New Bridge?

[Des]

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to build a bridge connecting University and 103rd?

I think we can all agree that the Buckman and the Fuller Warren are the most congested bridges in Jacksonville during traffic hours. If there's an accident on the Buckman then you're basically SOL because you either need to sit an hour in traffic for an hour or you'll need to drive 30 mins north to the Buckman or even further south to the Shands bridge to avoid the congestion.

103rd and University are already both popular roads and a bridge would be approximately right in the middle of the Fuller Warren and the Buckman. The proposed bridge would likely pull traffic from both bridges alleviating traffic drastically while making the overall traffic flow around Jax more convenient.

The stretch of river in that area is approx. 2 miles according to google maps.

[Captain Zissou]

This was proposed in the past and actually made it through the design phase before it was defeated by the residents of Ortega.

[acme54321]

I don't see it even being a consideration until congestion on the other two bridges gets REALLY bad.  Lets be real.  Traffic here isn't actually that bad.

If something ever got built it would be between Timuquana and JTB and would be expressway style.  A massive impact to the neighborhoods and I don't think the ROI would be there for it to overcome the hurdles.  I bet it would be pushing $1B to construct.

[Charles Hunter]

At that point, it is Timuquana Road.  Also, my measuring on Google Maps, from the intersection of Timuquana and Roosevelt to University and San Jose, is more like 3.25 miles.
This has been in and out of transportation plans for as long as there have been transportation plans. For the last 20 or 30 years, pretty much "out" of any plans.  Drawbacks include (in no particular order), the presence of an active Naval Air base at the west end; plus, the Florida Yacht Club and Timuquana Country Club on the west end; an established, and well-off, neighborhood on the east end; the cost of a new bridge; the cost of upgrading to handle the increased traffic Timuquana Road (a state road), Roosevelt Boulevard (a federal/state road), University Boulevard (a state road), and San Jose (a state road); other higher transportation priorities (for example, replacing the 67 year old Mathews Bridge or transit or ...).

So, don't see it happening.

And what they said. ^

[Transman]

I worked on the plans a long time ago, in the '80s.  There was an alignment done.  It connected to JTB and was limited access.  The plan ran right through San Jose CC.  Ortega would also be impacted.  It would be best if it could go on NAS, but that is out of the question.  Considering the cost versus impacts it is a hill too tall to climb. It would be above $1.0 billion easy, plus the R/W cost so around $1.5 billion.

[Kerry]

Not only can we not afford a new bridge, we have to find a way to replace the Mathew Bridge which alone is over $1 billion.  The future is not more roads, it's less roads.

[Charles Hunter]

Not only can we not afford a new bridge, we have to find a way to replace the Mathew Bridge which alone is over $1 billion.  The future is not more roads, it's less roads.

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads." Dr. E. Brown

[Peter Griffin]

Not only can we not afford a new bridge, we have to find a way to replace the Mathew Bridge which alone is over $1 billion.  The future is not more roads, it's less roads.

Where we're going, we don't need roads...

(Unless you live in the suburbs)

[marcuscnelson]

For once, I agree with Kerry. Spending several billion dollars on a brand new bridge, and hoping that the communities in the way would allow us to literally run them over with asphalt, and then directing said bridge around an active military facility is absolutely nuts. I know the traffic sucks, I've been stuck in it, but the solution to that is going to have to be getting cars off the road, not adding more lanes.

There's a reason modern urban planning paradigms don't focus on constructing brand new highways with massive river crossings. It's unsustainable.

[jaxlongtimer]

A Lakewood/San Jose to Ortega/Roosevelt Bridge was on some people's drawing board/maps going back up to 60+ years ago.  Even then, the affected neighborhoods said "no way."  And, that's before a lot of infill development in the 60 years since.  Also, given those areas are probably home to well over half the movers and shakers in this City, good luck overcoming that. 

They couldn't even get Butler Blvd. to terminate at San Jose Blvd., as once planned, due to heavy neighborhood opposition so imagine trying to access a developed riverfront point for a bridge.

Your better chance would be some type of ferry service from Lakewood to Ortega.  As an historical point, I have been told (but unable to currently verify) this actually existed around the war years when a ferry transported workers from the Bolles School property to NAS.  If true, maybe they should have kept that up 

[jaxjaguar]

If it were up to me...

I'd knock down the Matthews, send the traffic to the Hart and use the land reclaimed from the based of the Mathews to move the cruise port. Then raise the Dames Point to 220-230' to allow larger cruise ships in. Expand the skyway to have a stop between the stadium and arena.

Worst case scenario even if there was only had the 1 ship that's there now, you'd still put 2500 people in the core on a weekly basis. Say 20% of those passengers stay downtown. That's 500 extra people per week staying in the core. Say half of those people use the skyway to get to the new cruise port. That's almost 13,000 additional riders on that new line per year... not even counting the people who would ride it on event days. Run an additional Skyway extension to the corner of Riverside Ave and Forest St and you give those cruise guests even more incentive to stay intown longer / use the transit since they'll be closer to riverside /  the new hotel being built there. Eventually you can boost ridership high enough to start charging again... Use that revenue to build the fancy autonomous fleet that's been discussed and BAM! Downtown has better transit, more tourists and can earn more money to maintain it's infrastructure.

[Charles Hunter]

I assume you meant raise the Dames Point (Broward) Bridge to 220-230'.
Do you have a printing press in your basement to print out the $5 to $10  Billion all this would cost? 

[marcuscnelson]

Do you have a printing press in your basement to print out the $5 to $10  Billion all this would cost? 

Right? I mean, good God. Where do you even start with this? Trying to cap Arlington Expressway and direct the hundred thousand cars a day that travel on it down University to the Hart? Raising (which really pretty much means rebuilding) the Dames Point 50' higher?

There's just no way in heaven or hell that the cost of the infrastructure would ever be worth the revenue.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Raising (which really pretty much means rebuilding) the Dames Point 50' higher?

Wouldn't it be easier to just dredge another 50' out of the channel below?

[marcuscnelson]

Wouldn't it be easier to just dredge another 50' out of the channel below?

Maybe, but that's not the point. While cruise ships have gained in draft (how much of the ship is underwater), much more of their height has been gained above the waterline. Dredging wouldn't solve that problem, unless you're dredging so much that you decrease the water level of the entire river by 50 feet. At which point, you'd need canal-style locks because the water level of the river is now below that of the ocean.

Long story short, no.