I-95 Overland Bridge Project Expands

[thelakelander]

It can be extended under I-95 today and there is still ROW between the hotel and garage. If the garage is still supposed to be connected to Kings Ave Station, the new bridge should still leave room for a potential skyway extension.

[Ralph W]

You would think they would consider moving the station or adding a station to the space between the garage and the hotel, with access from both, under cover. Why make the customer walk the ramp? Probably would ramp up the ridership if there was at least one convenient usable destination on the system.

[dougskiles]

My understanding is that DOT is going to make the bridge across Montana Avenue wide enough for JTA to extend the skyway to the garage (someday).  It would come in on the east side of the garage.  Apparently there is not enough room between the hotel and the garage for the skyway - or at least that is what I was told.

Kings Avenue is a prime spot for TOD.  I would like to see JTA move the large stormwater ponds to a parcel they own north of I-95 and make that area developable for restaurants/grocery store/apartments.

fieldafm - you mentioned getting together before the workshop - I am up for that - please let me know where & when.

[mvp]

Subject:           SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION

                                    I-95 Overland Bridge Replacement
                                    From 1200’ South of San Diego Rd. and ends 200’ North of Palm Ave.
                                    Financial Project ID:  213304-3                                 
                                    Duval County, Florida

You are invited to a subsequent public hearing to discuss the I-95 Overland Bridge Replacement project.  The project begins 1200 feet south of San Diego Road and ends 200 feet north of Palm Avenue. The hearing will be held Thursday, January 27, 2011, at the Aetna Building 841 Prudential Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. 

Doors will open at 4:30 p.m. to allow you time to review and discuss the exhibits and have your questions answered by one of our staff. The formal portion of the public hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m., with an audio/visual presentation followed by an opportunity for public comment.

It is the policy of the Florida Department of Transportation's District Two to prohibit materials and/or exhibits in our public workshops, meetings or hearings that are not the property of the Department.  Therefore, no outside party will be allowed to display or hand out materials in any of these events.

The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the Overland Bridge, which carries both northbound and southbound traffic on I-95 and spans Hendricks Avenue, Kings Avenue, and Montana Avenue in downtown Jacksonville.  The bridge is being replaced due to structural deterioration which is causing the need for frequent repairs.  A previous public hearing was held on this project in April 2009.  Due to public involvement feedback and further analysis, the Department is proposing additional modifications and would like to receive your input.

As of January 5, 2011, project material will be available for your review during normal business hours at the San Marco Library, 1513 LaSalle St., Jacksonville, Florida 32207 and the Florida Department of Transportation’s Urban Office, 2198 Edison Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204.

This hearing is being conducted to inform the public of the project and afford the public the opportunity to express views concerning the location, conceptual design and social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed improvements. The Department is required by Florida Statutes to give notice to those persons who properties lies in whole or in part within 300 feet of either side of the centerline of any alternative considered (even though they may not be directly affected).

Those who wish to submit written statements may do so at the hearing or mail them to the address below no later than February 7, 2011. All comments received by this date will become part of the public hearing record. All residents, property owners and interested persons or groups are encouraged to come and participate. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or family status. 

Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Mrs. Brandi Vittur at the number below at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.

All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing to review and discuss this important transportation improvement project. If you need project information or if you have any questions please visit the project website, WWW.i95overlandbridge.com or contact:

Brandi Vittur, P.E., Project Manager
Florida Department of Transportation
Mail Station 2007
1109 S. Marion Avenue
Lake City, FL 32025-5874
1-800-749-2967 or (386) 961-7468
E-mail: brandi.vittur@dot.state.fl.us

[Jumpinjack]

I've heard two presentations on the Overland bridge construction so far and I have these concerns:

• The incredible cost of redoing this section of interstate which seems to be growing with every new design idea that is added to the package
• The proposed additions to I-95 as a local use highway which will add to congestion in our metro area, impede interstate travel through Jacksonville, and remove the incentive for intercity passenger rail which could reduce demand on the interstate.
• The increased pedestrian-automobile interactions which will result from the bridge ramp redesign, I think Main Street, when traffic exiting town moves onto Prudential Drive and onto Riverplace Drive.

We used to live off of Atlantic in the St. Nicholas area, and yeah, getting there from I-95 northbound was difficult. We had to exit at Emerson and drive up US 1 or use Spring Park. But ask me if I think it was worth a $220 mil fix. Nope.

[dougskiles]

The main point that FDOT keeps making is that this is a bridge replacement project.  The portions of the overland bridge in question have experienced several pavement failures recently, so the project is not optional.

I haven't seen the latest drawings.  The plans presented last fall indicated collector/distributor lanes on the north and southbound sides that would allow better access to Atlantic Boulevard (serving San Marco and St Nicholas) from both directions.  The primary purpose of these extra lanes, however, is to reduce the construction schedule.  Once the collector/distributor lanes are completed they will take the I-95 traffic while they re-build the overland portion.  Instead of removing the lanes upon completion, they found a way to keep them and improve neighborhood access.

The latest drawings will be available for review at the San Marco Library starting January 5th.

[middleman]

The current project plans can be found at http://www.i95overlandbridge.com/i95overland/, although these might be superseded at the upcoming meeting. Besides replacing the deteriorating structure, the new design provides northbound access to Atlantic and Philips, and eliminates the lane weaving mess that currently exist between Atlantic/Philips and the Acosta/MainSt bridge exit. That section of I-95 is going to be replaced anyway, might as well do it right.

[thelakelander]

You can also find renderings and comments from the article we did on this project a couple of months ago:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-nov-i-95-overland-bridge-project-expands

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-apr-the-i-95-overland-bridge-project

[thelakelander]

Just getting in from the Overland Bridge meeting.  I stayed around to listen to public comments after the presentation and this is what was basically stated by local residents.

1. Great project.  Everyone seemed excited about having a new interchange at Atlantic and Philips.  No one mentioned the price tag of $213 million as being a problem.  I wonder what the outroar would be if someone wanted $10 million for mass transit?

2. Several property owners along Philips Highway are concerned about drainage ponds along their corridor.  They believe they could hurt that area's redevelopment potential.

3. SMPS thanked FDOT for working with and listening to their concerns.  FDOT plans to keep the parking lot under I-95, along Hendricks, and make it available as free parking when the project is complete.

4. A representative from SMPS asked if the project comes under budget, they'd like FDOT to take some of the remaining money and develop the area under I-95, between San Marco Blvd and the river, in a fashion similar to the RAM area in Riverside.  They also asked for FDOT to make sure their drainage ponds are designed to look natural and good looking, instead of a hole surrounded by a black fence.

5. A South Shores Road resident also asked FDOT to consider not completely blocking off their neighborhood's access to the I-95 northbound ramp on Atlantic Blvd.

[dougskiles]

1. Great project.  Everyone seemed excited about having a new interchange at Atlantic and Philips.  No one mentioned the price tag of $213 million as being a problem.  I wonder what the outroar would be if someone wanted $10 million for mass transit?

There is always going to be some outroar with any public expense - but having followed this project for quite some time, I think that James Bennett has shown everyone how you can get public support for a project.  They have listened to public comment and reacted to it by incorporating as many public concerns into the project as possible.  The approach has been very professional and non-threatening.  He is an excellent consensus builder.  When the time comes for selling a $10 million dollar transit project to the public, the proponents of the plan would be wise to learn from James and perhaps wouldn't get as much outroar as we think.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

This is the part that I don't understand...

They have listened to public comment and reacted to it by incorporating as many public concerns into the project as possible.

Whenever you do a project that affects people in the way this does, the statement above should be the standard and not atypical.  The majority of the people who have something to say about a matter (that count) will be the most vocal about in the beginning.  It isnt' hard to try to oil the squeaky wheel before it starts sounding like it's about to fall off.

I guess the main difference between this project and a mass transit project, is that even people living near the beach can relate to this - they have to drive it everyday.  Selling those people on a MT project, if even only 200k, would be quite a sell I think - they don't ever see themselves using it so it becomes a waste of money.  In their eyes, the people using it should have to pay for it.

I guess that I'm still new enough from being anti-MT to now being completely pro-MT, in whatever form, that I can still see it from both sides of the fence.  I still wouldn't give up my car, but now I don't have a problem leaving it in the driveway 2-3 times a week.  I can make it a week with a 40 mile daily commute on a 1/2 tank of gas with no hybrid. 

[acme54321]

4. A representative from SMPS asked if the project comes under budget, they'd like FDOT to take some of the remaining money and develop the area under I-95, between San Marco Blvd and the river, in a fashion similar to the RAM area in Riverside.  They also asked for FDOT to make sure their drainage ponds are designed to look natural and good looking, instead of a hole surrounded by a black fence.

5. A South Shores Road resident also asked FDOT to consider not completely blocking off their neighborhood's access to the I-95 northbound ramp on Atlantic Blvd.

These are my main concerns, especially the last one as I live in the South Shores neighborhood. 

[dougskiles]

Whenever you do a project that affects people in the way this does, the statement above should be the standard and not atypical.  The majority of the people who have something to say about a matter (that count) will be the most vocal about in the beginning.  It isnt' hard to try to oil the squeaky wheel before it starts sounding like it's about to fall off.

Does anyone remember how much opportunity for public input there was about the design of the courthouse?  I remember quite a bit of controversy in the news about it, but I wonder how much of the current design was a result of consensus in the community as opposed to the forced will of a select few. 

I guess the main difference between this project and a mass transit project, is that even people living near the beach can relate to this - they have to drive it everyday.  Selling those people on a MT project, if even only 200k, would be quite a sell I think - they don't ever see themselves using it so it becomes a waste of money.  In their eyes, the people using it should have to pay for it.

A couple of other factors at play, too.  People know that the funds are coming from state and federal sources (which apparently grows on trees...) and don't see the potential for a local tax increase.  And people are numb to the mind-boggling expense of these projects.

Directly to the point of why would a beaches resident support it?  They won't unless it is part of a larger mobility plan that effects everyone.  I don't believe that the Better Jax Plan ever would have passed had it not contained a carrot for everyone.  I know that I would not have voted for a tax increase to fund only a courthouse.  I got excited about the sports complex projects.

Which brings up a concern about the publicity from the TU regarding the mobility plan.  So far it has only been about the fee side of it.  I don't know if that will win over the public.  The proponents need to start selling the positive side soon - which are the increased options for alternative transportation, better connectivity by rail.  I believe people are ready for this, but there will need to be a pretty strong advertising campaign.  "Sell the sizzle - not the steak" - is what I have always been told.

[thelakelander]

One of the best ways to be forced to pay more local taxes is to kill the mobility fee, eliminate traffic concurrency and still encourage sprawl development (which is what some in the development community really want).  

I think the difference between the mobility fee and a sales tax increase is that the mobility fee is not a tax.  Its a user fee replacing the user fee already in operation to help keep the public from having to pay more taxes to fund our infrastructure issues.  Because it isn't a tax that impacts the average individual, it appears to flying under most of the public's (and mayoral candidate's) radar.

It appears that its going to go through, like the land use portion did last year.  Not much, if any, public opposition was expressed during the past year of public meetings on it.  At that point, we'll have to see if any who were in opposition but didn't speak up, have the ability to convince council to reverse their strong support and approval, with the knowledge that such a decision will result in a tax increase for the general public without it.

[floridaal]

What is the latest with this project?