Fuller Warren Bridge Replacement - Major Missed Opportunity for Jacksonville

[stjr]

I know there is some interchange modifications, but not sure what....two things I do know...

1. There are no plans for a ramp to/from the JTA garage
2. The ramp to Hendricks from the southbound C/D road out of downtown will be closed

"the southbound C/D road out of downtown wil be closed"

Not sure what C/D stands for?  Is this the road [also "recently" improved a few years back] coming off the end of the Acosta and Main Street bridges that exits on to Hendricks? (I don't recall any other road that would fit this apparent description.] This would be a huge loss to San Marco access and traffic efficiency.  It would mean everyone has to exit down San Marco Blvd. through the Square.  That ramp also feeds directly to the road leading to the JTA Kings Road garage as I recall.  Please tell me it ain't so!

[tufsu1]

C/D stands for collector/distributor...and yes, you've got the right road.

Basically it means that the trip from downtown to San Marco will take the same route as it does going back (since there is no ramp in the northbound direction)...get off the Main Street Bridge on Riverplace and wrap around to Hendricks.

[stjr]

C/D stands for collector/distributor...and yes, you've got the right road.

Basically it means that the trip from downtown to San Marco will take the same route as it does going back (since there is no ramp in the northbound direction)...get off the Main Street Bridge on Riverplace and wrap around to Hendricks.

All I can say is "Why?"  It seems this will cause more congestion by routing all Acosta traffic to San Marco Blvd. and all Main Street traffic to Riverplace.   For the Acosta it will force more traffic through a tighter and more congested (especially at the Square) corridor.  For the Main Street traffic, it will force more traffic a longer way around and through many more lights causing extended congestion.  This will do much to cut off the Southbank from the Northbank. I would think there has to be a better way to solve whatever problem they are trying to fix.

Do the people of San Marco appreciate that these changes are coming and what their impact will be?  How about the rest of Jax?  Where does FDOT cook these ideas up?  What are they thinking?

[thelakelander]

All I want is a way to directly access San Marco from the northbound I-95 lanes.  Right now, you have to exit at Emerson or pass the area and come back via the Southbank exits.

[tufsu1]

Do the people of San Marco appreciate that these changes are coming and what their impact will be?  How about the rest of Jax?  Where does FDOT cook these ideas up?  What are they thinking?

why don't you go to the public meeting and ask them?

its on 4/20 (starting @ 4:30pm) at the San Marco Library

[Ocklawaha]

We all should be at that meeting, an exit on Montana, Atlantic and Philips would be wonderful. It would allow traffic in either direction access San Marco and the Phantom Parking Garage. In turn it would probably double the ridership of the Skyway. Moreover BRT lanes (I'm talking the high dollar QUICKWAY) could be built where Gary Street is today. Bring the buses South over the Acosta, from Jefferson and Broad, Hence exit on HOV on Prudential to Baptist and hence Southward to the short Gary Street Busway and over the Florida East Coast Railroad to Kings Avenue Station. This same route could pass in front of Baptist Medical Center giving a balance to the Southbank Transit modes. If you want the northside of the Southbank you ride the Skyway, if you want the South or Medical side of the Southbank, you take the BRT.

OCKLAWAHA

[stjr]

Do the people of San Marco appreciate that these changes are coming and what their impact will be?  How about the rest of Jax?  Where does FDOT cook these ideas up?  What are they thinking?

why don't you go to the public meeting and ask them?

its on 4/20 (starting @ 4:30pm) at the San Marco Library

Tufsu, thanks for the heads up.  I don't know if I can make the meeting but will see if there are other ways to express an opinion.  I will start another thread here on MJ to give interested parties a heads up.  I couldn't find a project description detailed to the point of showing this ramp closing on DOT's site.  I wonder, as a result, how many in the community realize this ramp is being closed?

[stjr]

YES!  The holy grail I was looking for earlier in this thread:  An interstate bridge with sidewalks!  IT CAN BE DONE!  Reednavy and Tufsu, care to explain your comments on this subject verses the picture below?

This sidewalk, connecting the Northshore with Downtown, is attached to an I-279 bridge.  Should the same be considered for Jacksonville's Fuller Warren, Hart or Matthews Bridges?

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-aug-elements-of-urbanism-pittsburgh

Problem is that it is a Federal Interstate, not a U.S. Highway or State Route. It is CLEARLY marked at almost, if not every onramp to an interstate that bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law.

Existing laws and regulations prevent Federal Highway System roadways and bridges from supporting pedestrian related activies due to higher speeds and design constraints. So basically, safety concerns because guardrails and barriers can only take so much pressure.

Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple!

Alright, did anyone hear what I said?

Federal Highway System regulations say that no such will be allowed on an interstate highway, plain and simple.

It is a safety and liability issue.

My original comments:

Having a pedestrian/bicycle pathway or a pullover vista lane to take in one of the best views found in the city would be too much to ask as well, I suppose. Just think if one could rise from the river walks below to cross from one bank to the other at sunset!

Yes, I have heard from FDOT many times about the federal interstate standards.  Yet, as I travel this country, I find countless concessions and exceptions where the local citizenry has raised their collective voices in protest or circumstances just could not accommodate the standards.  So, I don't agree that there wasn't much more flexibility available for the design.

....Pedestrian's/bikers could be accommodated in several ways.  One is an appropriately protective divider as on the Golden Gate.  Another, would have been to put such a path above or below the roadway as it is on the Brooklyn Bridge (so that idea goes back to the 1800's!).

[exnewsman]

fine...if you're looking for a signature bridge, look no further than the Dames Point Bridge....that was also done by FDOT and will be an interstate by the end of 2009

The Dames Point was built by JTA who turned it over to FDOT for maintenance when it was completed 20 years ago.

[stjr]

Hmm. Stjr.  With all that egg on the faces, it seems like the perfect time to order omelettes. 
I like mine served with a side of crow.

They are even better when followed by thick succulent slices of humble pie.

What about you?

Stephen, it beats drinking the Koolaid! 

Automatically refusing to even consider how sidewalks might be integrated with an interstate bridge is another example of common sense being trumped by the blind allegiance, even if well intended, to "all-purpose", inflexible, and bureaucratic rules, policies and thinking.

My Anti-Bureaucratic Creed:  When planning, building, and operating our society, we should determine what end result we desire and/or need, and then figure the best solution to achieve those results utilizing common sense, flexible thinking, informed thought, and a pliable application of necessary rules, policies, procedures, and guidelines  - not mindlessly and totally forgoing or subverting our needs and desires to protocols or standards that never contemplated or considered the situation at hand.

[thelakelander]

Something like this bridge in Richmond, VA?

....Pedestrian's/bikers could be accommodated in several ways.  One is an appropriately protective divider as on the Golden Gate.  Another, would have been to put such a path above or below the roadway as it is on the Brooklyn Bridge (so that idea goes back to the 1800's!).

[Charles Hunter]

That's cool, thelakelander, I think such a thing would have to be much closer to the bridge level though, since this is still an active waterway. 

[thelakelander]

Yes, the Richmond example would probably not be feasible for the St. Johns.

[reednavy]

Nevermind the fact, stjr, that the Pittsburgh bridge is not 75ft over water either, and suicide would likely fail by plummeting to the water. Instead, you'd likely drown. Still, I don't expect FDOT to want to take the risk in doing such a project either. The design of the shown bridge also protects pedestrians better, instead of the concrete barrier on the bridges around here.

I'll admit it, I was wrong, but as I said, don't expect FDOT to be on board.

[Ocklawaha]

Maritime interests would prevent us from using one inch of space below the bridge deck. The Jersey Safety Barriers made of concrete are about as safe as it gets and pretty hard to climb. If we could get the City-State-Feds to do this to all of our bridges it would be fantastic. Even if access was just from the nearest roadway. Imagine a bike trail over the Buckman from US 17 to San Jose Bl..

If the walkway was caged and placed below the sight line from the bridge but above the bottom of the panels (deck) so one would even know it was there. A car would have to go completely over the rail and come to rest on the cage before anyone would be in danger. Those bridge panels appear to be a good 10' - 20' tall from the top of the bents (piers) to the top of the deck, plenty of room to hide an 8 - 9' foot tall pedestrian trail.

OCKLAWAHA