Sidewalks and bike lanes are on their way!
QuoteArlington drivers can look for a new bridge to cross. The Florida Department of Transportation proposes an estimated $20.6 million replacement of the University Boulevard bridge, which spans the Arlington River from Cesery Boulevard to Clifton Avenue. Department spokesman Mike Goldman said Monday the department would build a temporary bridge next to the span during the construction, which could start in 2014 and take an estimated 2 1/2 years.
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=536765
Glad to see they are putting bike lanes and sidewalks on it. The current bridge is very narrow.
It seems odd to me that specific structural deficiencies on bridges cannot be disclosed per Florida Statutes. All they can tell you is that it is structurally deficient but they can't say the ways that it is deficient. Weird.
Quote from: cline on June 19, 2012, 03:42:38 PM
It seems odd to me that specific structural deficiencies on bridges cannot be disclosed per Florida Statutes. All they can tell you is that it is structurally deficient but they can't say the ways that it is deficient. Weird.
I believe this is a post 9/11 security measure.
Structurally deficient could also mean quite a few things that have absolutely nothing to do with the structural integrity of the bridge, but more with the design and current needs.
actually, no....FDOT uses a rating system to determine how well a bridge is holding up...structurally deficient is all about the wear and tear (cracks, worn concrete, etc,) of a bridge.
Its about time.
Now if the FDOT or JTA would build the much needed overpass at Atlantic & University Blvds, all would be well with the world.
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 01, 2012, 12:08:29 AM
Its about time.
Now if the FDOT or JTA would build the much needed overpass at Atlantic & University Blvds, all would be well with the world.
An overpass at Atlantic and University?
:o
What's the taxpayer's return of investment for spending +$60 million on an isolated overpass which will still have drivers coming to a screeching halt at the next stop light a few blocks to the south? If we can dig up $60 million for public investment, there are hundreds of things that Jacksonville will be better off investing in.
Agreed Lake. The 'shame' if one can call it that is that the city didn't take the Emerson Street expressway on through to I-95 and north to the Arlington expressway back in the 50's when the whole system was laid out. Had they done so, much of the traffic on University would be using a short 4 lane connector. To me this goes in the same book as the Hart Expressway which drops off on Beach, stupidly, just a mile or so shy of the Southside Boulevard expressway. Like the Skyway of today, the old Expressway authority did not understand the need to connect it's dots for a more fluid traffic flow.
As for the bridge, I don't recall where but in some of my transportation magazines I did see a breakdown of our area bridges. Had our readers seen what I read, NOBODY would be driving over that bridge or the overland bridge. Those two bridges made the Matthews look good.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 01, 2012, 12:08:29 AM
Its about time.
Now if the FDOT or JTA would build the much needed overpass at Atlantic & University Blvds, all would be well with the world.
sory, but it is hardly much needed...especially not as businesses have closed and traffic has decreased in the area over the last five years
Quote from: acme54321 on July 01, 2012, 10:41:31 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 01, 2012, 12:08:29 AM
Its about time.
Now if the FDOT or JTA would build the much needed overpass at Atlantic & University Blvds, all would be well with the world.
An overpass at Atlantic and University?
Yes, an overpass at Atlantic & University ;)
:o
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 01, 2012, 07:08:43 PM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 01, 2012, 12:08:29 AM
Its about time.
Now if the FDOT or JTA would build the much needed overpass at Atlantic & University Blvds, all would be well with the world.
sory, but it is hardly much needed...especially not as businesses have closed and traffic has decreased in the area over the last five years
I take it you havent been through there recently, especially around 7AM, 3PM, or 5PM weekdays.
so you're proposing that we spend millions "fixing" a problem that exists for maybe an hour total each day?
btw, here are the daily traffic counts approaching that intersection from 2005 (before gas prices went up and the recession kicked in) and 2011.
Southside (north of Atlantic)
2005 = 44,500
2011 = 34,500
Southside (south of Atlantic)
2005 = 51,000
2011 = 35,000
Atlantic (west of Southside)
2005 = 40,000
2011 = 33,000
Atlantic (east of Southside)
2005 = 38,000
2011 = 29,000
As to your comments about being through there recently....perhaps what you're experiencing are delays associated with the resurfacing of Southside.
Bottom line...I'll stick by my statement that the overpass is hardly needed.
The Matthews bridge closure has also been having a big effect on that intersections when the bridge is shut down. Hardly a permanent issue though.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 02, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
so you're proposing that we spend millions "fixing" a problem that exists for maybe an hour total each day?
btw, here are the daily traffic counts approaching that intersection from 2005 (before gas prices went up and the recession kicked in) and 2011.
Southside (north of Atlantic)
2005 = 44,500
2011 = 34,500
Southside (south of Atlantic)
2005 = 51,000
2011 = 35,000
Atlantic (west of Southside)
2005 = 40,000
2011 = 33,000
Atlantic (east of Southside)
2005 = 38,000
2011 = 29,000
As to your comments about being through there recently....perhaps what you're experiencing are delays associated with the resurfacing of Southside.
Bottom line...I'll stick by my statement that the overpass is hardly needed.
I think pedestrians and cyclists would disagree with your assessment. That bridge is very narrow and right now neither bridge has a safe walking area for a pedestrian to cross the river.
^Tufsu1 is talking about a bridge that doesn't exist at the intersection of Atlantic and Southside Boulevards, not the University Boulevard/Arlington River bridge.
thanks Lake....the other poster is arguing for an interchange at the Atlantic/University intersection
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 02, 2012, 09:51:04 AM
thanks Lake....the other poster is arguing for an interchange at the Atlantic/University intersection
My bad, I thought this was still about the bridge over the Arlington River.
Before 9A/295 was completed and before the economy took a dump I'd argue that the bridge at University/Atlantic was needed especially since it was not uncommon for University to back up all the way across the Cesery Blvd. bridge and Atlantic to back up for a significant distance in the mornings. Today, I agree that it is a different story and there is nowhere near as much traffic at that intersection as there used to be.
While this is very much needed, i think the cecery bridge is much more heavily used by both motorized and pedestrian traffic. Sadly, they have to walk on the "hump" in the middle of the road
http://goo.gl/maps/0cjE
One thing I noticed about the University Blvd bridge is that it is very low at the east end where it meets Cesery and even during a Cat 1 storm it could very well be underwater if the storm made landfall near high tide.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 02, 2012, 09:51:04 AM
thanks Lake....the other poster is arguing for an interchange at the Atlantic/University intersection
Still am :D
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 01, 2012, 02:57:40 PM
Agreed Lake. The 'shame' if one can call it that is that the city didn't take the Emerson Street expressway on through to I-95 and north to the Arlington expressway back in the 50's when the whole system was laid out. Had they done so, much of the traffic on University would be using a short 4 lane connector. To me this goes in the same book as the Hart Expressway which drops off on Beach, stupidly, just a mile or so shy of the Southside Boulevard expressway. Like the Skyway of today, the old Expressway authority did not understand the need to connect it's dots for a more fluid traffic flow.
As for the bridge, I don't recall where but in some of my transportation magazines I did see a breakdown of our area bridges. Had our readers seen what I read, NOBODY would be driving over that bridge or the overland bridge. Those two bridges made the Matthews look good.
OCKLAWAHA
The original plan was for the Hart Expressway to travel all the way down to where JTB/Southside are today. It was not originally planned to have JTB take over the Belfort/I-95 intersection as it does now (Belfort used to go all the way to Phillips)
There was local political opposition in the Parental Home/Hogan neighborhoods to having the Hart pass through them. Why they were successful in stopping it then when Springfield couldn't stop the current MLK is unknown.
This decision made in 1963 has been the source of much planning problems ever since. Traffic dumpage on Beach and the JTB/I-95/Phillips interchange issues are directly tied to that decision.
Will have to spend more time in the library pulling some old T-U's to see the how and why's in more detail.
Ock - I remember reading that Arlington business interests were opposed to extending the Hart Expressway to Butler because they believed that this route would siphon business away from the Arlington Expressway as people would have an alternate limited-access way to get to the Beaches...
Okay, found it. Here is the dope on the University Blvd bridge:
Facts
Name: UNIVERSITY BLVD over ARLINGTON RIVER
Structure number: 724214
Location: AT ARLINGTON RIVER
Purpose: Carries two-lane highway and pedestrian walkway over waterway
Route classification: Collector (Urban) [17]
Length of largest span: 47.9 ft. [14.6 m]
Total length: 948.2 ft. [289.0 m]
Roadway width between curbs: 27.9 ft. [8.5 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge: 37.4 ft. [11.4 m]
Vertical clearance below bridge: 14.1 ft. [4.3 m]
Owner: City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built: 1957
Historic significance: Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5]
Number of main spans: 26
Main spans material: Concrete [1]
Main spans design: Tee beam [04]
Deck type: Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
November 2008 Inspection
Status: Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic: 27,711 [as of 2008]
Truck traffic: 5% of total traffic
Deck condition: Fair [5 out of 9]
Superstructure condition: Poor [4 out of 9]
Substructure condition: Fair [5 out of 9]
Structural appraisal: Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrrective action [3]
Deck geometry appraisal: Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Water adequacy appraisal: Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Roadway alignment appraisal: Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Channel protection: Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift. [7]
Pier/abutment protection: Navigation protection not required [1]
Scour condition: Bridge with "unknown" foundation that has not been evaluated for scour.
Operating rating: 18.5 tons [16.8 metric tons]
Inventory rating: 11.1 tons [10.1 metric tons]
Evaluation: Structurally deficient [1]
Sufficiency rating: 7.0
OCKLAWAHA
November 1998 Inspection
Status: Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic: 27,711 [as of 1999]
Truck traffic: 5% of total traffic
Deck condition: Fair [5 out of 9]
Superstructure condition: Poor [4 out of 9]
Substructure condition: Fair [5 out of 9]
Structural appraisal: Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Deck geometry appraisal: Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Water adequacy appraisal: Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Roadway alignment appraisal: Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5]
Channel protection: Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift. [7]
Pier/abutment protection: Navigation protection not required [1]
Scour condition: Bridge with "unknown" foundation that has not been evaluated for scour.
Operating rating: 34.3 tons [31.2 metric tons]
Inventory rating: 20.6 tons [18.7 metric tons]
Evaluation: Structurally deficient [1]
Sufficiency rating: 22.5
November 1991 Inspection
Status: Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic: 27,711 [as of 1991]
Truck traffic: 5% of total traffic
Deck condition: Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition: Fair [5 out of 9]
Substructure condition: Fair [5 out of 9]
Structural appraisal: Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Deck geometry appraisal: Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Water adequacy appraisal: Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Roadway alignment appraisal: Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Channel protection: Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift. [7]
Pier/abutment protection: Navigation protection not required [1]
Scour condition: Scour calculation/evaluation has not been made. [6]
Operating rating: 33.7 tons [30.6 metric tons]
Inventory rating: 20.8 tons [18.9 metric tons]
Sufficiency rating: 41.6
Quote from: Jaxson on July 04, 2012, 12:00:01 PM
Ock - I remember reading that Arlington business interests were opposed to extending the Hart Expressway to Butler because they believed that this route would siphon business away from the Arlington Expressway as people would have an alternate limited-access way to get to the Beaches...
There might have been some truth in that, but at the time and for many years after, Regency Square was the big dog not only in Jacksonville, but all of Florida.
My contention today is that the Hart/Commodore Point Expressway, should still be punched as far as Southside Blvd. It could be built using the ramps to the Commodore as a model, IE: 4 lanes of limited access with overpasses, and 4 lanes of service roads tucked in close to the Expressway segments and separated by a vertical wall. On the downtown side, I'd knock down the ramps into the CBD, and leave the MLK interchange. Folks going into town could use Bay or Duval. The Skyway might very well use the bents of the former FREEway ramps to access the stadium area.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 02, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
so you're proposing that we spend millions "fixing" a problem that exists for maybe an hour total each day?
btw, here are the daily traffic counts approaching that intersection from 2005 (before gas prices went up and the recession kicked in) and 2011.
Southside (north of Atlantic)
2005 = 44,500
2011 = 34,500
Southside (south of Atlantic)
2005 = 51,000
2011 = 35,000
Atlantic (west of Southside)
2005 = 40,000
2011 = 33,000
Atlantic (east of Southside)
2005 = 38,000
2011 = 29,000
As to your comments about being through there recently....perhaps what you're experiencing are delays associated with the resurfacing of Southside.
Bottom line...I'll stick by my statement that the overpass is hardly needed.
I respectfully disagree. If I remember correctly, as part of the Better Jacksonville Plan overpasses were to be built at Atlantic & University, and Beach & University. For whatever reasons they failed to materialize.
The bridge is complete, here's a few pictures. I think it came out good. They did a great job with the barrier and lights to match the neighborhood.
(http://i.imgur.com/nWJKqgM.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/1Wixgef.jpg)
Yep, I was pleasantly surprised with the aesthetics of the new bridge.