State Rd 9B

[fsujax]

yeah, our prioroties as a community are whack. i can't believe the way people act over digital billboards, but yet it's perfectly ok to clear cut acres of land for an interchange.

[Jason]

Just when I thought they were done cutting, more clearing has started within the last week.  Looks like they are prepping land for the feeder/distrubutor lanes on the south end of the interchange.

[CityLife]

Go check out how many acres Estuary Corp owns between JTB/295 and Nocatee and then look at the directors of the company.
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/estuary-corporation-4263774.aspx

They are going to make a lot of money developing the land between Nocatee and JTB/295.

[fsquid]

Just when I thought they were done cutting, more clearing has started within the last week.  Looks like they are prepping land for the feeder/distrubutor lanes on the south end of the interchange.

second phase going through to I-95

[wsansewjs]

Go check out how many acres Estuary Corp owns between JTB/295 and Nocatee and then look at the directors of the company.
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/estuary-corporation-4263774.aspx

They are going to make a lot of money developing the land between Nocatee and JTB/295.

I smell a conspiracy theory coming up!

-Josh

[CityLife]

Go check out how many acres Estuary Corp owns between JTB/295 and Nocatee and then look at the directors of the company.
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/estuary-corporation-4263774.aspx

They are going to make a lot of money developing the land between Nocatee and JTB/295.

I smell a conspiracy theory coming up!

-Josh

No conspiracy needed.

[Jason]

Just when I thought they were done cutting, more clearing has started within the last week.  Looks like they are prepping land for the feeder/distrubutor lanes on the south end of the interchange.

second phase going through to I-95

Right, but the land appeard to be completely cleared for the interchange and within the last week they have started clearing even more.  Mainly on the southwest side of the highway.  Just amazes me how much "has" to be cut down for this thing.

[fsquid]

no clue, I'm not a transportation engineer.

[thelakelander]

Just start a rumor that the land was cleared for a digital billboard.  People will notice the thousands of trees missing.

[jcjohnpaint]

It amazes me how long it takes to get a project off the ground intown when this crap is totally started before the break of the news story.   Not even a blink of an eye to tear down a forest, but when you want to put something up in a blighted landscape you have all the politicians around the area to get through first. 

[Charles Hunter]

The work about to start includes the full interchange with I-95, including stub outs for the eventual extension into St. Johns County. 
Link to picture (can't figure out how to embed the pic)  http://northfloridaroads.com/upload/documents/9_b_art_w_aerial.pdf

I heard the other day that the part now under construction will open next week.

[spuwho]

Just when I thought they were done cutting, more clearing has started within the last week.  Looks like they are prepping land for the feeder/distrubutor lanes on the south end of the interchange.

second phase going through to I-95

Right, but the land appeard to be completely cleared for the interchange and within the last week they have started clearing even more.  Mainly on the southwest side of the highway.  Just amazes me how much "has" to be cut down for this thing.

The "original" forest of this area has been cut down several times dating back to the 1800's. The trees they are taking down now are probably no more than 25 years old at the most. I don't like to see them go, but I would like to see the mitigation parcel that was acquired to make up for it.

Not sure there can be a conspiracy theory on land use when the ROW and centerline for I-795 (9B) was struck and acquired many years ago. Plenty of time for a property to turn over several times before the actual road was built.  However I did find it somewhat convenient on how the state designed a bridge for a future interchange behind Bayard that connects to nothing. Davis family can say thanks for that!

Lake, I understand why you believe highways are subsidized, but must everything be in the context of a subsidy? I wouldn't expect the densities you think are needed to "pay for" the road outside Bayard. I would expect it closer to the urban core. And just how quickly must one reach the desired density before the road is considered paid for?

[thelakelander]

Not sure there can be a conspiracy theory on land use when the ROW and centerline for I-795 (9B) was struck and acquired many years ago. Plenty of time for a property to turn over several times before the actual road was built.  However I did find it somewhat convenient on how the state designed a bridge for a future interchange behind Bayard that connects to nothing. Davis family can say thanks for that!

LOL, what other reason is there for the road?  You don't really believe we build these things to relieve traffic congestion do you?  I agree that this isn't a conspiracy. This is just typical business and it's been going on across the country for decades.

Lake, I understand why you believe highways are subsidized, but must everything be in the context of a subsidy? I wouldn't expect the densities you think are needed to "pay for" the road outside Bayard. I would expect it closer to the urban core. And just how quickly must one reach the desired density before the road is considered paid for?

Yes. I believe in calling a spade a spade. If we're being asked to subsidize the construction of a road for development, we should at least expect future development to cover it's own cost.  If it isn't, then eventually someone is going broke.  If the goal is to relieve congestion, then there are significantly more affordable methods that can be applied to resolve this issue (including strategic road building, connecting, and widening).

Btw, I'd expect the same thing with mass transit.  Indirectly, these projects should be designed to help build a fiscally sustainable community.

The desired density should be whatever it takes to get the tax rolls of economic activity generated by the investment to cover it's capital and long term maintenance costs.  Again, if we're not doing this on some sort of level, money to subsidize has to come from somewhere (or at the expense of something else) and we've reached the point where we can't expect to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

[spuwho]

Not sure there can be a conspiracy theory on land use when the ROW and centerline for I-795 (9B) was struck and acquired many years ago. Plenty of time for a property to turn over several times before the actual road was built.  However I did find it somewhat convenient on how the state designed a bridge for a future interchange behind Bayard that connects to nothing. Davis family can say thanks for that!

LOL, what other reason is there for the road?  You don't really believe we build these things to relieve traffic congestion do you?  I agree that this isn't a conspiracy. This is just typical business and it's been going on across the country for decades.

Lake, I understand why you believe highways are subsidized, but must everything be in the context of a subsidy? I wouldn't expect the densities you think are needed to "pay for" the road outside Bayard. I would expect it closer to the urban core. And just how quickly must one reach the desired density before the road is considered paid for?

Yes. I believe in calling a spade a spade. If we're being asked to subsidize the construction of a road for development, we should at least expect future development to cover it's own cost.  If it isn't, then eventually someone is going broke.  If the goal is to relieve congestion, then there are significantly more affordable methods that can be applied to resolve this issue (including strategic road building, connecting, and widening).

Btw, I'd expect the same thing with mass transit.  Indirectly, these projects should be designed to help build a fiscally sustainable community.

The desired density should be whatever it takes to get the tax rolls of economic activity generated by the investment to cover it's capital and long term maintenance costs.  Again, if we're not doing this on some sort of level, money to subsidize has to come from somewhere (or at the expense of something else) and we've reached the point where we can't expect to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Understood, but how does one subsidize a road designed as part of a national network? You will never see densities that will pay for I-71 through Redhaw, Ohio. Your subsidy discussion assumes that all roads must have adjoining densities to validate their existence. That approach doesn't make sense when you are designing as part of a national system.

Is I-795 needed as part of the national system? Probably not. Is it needed as part of a regional transportation system. Probably. Is it needed to get from Nocatee/St Johns to the Edge City? As evidenced by the backup on 295 East from Philips Hwy to the future 795 merge this morning, I would say yes.

However, I do agree that not all roads are built altruistically. There are always external influences in direction, and how they are built. I-795 won't be any different.

[thelakelander]

Understood, but how does one subsidize a road designed as part of a national network? You will never see densities that will pay for I-71 through Redhaw, Ohio. Your subsidy discussion assumes that all roads must have adjoining densities to validate their existence. That approach doesn't make sense when you are designing as part of a national system.

Is I-795 needed as part of the national system? Probably not. Is it needed as part of a regional transportation system. Probably. Is it needed to get from Nocatee/St Johns to the Edge City? As evidenced by the backup on 295 East from Philips Hwy to the future 795 merge this morning, I would say yes.

I believe the national network would be just fine without the Outer Beltway and 9B.  History indicates that cities like Portland and Memphis didn't suffer when they stopped expressways from penetrating their cores.  Others like Milwaukee have actually seen more economic development from taking existing expressways down.

Being in the transportation planning industry, I've seen the data behind enough models used to justify projects like this that I'm highly skeptical of them in general.  I really wish we'd just admit we do these things to open up cheap land to new development opportunity and to keep the road construction industry alive. 

I-295 backs up because of a bottleneck caused by a reduction in northbound lanes at an interchange where you also have traffic trying to merge in from an on-ramp.  Such a situation can be resolved without investing a couple of hundred million on a new highway a few miles south.  The same thing still occurs on I-295 westbound where I-95 traffic merges in heading to Mandarin and Orange Park.  On top of that, the construction of the 9B ramp, resulting through lanes shifting through the construction site doesn't help with rush hour traffic flow either.  A cheaper option would have been to six lane 9A/I-295 from the start.  Now we're paying for 9B and toll lanes in I-295.

With that said, I believe a portion of 9B was actually funded with stimulus dollars.  So one could argue it's a "jobs" project.