Solving State & Union; The key to a healthy and vibrant urban core

[Debbie Thompson]

I worked in downtown OKC in 1975-1976.  At that time, I thought the tunnel connecting the major downtown buildings was cool.  Ock has me excited to go back to OKC and see the changes.

If OKC can do it, we can do it.

[Mathew1056]

In 1989 the Dames Point Bridge opened at a cost of $117 million dollars. Today the bridge is highly used and I'm sure the economic impact on Blunt Island is huge. Without a doubt cost have risen since then, but a billion dollar price tag is a little unfair to stick on this project. This is not the Big Dig it is just a bridge.

To address the issue of St. Nicolas, I'm not really sure how it would destroy that neighborhood. Twenty or so homes will have there view of downtown altered, but it does not bisect the community. The bridge doesn't bisect anything for that matter. It connects into two freeway systems that exist next to the river in the fist place. I'm not asking to build another Brown Monster like the Mathews Bridge. It would have to add to the skyline of Jacksonville and make people want to have a view of it. I've seen plenty of bridges that do just that.

I feel like I'm arguing against my own religion, but vehicles play an important role in our lives and will for sometime to come. The industries, people, and organizations behind vehicle production will see to it that cars don't die. Throw in the fact that we live in a backwards ass town, which has the nerve to call itself the Bold City, and the best we can do is manage vehicle traffic responsibly. I'm all for getting rid of the mess that is the downtown portion of the Hart Bridge Expressway, or turning it into something like the New York Highline. Traffic from that bridge should exit onto Bay. Cars should be filtered into parking areas and made to feel that walking or take public transit is the best option. The urban core should offer those who want to opt in a chance to live in a real urban environment.

In regards to the Oklahoma City interstate project, I'm sure their master plan is great. Jacksonville has had some nice one in the past as well. The differences I see in the projects is that Oklahoma did not take out the portion of freeway and leave to open ends, forcing traffic to empty out onto the gridded street system. They reestablished a link with a ground level expressway, and what appears to be a higher capacity one at that. Regardless if the freeway is elevated or not it still will act as some kind of boundary. The bridge I propose will indeed be elevated, the only one I know of that isn't is in Seattle. Coupled with other initiative this project could help unify two neighborhoods that are highly dependent on the others success. The ridged border that is State and Union would be blurred allowing pedestrian and local traffic to move more freely.

[thelakelander]

In 1989 the Dames Point Bridge opened at a cost of $117 million dollars. Today the bridge is highly used and I'm sure the economic impact on Blunt Island is huge. Without a doubt cost have risen since then, but a billion dollar price tag is a little unfair to stick on this project. This is not the Big Dig it is just a bridge.

The Dames Point was constructed in a location where there wasn't a river crossing for miles. In downtown, we have five within a two mile stretch.  Over the years traffic has actually decreased on most of them.  Also, speaking of economic impact, the Dames Point was constructed too low.  If we're going to talk economic impact, we also have to consider opportunity lost. Last, $1 billion isn't too far off.  Building a bridge is a lot more than just crossing the river.  In 2004, it was estimated that the Mathews Bridge project would cost as much as $932 million:

The Transportation Department is evaluating a 6-mile stretch that covers the Arlington Expressway from Southside Boulevard to the four-lane bridge , the bridge itself and the road that leads from the bridge into downtown as far as Liberty Street.

In addition to an eight-lane bridge , the Arlington Expressway would need widening to six lanes, and the road into downtown also should be six lanes to handle future traffic. The widening will necessitate expanding interchanges along the route so they are not chokepoints, according to Reynolds, Smith & Hills, which is the consultant hired by the state for the bridge study.

The study is still evaluating several alternatives. For instance, the options for the bridge are to build a new eight-lane bridge and tear down the old one, or keep the existing bridge and build a new four-lane span beside it. In that scenario, the new bridge would be four lanes in one direction, and the current bridge four lanes the opposite way.

The study also is considering a double-decker bridge . Depending on the alternative, the cost of the bridge would range from $272 million to $543 million.

For the entire 6-mile road corridor, including a wider bridge , the total cost would range from $569 million to $923 million, also depending on what alternatives are used in the different segments.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061104/met_15838962.shtml

We'd be looking at still replacing the Mathews and its approaches, doing something with State & Union and adding a new river crossing as well.  For that, a number like $2 billion isn't a stretch.  It's conservative.

To address the issue of St. Nicolas, I'm not really sure how it would destroy that neighborhood. Twenty or so homes will have there view of downtown altered, but it does not bisect the community. The bridge doesn't bisect anything for that matter. It connects into two freeway systems that exist next to the river in the fist place. I'm not asking to build another Brown Monster like the Mathews Bridge. It would have to add to the skyline of Jacksonville and make people want to have a view of it. I've seen plenty of bridges that do just that.

I'd imagine there would be significant economic impact on St. Nicholas in the form of destroyed wetlands, view corridors, and noise.

I feel like I'm arguing against my own religion, but vehicles play an important role in our lives and will for sometime to come. The industries, people, and organizations behind vehicle production will see to it that cars don't die. Throw in the fact that we live in a backwards ass town, which has the nerve to call itself the Bold City, and the best we can do is manage vehicle traffic responsibly. I'm all for getting rid of the mess that is the downtown portion of the Hart Bridge Expressway, or turning it into something like the New York Highline. Traffic from that bridge should exit onto Bay. Cars should be filtered into parking areas and made to feel that walking or take public transit is the best option. The urban core should offer those who want to opt in a chance to live in a real urban environment.

Planning for vehicular movement is certainly not being overlooked in Jacksonville and a viable urban core can happen without another downtown expressway. We already have five bridges downtown and this structure wouldn't reduce traffic, it would actually cause more gridlock on the Fuller Warren.  So that's another hidden future cost of such a proposal.

In regards to the Oklahoma City interstate project, I'm sure their master plan is great. Jacksonville has had some nice one in the past as well. The differences I see in the projects is that Oklahoma did not take out the portion of freeway and leave to open ends, forcing traffic to empty out onto the gridded street system. They reestablished a link with a ground level expressway, and what appears to be a higher capacity one at that. Regardless if the freeway is elevated or not it still will act as some kind of boundary.

Jacksonville's limited access connectivity between I-95 and the Mathews Bridge is MLK Parkway, which isn't operating anywhere near capacity.  Also, successful freeway removals over the last two decades or so include, Milwaukee's Park East Freeway, San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, NYC's Westside Highway, and Portland's Harbor Drive.  All have resulted in economic development of these city's urban cores and now more are following suit:

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysPlansProposals.html

The bridge I propose will indeed be elevated, the only one I know of that isn't is in Seattle. Coupled with other initiative this project could help unify two neighborhoods that are highly dependent on the others success. The ridged border that is State and Union would be blurred allowing pedestrian and local traffic to move more freely.

We can unify these neighborhoods without coming up with an extra billion or so for a new bridge structure, which would never pay for itself, funnel too much traffic to the already congested Fuller Warren and reduce the quality of life of historic St. Nicholas.

[Mathew1056]

If the city is considering spending the 500-900 million dollars on upgrading the Arlington expressway do you think we are anywhere near a point where they will be considering restructuring there transportation infrustruture to the point where removing freeways is on their agenda. I'm actually for the removal of the MLK Expressway, even with the addition of a new bridge. MKL does offer limited-access connection with the Hart and Mathews. The only problem is no one who is heading south on 95 or west on 10 are going to consider using it. Spatially it is easier for the average driver to calculate MLK as an inefficient route, even with the addition of signage.

As fare as the hidden cost of more vehicles on the fuller warren, I wound how many of those who cross it today are exiting onto state and union. The addition of a bride may peal off some of the traffic currently moving over that bridge.

In my view the impact would be minimal to St. Nicolas. The lot ajacent to the school board build, from what I understand, is contaminated. The impact on actual land would seem minimal. The view for a small portion of homes would be disrupted, but this argument makes me recall Kennedy's push to stop a wind farm from being build off the coast from his house. Are we trying to benefit the few or the masses? Like I said before, to mitigate that effect building an iconic structure would help add to their view, not destroy it.

If the cost truely would be in the billion to 2 billion dollar range than I concede to you. That is an expense that no government office is willing to dish out at this time. I still believe that in theory removing the heavy traffic on state and union and building a bridge better connecting east and west side of the city would has a positive effect for both suburban and urban camps.

[acme54321]

As fare as the hidden cost of more vehicles on the fuller warren, I wounded how many of those who cross it today are exiting onto state and union. The addition of a bride may peal off some of the traffic currently moving over that bridge.

Why would anyone crossing the Fuller Warren then head to State and Union to cross the Matthews?  That would make no sense in any situation.

[thelakelander]

If the city is considering spending the 500-900 million dollars on upgrading the Arlington expressway do you think we are anywhere near a point where they will be considering restructuring there transportation infrustruture to the point where removing freeways is on their agenda. I'm actually for the removal of the MLK Expressway, even with the addition of a new bridge. MKL does offer limited-access connection with the Hart and Mathews. The only problem is no one who is heading south on 95 or west on 10 are going to consider using it. Spatially it is easier calculable to the average driver to be an inefficient route, even with the addition of signage.

MLK provides access to the port terminals and industries on Talleyrand.  It's also a through traffic bypass for the Northside, which at the time, had twice as many people and density.

As fare as the hidden cost of more vehicles on the fuller warren, I wounded how many of those who cross it today are exiting onto state and union. The addition of a bride may peal off some of the traffic currently moving over that bridge.

Most likely that number is minimal.  There's no reason to cross the Fuller Warren and circle back to Union Street.  Depending on where you're traveling from, I-295 East Beltway, Southside Blvd., University Blvd., Emerson St./Atlantic, Main Street Bridge, Acosta Bridge, etc. could all be more efficient options.  For me, I take either Southside or University to reach Arlington.

In my view the impact would be minimal to St. Nicolas. The lot ajacent to the school board build, from what I understand, is contaminated. The impact on actual land would seem minimal. The view for a small portion of homes would be disrupted, but this argument makes me recall Kennedy's push to stop a windfarm being build of the coast from his house. Are we trying to benefits the few or the masses? Like I said before, to mitigate that effect building an iconic structure would help add to their view, not destroy it.

The benefits you are promoting don't outweigh the negatives.  What happens with downtown isn't necessarily contingent on this suggested crossing, there would be negative environmental and economic impacts to St. Nicholas, and the cost would be extreme to taxpayers.  Also, there are far more affordable traffic calming alternatives worth exploring.

If the cost truely would be in the billion to 2 billion dollar range than I concede to you. That is an expense that no government office is willing to dish out at this time. I still believe that in theory removing the heavy traffic on state and union and building a bridge better connecting east and west side of the city would has a positive effect for both suburban and urban camps.

$2 billion is a conservative number.  Interchanges at I-95's Overland Bridge and the Mathews Bridge would probably run you over $200 million each.  On top of that, you'd literally have to rebuild I-95 between I-10 and Philips Highway/Emerson to accommodate it.  Btw, I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air.  This is what I do for a living.

[Jason]

ACME, I'm with you, although I made that traip a couple times when I first moved to Jax many years ago before I was confortable with the local roads.     With Southside, University, 9A, etc. there is no reason to access Arlington/Beaches from the south end of the city via downtown.

It's my understanding that the vast majority of the Arlinton/State, Union traffic is headed to theNorthside or the Westside via I10 (visa versa).



And Matthew, I'm not trying to pile on.  Your proposal is something that I haven't seen suggested or thought of myself, and I find it to be pretty interesting.  I think the Matthews and State/Union corridor is here to stay and could easily be improved by doing what Ock and Lake have suggested and that is to bring everything back down to grade, eliminating as much of the limited access highway as possible, and create a broad parkway complete with pedestrian oriented access and wide separated bike lanes.  This would easily apply to the Hart Expressway along Bay Street as well.   IMO, both options together would open up acres or urban land for dense infill development, create natural transit corridors, and GREATLY enhance connectivity throughout the north and east sides of the downtown area.

[ubben]

We should remove ALL bridges. Then set up a program of CanoeShare. There would be thousands of hand-crafted canoes (by native Timucuans) on both sides of the river and commuters could paddle leisurely across to their jobs, enjoy nature and get much-needed exercise at the same time. The canoes would be free to use, paid for with a surtax on Town Center purchases. (As this is Jacksonville, gay people would not be allowed to use the canoes). No one would steal them because this is a new world where everyone is honest, hip and eats farm-to-table. Isn't this what they do in Portland and Asheville and Amsterdam, the mythical problem-free cities that all metrojax readers dream of? Canoe power!!!

[Ocklawaha]

As for costs, the new Portland, Oregon - Vancouver, Washington bridge over the Columbia River is even more costly then Lakes estimate. It too crosses a river of similar size that is also a shipping channel.

Columbia River Crossing" is the name given to the process of planning for an improved bridge connection across the Columbia River along the Interstate 5 corridor, replacing or supplementing the Interstate Bridge.

The project, estimated as of November 2009 to cost between $2.6 billion and $3.6 billion, would extend the Yellow Line to Vancouver as far as Clark College, hang a bicycle and pedestrian path beneath the northbound traffic lanes and build 8 to 12 lanes for auto traffic across the river, including three "through lanes" in each direction and one to three "auxiliary lanes" in each direction for traffic getting on or off the highway inside the "project area," which stretches from Columbia Boulevard in Portland to state Highway 500 in Vancouver.

[thelakelander]

I don't think we realize how much road and bridge construction costs.  It runs us more than $20 million just to repaint some of these bridges around here.  The I-95/I-10 interchange project cost $200 million and replacing the Overland Bridge between Main Street and Atlantic Boulevard is going to be about the same.  The Heckscher Drive bridge replacement over Sisters Creek is estimated to cost $52 million.  For the life of me, I can't understand why very few car about these numbers but as soon as a $30 million 3 or 4 mile streetcar line is proposed, or a couple of hundred thousand is needed for the ferry, we can't afford it.

[Mathew1056]

I hope the readers of MetroJacksonville don't think that I'm some kook with an ill conceived notion, or worse a Fox News watcher. Cost is definitely worth considering and long-term cost are hidden and based on the materials used to construct a bridge and should be calculated. if the project included the long term possiblity of converting the bridge to river crossing to accommodate future transit would it be more viable?

[Jason]

Nobody thinks you're a kook.  It's people like you that think out of the box that we need more of in this city!

Keep discussing and keep sharing your ideas, that's what we're all here to do.

[thelakelander]

Mathew, I believe the Mathews Bridge replacement project included room for transit, bicycle, and ped in its capital cost to connect Arlington with downtown.  Oh, and welcome to the forums.  The discussion is an enjoyable one that challenges everyone's thinking.  I believe this is how the best ideas come to light.

[Mathew1056]

Thank you for the warm welcome. I have plenty of ideas to pose to the contributers of MetroJax. I believe the best answers to the problems we face in Jacksonville should be discussed in a similar form. To be wrong is to learn. I've been an observer of the conversation that take place on here for sometime. By far the best ideas seem to come from the collective minds here. It's a nice alternative to the numbskulls at the T-U. I look forward to being challenged in the future.