A conceptual drawing shows what a roundabout could look like on Wedington Drive just west of Interstate 540.
Source: City of Fayetteville
A three-lane roundabout could one day be built on Wedington Drive just west of Interstate 540 as part of the Wedington Corridor Neighborhood Master Plan.
The proposed plan was created using input from 88 residents who participated in a weeklong charrette held in October. The series of meetings was designed to help city planners understand how residents envisioned future development of the area from I-540 west to Broyles Avenue.
Participants said they wanted to see less traffic congestion, more neighborhood shops and better trail connectivity. The resulting plan was organized under four guiding principals:
1. Redefine Wedington Drive as Wedington Parkway
2. Envision the “heart” of the neighborhood along Rupple Road
3. Support active and public transportation options
4. Designate a north-south oriented “greenway” connected the Hamestring and Owl Creek watersheds
Proposed changes to the area include a roundabout to replace the series of traffic signals at the I-540 interchange, a tree-lined median on Wedington Drive, paths connecting commercial areas to city trails, a branch of the Fayetteville Public Library, a new junior high school, community center, farmers’ market and a separated side path on the north side of the I-540 overpass for pedestrians and cyclists.
The roundabout design would eliminate the two stoplights on the west side of the interchange and includes a “jug handle” loop to replace the existing left turn for eastbound Wedington vehicles entering northbound I-540 traffic.
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department would have the final say on how the interchange is handled. Construction of a roundabout could coincide with the department’s plans to widen I-540 and improve nine interchanges, including the Wedington Drive ramps.
City Council members will consider adopting the plan during the next regular meeting on Tuesday, March 5.
It’s only a draft, but I like it a lot. Something has to change on Wedington. The traffic is a nightmare.
I wonder how the buses get in and out of the bus station. I wonder when going west on Wedington you turn south on I-540.
…This is just weird. I’m all for fixing that nightmare of an overpass traffic situation, but this just seems like a very roundabout (hah, get it?) solution to me. It’s only going to prolong the real situation and buy time for the city, that’s assuming it even works.
Excellent idea. Roundabouts keep traffic moving. Glad to see NWA beginning to grasp the concept. I hope the state understands how well this will work.
Carcentric Fayetteville traffic is always going to be a nightmare. Get used to it. Use the bike trails if that’s practical for you. “Fixes” don’t cut down longterm on numbers of vehicles, congestion, or accidents. Better to spend money on a good public transit system than to keep “improving” the highways. Add up cost of labor, destruction, rebuilding, debris/waste, time lost in one-lane traffic while construction goes on, etc. etc. — it’s not worth it for a “roundabout”.
This is a horrible idea. Weddington is a major artery of the city and has a significant portion of commercial entities. The traffic will only increase as the west side of 540 develops further. The city needs to look at its future of becoming a larger metro instead of quirky traffic outlets that inevitably limit the full force of traffic flow.
With all due respect, roundabouts do the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting. They don’t limit traffic flow, they keep cars moving constantly. That’s the whole point here. New only seems quirky until it becomes a standard.
Roundabouts require slowing down to around 15 mph. Not most people’s idea of good traffic flow on busy cross-town arteries. But my own objection is that the good that might come of putting in a roundabout will never compensate for the destruction, waste, disruption, and cost. If we simply want to keep people employed it would be good to think about ways to make retraining economically attractive in fields that go begging such as health care, education, small-scale local agriculture, renewable energy tech and retrofits, etc.
Roundabouts may require slowing to around 15 mph, but traffic lights require stopping. How could 0 mph be anyone’s idea of good traffic flow?
Until 500 cars are backed up trying to get on 540.
Then you have a circle of backed up traffic instead of a strait line. One variable stays the same.
ROUNDABOUTS RULE
The only thing that would make these roundabouts better is to have a live band performing in the middle of them.
Only if the band is a Yes coverband
Interesting way to eliminate the stop lights with the ‘jug handle’ on one side and the roundabout on the other. It remains to be seen about the cost feasibility of this particular design, but I like the initial idea. That intersection is currently a mess and will only get worse. The walking lane across the bridge is crucial.
Having lived in two countries where roundabouts were frequent and efficient, I much prefer them over the traditional stop-light intersections.
I think the first step is to finish widening Rupple up to Mt. Comfort which means building a bridge to the east of the current road and connecting to the stoplight. Then finish connecting Salem Road (which stops south of Hamstring Creek) to Mt. Comfort as well. There’s a stoplight there too. You’d have a lot of the residential traffic using that corridor which would relieve much of the congestion. At minimum, do that (which both are already planned) before you try and tackle the intersection at Wedington and I-540.
That, and I like the band in the middle of the roundabout idea. But only if they’re on a revolving stage.
Rupple will eventually be expanded. I am against Salem being extended north – that neighborhood has two parks and lots of children/pedestrians and would not be served well by drivers hauling ass to or from work. Plus I don’t think Mt. Comfort/Porter – even with the current widening – would be able to accommodate the increased traffic flow at the 540 onramp. Of course i’m not a traffic engineer – just basing this on observation from my morning commute.
I don’t think you’d see much of an increase on Salem. All of the people in that neighborhood currently hit Salem and go south to Wedington. Now they’d be able to hit Salem and go north. So Salem wouldn’t really see increase. No one traveling down Wedington would go up Salem, it would take longer that way. But it would be an option for residents already driving in that neighborhood and would decrease traffic on Wedington. And your right about things getting tight at Exit 65 but I’m sure they have plans to change that up even more as they widen the interstate there.
I really like the proposal, I think they put a lof of thought in to it and the changes make sense. I think the biggest pro is the tree lined median which will get rid of the god-awful turn lane and preven the dangerous left hand turns people make between 540 and salem. That will cut down on accidents in that area. I also really like the “jug handle” for access to 540 N, that in itself would help reduce quite a bit of traffic during rush hour times. One thing I wish was in there was a park area on the south side of Wedington. I somewhat like the use of the empty land between broyles and 46th. It would be nice to see more of it put to use for a community area where maybe there could be a small farmers market, playground, pavillion area. I see where they do have some park space, but I think you could do ever more to support the number of people in the area
I think they had proposed a larger park closer to the water treatment plant where the city already owns the land. You’ll have some smaller parks where developers have to provide the land to get approved, but my guess is a bigger one would occur next to the water treatment facility. I think that’s where they had also proposed putting a west Fayetteville recycling drop-off.
And it may be a good design, but I just don’t think you should disrupt everything until they finish widening or creating the alternate routes to the interstate up Rupple and Salem. Can you imagine that Rupple intersection as it is now at Mt. Comfort when people are forced up there due to single lane construction traffic on Wedington? They’ve got to fix that first.
sprawl
They are proposing three pedestrian crossings through a continuous flow of traffic?
Locally received ideas notwithstanding, roundabouts, fun for cars, are less safe for people on foot and on bikes. If this is the case in France and Switzerland (see wikipedia, for instance), Fayetteville Arkansas may not see anything remarkably pedestrian- or bicycle-friendly associated with its roundabouts either.
I suspect those crossings would in fact be bridges.
Good road design standards– and state and federal road design standards as well– include controlled pedestrian access and interaction on surface streets and roads, regardless of how few pedestrians there are. The design of the interaction determines to a large extent how much pedestrian interaction there is. If a roundabout makes pedestrian access safer– and that determination includes the effect on vehicular traffic– then the number of pedestrians might well increase. If pedestrians see a roundabout as less safe, they will cross elsewhere.
Almost all of the pedestrians I have seen on that stretch of Wedington have been traveling east-west, and they would have minimal interaction with the roundabout. Those who wish to cross Wedington will probably do so elsewhere, as there is no compelling reason to cross Wedington in the vicinity of the roundabout.
Not enough room for bridges. They don’t look like engineering plans or not anything AHTD would put out so I suspect they are fanciful planning concepts with pretty colors. The strip mall on the Southwest corner has no access on the frontage road. That traffic must find other ways which would put stress on the neighborhood streets. I would rather see a traffic study than a coloring book here.
The proposed roundabout is elevated and the crossings are at grade so there shouldn’t be a conflict point between pedestrians and automobile traffic.
Bridge ices before roads. Turning on ice is always fun.
Excellent idea!
This also eliminates one set of lights on the east side of 540, doesn’t it? Nice.
But then adds two more at Tahoe and Marvin. So traffic will slow to get through the roundabout and then have to stop at Tahoe. That’s why I’m not seeing the benefit.
It’s inane.
The jug handle looks like an excellent idea, and I don’t think the roundabout is completely terrible, either. But couldn’t one light on the west side of 540 also be eliminated by filtering the exit/on ramp onto Shiloh, similar to the MLK design? No doubt this is flawed somehow, and I’m genuinely curiously to hear how. I have to navigate this catastrophe daily, so the sooner they fix it the better.
Horrible Idea in this location.. put it at Wedington and Salem. only need a median in front of mcdonalds to salem to force people to go to the light to turn around at the light instead of trying to turn across traffic to go east on wedington. Multi lane traffic circles in a heavy traffic area like this one will be a nightmare, lots and lots of fender benders are going to happen.. especially with all the college kids in this area texting and driving.
good idea
let’s not plan the city around texting and driving students
I hope they don’t waste their time and infringe more with the widening by adding bike lanes. They are widely ignored on Mt. Comfort and drivers still have to dodge bikers who refuse to use them and have no business being on a 40 mph street.
If you remember, they weren’t going to have a turn lane down Wedington west of Rupple Road so they could have the large bike paths on both sides of the highway. When the residents found out Mayor Coody made that bait and switch, they pushed to get the turn lane back but the traffic lanes are narrower because they had already poured the curbs. We’d rather have extra bike lanes than safe traffic for the 99.5% of residents. I’m fine with having both, but not with sacrificing what’s best for most of Fayetteville to accomodate just a small percentage.
Cyclists have as much right to being on the roadway as cars/trucks.
and must obey the same laws
And nothing in MA’s post indicates that the cyclists are not; just that they’re not going fast enough for MA’s liking.
When I am driving north on HWY 112, on my way to Dog Party USA, Cyclists have held me up because of their inability to maintain a 45 mph speed limit. This also holds true about mopeds that are unable to comply with the 45 mph. I applaud the cyclists for their effort of keeping fit. I only wish that they could stay off of streets, highways at rush hour (8 and 5).
“I only wish that they could stay off of streets, highways at rush hour (8 and 5).”
Bicycles and scooters are transportation and their riders have to get to and from work as well. They are not subject to any minimum speed requirements. It may be annoying, but thats life. Roads are not built exclusively for motorized vehicles, as evidenced by the fact that we’ve been building them for thousands of years.
but trails are built exclusivly for non-motorized vehicles, automobiles pay taxes on gas for streets
It takes more than a gas tax to pay for roads, and most roads are built for multiple modes of transportation. Were just accustom to seeing mostly cars and trucks.
That is not a minimum speed. If you don’t like sharing the road, find another road.
I think you’re confused on what the word “limit” means.
40 mph is the maximum speed, not a minimum.