The Mathews Bridge: historic or an expensive relic?

[vicupstate]

At an estimated cost of $1 billion, that bridge will have to fall down before it gets replaced.

That is actually a pretty easy problem to solve. Sell the Bridge to Shad Khan and the money to replace it will be found post haste.  Better yet, let Khan lease it so he doesn't have to pay property taxes on it. 

[jaxlongtimer]

When Dames Point was proposed, it was advocated by the maritime industry here (which then included the major employer of thousands, Jacksonville Shipyards), that the bridge should be built higher than it is to accommodate, even then, the well established trend of ever larger ships. 

One can always find people advocating sometime being done "better".   The thing is, Dames Point has nearly as much clearance the bridges in Brunswick and Savannah.   

The issue isn't that Dames Point wasn't built high enough.  The issue is that one can always find some know-it-all someplace that is willing to do back seat driving.   No doubt a few of this love to tell folks if the government had just listened to them, Jacksonville would be hosting Chinamax ships.

Not back seat driving, front seat!  It's a fact that the "know it all" experts in Maritime wanted the Dames Point Bridge higher.  I guess you think the Government knows better because...?  The same government that gave us the pension fiasco among countless misfires?

The bridges over Brunswick, Savannah and Charleston are 185 to 186 feet high and that extra 10+ feet makes a big difference.  We will never have a bridge that can accommodate all ships but we can have one that accommodates many more.  It should come down to ROI for our community, not just a few special interests. 

If the current height was so desirable, you wouldn't still hear people today bemoaning it.  Regardless, your style of shooting the messenger because you don't like the message speaks volumes about your open mindedness.  You fit right in with the politicos you are trying to defend.

[marcuscnelson]

Hello from the future!

Congress and President Joe Biden (no idea if y'all expected this two years ago) have passed an infrastructure law with billions of dollars in funding for various infrastructure projects across the country.

Florida, as part of this legislation, is guaranteed $245 million for bridge repairs over the next five years, but also can compete for $12.5 billion in funding for "economically significant bridges" and $16 billion for "major projects".

Should Jacksonville seek funding to replace the Matthews? Or is this money better spent elsewhere?

[jaxjaguar]

Now's the chance to tear it down and build something with more clearance for larger ships (planning for the future when the Dames point needs replacing). As I've mentioned many times I really think we should move our Cruise Port as close to downtown as possible. It would force a few thousand people a week to visit the area and give us an opportunity to retain our cruise port since ships are getting bigger.

Add bike lanes and sidewalks to the new bridge to connect Arlington and Downtown. This is an excellent opportunity to connect residents outside of downtown to the Emerald Necklace project. With the increasing adoption of e-bikes this would be a great route. Could even add a pedestrian bridge access to Exchange Point. Widen the lanes for cars to reduce accidents.

[marcuscnelson]

This is just spitballing, and it'd probably be a financial nonstarter, but what if we tunneled it? It's about a mile and a half. Unlike PortMiami's tunnel it'd basically be a straight line, you could cut-and-cover the downtown approach and perhaps bury precast segments in the river like with the Transbay Tube. Exchange Island is probably the toughest part for its environmental sensitivity, but that's a problem with a new bridge anyway. That'd then give you the ability to restore the street grid on the downtown side.

How "out there" would that be?

[Charles Hunter]

I'm not sure Carnival, or any other, cruise line would want to come downtown. The current cruise port is about 12.5 miles from the mouth of the St. Johns. Relocating the cruise port to the Downtown Shipyards area would nearly double the distance to about 23.2 miles.  However, this would require replacing the Hart Bridge also, as it has even less clearance than the Matthews. This would place the cruise port at Commodore Point, about 21.3 miles from the ocean. I had trouble finding the information, but I think the speed limit in the main channel is 25 mph (why it isn't in knots, I don't know). If a cruise ship could maintain that speed, it would take an hour to get from downtown to the jetties.  This seems unlikely as cruise ships average 20 knots (23 mph) in open ocean cruising. The speed in a constricted river channel would likely be considerably less - making transit time significantly longer.  How does that compare to other cruise ports?

To make the New Matthews usable for pedestrians and bicycles, even e-bikes, the grade will have to be more gradual. Along with a higher bridge, this will extend the touch-down point further into the Eastside.

[marcuscnelson]

The point I've also made a few times is that I seriously question how much sense it makes for us as a city to invest tens of millions into passenger cruising so we can still end up the #5 cruise port in the state.

The one comparable example I found distance-wise was the cruise port in Rotterdam, which is about 20 miles from the North Sea. However, Rotterdam is a massive port, and I don't think cruise lines would give Jax the same degree of consideration.

[acme54321]

This is just spitballing, and it'd probably be a financial nonstarter, but what if we tunneled it? It's about a mile and a half. Unlike PortMiami's tunnel it'd basically be a straight line, you could cut-and-cover the downtown approach and perhaps bury precast segments in the river like with the Transbay Tube. Exchange Island is probably the toughest part for its environmental sensitivity, but that's a problem with a new bridge anyway. That'd then give you the ability to restore the street grid on the downtown side.

How "out there" would that be?

I think it would be really cool off we buried all of the State/Union through traffic from I95 to Arlington.  The cost would be absurd and it will never happen but it would be nice. 

Also if we buried I-95 from I-10 to past Atlantic.

[Charles Hunter]

If we bury all these highways, can I have the concession for water pumps?

[marcuscnelson]

This is just spitballing, and it'd probably be a financial nonstarter, but what if we tunneled it? It's about a mile and a half. Unlike PortMiami's tunnel it'd basically be a straight line, you could cut-and-cover the downtown approach and perhaps bury precast segments in the river like with the Transbay Tube. Exchange Island is probably the toughest part for its environmental sensitivity, but that's a problem with a new bridge anyway. That'd then give you the ability to restore the street grid on the downtown side.

How "out there" would that be?

I think it would be really cool off we buried all of the State/Union through traffic from I95 to Arlington.  The cost would be absurd and it will never happen but it would be nice. 

Also if we buried I-95 from I-10 to past Atlantic.

I'm generally more inclined toward removal for a lot of these 50s-era arterials. I don't think we're obligated to make it as easy as possible to speed through downtown, and encouraging alternative options would be a lot more efficient. Even with I-95, I'm looking to think longer term in what the best way to get people through and around town is.

[jaxoNOLE]

100%, yes, replace the Mathews bridge. Easy access from Arlington ought to be a major asset to downtown redevelopment. It's a relatively dense suburb and getting downtown is equally as convenient -- often more convenient, depending on beltway traffic -- than getting to SJTC. Regency Square Mall is dead and nightlife is extremely limited to non-existent, so hyperlocal competition is nonexistent.

Upgrade the Mathews bridge so we have emergency lanes and plan ahead for whatever public transit solution JTA might consider running over the river. If they're dying on the U2C hill, they better put in a dedicated transit lane. Arlington is a community of need, and better connections to Eastside/Downtown/Springfield will only help both areas as they seek to revitalize. I may also have a small element of self-interest in this position. 

Once you get to State and Union, if you can turn those into meaningful retail corridors, then slowing down the transit time on those streets would be great. Worst case, if you take steps to limit capacity on those heavily-used thoroughfares but don't see the development through, then it's a net loss.  I would be nervous about anything the city thinks it can pull off in that area, given our tendency to default to half-measures.

[thelakelander]

Should Jacksonville seek funding to replace the Matthews? Or is this money better spent elsewhere?

I've pondered this as well. On first blush, I'd say yes. After more analysis, it appears although functionally obsolete, the Mathews Bridge is structurally sound. On the other hand, we have at least 10 bridges, mostly in NW Jacksonville and the Northside, that are structurally deficient and currently in use. This includes the I-95 bridge over the Nassau River, Lem Turner Road over the Trout River and US 17/Main Street over the Broward River. From a safety perspective, I'm in favor of getting the structurally deficient bridges in town replaced with structures built to modern standards.

[acme54321]

The Matthews definitely should be maintained/kept in place.  When that boat hit it a while back and they closed it down for a week there was a major increase on Atlantic Blvd, it was a hot mess until they reopened it.  The Hart expressway too.

[jaxlongtimer]

One option might be to leave the Matthews Bridge in place, make it one way, and build a twin bridge next to it, one way in the other direction.  I have seen this solution in several spots around the US.  The best of both worlds, keeping the "historic" and still good bridge and adding more capacity to the crossing with lots of lanes for emergencies and future public transit vehicles.

[jaxoNOLE]

One option might be to leave the Matthews Bridge in place, make it one way, and build a twin bridge next to it, one way in the other direction.  I have seen this solution in several spots around the US.  The best of both worlds, keeping the "historic" and still good bridge and adding more capacity to the crossing with lots of lanes for emergencies and future public transit vehicles.

I like it. 2 one-way lanes on the Mathews, with an emergency lane and a transit lane. Duplicate in the other direction. There's zero demand for shared use paths given the configuration of the Arlington Expressway, unless they convert that to a boulevard simultaneously (ha).

I don't think the current capacity is a big issue; it's the proclivity of minor accidents to shut down traffic entirely that causes problems. The beauty of the expressway is if JTA ever gets serious about fixed transit, the median is ample enough to install public transit lanes without much ROW acquisition. Not to mention Regency Square Mall could tolerate a dose of TOD if such a transit system were to arrive. But that is quite a ways in the future, if ever.