So $63 million for 1.3 miles of road is OK? funny how there is no outcry at this expense!
From the TU
According to the department: "Plans are to continue building State Road 9B from where it will end at US 1 once the current construction project is complete to Interstate 95 which will include an interchange with full access to I-95, a total of 1.3 miles. The project is currently funded in FDOT fiscal year 2014/15. Estimated costs are $63 million."
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-19/9b-extension-i-95-topic-thursday-dot-workshop?cid=hp-justin
That can't be right.
63 mil has got to be the entire project from 9A to I95
the article says US 1 to I-95, I think the costs are high because of the interchange, that will have to be constructed.
Costs are about:
68 million for section from 9A to Phillips Highway.
36 million for the 9B and Phillips Highway interchange.
43 million for section from Phillips Highway to I-95 with the relating interstate exchange included.
I don't see the benefit of building this road at all.
Ditto. Useless and a waste of money and time.
The selling economic benefits are short term construction-based job creation and opening land up for more long term development. I have a bridge to sell anybody who believes the main purpose is to relieve traffic gridlock. It's one of those things we continue to subsidize under the ponzi scheme growth based economic structure we've embraced over the last few decades.
True Lake.
There is a need for a direct route south from the port that bypasses the current 9-A / 295 interchange for the benefit of truck container traffic.
There is often a large bottleneck running from Old St Augustine Road to the interchange, both northbound and southbound stack up pretty badly during rush hours.
Orange Park traffic has almost taken over the current interchange, again gridlock during those hours.
There is no access from 95 to Racetrack road and it's not all about new land development, Julington Creek Plantation and the Bartram projects back right up to or nearly up to 95. These people currently must use San Jose through Mandarin or drive Greenland Road to Phillips Highway to get into town. This interchange would give them an much better access to Duval.
The economic and traffic benefits are myriad, however, they fall far short of what should be a cost-benefit limitation. You'd think the slick headed governor would be all over this with his tea party buddies... CHIRP, chirp.
For this same $150 million we could easily build a basic 15 mile light-rail/streetcar system.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on October 19, 2011, 01:20:28 PM
True Lake.
There is a need for a direct route south from the port that bypasses the current 9-A / 295 interchange for the benefit of truck container traffic.
Put those containers on rail.
QuoteThere is often a large bottleneck running from Old St Augustine Road to the interchange, both northbound and southbound stack up pretty badly during rush hours.
That's caused by Bartram Park's layout of one way in, one way out. An interchange at Race Track Road would handle that situation.
QuoteOrange Park traffic has almost taken over the current interchange, again gridlock during those hours.
I'd ask, why was the I-295/I-95 interchange not designed for higher capacity? After all, its not even 10 years old. Furthermore, it would still be cheaper to expand an existing flyover ramp than it would be to construct a new highway and multiple flyovers.
QuoteThere is no access from 95 to Racetrack road and it's not all about new land development, Julington Creek Plantation and the Bartram projects back right up to or nearly up to 95. These people currently must use San Jose through Mandarin or drive Greenland Road to Phillips Highway to get into town. This interchange would give them an much better access to Duval.
I'd say both Julington Creek and Bartram Park should be considered new developments that aren't built out. However, if you wanted to deal with their traffic issues, a simple interchange at Race Track Road, along with a few more local street connections will do that.
QuoteThe economic and traffic benefits are myriad, however, they fall far short of what should be a cost-benefit limitation. You'd think the slick headed governor would be all over this with his tea party buddies... CHIRP, chirp.
I'm actually okay with people admitting they want to fund some of these projects for self preservation related reasons. At least that's an honest argument. I just hate seeing terms like traffic relief, increasing the tax base, hurricane evacuation, etc. being tossed out there when half of these projects make those issues worse.
I'm good on everything you've said Lake, merely pointing out that there are reasons to build these things albeit weak ones at best. Hell if I had my way we'd all have streetcar lines in grassy landscaped parkways instead of asphalt.
OCKLAWAHA
Of course. I'm not saying there isn't a valid reason for several projects. However, I am openly questioning why we always end up selecting the most expensive alternative, only to turn around a few short years later, with a more expensive follow up?
Quote from: fsujax on October 19, 2011, 11:32:28 AM
the article says US 1 to I-95, I think the costs are high because of the interchange, that will have to be constructed.
correct...it is all flyover ramps...but keep in mind they are only building a ;partial interchange
Will this partial interchange tie in with Race Track Road to provide a second I-95 access point for local traffic in the area?
No...that will come later in the third construction segment.
correct...the partial interchange will only be for traffic to/from the north....the southern half that includes an extension of the road down to Racetrack comes later....and it is not an SIS project, so it won't be very high on FDOT priorities....which means local $ will likely need to be found.
Ock, its not just Orange Park traffic, its Mandarin/Orange Park traffic that backs things up.
Why they don't institute a red light feature (ramp meter) on the on ramps like in Atlanta is beyond me (all of 295/9A could use this)
All told, when 9B is finally complete, are you all thinking the $200 million range?
sounds about right, what will be the total mileage of the project?
I think there is a 7.5 mile or so estimate...
That comes out to roughly $27 million a mile, which puts the cost in the range of LRT.
just imagine what sort of outcry there would be if we were spending that on a transit project!
That last short extension will be costly. Racetrack Road will be realigned. Ultimately St Johns CR 2209 will be feeding into 9B at Racetrack...this I imagine has to add some kind of overpass interchange set-up...further, you could add the costs of the overpass / interchange / service roads that will be built at 2209 and 210 (the existing Publix on CR 210 near Cimmarone) a mile and a half south...maybe over $30 million per mile?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 20, 2011, 08:43:50 AM
That comes out to roughly $27 million a mile, which puts the cost in the range of LRT.
well the flyover ramps are in the range fo $25-$40 million each these days...and you'll have at least 2 on this project (at 9A and at I-95).
^No doubt. You saw how the TU responded to the mobility plan's Riverside Streetcar that got tied into Mayor Brown's downtown transition team committee's report. That 3.5-mile project would only be around $10 to $14 million per mile and it's supposed to be funded by the mobility fee 100%. We build flyovers that cost more than that and no one questions the validity or return of investment on those projects. We have our work cut out for us.
QuoteWhy they don't institute a red light feature (ramp meter) on the on ramps like in Atlanta is beyond me (all of 295/9A could use this)
Because that would mean we would need a new expansion of government at a time when we are trying to contract government, not expand it. We don't have traffic like Orlando or Atlanta, so why waste money on it?
agree. there is no need for ramp metering here.
I think that's about right...
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/301532_124782717630003_100002948261443_145539_578916742_n.jpg)
Quote from: thelakelander on October 20, 2011, 08:43:50 AM
That comes out to roughly $27 million a mile, which puts the cost in the range of LRT.
Sometimes cheaper. Austin's cost $105 Million & is 32 miles long. And the cost of just the initial phase of this road would pretty much build a vintage streetcar line in our entire core as well.
This city's priorities are completely screwed. Yes, where's the outcry?? Because I guarantee you if this were being spent on public transit, we'd never hear the end of it.
Here are some random maps and aerials showing 9B.
(http://jphallcommercecenter.com/image/Outer_Beltway_Design.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/urbanjax7816/SR9B.jpg)
(http://northfloridaroads.com/upload/gallery/255/originals/009_State_Road_9B_approaching_US_1.jpg) (http://northfloridaroads.com/upload/gallery/255/originals/006_State_Road_9B_at_Big_Davis_Creek_Bridge.jpg)
more pics at: http://www.sr9b.com/sr9b/AboutUs.aspx
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/FlaglerCenterMasterPlan-ETM/853601249_atguy-XL.jpg)
That last image is the key. 9B would never exist without the presence of Flagler.
Quote from: peestandingup on October 20, 2011, 10:56:26 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 20, 2011, 08:43:50 AM
That comes out to roughly $27 million a mile, which puts the cost in the range of LRT.
Sometimes cheaper. Austin's cost $105 Million & is 32 miles long.
Austin's line is commuter rail, not LRT....LRT usually costs $25-$50 million a mile and commuter rail is closer to $10 million a mile...mainly because it doesn't involve new ROW and generally uses existing freight tracks
Quote from: fsujax on October 20, 2011, 08:52:48 AM
just imagine what sort of outcry there would be if we were spending that on a transit project!
To paraphrase President Kennedy:
QuoteLet every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of highway sprawl. This much we pledgeâ€"and more.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 20, 2011, 11:15:55 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on October 20, 2011, 10:56:26 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 20, 2011, 08:43:50 AM
That comes out to roughly $27 million a mile, which puts the cost in the range of LRT.
Sometimes cheaper. Austin's cost $105 Million & is 32 miles long.
Austin's line is commuter rail, not LRT....LRT usually costs $25-$50 million a mile and commuter rail is closer to $10 million a mile...mainly because it doesn't involve new ROW and generally uses existing freight tracks
Technically true. But they made it as "light" as possible & sorta replicated the "light rail look" (using smaller cars instead of big honking trains) that goes through the city streets. Something we could do here with current ROW couldn't we?
The point is, there's options. It doesn't have to strictly be LRT. It could be light commuter rail, streetcars using some of the current heavy ROW (like Memphis uses for theirs), etc. And a vintage streetcar line (from Avondale to town/Springfield) is def possible for the cost of this road's initial phase.
^You're correct. Never get too caught up on the traditional terms and operating characteristics of various modes of fixed transit. Cost can significantly range depending on how a system is set up to serve the environment it will operate in.
Which is why we can just call it a hybrid system that fits the needs of thier community. Our commuter rail will be the same.
That's a shame. What happened to all the mayors talk about "leveraging our most valuable asset - the St Johns"???? This was something that made us unique of many other cities.