.

LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES

RESIDENTIAL

GOAL 1. Distribution and density of residential development shall be based on the optimum utilization of land in accordance with the limitations of natural terrain and resources.

Policies

· Minimize hazards to health and safety.

· Recognize the limitations of the terrain and soils when determining the location and density of residential land uses.

· Protect ground water resources by discouraging development that would have a negative impact on ground water quality and supply.

· Discourage development on prime agricultural lands.

· Regulate and discourage development in environmentally sensitive areas and in the floodplain.

GOAL 2. Distribution and density of residential development shall reflect a functional relationship to support transportation facilities, utilities, and community facilities.

Policies

· Locate high-density residential land uses in areas that have access to major transportation facilities and are near major activity places such as shopping, places of employment, and recreational areas.

· Minimize undesirable traffic circulation within residential areas.

· High density residential developments should be used as a buffer along major streets between commercial nodes and be designed in a manner to provide the amenities of residential developments.

· Encourage low-density development in the interior of major developments. Discourage low-density development from being located on arterial streets.

· Encourage development that provides for an efficient, economical and safe use of utilities.

· Encourage development that provides for the availability of community facilities to serve the residents.

GOAL 3. Residential developments shall be planned and designed for optimal use.

Policies

· Encourage the use of good design practices and standards so as to insure the most favorable use of the land being developed for residential use.

· Encourage the preservation of vegetation and terrain features in the design of the development.

· Encourage the design of developments to be related to surrounding land uses to provide for an efficient use of land for urban uses.

· Encourage development of a variety of housing types and for mixed housing uses to be developed in a manner compatible with community values.

COMMERCIAL

GOAL 1. Maintain existing shopping centers and encourage commercial development infill.

Policies

· Encourage commercial development infill within the existing commercial strips.

· Support and encourage rehabilitation and refurbishing of older, existing shopping centers.

· Assist in maintaining the viability of older, existing shopping centers by encouraging creative commercial re-use of properties.

· Support and encourage refurbishing and re-design of shopping center parking facilities and driveways.

· Encourage implementation of methods to control and reduce traffic conflicts on roadway such as joint access usage and adoption of roadway access policies.

GOAL 2. Promote new commercial development to occur in commercial nodes at intersections and in specially designed commercial districts.

Policies

· Encourage new commercial development clusters to be located at the intersection of major streets.

· Promote new commercial development in areas regulated by neighborhood land use plans and design districts.

· Encourage traffic controlled access to and from the commercial cluster in order to reduce traffic congestion and accidents.

· Ensure that adequate on site traffic circulation is developed to meet the public need while providing for public safety.

· Encourage the design of commercial buildings to meet the development and aesthetic standards as deem appropriate by the Community.

· Ensure that proper buffer land uses are allowed to develop around the commercial clusters in order to limit encroachment of commercial land uses into residential areas.

GOAL 3. Establish neighborhood-shopping areas that service neighborhood commercial needs.

Policies

· Encourage the establishment of neighborhood commercial areas that are of sufficient size to provide day to day commercial services for the neighborhood residences.

• Encourage the design of the neighborhood shopping areas to provide for accessibility by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
• Encourage the design of the businesses in the neighborhood shopping areas to provide for maximum safety access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
• Encourage the design of the businesses in the neighborhood shopping areas to meet the development and aesthetic standards of the neighborhood.
• Encourage adequate buffering around or the blending in of the neighborhood shopping areas with the surrounding neighborhood to insure that there is no land use conflict between the commercial and residential uses of the neighborhood.

INDUSTRIAL

GOAL 1. Industrial land uses should be located in areas that have infrastructure adequate to support industrial land use activities.

Policies

· Ensure that adequate public infrastructure is available to support industrial land uses prior to a site being used for industrial purposes.

· Encourage industrial land uses to be located in areas with expansion capability that can also be buffered or be able to blend in with the surrounding land uses.

· Ensure that industrial sites are designed to provide for adequate on-site loading and parking needs.

· Encourage industrial sites to be located near or adjacent to arterial and collector streets.

· Encourage the development of an industrial park that is in keeping with the aesthetics of the community.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST LANDS

GOAL 1. Lands presently devoted to agricultural and timber production should remain in those uses until such time as logical urban development trends warrant consideration for change.

Policies

· Existing agricultural and timberland uses shall remain as such until such time as they are no longer viable, wanted, or needed for agriculture or timber production.

· Discourage the mixing of inappropriate land uses with those designated as agricultural and forestland uses

· Discourage the premature expansion of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in areas used as agricultural and forestland.

OPEN-SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

GOAL 1. Create a community that is in harmony with its natural surroundings and provides a healthy environment in which to live.

· Parks and open spaces should be established for an assortment of outdoor recreational and other activities.

· Vulnerable urban development should not be located in areas of natural hazards to life and property such as floodplains.

· Development using on-site sewage treatment should be prohibited in areas with unsuitable soils.

GOAL 2. Provide a coordinated open space system that will preserve vital natural resources and provide protection from flooding while at the same time provide for an attractive living environment that can be used recreational purposes.

Policies

· Local, State, or National entities shall obtain and maintain open space facilities as warranted/feasible in order to provide adequate levels of open space and environmentally sensitive recreation.

· Drainage facilities in new development shall be designed and constructed to handle rainfall runoff that originates in or traverses the development.

GOAL 3. Protect the natural environment.

Policies

· Environmentally critical land and water areas should be protected from incompatible uses and from pollutants generated by urbanization in the area.

· Developers shall be responsible for instituting stormwater best management practices during development and providing drainage systems that reduce stormwater pollution.

· Wooded areas that serve a functional purpose should be preserved as part of an urban forest and open-space system.

· Present and future water supply drainage basins should receive only urban developments compatible with protection of water quality.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES - SCHOOLS

GOAL 1. The public school system should provide a suitable, efficient, economical, and balanced program and physical plant that will adequately meet the educational needs of the future.

Policies:

· Acquire desirable sites well in advance of need.

· Establish elementary schools off the major streets near the center of residential neighborhoods.

· Locate junior and senior high schools on major streets and near the center of their respective service areas.

· Discourage encroachment in the vicinity of school lands by land use activities that may have a detrimental effect on the use of these areas for public education purposes.

· Encourage traffic circulation patterns within the community that will allow for convenient access to school facilities by both pedestrians and vehicles with minimum of conflicts between the two.

· Coordinate school and campus development plans with City plans and regulations.

PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

GOAL 1. Insure that public facilities and recreational facilities are adequately developed and properly located within the community to handle the future needs of the residents.

Policies

· Properly locate recreational areas and fire stations throughout the community to adequately service all neighborhoods.

· Purchase sites well in advance of need.

· Locate parks in floodplain and other environmentally sensitive areas in order to protect the land while providing for recreational opportunities.

· Locate public facilities that are easily accessible to the citizens.

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

GOAL 1. Provide sufficient quantity of high quality water for residential use and fire protection, and at the same time provide for sufficient supply for commercial and low volume industrial users.

Policies

· As property is developed, the developer will be responsible for the construction of water system improvements to provide for the level of service determined to be necessary for the respective local governments.

· Ensure that excess capacity is available for future extensions.

SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM

GOAL 1. Provide the entire community with the most effective wastewater collection and disposal method that will insure a healthy and attractive living environment for the community.

Policies

· The Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall will maintain control of the sewage collection and treatment systems so as to better monitor and provide for a safe and clean system and living environment.

· Where feasible, developers will be responsible for the construction of sewer system improvements to the standards of the level service determined to be necessary for the Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall.

MAP 5. LAND USE PLAN

To see MAP 5. LAND USE PLAN click here

MASTER STREET PLAN

The purpose of a Master Street Plan is to provide for the orderly growth and development of a city through the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Transportation planning renders adequate access to developing areas as well as providing needed transportation improvements to established areas. Good transportation planning that is based on a viable plan is essential to a city's growth. Through such planning, a city becomes able to take advantage of important features of the community by providing the access to these features.

A plan focuses attention on needs identified by existing conditions as well as on needs that are based upon future demands. In addition, a schedule of improvements can be established based on priorities and the capital improvements program. These priorities may change or new priorities may develop but through a continuing transportation planning process, they can be anticipated and absorbed into the Plan.

The roadways contained in the MTP and City Master Street Plans are classified by the way the facility functions in terms of type of traffic carried. The State of Arkansas mandates that the system be classified into one of five classes. Following are descriptions of the classification of streets as shown on the street/transportation plans, a cross section diagram of each type, vehicle capacity, right-of-way required, pavement width, recommended vehicle speed, etc.

INTERSTATE FREEWAYS: High speed, high volume, multi‑lane access‑controlled facilities with no access to adjacent land uses, and grade separations at all cross streets. They provide basic interstate service linking major cities as recognized by the Federal Highway Administration.

OTHER FREEWAY AND High speed, high volume, multi‑lane facilities with a very high EXPRESSWAYS: degree of access control providing traffic service to long distance traffic across the metropolitan area. Access is severely limited to public road intersections or preferably, grade separated interchanges

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL: Multi‑lane, moderately high volume roads serving major centers

of activity in the urban area and carrying a high proportion of total may be controlled through limited curb cuts, medians, etc. to preserve travel mobility.

MINOR ARTERIAL: Multi‑lane, moderately high volume roadways carrying traffic

for shorter distances between higher class facilities. A lower

level of travel mobility is achieved through minimal control of

access to abutting land uses.

COLLECTOR: Typically low volume two‑lane roads which provide access in

and out of neighborhoods for short distances to the arterial

system. In areas of unusually dense development they may be

four‑lane.

The following cross‑sections were developed for each functional class to ensure the orderly growth of the area‑wide street network so that it may function properly as envisioned in the 2030 Transportation Plan. Right‑of‑way and lane widths vary in order to provide sufficient traffic service and safety given the desired travel speeds for each functional class. Minimum cross‑sections are ideals for roadways in new locations or widening of existing roadways in areas with development that does not significantly encroach on the recommended right‑of‑way. In heavily developed areas, reduction of right‑of‑way and roadway width may be approved on a case by case basis to avoid incurring prohibitive costs and/or undesirable negative impacts.

FIGURE 1.

EXPRESSWAY

Capacity ‑ 38,000 vpd

Service Volume ‑ 28,300 vpd

Speed ‑ 45‑55 mph.

Traffic Lanes ‑ Four 12 foot lanes; where at‑grade intersections occur on

expressways, right and left turn lanes should be provided.

Parking Lanes ‑ None; emergency parking permitted on shoulders.

Shoulders ‑ 10 foot outside and six foot inside shoulders.

Side Slopes ‑ Slopes should not exceed a minimum ratio of 6:1 to a distance of 30 feet from the edge of traffic lanes.

Paved Width ‑ 98 feet depressed; 84 feet raised; width includes median.

Right‑of‑Way ‑ 200 feet; on federally funded and State projects, R/W requirement

will normally be 300 feet, with more at interchanges.

Sidewalks ‑ None.

Median ‑ 24 feet minimum desirable; median is measured between edges of

opposing traffic lanes; when Federal funding is involved, the depressed median shown as 18 feet should be 48 feet; this provides a 60 foot median: 48 feet plus two 6‑foot shoulders; when raised median is used, a New Jersey barrier wall is normally used for safety.

Frontage Roads ‑ Should not be permitted except where existing development needs frontage roads to maintain access. Freeway exit ramps will not intersect frontage roads unless the frontage is one‑way in the same direction.

FIGURE 2.

FREEWAY

Capacity ‑ 71,700 vpd

Service Volume ‑ 44,800 vpd

Speed ‑ 65-70 mph.

Traffic Lanes ‑ Four 12 foot lanes; where at‑grade intersections occur on

expressways, right and left turn lanes should be provided.

Parking Lanes ‑ None; emergency parking permitted on shoulders.

Shoulders ‑ 10 foot outside and six foot inside shoulders.

Side Slopes ‑ Slopes should not exceed a minimum ratio of 6:1 to a distance of 30 feet from the edge of traffic lanes.

Paved Width ‑ 98 feet depressed; 84 feet raised; width includes median.

Right‑of‑Way ‑ 200 feet; on federally funded and State projects, R/W requirement

will normally be 300 feet, with more at interchanges.

Sidewalks ‑ None.

Median ‑ 24 feet minimum desirable; median is measured between edges of

opposing traffic lanes; when Federal funding is involved, the depressed median shown as 18 feet should be 48 feet; this provides a 60 foot median: 48 feet plus two 6‑foot shoulders; when raised median is used, a New Jersey barrier wall is normally used for safety.

Frontage Roads ‑ Should not be permitted except where existing development needs frontage roads to maintain access. Freeway exit ramps will not intersect frontage roads unless the frontage is one‑way in the same direction.

FIGURE 3.

PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL

Capacity ‑ 22,800 vpd; 27,600 vpd with left turn lane.

Service Volume ‑ 17,000 vpd; 20,600 vpd with left turn lane.

Speed ‑ 40‑45 mph.

Traffic Lanes ‑ Four 12 foot travel lanes; 12 foot left turn bay at intersections where necessary, and a continuous turn lane where there are high volumes of mid‑block turns.

Parking Lanes ‑ None.

Paved Width ‑ 51 feet minimum from back of curb to 63 feet with a continuous turn lane.

Right‑of‑Way ‑ 80 feet minimum; 90 feet for intersection widening and where possible for five lane sections.

Sidewalks ‑ Two sidewalks designed in accordance with AHTD

Sidewalk Policy.

FIGURE 4.

MINOR ARTERIAL

Capacity ‑ 16,300 vpd; 19,800 vpd with left turn lane.

Service Volume ‑ 12,200 vpd; 14,800 vpd with left turn lane.

Speed ‑ 35‑40 mph.

Traffic Lanes ‑ Four 11 foot travel lanes; 11 foot left turn lane may be necessary at

intersections and in areas with high volumes of mid‑block turns.

Parking lanes ‑ None.

Paved Width ‑ 47 feet; 56 feet with turn lane.

Right‑of‑Way ‑ 70 feet minimum; 80 feet for intersection widening and where

possible for five lane sections.

Sidewalks ‑ Two sidewalks designed in accordance with AHTD

Sidewalk Policy.

FIGURE 5.

COLLECTOR

HIGH DENSITY: For use over short distances in commercial, industrial, apartment, and other high density areas

Capacity ‑ 12,200 vpd; 14,800 vpd with left turn lane.

Service Volume ‑ 10,700 vpd; 12,900 vpd with left turn lane.

Speed ‑ 25‑35 mph.

Traffic Lanes ‑ Four 11 foot travel lanes; 11 foot left turn lane may be necessary at

intersections and in areas with high volumes of mid‑block turns.

Parking lanes ‑ None.

Paved Width ‑ 47 feet.

Right‑of‑Way ‑ 70 feet minimum; 80 feet for intersection widening

Sidewalks ‑ Two 4 foot minimum sidewalks; 8 foot clearance from traffic lanes

where possible; consideration should be given to widening in vicinity of schools or where high pedestrian traffic occurs.

FIGURE 6.

COLLECTOR

LOW DENSITY: For use primarily in residential and other low density area.

Capacity ‑ 12 foot approach: 6,200 vpd; 8,800 vpd with left turn lane.

11 foot approach: 5,900 vpd; 8,500 with left turn lane.

Service Volume ‑ 12 foot approach: 4,700 vpd; 6,900 vpd with left turn lane.

11 foot approach: 4,000 vpd; 5,800 with left turn lane.

Speed ‑ 25‑30 mph.

Traffic Lanes ‑ Two 11 foot travel lanes; 10 foot left turn lane at intersections where necessary

Parking lanes ‑ 10 foot lane provided but not necessarily defined; none when turn lane is provided.

Paved Width ‑ 35 feet.

Right‑of‑Way ‑ 60 feet.

Sidewalks ‑ Two 4 foot minimum sidewalks; 8 foot clearance from traffic lanes where possible; consideration should be given to widening in vicinity of schools or where high pedestrian traffic occurs. Sidewalks will be constructed in accordance to ADA design standards.

COMMUNITY CONTROLS AND

RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESERVATION

ZONING

The most direct way of influencing the development of a community is through the application of a zoning code. Both Pine Bluff and White Hall have adopted and administer zoning regulations. Zoning classifications regulate the type and intensity of development, thereby regulating the activity a development will generate and protecting the existing and proposed transportation facilities from ineffectiveness and overcrowding. Zoning also regulates structure setbacks from a proposed street right‑of‑way and existing transportation facilities and their eventual improvements. Therefore, adherence to setback requirements assists in the preservation of rights-of‑way for future facilities that are contained in a master street plan.

SUBDIVISION

Subdivision regulations for the Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall ensure proper development within the cities and their areas of extraterritorial jurisdiction while protecting the developer, homeowner, and the cities from improper infrastructure construction and uncontrolled growth. Through these regulations, proposed facilities shown on the cities' master street plans and on the portion of the Year 2035 Transportation Plan contained in the cities' planning area can be required to be constructed according to proper standards and specifications. Conformity to these standards, and the provisions for the dedication of rights‑of‑way, enable the cities to control their growth and development while assisting in the implementation of the Master Street/Transportation Plans.

PINE BLUFF AREA

TRANSPORTATION

STUDY

YEAR 2035

TRANSPORTATION

PLAN

THE UNCONSTRAINED PLAN

The Year 2035 Unconstrained Transportation Plan is the optimum plan that would serve the Study Area transportation needs through the year 2035 and beyond. The Unconstrained Plan is integrated with the land use plan to ensure that when development does occur in any location within the Study Area, that the land use areas will have appropriate transportation linkages. By considering the relationship between the types and intensity of the land uses and the generation of traffic movements between them, the Transportation Plan, in conjunction with the land use plan, will shape the pattern of urban development, improve the livability of the region, and allow for the complete use of transportation facilities.

The Year 2035 Unconstrained Transportation Plan has not changed dramatically from the first Pine Bluff Area Transportation Plan adopted in 1969 for the year 1990 and its revisions. The 1990 plan was based on travel needs of the 1990 population and employment as projected using figures from 1940 through the mid‑1960's. During that period, the Pine Bluff area population tripled. Since 1970, the Pine Bluff area has experienced an out-migration of population. Within the Study Area itself, there has been a shift in population from the core of the city to the fringe areas. The Study Area has been expanded outward from the original study area to reflect this movement by the population. Generally, the arterial streets within the Unconstrained Plan have been spaced at approximately one‑mile intervals within the Study Area. Collector streets have been located as nearly as possible to the mid‑point between the arterials using existing streets where possible to provide for connections between the local street system and the arterial street pattern.

The PBATS Unconstrained Transportation Plan has been adopted by the City of Pine Bluff as its official Master Street Plan for its planning area. In addition, all the transportation links on the PBATS Unconstrained Transportation Plan that are within the City of White Hall’s planning area are designated transportation links on its Master Street Plan. City Master Street Plans are recognized under Act 186 of 1957, as amended, of the Arkansas State Statutes and are the instruments used by the cities to preserve future rights‑of‑way for the major street system. The State Statute states that Master Street Plans shall include the general location of streets and highways to be reserved for future public acquisitions and that they may provide for the removal, relocation, widening, narrowing, vacation, abandonment, change of use, or extension of any public way. The Cities of Pine Bluff and White Hall, through their subdivision regulations adopted under this state statute, require persons subdividing their property to make the appropriate road dedications and improvements as shown on their master street plan. Cross‑sections for arterial and collector streets for both cities are the same as those identified in the previous section of this plan.

MAP 6. UNCONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

To see MAP 6. UNCONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PLAN click here.

THE YEAR 2035 CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

OVERVIEW

In order to have a viable plan that can be used by the public and private sectors as a development guide, an implementation plan that shows which transportation projects will be initiated during a specific time frame must be prepared. The basic elements in preparing and adopting the implementation, or constrained, plan are: (1) determining what transportation links on the Year 2035 Unconstrained Transportation Plan need to be implemented based on expected travel needs and (2) the availability of financial resources to implement the projects.

Through the planning process, the PBATS Policy Committee adopted both the Unconstrained and Constrained Transportation Plans. The Constrained Plan, shown on Map 8, represents the transportation projects the local jurisdictions and the State plan to implement during the next twenty‑five years. The plan was developed through public input and technical considerations and is also based on the following concepts:

· Traffic Service ‑ What is the perceived level of traffic operating conditions within the Study Area?

· Community Value ‑ What role does transportation play not only in meeting the community travel needs but also in meeting social, environmental, historical, and economic requirements?

· Networking Continuity ‑ To what degree does the transportation system allow for continuous north-south/east-west traffic movements throughout the study area?

· Functional Classification of Roadways – Is the collector and arterial street system adequately spaced over the urban area so that the population is served adequately, and will the streets function as described?

· Use of Existing Facilities ‑ Does the proposed plan maximize the usage and effectiveness of the existing transportation system?

· Growth Potential ‑ Is the proposed plan compatible with the transportation needs of future development?

· Implementation ‑ Are the selected projects necessary to ensure that the community remains a strong and vital place where residents can prosper?

FINANCIAL PLAN

A long-range financial plan is necessary to determine what amount of funds may be available to implement transportation improvement projects as identified in the Year 2035 PBATS Constrained Transportation Plan. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department furnished PBATS with the estimated amount of federal funds for the various U.S. Department of Transportation programs that may be available to the PBATS area over the next twenty-five years to implement surface transportation and transit projects. These funds were estimated to grow at the rate of 3.9% per year and are shown in Table 7. These funding levels include both federal funds available plus matching funds. At the local jurisdiction level, an evaluation of the two Cities and County transportation revenues from the years 2004 to 2009 was conducted. The evaluation consisted of reviewing revenue collected from the local 3-mill road tax collected, state turn-back money, severance turn-back money and other sources of funds as stated in their yearly audits of their transportation funds. Based on the evaluation, it was determined to use a yearly 2% increase in the revenues received by the local governments instead of the 3.9% annual increase used by AHTD. In addition, from reviewing local jurisdiction expenditures for implementing transportation projects over the last twenty years, it appears each local jurisdiction may be able to set aside 5% of their annual transportation budget for expenditures for capital improvement projects. Tables 7a –78c show the local jurisdiction street revenues and other funding sources and estimated funds available for capital projects.

The Capital Improvements Program presented in Table 8 as the Long Range Transportation Improvement Program lists which projects will be implemented during a certain time period and the estimated cost of each project based on the inflated cost figures for the time period the projects are proposed to be implemented. PBATS used AHTD’s estimated 7% annual cost of inflation rate for the transportation improvement projects shown in the table. Table 9 shows the funds estimated to be available in relation to the projects listed to ensure the program is constrained. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing their own projects as shown in the table.

TABLE 7

ESTIMATED FUNDS AVAILABLE

SOURCE	2011 - 2015		2016 – 2025		2026 - 2035
Bridge		5,287,000		13,366,000	20,749,000
Enhancement		1,563,000		3,508,000	6,137,000
Interstate Maintenance		7,170,000		34,578,000	45,179,000
NHS		12,785,000		39,648,000	50,177,000
Safety		3,796,000		9,162,000	14,895,000
STP/CMAQ		13,678,000		42,517,000	52,902,000
STP Urban		2,149,000		4,996,000	8,560,000
State Maintenance		6,630,000		13,260,000	13,260,000
Total	$	53,058,000		161,035,000	211,859,000

TABLE 7a

PINE BLUFF

PROJECTED DEDICATED REVENUE AND OTHER SOURCES

YEAR	MILLAGE	HIGHWAY TURNBACK	OTHER	SEVERANCE TAX	TOTAL FUNDING	AVAILABLE (5%) FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
2010	553,035	2,629,236	240,725	320,551	3,743,567	187,178
2011	564,116	2,681,820	245,539	374,122	3,865,597	193,279
2012	575,398	2,735,457	250,450	408,093	3,969,398	198,470
2013	586,906	2,790,166	255,459	436,838	4,069,369	203,468
2014	598,644	2,845,969	260,568	411,629	4,116,810	205,840
2015	610,174	2,902,889	265,779	442,500	4,221,342	211,067
2016	622,830	2,960,946	271,095	439,452	4,294,323	214,716
2017	635,286	3,020,165	276,517	421,595	4,353.563	217,678
2018	647,992	2,080,569	282,047	400,000	4,410,608	220,530
2019	660,952	3,142,180	287,688	400,000	4,490,820	224,541
2020	674,170	3,205,024	293,442	400,000	4,572,636	228,632