Bikes & Pedestrians On The Fuller Warren Bridge?

[NIMBY]

This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):

"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."

The whole 316.091 section is worth a read regarding this issue.  The pilot program referenced is ongoing in three locations: Pineda Causeway (SR 404), William Lehman Causeway (SR 856), and Julia Tuttle Causeway (1-595).  The FDOT has a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council" website that contains meeting minutes for an update on the program if you're interested.  It says preliminary findings are expected in March 2014.

[thelakelander]

This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):

"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."

The whole 316.091 section is worth a read regarding this issue.  The pilot program referenced is ongoing in three locations: Pineda Causeway (SR 404), William Lehman Causeway (SR 856), and Julia Tuttle Causeway (1-595).  The FDOT has a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council" website that contains meeting minutes for an update on the program if you're interested.  It says preliminary findings are expected in March 2014.

What's the difference between what's described in your post and the FDOT's limited access highway shown below (I-395/SR AIA in Downtown Miami)?



Or this bridge situation by the Turnpike in Central Florida?



Both examples have dedicated sections for different modes that are physically separated. You can do this with the Fuller Warren, just like it has been done on all the other interstate examples shown in this article:


Interstate 95 over the Potomac River between Maryland and Northern Virginia.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-dec-bikes-pedestrians-on-the-fuller-warren-bridge

[tufsu1]

This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):

"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."

so basically you can't ride a bike in the travel or shoulder lanes of the roadway itself....which has nothing to do with constructing a barrier-separated bike facility adjacent to the roadway.

[acme54321]

As Lakelander notes, the Acosta Bridge is under capacity, so there should be no need to widen the Fuller Warren bridge.  Imagine if everyone going between San marco and Riverside used the Acosta.  Just count the capacity of both bridges and tell people that are sitting in delays on I-95 to use the Acosta instead.

I do it all the time if the Fuller Warrent is slow.

[BoldBoyOfTheSouth]

Under California law, if there is not a practical and safe local road for bicycling, the freeways must accomodate cyclists.

[Mike D]

Pressure on FDOT can yield results.  FDOT's original plan when it widened Miami's MacArthur Causeway decades ago included barrier walls that would have all but blocked drivers' view of Biscayne Bay.  The Miami Herald stirred things up and the public put the pressure on the state to preserve the causeway's "view friendly" design.  FDOT revised its plans and the water views were saved.  I hope Metro Jacksonville's article will encourage everyone to let FDOT know a bike/pedestrian lane must be included on the Fuller Warren bridge.  Other cities and states are waking up to the need for bike lanes.  Let's do the same.

[Dog Walker]

FDOT is using the fact that the Acosta Bridge is "so close" to the Fuller Warren bridge and provides bicycle and pedestrian access to refuse to consider the same for the Fuller Warren project.

I think that argument is pretty weak, but if they want to use it, then turnabout is fair play....

As Lakelander notes, the Acosta Bridge is under capacity, so there should be no need to widen the Fuller Warren bridge.  Imagine if everyone going between San marco and Riverside used the Acosta.  Just count the capacity of both bridges and tell people that are sitting in delays on I-95 to use the Acosta instead.

Ya think!  Their own argument makes the dedicated lanes from Riverside to San Marco and the reverse not necessary.  What good for bike/ped is good for cars. I always use Acosta during heavy traffic times.

[I-10east]

Let me start by saying that I would love to see future FWB bike/ped access. It's cool for all of us to sing Kumbaya, and there's absolutely ANY reason that a sidewalk shouldn't be aside the FWB's vehicular traffic, but I like to be objective at times like these by playing Devil's Advocate, to understand the likely issues with this. Again, I'm NOT against a sidewalk on the Fuller Warren.

I said this before; If a ped/bike lane is built alongside the Southbound lanes of the FWB, it will encroach on Nemours land on the other side of the pedestrian bridge pile on that deceleration off ramp; Not that it's an square acre of land by no means, but it seems like it would be an eminent domain issue. With that being said, a lil' red tape is nothing impossible to accomplish by no means.

The FDOT and everyone on MJ is talking about the Northbank's perspective, and the distance from the FWB to the Acosta, but what about the Southbank's? If a sidewalk gets built on the FWB, the Southbank will have three ped bridges, all within a pretty concentrated area.

I'm not saying ALL, but it seems like most pedestrian bridges on an interstate would be pretty isolated from any other ped bridges; The few that aren't are in VERY densely populated areas. Not that it can't be done, but if a FWB sidewalk is successful, we would have the first ped/bike access bridge on a major interstate in the state of Florida; After all, it's the FDOT that's in charge of this, non-relating to what's going on in NYC, Pittsburgh etc.

[thelakelander]

I said this before; If a ped/bike lane is built alongside the Southbound lanes of the FWB, it will encroach on Nemours land on the other side of the pedestrian bridge pile on that deceleration off ramp; Not that it's an square acre of land by no means, but it seems like it would be an eminent domain issue. With that being said, a lil' red tape is nothing impossible to accomplish by no means.

Not necessarily.  Nevertheless, FDOT is talking about taking property to widen the bridge and adjacent ramps for cars only. This includes demolishing a six story building in Five Points.

The FDOT and everyone on MJ is talking about the Northbank's perspective, and the distance from the FWB to the Acosta, but what about the Southbank's? If a sidewalk gets built on the FWB, the Southbank will have three ped bridges, all within a pretty concentrated area.

All going in different directions. The same goes for auto bridges. In a car, this isn't an issue but on foot in Florida's climate, this is an issue. Ideally, all of the river crossings should be multimodal.  If FDOT is going to spend $136 million widening the FWB, they might as well get it right the first time.

I'm not saying ALL, but it seems like most pedestrian bridges on an interstate would be pretty isolated from any other ped bridges; The few that aren't are in VERY densely populated areas. If a FWB sidewalk is successful, we would have the first ped/bike access bridge on a major interstate in the state of Florida; After all, it's the FDOT that's in charge of this, non-relating to what's going on in NYC, Pittsburgh etc.

The FWB is in a densely populated area. Both Riverside and San Marco have more residents then downtown. Both sides of the river also have a pretty high employment density. If a bike/ped component is added, Jax could be a trendsetter in something for a change. Nevertheless, I've already shown an FDOT bridge (I-395/SR A1A) in Miami that includes a pedestrian component, as well as the trail that parallels the Suncoast Parkway in the Bay Area.  I believe that I-275 in Tampa is getting a parallel trail as well, as a part of its expansion through that city's urban core.  So this isn't as difficult or off-the-wall as some attempt to make it out to be. The precedent in this state has already been set.

[I-10east]

^^^Reasonable counter-arguments.

[David]

All going in different directions. The same goes for auto bridges. In a car, this isn't an issue but on foot in Florida's climate, this is an issue. Ideally, all of the river crossings should be multimodal.  If FDOT is going to spend $136 million widening the FWB, they might as well get it right the first time.

Exactly. A walk on foot from 5 points to San Marco is one mile longer when taking the Acosta than the Fuller Warren, an extra 15-20 minutes if you're on foot.

If this were a 15 minute detour by car it wouldn't even be a debate. They'd build a bridge in a heartbeat.

[NIMBY]

"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."

not exactly an insurmountable obstacle nimby.

Stephen,
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think you cut the bold a little short and should probably include the rest of the sentence.  I read it to say that it has to be part of the pilot program.

Lakelander,
I'm not quite adept at quoting yet, but I'll try to address the examples you cited.  Regarding I-395/SR AIA in Downtown Miami, without seeing the actual right-of-way maps (which is what really matters here, given the statute), it appears that this is the point where I-395 changes to SR A1A.  Therefore, the right-of-way type changes.  To the east, over the causeway, it is not limited access and therefore the accommodation for pedestrians and bicycles.

For the Turnpike, I think that is a better example.  It is clearly not in an area where the limited access right-of-way might end like in Miami.  This is a guess, but there may be a parallel right-of-way dedicate to the path, directly adjacent to the roadway limited access right-of-way.  That might actually be a workaround for the statute and may be worth public comment to FDOT.  The limited access right-of-way ends at the back of the bridge way barrier wall and there is a normal right-of-way for the width of the path.

tufsu1,
I don't disagree, but you have to get the right-of-way straight first.

You have to look at this from the FDOT's perspective.  They would have to seemingly violate a state statute to make this happen.  What if the FDOT has to use eminent domain to acquire the property for the widening and potential bike/ped path?  A right-of-way attorney representing a landowner could rip them apart.

Absent some creative right-of-way use, I don't see this as an option until the pilot program is further along, has positive results, and the statute is updated.

[fieldafm]

What if the FDOT has to use eminent domain to acquire the property for the widening and potential bike/ped path?

Lets be clear, they will be using eminent domain in ths highway expansion and taking out businesses, a park, disrupting RAM and further encroaching on entire blocks of residential property.   In fact, they've allocated about 10 percent of the total project cost in just ROW acquisition. 

This is a devastating project.  To not even consider mitigating that devastation is unconscionable. 

[thelakelander]

Lakelander,
I'm not quite adept at quoting yet, but I'll try to address the examples you cited.  Regarding I-395/SR AIA in Downtown Miami, without seeing the actual right-of-way maps (which is what really matters here, given the statute), it appears that this is the point where I-395 changes to SR A1A.  Therefore, the right-of-way type changes.  To the east, over the causeway, it is not limited access and therefore the accommodation for pedestrians and bicycles.

For the Turnpike, I think that is a better example.  It is clearly not in an area where the limited access right-of-way might end like in Miami.  This is a guess, but there may be a parallel right-of-way dedicate to the path, directly adjacent to the roadway limited access right-of-way.  That might actually be a workaround for the statute and may be worth public comment to FDOT.  The limited access right-of-way ends at the back of the bridge way barrier wall and there is a normal right-of-way for the width of the path.

You have to look at this from the FDOT's perspective.  They would have to seemingly violate a state statute to make this happen.  What if the FDOT has to use eminent domain to acquire the property for the widening and potential bike/ped path?  A right-of-way attorney representing a landowner could rip them apart.

Absent some creative right-of-way use, I don't see this as an option until the pilot program is further along, has positive results, and the statute is updated.

^The point I'm making is that they aren't violating a state statue. The statue you quoted talks about bicycles on a limited access facility or on its shoulder. The "facility" in "limited access" is generally considered to mean the roadway plus paved shoulder.

This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):

"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."

The whole 316.091 section is worth a read regarding this issue.  The pilot program referenced is ongoing in three locations: Pineda Causeway (SR 404), William Lehman Causeway (SR 856), and Julia Tuttle Causeway (1-595).  The FDOT has a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council" website that contains meeting minutes for an update on the program if you're interested.  It says preliminary findings are expected in March 2014.

The examples shown and suggested for the FWB don't have human powered vehicles operating on a highway shoulder or the actual roadway. They are physically separated sidepaths with barriers separating their traffic from the roadway and its shoulder. Barrier separated sidepaths designed for bike and ped traffic have been permitted before in Florida on limited access facilities. Both the Suncoast Parkway Trail and the I-395/SR A1A sidewalk are examples.

The pilot program is about allowing bicycle traffic on limited access facility shoulders. That's a completely different animal altogether and something that doesn't sound really safe, IMO.

As for the eminent domain issue, I fail to see what they has to do with a bike facility.  FDOT has already gone on record of desiring to take property and demolish a six story building in Riverside for their extra lanes. If that's the route they want to go, they'll deal with that situation regardless of whether a bike/ped component is included or not.

[thelakelander]

Btw, for anyone wanting to read the statues, here's a link:

Chapter 316
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter316/All

Chapter 349
Jacksonville Expressway Authority/JTA exceptions
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/349.04