State Rd 9B

[Jason]

^ Couldn't have said it better.


IMO, if anything, 9B should parallel I95 and run south into Nocatee.  An interchange with I95 and Racetrack road is a no brainer.

[reednavy]

^ Couldn't have said it better.


IMO, if anything, 9B should parallel I95 and run south into Nocatee.  An interchange with I95 and Racetrack road is a no brainer.

Apparently people at FDOT don't have one then. It should've been part of the deal when JCP was built, with the developer footing 50% since it has made San Jose a giant cluster f*ck.

It's like FDOT thinks about doing things that should've been done 5 or 10 eyars ago, like widening I-10 from past 295, the Big I, and reconfiguring JTB/95 interchange. Whoever reperesents our district in FDOT needs a serious talking to, hell, that goes for the entire department.

[tufsu1]

It would be difficult to put an interchange at Racetrack Rd for two reasons

1. the rest area
2. spacing requirements (in this area no more than 1 every 2 miles).

In order to do this, FDOT would have to construct C/D roads that start north of Racetrack Road and continue through the rest area (and maybe through CR 210).

Instead, the powers that be have chosen to connect SR 9B with Racetrack/Nocatee and provide access to I-95 that way.

As for FDOT thinking about things 10-15 years too late, that is not entirely true....the reality is FDOT starts planning major transportation improvements 25-30 years out....then when funding seems at least somewhat likely, they start a more detailed PD&E study....but its still 10+ years later before the project gets built....the reasons: permitting process and lack of money.

JTB/95 is a perfect example...planning began for potential improvements more than 10 years ago....and JTA is currently doing a PD&E study to better identify what can be done with limited funds....but its likely to be another 5-10 years before anything big gets built....what is under construction right now is just a stop-gap project.

[coredumped]

In 5 years, 9A will be called I295.

I wrote the DOT on 4/30/2009 about this and here's their response:

The signs are scheduled to be changed next year. It will be known as I-295 east and I-295 west. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks, Mike Goldman

[reednavy]

Ah, that 1 exit every 2 miles thing is rubbish. It'd be a lot cheaper to widen Racetrack Rd and put in an interchange because quite a bit already has enough ROW to do it.

[tufsu1]

you can think its rubbish all you want....but go ahead and propose a new interchange on an interstate and let me know what FDOT and FHWA tell you.

[thelakelander]

Would it be possible to build a Racetrack Road interchange exactly where the I-95/9B interchange is proposed?

[reednavy]

you can think its rubbish all you want....but go ahead and propose a new interchange on an interstate and let me know what FDOT and FHWA tell you.

When did this all come about though and what is the reasoning?

[tufsu1]

FDOT has always had a policy on interchange spacing....it is

Urban - 1 mile
Suburban - 2 miles
Rural - 3 miles

When proposing a new interchange, this policy is hard to get around...as I said, the easiest way is to construct  extra (auxiliary) lanes that connect the interchanges...and usually they are physically separated from the mainline facility.

As for building a Racetrack interchange at the proposed location for 9B, yes it could work as it meets the spacing requirements....but you woul still need a local road (CR 2209?) connecting the interchange to Racetrack Rd.

[stjr]

FDOT has always had a policy on interchange spacing....it is

Urban - 1 mile
Suburban - 2 miles
Rural - 3 miles

When proposing a new interchange, this policy is hard to get around...as I said, the easiest way is to construct extra (auxiliary) lanes that connect the interchanges...and usually they are physically separated from the mainline facility.

Tufsu, there is that creeping FDOT rigidity showing again.  Reednavy has the hang of it this time around.  As you recall, we had a similar discussion about FDOT rule enforcement regarding the Fuller Warren bridge and hanging on it pedestrian access and improving the bridge's aesthetics.

We all know that DOT's in other states bend these rules all the time and probably in other districts of Florida.  If FDOT can handle all those exits at I-10 and I-95, it can surely "squeeze" in Race Track road here.  By the way, just how close is it to the next exit?  According to the map above, it appears that the 9B exit is as close or closer to St. Augustine Road as Race Track is to CR 210 so that proves the rule is already being overlooked.

The real problem is that St. Johns County has overloaded itself with development and failed to match the growth with a proper infrastructure especially regarding its road network.  In fact, it appears it has put almost no thought into its network and has made mostly knee jerk responses based on perceived opportunities to latch on to someone else's project.  9B is a last minute ride on the back of 295/9A and the Outer Beltway was initially pushed by Clay County and proponents of a new river crossing.  Other roads proposed or planned are in reaction to developers donating land or funds to serve their own communities, not to fit in to some master plan.  That's why these projects look like contorted monsters cooked up by Frankenstein.

All those St. Johns County rural roads need to be rerouted into a grid and St. Johns needs multiple intra-county east-west corridors and/or expressways that interchange with I-95 directly if they continue to build all this stuff.  The only reason most St. Johns residents will get on 9B is to make their way to I-95 anyway.

A major north-south corridor for St. Johns County needs to be move westward closer to the St. Johns river, perhaps one to three or so miles east of SR 13.  What St. Johns should really do (in my dreams) is put the breaks on rapid development and think out what it really wants to "grow up to be".  (See the MJ thread on this at http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2132.0.html )  It has great natural beauty that it seems willing to squander for nothing in particular.

[thelakelander]

As for building a Racetrack interchange at the proposed location for 9B, yes it could work as it meets the spacing requirements....but you woul still need a local road (CR 2209?) connecting the interchange to Racetrack Rd.

Something similar to this.  Instead of taking it north around Bayard to 9A, place the Racetrack interchange in the same spot as the proposed I-95/9B interchange and extend a road south to connect to Race Track Road. 

[Jason]

Bingo Lake.  Besides, 2209 is already well under construction and portions of it already complete.  By simply carying it further north to connect to I95 will eliminate the need for 9B and provide the badly needed Racetrack Road connection point.  It would also give Bartram Park a southerly I95 access point.

[tufsu1]

I guess I misunderstood your question Lake....serving the Racetrack Road area with an interchange is a separate issue from proividing a seamless bypass from I-95 to 9A....

from what I've been told, that brand new massive I-95/I-295 interchange was designed with 9B in mind and can not handle the extra traffic....thereby requiring 9B, as planned, to be built.

[British Shoe Company]

If 9B can do half of what 9A has done, it will be great for transportation, and conntecting Jacksonville to St. Augustine.

[reednavy]

If 9B can do half of what 9A has done, it will be great for transportation, and conntecting Jacksonville to St. Augustine.

So you're for uncontrolled sprawl and traffic I take it?

Part of the reason for 9A is to reroute truck traffic and such around the urban core. 9B is nothing more than a catalyst for wasteful and useless growth.