Metro Jacksonville

Recently, The problems that State and Union Street face have been brought in to the spotlight with the city expressing interest in turning the Old Armory, located on State, into a day center for the homeless. The Springfield community came out in force to stop the plan that they felt would threaten the vitality of the historic neighborhood. Currently, other locations are being evaluated. Springfielders are sensitive to issues relating to State and Union. A high concentration of missions are located within a few blocks and the main bus transfer station is located between the two roads. Vagrancy traffic is common. To most of Jacksonville the roads serve only to move vehicle traffic from Arlington and the beaches to the Westside. Most drivers do not divert to stop in at a local boutique or take a side trip to the beautiful Confederate Park. My point in all of this is that State and Union are well recognized as places that people do not want to be. So I pose the question to the thoughtful minds at MetroJacksonville, What will it take to make those streets a place people want to go?

As I see it, the keystone in this debate is the traffic that pours off 95 and the Arlington Expressway. This traffic creates a ridged border between the population center of Springfield and the economic potential of downtown. The movement between these historically connected communities should be more fluid. Bike lanes should be painted denoting safe routes for travelers. Park systems should extend into both districts encouraging more pedestrian movement. The most difficult task lies in how to deal with thousands of vehicles speeding down what equates to a street level expressway. Until traffic is diverted I'm convinced that all of the economic, social, environmental, and safety problems confronting this area will persist. It will continue not just in the immediate State and Union area, but also the entirety of the communities that make up the urban core.

With this logic in mind I propose that the best solution is another bridge. It sounds crazy, but this may be one of those instances that more expressway may lead to a more walkable city. Thousands of vehicles should not be allowed to flow through downtown unless the intention is to actually contributing to its economy. Let's make a place worth caring about, not one that we pass through.
(http://i.imgur.com/GDbqW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/EgihW.jpg)

I'd simply change the land use policies and market them as commercial corridors for infill mixed-use development.  They'll still be busy streets but it will be much easier and desirable to cross them if there is something there worth walking to.  Another option to reduce traffic is to encourage more traffic to use the MLK Parkway.

@thelakelander

I believe that is the way things are headed. McDonald's and Family Dollar are moving in right across the street from the Old Armory. My concern with that type of development is that it is still largely autocentric. It is hard to find community in a McDonald's off the side of a freeway. What the urban core has that the rest of suburban Jacksonville doesn't is scale. It's streets were build to handle a scale of movement that we do not enjoy today. One-way streets with timed stop lights were an after thought. It's really about feeling accommodated. I walk to State and Union and I feel like a pedestrian on the side of a freeway. When I walk down Laura Street I feel the elements in place are for the safety and enjoyment of me, the pedestrian. I guess the question is what kind of growth do we want?

You can change scale, character, and the environment of that corridor without constructing a $800M to $1B bridge. There needs to be a change in land use policy to encourage pedestrian scale infill and redevelopment. Do that and it will resemble walkable arterials found in vibrant cities across the country.

My concern with just changing policy and forging ahead with pedestrian guidelines is the disfranchisement of those who live in Arlington and the beaches. In this instance it would be a zero-sum game when it comes to favoring cars or people. All that would entail an effective pedestrian strategy, i.e. traffic calming, two-way streets, slower speeds, less lanes, and unsynchronized lights, would in turn reduce the connectivity Arlington shares with the Western side of the river. The core is far more important, but is connecting one community at the expense of another really making progress? I do not doubt that a bridge project of such a scale would cost quite a bit. I guess when i look at how the dynamics of the city would change by the addition of such a bridge I see a better connected city for everyone, and a downtown with a better potential for infill development based on need instead of passing traffic.

If DT is the priority, our transportation systems should lead to DT as the destination.

I don't understand what economic benefit would result from a faster trip between Arlington and the westside.  Many forward thinking cities (like the recently featured Oklahoma City article) are taking their elevated freeways down because they know business happens at street level.  The property devaluation that occurs along the elevated freeway is a neighborhood killer.  Just look at all the shuttered restaurants along the BJP overpasses.

The two-waying of both streets, with street parking and signals that slow traffic will result in far more economic development.  The signals could be timed for safe pedestrian crossing and we would regain the pedestrian connection between Springfield and DT.

If you were to pull up a map of Oklahoma City and look at the freeway you are describing you would find that the project is not as worth while as it initially sounds. Rather than removing one of the states busiest routes, the highway  is  being rerouted to a larger more modern freeway only a few blocks south. It is hardly the accomplishment it is being touted as.

A better connection between Arlington and westside really equates to a better connection between two large halves of the city. a faster connection between the two section results in economic benefits on many levels. Anne just got a job in Jacksonville and is looking for a place to move that is affordable and conveniently located. Based on where her job may be it may be a large contributing factor into weather she buys into a certain neighborhood. Property becomes more desirable when it is better connected to its surroundings. It works the same way when a business is setting up shop. Easy access results in businesses relocating. If Tallyrand is easier to get in and out of it may attract new clients and save money for those that already call it home. Better connectivity changes the everyday decision making of each and every person who lives in the affected area.

Think of it this way. In 1998 a 56k internet connection changed the way people interacted with the internet. Fast forward to today where a DSL connection seems to be the norm and you get a much more vibrant internet with more economic potential than ever. The increase in speed changed the dynamics the web and created the internet we use today. Regardless of the medium, both connection devices, whether a bridge or a fiber-optic cable, are connecting people and ideas with other people and ideas. Making these connections faster or more convenient plays into the emergent nature of human society. All this is still just a fridge benefit of the overall good a faster link would do for the State and Union area.   

^Cities are now resolving this with fixed transit connectivity instead of highways, which have been historically proven to be major negatives for urban neighborhoods.  Nevertheless, I still fail to see how a new bridge changes State and Union.  What type of environment do you envision State and Union transforming into by a new bridge being built along the St. Nicholas riverfront?

I'm willing to bet that even the best world class cities are not the void of a freeway or two. Unfortunately it is the world we live in and it's a world the Republicans are not going to give up anytime soon. What i envision is not any substantial lengthening of the system. It would simply add a connection that did not exist before. The resulting change in traffic patterns would possible negate the need for the Mathews expressway and a more cohesively connected urban core which can better infill and attract worthwhile businesses that people desire to go to and stay. I'm in no way shape or form in support of the Outer Beltway project, or similar ventures. Humans have lived in civil societies for thousands of years, suburbia is not civil society. If the city's nucleus is healthy it is in a better place to extend that health further out. I see health as effective public transportation. 

Ideally, make them two way.  That would cut down on the speeding through there mentality.  They really are virtual expressways.  Everytime I slow down to turn right on Main, I'm afraid I'll get rear ended by someone barreling along who hasn't noticed I'd like to turn before we get all the way to I-95. :-)  If they were regular downtown feeder streets, traffic could still use them to navigate between the Matthews Bridge and I-95, just not at the speed of light.

Quote from: Mathew1056 on October 23, 2012, 11:20:28 PM
I'm willing to bet that even the best world class cities are not the void of a freeway or two. Unfortunately it is the world we live in and it's a world the Republicans are not going to give up anytime soon. What i envision is not any substantial lengthening of the system. It would simply add a connection that did not exist before. The resulting change in traffic patterns would possible negate the need for the Mathews expressway and a more cohesively connected urban core which can better infill and attract worthwhile businesses that people desire to go to and stay. I'm in no way shape or form in support of the Outer Beltway project, or similar ventures. Humans have lived in civil societies for thousands of years, suburbia is not civil society. If the city's nucleus is healthy it is in a better place to extend that health further out. I see health as effective public transportation. 

Between this and replacing the Matthews Bridge, we'd be looking at spending over $2 billion dollars on capital costs alone.  If we could muster up that kind of cash, we could literally rebuild the entire urban core into whatever we wanted.  $2 billion could literally fund a comprehensive county wide mass transit system.

Also, there is no need for a Matthews Bridge Expressway.  It and the Hart Bridge Expressway should be removed and turned into grand boulevards when their life spans end.  Furthermore, siphoning off traffic is a sure fire way to hurt your chances at market rate commercial development.  Looking no further than Jacksonville's city limits, the construction of our original expressway system directly led to the decline of several historical commercial corridors (ex. Main, Davis, Edison, Florida, etc.) throughout the city.  The traffic counts on State and Union are actually assets that we aren't utilizing to our advantage. We can improve the area without spending significant capital costs and long term maintenance costs with a structure that will never pay for itself.  That's cash that could be used in improving our mass transit, cultural institutions, public schools, parks, police/fire, etc.

Go, Lake!  You think big.  Knock those suckers down now, and build the grand boulevards. Encourage development all along that corridor that's currently in the shadow of the expressways.  Why wait 20 or 50 years more?  By the time their "life span" ends, we could have done it now and have a vibrant area where they currently sit.

I won't hold my breath.  But it sure is a good idea.

Hmmm, from a everyday person's perspective, this new bridge seems to do nothing but destroy another older neighborhood (St. Nicolas?) but might redevelop Arlington? And I don't see any benefit to State and Union?   I suppose that after it was built, you could do what many are hoping for and turn State and Union into those grand boulevards, but then the commuter traffic would go the new way and state and union may no longer justify the commercial development then?

It seems to me that the entire issue with the roads Downtown is that they do nothing but attempt to move traffic right on through.  They make it hard to go anywhere in the urban core but easy to get out of it. That needs to change to make the urban core successful.  And if you can do that, make the urban core a place people want to see and be, then the commuters won't mind a bit longer commute, in fact, they will look forward to stopping off in the urban core to meet a friend or to pick up that special meal they can't get anywhere else. Another way out of the Urban Core is the last thing we seem to need.

At least, that is how this layman sees it.

Yeah I live right at the western foot of the "eighth bridge" being discussed, not a fan of that idea.  We have plenty of bridges downtown.

I'm with the camp that that elevated hart bridge and the expressway section west of MLK expressway should be removed at the end of their useful lives.  Let MLK continue to connect to the bridges as an expesssway for those that are trying to get from I-95 to Arlington/Beaches.

That OKC freeway is actually far more incredible then you realize. The North Canadian River typically has a flood plain, along this flood plain and just above the levees was an old abandoned railroad yard and sundry pipe yards (acres of metal pipes and materials used in the oil fields - definitely not picturesque).

In the meanwhile, the old I-40 through downtown was exactly the type of freeway on a bridge that you describe. It did absolutely NOTHING for the vibrancy of downtown and even though it was entirely elevated, it might as well have been a 30 foot high wall. Everything south of the freeway rotted away in a no mans land of a clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous junk.

Killing that freeway was the key to opening the former south side of that super slab to rehabilitation and that rehabilitation has come on fast and furious, even before the old route has been completely disassembled. Now there are plans for a grand Parisian style boulevard, a lineal park and fixed route mass transit to replace the route of those old bridges.

So OKC is not only relevant, it is an example of smashing success by doing the precise opposite of another elevated freeway. BTW, the new I-40 is largely at surface level. I was involved in the early stages of the planning in downtown OKC, as one who was there, the result of taking downtown pedestrian has changed the course of their history.

Simply changing the ramps to and from the Hart and Matthews Bridges to create a wide inviting link onto MLK, and taking down both the Commodore Point and Arlington Expressways west of those bridge ramps. replacing them with context sensitive tree lined, two way boulevards, would change the face of Jacksonville. Toss in an extended Skyway (Bay Street and Hogan) and Streetcar (Beaver and Duval) and the north and east side of downtown would flourish.

Jacksonville has much better fabric to work with, but Jurassic leadership driving the bus.

I worked in downtown OKC in 1975-1976.  At that time, I thought the tunnel connecting the major downtown buildings was cool.  Ock has me excited to go back to OKC and see the changes.

If OKC can do it, we can do it.

In 1989 the Dames Point Bridge opened at a cost of $117 million dollars. Today the bridge is highly used and I'm sure the economic impact on Blunt Island is huge. Without a doubt cost have risen since then, but a billion dollar price tag is a little unfair to stick on this project. This is not the Big Dig it is just a bridge.

To address the issue of St. Nicolas, I'm not really sure how it would destroy that neighborhood. Twenty or so homes will have there view of downtown altered, but it does not bisect the community. The bridge doesn't bisect anything for that matter. It connects into two freeway systems that exist next to the river in the fist place. I'm not asking to build another Brown Monster like the Mathews Bridge. It would have to add to the skyline of Jacksonville and make people want to have a view of it. I've seen plenty of bridges that do just that.

I feel like I'm arguing against my own religion, but vehicles play an important role in our lives and will for sometime to come. The industries, people, and organizations behind vehicle production will see to it that cars don't die. Throw in the fact that we live in a backwards ass town, which has the nerve to call itself the Bold City, and the best we can do is manage vehicle traffic responsibly. I'm all for getting rid of the mess that is the downtown portion of the Hart Bridge Expressway, or turning it into something like the New York Highline. Traffic from that bridge should exit onto Bay. Cars should be filtered into parking areas and made to feel that walking or take public transit is the best option. The urban core should offer those who want to opt in a chance to live in a real urban environment.

In regards to the Oklahoma City interstate project, I'm sure their master plan is great. Jacksonville has had some nice one in the past as well. The differences I see in the projects is that Oklahoma did not take out the portion of freeway and leave to open ends, forcing traffic to empty out onto the gridded street system. They reestablished a link with a ground level expressway, and what appears to be a higher capacity one at that. Regardless if the freeway is elevated or not it still will act as some kind of boundary. The bridge I propose will indeed be elevated, the only one I know of that isn't is in Seattle. Coupled with other initiative this project could help unify two neighborhoods that are highly dependent on the others success. The ridged border that is State and Union would be blurred allowing pedestrian and local traffic to move more freely.

Quote from: Mathew1056 on October 25, 2012, 06:38:52 AM
In 1989 the Dames Point Bridge opened at a cost of $117 million dollars. Today the bridge is highly used and I'm sure the economic impact on Blunt Island is huge. Without a doubt cost have risen since then, but a billion dollar price tag is a little unfair to stick on this project. This is not the Big Dig it is just a bridge.

The Dames Point was constructed in a location where there wasn't a river crossing for miles. In downtown, we have five within a two mile stretch.  Over the years traffic has actually decreased on most of them.  Also, speaking of economic impact, the Dames Point was constructed too low.  If we're going to talk economic impact, we also have to consider opportunity lost. Last, $1 billion isn't too far off.  Building a bridge is a lot more than just crossing the river.  In 2004, it was estimated that the Mathews Bridge project would cost as much as $932 million:

The Transportation Department is evaluating a 6-mile stretch that covers the Arlington Expressway from Southside Boulevard to the four-lane bridge , the bridge itself and the road that leads from the bridge into downtown as far as Liberty Street.

In addition to an eight-lane bridge , the Arlington Expressway would need widening to six lanes, and the road into downtown also should be six lanes to handle future traffic. The widening will necessitate expanding interchanges along the route so they are not chokepoints, according to Reynolds, Smith & Hills, which is the consultant hired by the state for the bridge study.

The study is still evaluating several alternatives. For instance, the options for the bridge are to build a new eight-lane bridge and tear down the old one, or keep the existing bridge and build a new four-lane span beside it. In that scenario, the new bridge would be four lanes in one direction, and the current bridge four lanes the opposite way.

The study also is considering a double-decker bridge . Depending on the alternative, the cost of the bridge would range from $272 million to $543 million.

For the entire 6-mile road corridor, including a wider bridge , the total cost would range from $569 million to $923 million, also depending on what alternatives are used in the different segments.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061104/met_15838962.shtml

We'd be looking at still replacing the Mathews and its approaches, doing something with State & Union and adding a new river crossing as well.  For that, a number like $2 billion isn't a stretch.  It's conservative.

QuoteTo address the issue of St. Nicolas, I'm not really sure how it would destroy that neighborhood. Twenty or so homes will have there view of downtown altered, but it does not bisect the community. The bridge doesn't bisect anything for that matter. It connects into two freeway systems that exist next to the river in the fist place. I'm not asking to build another Brown Monster like the Mathews Bridge. It would have to add to the skyline of Jacksonville and make people want to have a view of it. I've seen plenty of bridges that do just that.

I'd imagine there would be significant economic impact on St. Nicholas in the form of destroyed wetlands, view corridors, and noise.

QuoteI feel like I'm arguing against my own religion, but vehicles play an important role in our lives and will for sometime to come. The industries, people, and organizations behind vehicle production will see to it that cars don't die. Throw in the fact that we live in a backwards ass town, which has the nerve to call itself the Bold City, and the best we can do is manage vehicle traffic responsibly. I'm all for getting rid of the mess that is the downtown portion of the Hart Bridge Expressway, or turning it into something like the New York Highline. Traffic from that bridge should exit onto Bay. Cars should be filtered into parking areas and made to feel that walking or take public transit is the best option. The urban core should offer those who want to opt in a chance to live in a real urban environment.

Planning for vehicular movement is certainly not being overlooked in Jacksonville and a viable urban core can happen without another downtown expressway. We already have five bridges downtown and this structure wouldn't reduce traffic, it would actually cause more gridlock on the Fuller Warren.  So that's another hidden future cost of such a proposal.

QuoteIn regards to the Oklahoma City interstate project, I'm sure their master plan is great. Jacksonville has had some nice one in the past as well. The differences I see in the projects is that Oklahoma did not take out the portion of freeway and leave to open ends, forcing traffic to empty out onto the gridded street system. They reestablished a link with a ground level expressway, and what appears to be a higher capacity one at that. Regardless if the freeway is elevated or not it still will act as some kind of boundary.

Jacksonville's limited access connectivity between I-95 and the Mathews Bridge is MLK Parkway, which isn't operating anywhere near capacity.  Also, successful freeway removals over the last two decades or so include, Milwaukee's Park East Freeway, San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, NYC's Westside Highway, and Portland's Harbor Drive.  All have resulted in economic development of these city's urban cores and now more are following suit:

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysPlansProposals.html (http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysPlansProposals.html)

QuoteThe bridge I propose will indeed be elevated, the only one I know of that isn't is in Seattle. Coupled with other initiative this project could help unify two neighborhoods that are highly dependent on the others success. The ridged border that is State and Union would be blurred allowing pedestrian and local traffic to move more freely.

We can unify these neighborhoods without coming up with an extra billion or so for a new bridge structure, which would never pay for itself, funnel too much traffic to the already congested Fuller Warren and reduce the quality of life of historic St. Nicholas.

If the city is considering spending the 500-900 million dollars on upgrading the Arlington expressway do you think we are anywhere near a point where they will be considering restructuring there transportation infrustruture to the point where removing freeways is on their agenda. I'm actually for the removal of the MLK Expressway, even with the addition of a new bridge. MKL does offer limited-access connection with the Hart and Mathews. The only problem is no one who is heading south on 95 or west on 10 are going to consider using it. Spatially it is easier for the average driver to calculate MLK as an inefficient route, even with the addition of signage.

As fare as the hidden cost of more vehicles on the fuller warren, I wound how many of those who cross it today are exiting onto state and union. The addition of a bride may peal off some of the traffic currently moving over that bridge.

In my view the impact would be minimal to St. Nicolas. The lot ajacent to the school board build, from what I understand, is contaminated. The impact on actual land would seem minimal. The view for a small portion of homes would be disrupted, but this argument makes me recall Kennedy's push to stop a wind farm from being build off the coast from his house. Are we trying to benefit the few or the masses? Like I said before, to mitigate that effect building an iconic structure would help add to their view, not destroy it.

If the cost truely would be in the billion to 2 billion dollar range than I concede to you. That is an expense that no government office is willing to dish out at this time. I still believe that in theory removing the heavy traffic on state and union and building a bridge better connecting east and west side of the city would has a positive effect for both suburban and urban camps.

Quote from: Mathew1056 on October 25, 2012, 08:14:46 AMAs fare as the hidden cost of more vehicles on the fuller warren, I wounded how many of those who cross it today are exiting onto state and union. The addition of a bride may peal off some of the traffic currently moving over that bridge.

Why would anyone crossing the Fuller Warren then head to State and Union to cross the Matthews?  That would make no sense in any situation.

Quote from: Mathew1056 on October 25, 2012, 08:14:46 AM
If the city is considering spending the 500-900 million dollars on upgrading the Arlington expressway do you think we are anywhere near a point where they will be considering restructuring there transportation infrustruture to the point where removing freeways is on their agenda. I'm actually for the removal of the MLK Expressway, even with the addition of a new bridge. MKL does offer limited-access connection with the Hart and Mathews. The only problem is no one who is heading south on 95 or west on 10 are going to consider using it. Spatially it is easier calculable to the average driver to be an inefficient route, even with the addition of signage.

MLK provides access to the port terminals and industries on Talleyrand.  It's also a through traffic bypass for the Northside, which at the time, had twice as many people and density.

QuoteAs fare as the hidden cost of more vehicles on the fuller warren, I wounded how many of those who cross it today are exiting onto state and union. The addition of a bride may peal off some of the traffic currently moving over that bridge.

Most likely that number is minimal.  There's no reason to cross the Fuller Warren and circle back to Union Street.  Depending on where you're traveling from, I-295 East Beltway, Southside Blvd., University Blvd., Emerson St./Atlantic, Main Street Bridge, Acosta Bridge, etc. could all be more efficient options.  For me, I take either Southside or University to reach Arlington.

QuoteIn my view the impact would be minimal to St. Nicolas. The lot ajacent to the school board build, from what I understand, is contaminated. The impact on actual land would seem minimal. The view for a small portion of homes would be disrupted, but this argument makes me recall Kennedy's push to stop a windfarm being build of the coast from his house. Are we trying to benefits the few or the masses? Like I said before, to mitigate that effect building an iconic structure would help add to their view, not destroy it.

The benefits you are promoting don't outweigh the negatives.  What happens with downtown isn't necessarily contingent on this suggested crossing, there would be negative environmental and economic impacts to St. Nicholas, and the cost would be extreme to taxpayers.  Also, there are far more affordable traffic calming alternatives worth exploring.

QuoteIf the cost truely would be in the billion to 2 billion dollar range than I concede to you. That is an expense that no government office is willing to dish out at this time. I still believe that in theory removing the heavy traffic on state and union and building a bridge better connecting east and west side of the city would has a positive effect for both suburban and urban camps.

$2 billion is a conservative number.  Interchanges at I-95's Overland Bridge and the Mathews Bridge would probably run you over $200 million each.  On top of that, you'd literally have to rebuild I-95 between I-10 and Philips Highway/Emerson to accommodate it.  Btw, I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air.  This is what I do for a living.

ACME, I'm with you, although I made that traip a couple times when I first moved to Jax many years ago before I was confortable with the local roads.  :)   With Southside, University, 9A, etc. there is no reason to access Arlington/Beaches from the south end of the city via downtown.

It's my understanding that the vast majority of the Arlinton/State, Union traffic is headed to theNorthside or the Westside via I10 (visa versa).



And Matthew, I'm not trying to pile on.  Your proposal is something that I haven't seen suggested or thought of myself, and I find it to be pretty interesting.  I think the Matthews and State/Union corridor is here to stay and could easily be improved by doing what Ock and Lake have suggested and that is to bring everything back down to grade, eliminating as much of the limited access highway as possible, and create a broad parkway complete with pedestrian oriented access and wide separated bike lanes.  This would easily apply to the Hart Expressway along Bay Street as well.   IMO, both options together would open up acres or urban land for dense infill development, create natural transit corridors, and GREATLY enhance connectivity throughout the north and east sides of the downtown area.

We should remove ALL bridges. Then set up a program of CanoeShare. There would be thousands of hand-crafted canoes (by native Timucuans) on both sides of the river and commuters could paddle leisurely across to their jobs, enjoy nature and get much-needed exercise at the same time. The canoes would be free to use, paid for with a surtax on Town Center purchases. (As this is Jacksonville, gay people would not be allowed to use the canoes). No one would steal them because this is a new world where everyone is honest, hip and eats farm-to-table. Isn't this what they do in Portland and Asheville and Amsterdam, the mythical problem-free cities that all metrojax readers dream of? Canoe power!!!

As for costs, the new Portland, Oregon - Vancouver, Washington bridge over the Columbia River is even more costly then Lakes estimate. It too crosses a river of similar size that is also a shipping channel.

QuoteColumbia River Crossing" is the name given to the process of planning for an improved bridge connection across the Columbia River along the Interstate 5 corridor, replacing or supplementing the Interstate Bridge.

The project, estimated as of November 2009 to cost between $2.6 billion and $3.6 billion, would extend the Yellow Line to Vancouver as far as Clark College, hang a bicycle and pedestrian path beneath the northbound traffic lanes and build 8 to 12 lanes for auto traffic across the river, including three "through lanes" in each direction and one to three "auxiliary lanes" in each direction for traffic getting on or off the highway inside the "project area," which stretches from Columbia Boulevard in Portland to state Highway 500 in Vancouver.

I don't think we realize how much road and bridge construction costs.  It runs us more than $20 million just to repaint some of these bridges around here.  The I-95/I-10 interchange project cost $200 million and replacing the Overland Bridge between Main Street and Atlantic Boulevard is going to be about the same.  The Heckscher Drive bridge replacement over Sisters Creek is estimated to cost $52 million.  For the life of me, I can't understand why very few car about these numbers but as soon as a $30 million 3 or 4 mile streetcar line is proposed, or a couple of hundred thousand is needed for the ferry, we can't afford it.

I hope the readers of MetroJacksonville don't think that I'm some kook with an ill conceived notion, or worse a Fox News watcher. Cost is definitely worth considering and long-term cost are hidden and based on the materials used to construct a bridge and should be calculated. if the project included the long term possiblity of converting the bridge to river crossing to accommodate future transit would it be more viable?

Nobody thinks you're a kook.  It's people like you that think out of the box that we need more of in this city!

Keep discussing and keep sharing your ideas, that's what we're all here to do.

Mathew, I believe the Mathews Bridge replacement project included room for transit, bicycle, and ped in its capital cost to connect Arlington with downtown.  Oh, and welcome to the forums.  The discussion is an enjoyable one that challenges everyone's thinking.  I believe this is how the best ideas come to light.

Thank you for the warm welcome. I have plenty of ideas to pose to the contributers of MetroJax. I believe the best answers to the problems we face in Jacksonville should be discussed in a similar form. To be wrong is to learn. I've been an observer of the conversation that take place on here for sometime. By far the best ideas seem to come from the collective minds here. It's a nice alternative to the numbskulls at the T-U. I look forward to being challenged in the future.