Houdini has nothing on these guys. FDOT just pulled a rabbit out of some place with this one. $120 million has been found to widen the Fuller Warren Bridge and to construct a flyover from the I-10/95 interchange to Roosevelt Boulevard. Work starts in 2016.
(http://www.gethatched.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cartoon_of_a_magician_pulling_a_rabbit_out_of_his_hat_0521-1008-0712-5258_SMU.jpg)
http://news.wjct.org/post/fuller-warren-bridge-widening-fdot-public-hearing-agenda-tonight
On CBS47 News tonight I thought they indicated this was adding lanes in between existing structure for the toll express lanes. Also they said not funded yet. I could have heard it wrong though.
State lawmakers will review the list of proposed projects and possibly approve the funding when they meet in March.
Jesus!! When we bought our house here in riverside in March of 95 they started on the bridge a few months later...now they're widening already??? Are they ever going to be finished with that fakakta bridge???
edjax - different projects, Action News talked about express lanes (with tolls) on 2 parts of I-295: between the Buckman Bridge and I95, and between JTB and 9B. The report I saw didn't mention the project thelakelander is talking about.
That's a lot of money to invest into a money losing bridge.
Wouldn't it be more prudent for the City to lobby FDOT to divert those funds towards constructing a new Matthews Bridge?
Talk about priorities. True the Fuller Warren gets congested, but its still a relatively new bridge and traffic is manageable for the time being. The new Matthews bridge on the other hand may cost north of a half billion dollars and I can imagine every single penny is needed for that project.
So is this FDOTs way of backhandedly admitting that they totally flubbed the design of the I-10 to 95 south merger? Because it's not so much a capacity issue (you have like 6 lanes going north to 3 going south, all eventually merging on to one technical lane to get to 95 sb. whoever did the traffic study needed to be fired) as it is a poor design issue.
is it possible to see a rendering of this new ramp proposed?
also is it possible that the newly proposed widening might also include a local Lane between Park Street and San Marco much the same as what currently exists on the west/northbound side of the bridge from San Marcos to Park Street not requiring a merge?
Is there any information available on proposed layouts or alternatives for the Mathews replacement?
Work has been underway in Atlanta for the flyover connecting GA 400 and I-85.
I wonder if this $120 million investment will include a bike/ped connection across the river to tie Riverside and San Marco together?
^ Come 'on Man!
You should know better than that Ennis. ;)
Quote from: chipwich on December 10, 2013, 12:23:40 AM
Wouldn't it be more prudent for the City to lobby FDOT to divert those funds towards constructing a new Matthews Bridge?
Talk about priorities. True the Fuller Warren gets congested, but its still a relatively new bridge and traffic is manageable for the time being. The new Matthews bridge on the other hand may cost north of a half billion dollars and I can imagine every single penny is needed for that project.
It was estimated at $700M about 8 years ago. Venture to say its closer to a billion now.
I can't imagine a new Mathews without lane expansion (atleast six lanes). A new six lane Mathews, plus lane expansion on that corridor would be astronomical in price. The feds are looking at priority number one, the very important I-95 over any other bridge in Jax. I personally think that the Fuller Warren is okay now, but that doesn't matter. Whatever the feds want, they're gonna get.
From what I understand, this project is being considered an "operational improvement" so less analysis and public involvement is needed...seems a bit of a stretch to me and leaders need to ask some serious questions of FDOT.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on December 10, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
So is this FDOTs way of backhandedly admitting that they totally flubbed the design of the I-10 to 95 south merger? Because it's not so much a capacity issue (you have like 6 lanes going north to 3 going south, all eventually merging on to one technical lane to get to 95 sb. whoever did the traffic study needed to be fired) as it is a poor design issue.
Absolutely. The interchange is a clusterfuck and everyone involved should be barred from any such projects going forward.
.....unfortunately, the FDOT managed to win an award for this. Ugh.
http://www.prlog.org/11707337-jacksonvilles-10i-95-interchange-named-americas-best-transportation-project.html
Note: Beware. WJCT site and link is compromised at this time.
We are very concerned as nearby residents to this interchange. Also, the impact of more highway concrete over the historic Annie Lytle school will completely end any chances for the restoration of the school. Why, why, why?
I thought the I-295 beltway was supposed to reduce traffic over that bridge; that all the through traffic would go around and the bridge would only serve local traffic. Think how much money they would save by just changing the signs to make the portion through town into I-295 and the beltway section into I-95.
They had better be able to put the new lanes inside the footprint of what is already there. There is no room for additional right-of-way without taking out the neighborhoods on both sides.
Quote from: Josh on December 10, 2013, 10:52:09 AM
Quote from: RiversideLoki on December 10, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
So is this FDOTs way of backhandedly admitting that they totally flubbed the design of the I-10 to 95 south merger? Because it's not so much a capacity issue (you have like 6 lanes going north to 3 going south, all eventually merging on to one technical lane to get to 95 sb. whoever did the traffic study needed to be fired) as it is a poor design issue.
Absolutely. The interchange is a clusterfuck and everyone involved should be barred from any such projects going forward.
.....unfortunately, the FDOT managed to win an award for this. Ugh.
http://www.prlog.org/11707337-jacksonvilles-10i-95-interchange-named-americas-best-transportation-project.html
The traffic projections for vehicles using the single I-10 EB to I-95 SB ramp were woefully underrepresented (i.e. botched) during the planning phase of the project. Now over 100MM will have to be spent to help "fix" a project that really isn't all that old.
Yes, more land will be needed. $15 million is being set aside for ROW acquisition. A six story building in Five Points will have to be demolished to make room. No word on Annie Lytle. If the on and off ramps on the south side of the bridge have to be rebuilt, there's really no excuse for not including a bike/ped connection between Riverside and San Marco to this.
QuoteIn downtown, the highway and the bridge approaches are tightly flanked by buildings and neighborhoods on either side. The $136 million for widening the bridge includes almost $15 million to buy right of way.
A six-story office building at 751 Oak St. in the Riverside neighborhood will have to be torn down to make room. The building is home to insurance and medical offices.
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-12-10/story/fuller-warren-bridge-downtown-jacksonville-will-be-widened-8-lanes
Quote from: cline on December 10, 2013, 12:31:32 PM
Quote from: Josh on December 10, 2013, 10:52:09 AM
Quote from: RiversideLoki on December 10, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
So is this FDOTs way of backhandedly admitting that they totally flubbed the design of the I-10 to 95 south merger? Because it's not so much a capacity issue (you have like 6 lanes going north to 3 going south, all eventually merging on to one technical lane to get to 95 sb. whoever did the traffic study needed to be fired) as it is a poor design issue.
Absolutely. The interchange is a clusterfuck and everyone involved should be barred from any such projects going forward.
.....unfortunately, the FDOT managed to win an award for this. Ugh.
http://www.prlog.org/11707337-jacksonvilles-10i-95-interchange-named-americas-best-transportation-project.html
The traffic projections for vehicles using the single I-10 EB to I-95 SB ramp were woefully underrepresented (i.e. botched) during the planning phase of the project. Now over 100MM will have to be spent to help "fix" a project that really isn't all that old.
Yeah, I presume the planners
assumed that only those merging from Stockton St would utilize that ramp, which while overkill for that amount of traffic, I wonder if somehow limiting it to that pattern would help improve things. I don't think there was much human element in their planning simulations.
I love it when I merge onto 95N from 10 and the actual 95S exit lanes are empty, and the alternate ramp on the far right is backed up with people trying to go that way.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2013, 12:56:24 PM
Yes, more land will be needed. $15 million is being set aside for ROW acquisition. A six story building in Five Points will have to be demolished to make room. No word on Annie Lytle. If the on and off ramps on the south side of the bridge have to be rebuilt, there's really no excuse for not including a bike/ped connection between Riverside and San Marco to this.
QuoteIn downtown, the highway and the bridge approaches are tightly flanked by buildings and neighborhoods on either side. The $136 million for widening the bridge includes almost $15 million to buy right of way.
A six-story office building at 751 Oak St. in the Riverside neighborhood will have to be torn down to make room. The building is home to insurance and medical offices.
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-12-10/story/fuller-warren-bridge-downtown-jacksonville-will-be-widened-8-lanes
So if that building has to be taken down could this project also have adverse effects on the potential dog park?
QuoteYes, more land will be needed. $15 million is being set aside for ROW acquisition. A six story building in Five Points will have to be demolished to make room.
That's got to make the owner of that high vacancy building very happy. But what about the Vystar branch right behind it? Maybe they are going to have shaded parking now.
Quote from: cline on December 10, 2013, 01:21:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2013, 12:56:24 PM
Yes, more land will be needed. $15 million is being set aside for ROW acquisition. A six story building in Five Points will have to be demolished to make room. No word on Annie Lytle. If the on and off ramps on the south side of the bridge have to be rebuilt, there's really no excuse for not including a bike/ped connection between Riverside and San Marco to this.
QuoteIn downtown, the highway and the bridge approaches are tightly flanked by buildings and neighborhoods on either side. The $136 million for widening the bridge includes almost $15 million to buy right of way.
A six-story office building at 751 Oak St. in the Riverside neighborhood will have to be torn down to make room. The building is home to insurance and medical offices.
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-12-10/story/fuller-warren-bridge-downtown-jacksonville-will-be-widened-8-lanes
So if that building has to be taken down could this project also have adverse effects on the potential dog park?
Probably. I haven't seen the final plans for the dog park or FDOT's sketch just yet. However, I'm pretty sure no one was thinking about a dog park when they were coming up with the conceptual design for this road project.
FDOT just recently signed a contract about that dog park and they must have known about this redesign by then. If they go much higher with their flyovers in that area, they are going to have to issue oxygen bottles.
The neighborhood is already jarred every few minutes by big rigs doing engine braking down the northern most flyover now but since this is an "up" ramp maybe the problem won't increase.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2013, 01:24:49 PM
Quote from: cline on December 10, 2013, 01:21:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2013, 12:56:24 PM
Yes, more land will be needed. $15 million is being set aside for ROW acquisition. A six story building in Five Points will have to be demolished to make room. No word on Annie Lytle. If the on and off ramps on the south side of the bridge have to be rebuilt, there's really no excuse for not including a bike/ped connection between Riverside and San Marco to this.
QuoteIn downtown, the highway and the bridge approaches are tightly flanked by buildings and neighborhoods on either side. The $136 million for widening the bridge includes almost $15 million to buy right of way.
A six-story office building at 751 Oak St. in the Riverside neighborhood will have to be torn down to make room. The building is home to insurance and medical offices.
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-12-10/story/fuller-warren-bridge-downtown-jacksonville-will-be-widened-8-lanes
So if that building has to be taken down could this project also have adverse effects on the potential dog park?
Probably. I haven't seen the final plans for the dog park or FDOT's sketch just yet. However, I'm pretty sure no one was thinking about a dog park when they were coming up with the conceptual design for this road project.
I'm fairly certain that RAP had discussions with FDOT regarding the dog park. If this project wasn't mentioned by FDOT during those talks then that is really not cool. Unless, I suppose, they figured it wouldn't impact the dog park. I still would think they would have mentioned it though- its kind of a major project.
If they are going to widen the bridge they should add pedestrian / bikeway and reserve space for streetcar/ skyway crossing.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 10, 2013, 01:31:30 PM
If they are going to widen the bridge they should add pedestrian / bikeway and reserve space for streetcar/ skyway crossing.
FDOT? Bicycles, pedestrians, mass transit? They are traffic engineers not city planners.
This project needs to be stopped, period. It is f_ _ _ ing ridiculous. They can spend the money on undoing that monstrity they just built that is a cluster as someone mentioned earlier.
^+1000! Once a day traffic backs up in one place for an hour. Big whoop.
Just learned that FDOT did NOT talk to RAP about this project in their discussions about the Dog Park.
Not cool at all.
The bridge sits empty all night long. It's a huge waste.
So this one federal project has the potential to:
- Adversely affect the new Dog Park Project
- Adversely affect the Pedestrian Promenade between RAM and Riverside Park
- Level an office building
- Threaten a bank building and a Red Cross building
- Potentially alter/cancel RAM operating schedules
- Further threaten the future of the Anne Lyttle School, if not demolishing it entirely
- Bring increased construction and noise pollution to a residential neighborhood
- Continue construction-related traffic gridlock for an additional 10 years in hopes of a possible solution
And all with NO pedestrian scaled benefits for Jacksonville residents? Golly gee, where do we sign up?!
It most likely isn't a federal project (at least not yet)....this is purely a dream of some FDOT engineers in Tallahassee and Lake City
Downtown gridlock will be a wonder to behold. Musical too as impatient drivers weave around one-way streets and give a cheery toot of their horns.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on December 10, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
So is this FDOTs way of backhandedly admitting that they totally flubbed the design of the I-10 to 95 south merger? Because it's not so much a capacity issue (you have like 6 lanes going north to 3 going south, all eventually merging on to one technical lane to get to 95 sb. whoever did the traffic study needed to be fired) as it is a poor design issue.
When you take the 'bottlenecking' process into account (staying on I-95) it's actually about the same going North as going South. I-95 North just after I-10 has hella off-ramps to get off at Riverside, Forsyth, Monroe, Union etc.
Great summation, joshuataylor. You've perfectly described a road builder's dream project.
I go through this interchange several times a day. I think the 95S exit (far right) after stockton gets crazy backed up vs the far left lane exit; because the exits to the far left are merging to the actual direction of "north", and the far right is merging "south".
They win the award for "least intuitive interchange ever".
You aren't the only one to wonder about the non-intuitive design. Turn left to go North when coming from the East? Turn right to go North when coming from the West? Contrary to every other intersection you go through ten times each day. Let's suggest flogging each morning for the FDOT engineers. Of course they are all autistic and don't relate to intuitive.
Maybe it was some sort of psychological experiment but in cars we can't smell the cheese.
Maybe they over estimated the literacy of the population of the city. "What Do the Signs Say" forget the fox.
So smart it makes stupid.
Would love for a traffic engineer or planner to weigh in, but my understanding of the spaghetti design is that it was deemed necessary (or at least the best solution that the low bidder could come up with) in order to keep traffic flowing at all times on I-95 and I-10 during the construction of the interchange.
That's a ridiculous reason for a design that will supposedly be there forever if that is indeed true.
Quote from: Lunican on December 09, 2013, 11:33:07 PM
That's a lot of money to invest into a money losing bridge.
QuoteThe bridge sits empty all night long. It's a huge waste.
Definitely going to need to see an ROI on this project before we even start talking about it.
Besides, who wants to ride on a bridge anyways, they can get congested and sometimes they fall down. Whats the replacement cost if the bridge falls down? Needs to be factored in.
Quote from: kbhanson3 on December 10, 2013, 07:28:44 PM
Would love for a traffic engineer or planner to weigh in, but my understanding of the spaghetti design is that it was deemed necessary (or at least the best solution that the low bidder could come up with) in order to keep traffic flowing at all times on I-95 and I-10 during the construction of the interchange.
It's clear the design was primarily geared to ensure future expansion projects would be needed. You have to plan long term if you want to keep feeding the beast.
Riverside should be really paying attention b/c FDOT is about to destroy homes, businesses, parks and The Riverside Arts Market.. all with little need to engage the public.
This is perhaps the scariest thing to happen to Riverside since the original highway project that led to the formation of RAP.
Quote from: fieldafm on December 10, 2013, 09:02:28 PM
It's clear the design was primarily geared to ensure future expansion projects would be needed. You have to plan long term if you want to keep feeding the beast.
exactly
Can you guys provide specifics on the design that supports your position please?
Quote from: Kay on December 10, 2013, 09:58:13 PM
Can you guys provide specifics on the design that supports your position please?
You could start with the funneling of all 3 lanes of I-10E and combining that with the merge of 2 more lanes of 17N. Add in the trickle from the Stockton ramp and you essentially have 5+ lanes of traffic, splitting into two single 95S on-ramps that merge together just before the start of the bridge. Then on top of that CF, you have all 4 lanes of 95S thru traffic merging together at one point.
I'm no engineer, but when you try to cram 9 lanes of traffic into 3, you're going to have a bad time.
^Most of the preliminary ROW impacts are in Five Points (between Park & Riverside) and in North Riverside where the flyover will be. Since the flyover will be elevated, I wonder if there will be noise impacts in the vicinity of Rosselle between Riverside and Murray Hill? The area it will be going in is currently a wooded stretch surrounding the south branch of Mccoys Creek.
My only complaint about the interchange is that the signage could be better. It's light years ahead of that prehistoric 'interchange' years ago no matter how anyone try to spin it negatively. The Roosevelt lane merge into I-10East clearly presented a major challenge, that couldn't be rectified with a simple solution (like two lanes going I-95North, and the other two going I-95South) and given that, it's actually pretty well done. The DOT is in a 'no-win' situation by most on an urbanist website; No matter what they would have done (besides lane reduction from the 90's) would've been hated. Some mentioned that the interchange is 'geared for expansion' and they hit the nail on the head; It's clearly not the finished design.
Quote from: Kay on December 10, 2013, 07:46:13 PM
That's a ridiculous reason for a design that will supposedly be there forever if that is indeed true.
If it is indeed true, it would seem to make more sense that shutting the entire I-95 & I-10 interchange for several years in order to accomplish a perfect design rebuild and in the process detouring all of the interstate and local traffic to other area roads. We saw what the Mathews Bridge closure & resulting detours did to traffic for a short period of time....
If you want to get a sense for what the impact will be during construction on Riverside Park, the Artists Walk and the Riverside Arts Market, drive down Hendricks Avenue underneath the Overland Bridge and look to the east.
To Lake's question about noise: Our home is about 200 yards from the interstate merger. The highway noise has always been significant but since the most recent expansion of the interstate with elevated flyovers, the noise levels have increased dramatically. Road noise which was deflected by highway barriers is now above those barriers and reflecting into the neighborhood.
These road projects are affecting resale and value of the bungalows and cottages in this part of Riverside. We have mitigated to the extent possible for homeowners with landscaping, double pane windows, heavy doors. Most of our neighbors living in those bungalows do not have resources to handle increased noise. If you dream of a peaceful and attractive neighborhood for yourself and children, you will think twice about moving here. And anyone who thinks we should quit complaining and ask for a mitigating noise wall, imagine living in your neighborhood encased in concrete walls.
QuoteAnd anyone who thinks we should quit complaining
Riverside needs to get very, very loud on this issue. This highway expansion will have significant negative impacts on the neighborhood and our communinty in general.
So by looking at these plans, it is clear that quite a bit of work and effort has already gone into this project yet this is the first time people are hearing about it- shown at a public meeting as part of mandated Work Program meeting. That is unacceptable and reeks of deliberate secrecy.
I would suggest the whole urban core needs to get up on this one. Think about it:
The interchange was under construction from 2006-2010...followed by the Overland Bridge project from 2012-2016....and now this from 2016-2019.
Basically the core will have suffered through 15 years of construction that pretty much solely benefits people outside the core. Heck, extending this crap through the end of the decade will severely hamper efforts to attract companies downtown...and then the additional highway capacity will be a complete waste anyway!
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 10, 2013, 02:18:05 PM
Just learned that FDOT did NOT talk to RAP about this project in their discussions about the Dog Park.
Not cool at all.
Who cares whether they talk to RAP?
Quote from: MEGATRON on December 11, 2013, 09:06:36 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 10, 2013, 02:18:05 PM
Just learned that FDOT did NOT talk to RAP about this project in their discussions about the Dog Park.
Not cool at all.
Who cares whether they talk to RAP?
It matters because they were in direct negotiation with RAP about utilizing land for the dog park. One would think that when you're in negotiations you might bring up a project that could have a direct impact on this land.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 11, 2013, 09:05:15 AM
Basically the core will have suffered through 15 years of construction that pretty much solely benefits people outside the core. Heck, extending this crap through the end of the decade will severely hamper efforts to attract companies downtown...and then the additional highway capacity will be a complete waste anyway!
For once I don't want to punch tufsu after a post!!
I think everyone on this site will agree that in 2019 the Core will look nothing like it does today. Based on the growth of Brooklyn, expansion of the San Marco commercial districts towards the Southbank, the potential development of the trio as a catalyst for downtown, and general densification and connectivity growth within the core; we were on the right track to the most vibrant core that we've had in 30 years.
Whatever the area does in the next 6 years, this will hold it back and hamper the connectivity. This is a project for residents of the burbs at the expense of the core. If FDOT proposed a flyover through deerwood, it would be DOA. This is a denser area and a much denser QOL part of town. We can't let this go forward. It's not needed.
Hmm, continued multi-million roadway widening investments at the expense of the neighborhoods under them that will then be used to say we don't have congestion, so no need to improve mass transit.
QuoteWho cares whether they talk to RAP?
In this case, the expansion of the highway would affect a) the dog park b) the artists walk and c) Riverside Arts Market... all pieces of land that RAP either already has agreements with or is in the process of finalizing agreements with. I would find it hard to tell a tenant that is in the middle of a lease that their business will be rendered useless in a few days b/c I am tearing their office down so I can extend my own in order to have about 14 inches of more legroom.
Plus, this expansion will negatively effect homes and businesses in the Riverside neighborhood.... you would think a public agency would engage someone (anyone?) in the neighborhood in some meaningful way instead of just completely surprising everyone (with funding already identified) in a normally low-key, ho-hum meeting on Monday night (that is normally reserved to talk about capital projects that have already been vetted publicly) with the bare minimum of notice.
What kind of commuter rail system could be built for $135M? I'm guessing $135M would connect the Shoppes to Springfield by streetcar.
Being a road builder in Jax is like being a Nazi Hunter in Inglorious Basterds... as Brad Pitt said, "cousin business is a boomin".
But on a more serious note, I feel very sorry for the people who choose to live 30+ minutes from where they work. This isn't about the core of Jax, people. This is about making sure that Joe Fleming Island's 50 minute commute gets reduced to 45 minutes. We wouldn't want him to miss the start of Idol or Dancing with the Stars...That is what is at stake here. Not RAM, some dumb Dog Park, historic structures, or the attempt to create Florida's coolest urban neighborhood.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 11, 2013, 10:13:30 AM
What kind of commuter rail system could be built for $135M? I'm guessing $135M would connect the Shoppes to Springfield by streetcar.
Cincinnati is currently building a 4 mile long streetcar route for $133MM (although the newly elected mayor wants to kill the project even though it has already been started).
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 11, 2013, 10:13:30 AM
What kind of commuter rail system could be built for $135M? I'm guessing $135M would connect the Shoppes to Springfield by streetcar.
it has been assumed that a no-frills starter system connecting Riverside, Springfield, and the Stadium area through downtown could be done for around $125 million
Quote from: CityLife on December 11, 2013, 10:14:20 AM
Being a road builder in Jax is like being a Nazi Hunter in Inglorious Basterds... as Brad Pitt said, "cousin business is a boomin".
But on a more serious note, I feel very sorry for the people who choose to live 30+ minutes from where they work. This isn't about the core of Jax people. This is about making sure that Joe Fleming Island's 50 minute commute gets reduced to 45 minutes. We wouldn't want him to miss the start of Idol or Dancing with the Stars...That is what is at stake here. Not RAM, some dumb Dog Park, historic structures, or the attempt to create Florida's coolest urban neighborhood.
What's sad is that even Joe Fleming Island won't see the benefit until well after the project is done in 15 years. In fact, before then, a slightly backed up commute would be replaced with many years of highway construction.
Being a former urban core dweller living out in Mandarin, I'm pretty happy about this. It does suck that the construction is non stop and yes it's not ideal for the neighborhood, but these are major highways that run the middle of our city.
And yes, i'd like my commute to be alil shorter. 295/95 all the way into downtown is way more congested than it used to be. We've outgrown our interstate system in its current form. I'm surprised 95 has only been 3 lanes for this long now.
C'mon this makes our city look bigger. Atlanta has 7-8 lanes going each way. Super highways are cool. It means we've finally arrived!
Quote from: David on December 11, 2013, 10:50:54 AM
Being a former urban core dweller living out in Mandarin, I'm pretty happy about this. It does suck that the construction is non stop and yes it's not ideal for the neighborhood, but these are major highways that run the middle of our city.
And yes, i'd like my commute to be alil shorter. 295/95 all the way into downtown is way more congested than it used to be. We've outgrown our interstate system in its current form. I'm surprised 95 has only been 3 lanes for this long now.
C'mon this makes our city look bigger. Atlanta has 7-8 lanes going each way. Super highways are cool. It means we've finally arrived!
Further encroaching on one of the best neighborhoods in the City is not "cool" and signifies nothing but ineptitude and lack of vision. I hoping that your post is meant to be sarcastic.
Yeah I'm assuming David is being sarcastic as well. We'll never build out our interstates fast enough to "meet demand". The best thing we can do is start looking at other ways to move eople throughout or city. Joe Fleming Island driving his Ford excursion up 95/295 to his job on Hecksher Drive is a systemic problem that can't be dealt with by adding a lane here and there. Joe could hop a commuter train up 17 to downtown and then transfer to the airport line to the Hecksher station and then handle the last mile by walking or regional shuttle. Not much longer commute for him and he does nothing to impede the commute of others.
We're also about to start building toll managed lanes so that Joe Fleming Island can more easily commute on I-295 if he chooses to pay a fee. Speaking of managed lanes, I wonder if FDOT is considering eventually tolling some of the lanes on the bridge.
It's hard to see from the "urban core" mentality but there's the rest of the city that needs these roads too.
I am being sarcastic about it being cool, but this is just part of living in a growing city. It happens.
This is an auto-centric city and that's not going to change anytime soon. I'm sure there were similar complaints in Atlanta as the connector grew from 8 to 12, to 16 lanes.
And having lived on both sides of the Jacksonville divide, the "Riverside oh the burbs suck" side and the Burbs "oh the schools are terrible in town" side. I think living in town you forget there's other people in this city who don't have the option of walking, riding a bike or taking a trolley sometimes. They have to rely on their cars. The bridge needs more capacity for the future.
The Buckman bridge carries less traffic and it has 4 lanes. So why not the Fuller Warren?
You cannot build your way out of congestion. You build it and more people will drive on it. It has been proven at the very spot where there is congestion now and has been ever since since the first bridge was built in the early 1950's. It has always been a congestion point and always will be no matter how many lanes they build. Close lanes and increase the congestion and people will find another route. Put tolls back on and people will find another route. Problem solved.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. FDOT is obviously full of insane people.
David, you chose to live across the river from where you work. You pay the price for that decision having to put up with a bit of a slow down in your commute. Don't make everyone else pay the price for you.
How do you guys know the type of vehicle I drive and how long my commute is?
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 11, 2013, 12:19:16 PM
David, you chose to live across the river from where you work. You pay the price for that decision having to put up with a bit of a slow down in your commute. Don't make everyone else pay the price for you.
Amen.
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 11, 2013, 12:19:16 PM
David, you chose to live across the river from where you work. You pay the price for that decision having to put up with a bit of a slow down in your commute. Don't make everyone else pay the price for you.
You're right, I personally contacted the FDOT and said "build more lanes!"
And if the schools didn't suck in Riverside I would live there, but alas they do. So I can't. Not rich enough to do private either.
The reaction to this project surprises me honestly. How much is it really going to change the neighborhood? An office building, a dog park. It's not the end of the world.
My parent's Englewood neighborhood was cut in half by I-95. This isn't so bad.
Quote from: Joe Fleming Island on December 11, 2013, 12:22:54 PM
How do you guys know the type of vehicle I drive and how long my commute is?
Hey, Joe and welcome to the forum. Seems that you are the butt of many sarcastic remarks. I'm sure some of these smartasez are sorry that they had to pick on you. They don't know anyone else to blame. Personally, I think you are not to blame. Heck, you drive the highways that are provided for you. Most of us forum crawlers do the same but we like to pretend that we all use another form of transportation.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on December 11, 2013, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: Joe Fleming Island on December 11, 2013, 12:22:54 PM
How do you guys know the type of vehicle I drive and how long my commute is?
Hey, Joe and welcome to the forum. Seems that you are the butt of many sarcastic remarks. I'm sure some of these smartasez are sorry that they had to pick on you. They don't know anyone else to blame. Personally, I think you are not to blame. Heck, you drive the highways that are provided for you. Most of us forum crawlers do the same but we like to pretend that we all use another form of transportation.
They need to commute daily on Metro-North, for at least 1 year, and then reflect. It's cool, you get to:
- walk to the station in all kinds of weather
- try/fight to get a seat (avoid the middle one at all costs)
- find a spot for your outerwear
- interact with some of the crabbiest people on earth
- walk to work from the station
- do it all over again on the way home
Joe Fleming Island says "Never Again!. Give me nice highways and a lot of them!"
Quote from: fieldafm on December 11, 2013, 10:07:05 AM
QuoteWho cares whether they talk to RAP?
Plus, this expansion will negatively effect homes and businesses in the Riverside neighborhood.... you would think a public agency would engage someone (anyone?) in the neighborhood in some meaningful way instead of just completely surprising everyone (with funding already identified) in a normally low-key, ho-hum meeting on Monday night (that is normally reserved to talk about capital projects that have already been vetted publicly) with the bare minimum of notice.
Then host a community meeting. RAP does not speak for all of us.
Quote from: Joe Fleming Island on December 11, 2013, 12:22:54 PM
How do you guys know the type of vehicle I drive and how long my commute is?
We know because the Census Bureau tells us that Clay County commute times are 2nd longest in the state- over 30 minutes.
Quote from: David on December 11, 2013, 12:04:12 PM
This is an auto-centric city and that's not going to change anytime soon. I'm sure there were similar complaints in Atlanta as the connector grew from 8 to 12, to 16 lanes.
Yeah, but the answer is not to make it more auto-centric which is what the expansion will do. How has the expansion of Atlanta highways affected traffic in ATL? Any less congested? That's what I thought.
Quote from: David on December 11, 2013, 12:28:29 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 11, 2013, 12:19:16 PM
David, you chose to live across the river from where you work. You pay the price for that decision having to put up with a bit of a slow down in your commute. Don't make everyone else pay the price for you.
You're right, I personally contacted the FDOT and said "build more lanes!"
And if the schools didn't suck in Riverside I would live there, but alas they do. So I can't. Not rich enough to do private either.
The reaction to this project surprises me honestly. How much is it really going to change the neighborhood? An office building, a dog park. It's not the end of the world.
My parent's Englewood neighborhood was cut in half by I-95. This isn't so bad.
Using bad schools and the construction of 95 to justify another piss poor project. Fantastic reasoning there.
QuoteHere, a six story office building between Oak and May Streets will be demolished to accommodate more lanes on the Fuller Warren Bridge.
I never liked that building anyway, nothing, and I repeat nothing HISTORIC about that aluminum sided building.
If this does go through, perhaps the Dog Park will get the funding it needs from FDOT to clean up the mess they left the last time through!
QuoteThese road projects are affecting resale and value of the bungalows and cottages in this part of Riverside. We have mitigated to the extent possible for homeowners with landscaping, double pane windows, heavy doors. Most of our neighbors living in those bungalows do not have resources to handle increased noise. If you dream of a peaceful and attractive neighborhood for yourself and children, you will think twice about moving here. And anyone who thinks we should quit complaining and ask for a mitigating noise wall, imagine living in your neighborhood encased in concrete walls.
That is complete horse manure. The values in Riverside are some of the highest in the city & RISING, people don't judge the neighborhood based on the noise level of the roads. If they did, no one would live next to 295 near Baymeadows, but that area is BOOMING. It has to do with the amenities in the area, and Riverside is growing and thriving. You folks make it sounds as if adding more lanes will kill ANY and ALL infill in Brooklyn. Get real, get a grip, or move out to Middleburg where you probably belong.
If the Dog Park is an issue, there is PLENTY of Riverside Park to be utilized. If not there, there are 336 OTHER parks in Jacksonville where we could build the 1st City Dog Park. Relax, breathe!
RAM can be moved to Memorial Park or Riverside Park for that matter. Both would thrive and do well with the event, or it can be moved as well, perhaps to 220 Riverside or the area where the old fire station is located, or Annie Lytle, get creative. Dr. Wood would not call this the end, merely a new opportunity.
FDOT's offices are right in front of the US17/10 interchange, how and why they built the 95/10 flyover is beyond any and all comprehension. They do what they do and we just live with it. I have my sunpass and I fly on it, so no big deal to me, bring it on FDOT!
Thank you, I thought so myself.
I called FDOT and said "hey, I need more lanes to weave in and out of while driving my SUV" They said no problem.
Doesn't seem like that bad of a project, still not sure what the ruckus is about. This very project happens in most newer U.S. cities that are growing.
The schools sucking is another issue. It's something in town schools should address if they want to stop everyone from defecting to the burbs in the name of a good public education.
And yes, the original interstate building project literally tore neighborhoods apart, what's the worst this one is going to do?
The article said they will be at maximum capacity when it's complete. There's no room for more expansion after this. Like my friend said, it should've been built this way to begin with. But it wasn't.
Just seems like everyone's getting upset over nothing.
QuoteAnd yes, the original interstate building project literally tore neighborhoods apart, what's the worst this one is going to do?
Just seems like everyone's getting upset over nothing.
Just b/c it was wrong in the 50's, doesnt make it any less wrong now. Hopefully, the community demands better.
Tearing down homes, businesses and cultural institutions has got to stop. I lived in Atlanta. I sure as hell wouldnt have wanted to tear down parts of Georgia Tech to widen some highway lanes... and I commuted 50 minutes one way to work.
QuoteThen host a community meeting. RAP does not speak for all of us.
They need to host a whole hell of a lot of them. If you live in Riverside (or have ever gone to the Riverside Arts Market), this would be like backing up some Mayflower moving vans to Everbank Field at 1AM and start packing up in the quiet of the night.
This is very, very wrong.
QuoteThe schools sucking is another issue. It's something in town schools should address if they want to stop everyone from defecting to the burbs in the name of a good public education.
Yes, some urban schools do suck, but they are getting better. Pinedale is a "B" school, West Riverside has a new prinicple, so we are hopeful, but hey, if you are on Dancy to US17, you get to go to Fishweir which is an "A" school. So there are some very good urban schools at the elementary level. Lee seems to have had some nice upgrades and these grades are only about the achievements of the kids. This is the wrong forum for this, but the parents should be graded right along with the kids, because kids need role models. Back to the fun of I-95 and more lanes.
I agree with you on traffic, we don't have traffic here. Go to Atlanta or Miami or heck, Orlando, we don't have traffic. Orlando takes you an hour or two to go 5 miles on I-4 through downtown. This is nothing!
QuoteTearing down homes, businesses and cultural institutions has got to stop. I lived in Atlanta. I sure as hell wouldnt have wanted to tear down parts of Georgia Tech to widen some highway lanes... and I commuted 50 minutes one way to work.
I lived in Atlanta, Virginia-Highlands, dekalb county/city of atlanta. Some of GT needed to be torn down years ago, especially Techwood, but no one had the balls to do it until the Olympics came. Tech has survived and purchased buildings around it, much like Georgia State has done. I'd say both are doing well, even with 75/85 running through them and around them and over them.
Tearing down the aluminum eyesore "RPR or whatever it is called" in Riverside, is no loss to me. It is plain ugly. Tearing down the original City Hall at Ocean and Adams was a crime, because what we received was the 1960s version of a downtown public library, so ugly and decrepit, no one wants to use it now, as in no one is in it now.
Wow ridiculous. If it was april I would think its a joke. Put the money towards a train. period.
I keep hearing people mention this whole "adding pedestrian sidewalks to the FWB". Is that even possible on the side of a major highway? Last time I checked, the US Interstate Highway System discourages pedestrians, low speed mopeds etc; For good reason, your safety.
I get that the traffic is nothing compared to other cities, but if we don't expand capacity now and do nothing, then it will be just as bad one day and people will ask why they didn't do something ahead of time.
Building more roads doesn't fix everything but it's a major interstate intersection. It's not a shock they need to expand capacity.
And I'm definitely for a pedestrian option to be included. I did not like getting escorted off the Fuller Warren bridge by JSO last time I walked across it. (This was back in my urban core dwelling/ suburban-road hating days of course :D )
The Acosta's like an extra mile. That's 20 minutes on foot.
Quote from: David on December 11, 2013, 02:55:15 PM
if we don't expand capacity now and do nothing, then it will be just as bad one day and people will ask why they didn't do something ahead of time.
So what is this magic capacity number where all traffic will flow smoothly at all hours of the day? 6 lanes, 8 lanes, 10 lanes, 12 lanes? Sorry, but we could add 16 lanes and they will eventually get congested.
QuoteThe Acosta's like an extra mile. That's 20 minutes on foot.
Yeah, but that is along the Riverwalk, which is much cooler and nicer than the top of the Fuller Warren.
Why not send the big rigs around on I-295 like Atlanta does for I-285? Unless you have an in-town delivery, you send the trucks around on the bypass. So many options. I agree, a streetcar, Trolley, Bus, express lane should be added if they add the lanes.
Quote from: I-10east on December 11, 2013, 02:50:10 PMI keep hearing people mention this whole "adding pedestrian sidewalks to the FWB". Is that even possible on the side of a major highway?
When they rebuilt the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the D.C. Beltway, they added a pedestrian path to the northern span (westbound inner loop). So it is possible.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-07/news/36794301_1_bike-trails-national-trails-day-bike-path (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-07/news/36794301_1_bike-trails-national-trails-day-bike-path)
(http://www.traillink.com/imagehandler.ashx?id=50428&t=640)
QuoteWhen they rebuilt the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the D.C. Beltway, they added a pedestrian path to the northern span (westbound inner loop). So it is possible.
Awesome! We should do it here!!!!!
Quote from: cline on December 11, 2013, 02:58:26 PM
So what is this magic capacity number where all traffic will flow smoothly at all hours of the day? 6 lanes, 8 lanes, 10 lanes, 12 lanes? Sorry, but we could add 16 lanes and they will eventually get congested.
8 lanes total. More passing options. Even with 3 lanes each way you still get stuck behind cars next to each other doing the same exact speed.
No more than 8 though. If they try to go to 10 lanes I'll stand in front of the bulldozers.
Quote from: Traveller on December 11, 2013, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: I-10east on December 11, 2013, 02:50:10 PMI keep hearing people mention this whole "adding pedestrian sidewalks to the FWB". Is that even possible on the side of a major highway?
When they rebuilt the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the D.C. Beltway, they added a pedestrian path to the northern span (westbound inner loop). So it is possible.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-07/news/36794301_1_bike-trails-national-trails-day-bike-path (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-07/news/36794301_1_bike-trails-national-trails-day-bike-path)
(http://www.traillink.com/imagehandler.ashx?id=50428&t=640)
So THAT'S the one bridge.
Quote from: I-10east on December 11, 2013, 03:14:34 PM
So THAT'S the one bridge.
And Pittsburgh's Fort Duquesne Bridge (I-279) which was featured in the MJ article today...
^^^The FWB Expansion Project article, gotcha.
People all over town will use the road, but the construction primarily effects the people who live near it. Of course they should have a say in the development. And it's silly to argue that people in the urban core don't use it; I use it all the time to commute to my job in the suburbs, and so do a lot of people. However, I'm skeptical that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Hopefully it would be ultimately be faster at rush hour (for a few years anyway) but we could lose RAM and the proposed dog park, we could lose a bunch of homes, business offices, and other buildings. The area will be tied up with even more construction for years. And we will all lose $120 million in tax money that could go to something else.
Not to mention the fact that perpetual construction kind of negates the idea that either Joe Fleming Island or Jane Five Points will actually have a quicker commute at any time in the near future, or for any length of time before the next expansion occurs.
So looking at the proposed redering, where are they going to put the additional lanes? It's really difficult to tell, but with the on/off exits on the San Marco side and the interstate already being sandwiched by Baptist / Nemours....
Are they going to make 'magic' lanes?
Appears that the lanes on the South side of the bridge will hug Baptist a little tighter.
Quote from: David on December 11, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
The schools sucking is another issue. It's something in town schools should address if they want to stop everyone from defecting to the burbs in the name of a good public education.
That ^happening is directly tied to our city leaders pulling their heads out their arses, and putting the tax money where their mouths are.
Why not put that FDOT money into an overland bridge from I95 to the Mathews,(ala NOLA) and upgrade that bridge? OR if its about the 'burbs- build a new bridge between the Fuller Warren and the Buckman? Direct from 17 to Phillips/University?
I live (right now) directly next to I10, and I can see the whole interchange (and the top of the BOA building) from my front porch. I drive through it 10x a day some days. Its not worth it, not for that exact section. Especially if there's more 5 lane merging, and in the wrong actual direction in store.
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on December 11, 2013, 04:33:04 PM
OR if its about the 'burbs- build a new bridge between the Fuller Warren and the Buckman? Direct from 17 to Phillips/University?
Let's not get silly
Quote from: MEGATRON on December 11, 2013, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on December 11, 2013, 04:33:04 PM
OR if its about the 'burbs- build a new bridge between the Fuller Warren and the Buckman? Direct from 17 to Phillips/University?
Let's not get silly
Its not silly ... JTB was originally proposed to go through to San Jose and then over the river to 17. Needless to say, the community objected much the same as the Riverside community seems to be objecting to this proposal.
Realistically, I think the most you can expect in terms of DOT concessions is the possibility of a pedestrian lane. Otherwise, this upgrade is going to happen as designed.
Quote from: MEGATRON on December 11, 2013, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on December 11, 2013, 04:33:04 PM
OR if its about the 'burbs- build a new bridge between the Fuller Warren and the Buckman? Direct from 17 to Phillips/University?
Let's not get silly
That should have been done years and years ago, but now the costs would be astronomical, land acquisition would be a disaster, and it would tear apart more communities than this project.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 11, 2013, 04:16:37 PM
So looking at the proposed redering, where are they going to put the additional lanes? It's really difficult to tell, but with the on/off exits on the San Marco side and the interstate already being sandwiched by Baptist / Nemours....
Are they going to make 'magic' lanes?
The widening appears to be taking place on the southside of the bridge. You can see shift to the south where the Park Street ramp goes through that 6-story building instead of just north of it. New infrastructure appears to be highlighted in purple (elevated structure) and blue (ramps).
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/i-gZ3MwN8/0/XL/i95-Five%20Points%20Close-XL.jpg)
Quote from: I-10east on December 11, 2013, 03:14:34 PM
Quote from: Traveller on December 11, 2013, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: I-10east on December 11, 2013, 02:50:10 PMI keep hearing people mention this whole "adding pedestrian sidewalks to the FWB". Is that even possible on the side of a major highway?
When they rebuilt the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the D.C. Beltway, they added a pedestrian path to the northern span (westbound inner loop). So it is possible.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-07/news/36794301_1_bike-trails-national-trails-day-bike-path (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-07/news/36794301_1_bike-trails-national-trails-day-bike-path)
(http://www.traillink.com/imagehandler.ashx?id=50428&t=640)
So THAT'S the one bridge.
I thought you'd never ask! ;)
(http://www.waba.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/14th-st-bridge-path.jpg)
Crossing the Potomac River on I-395 in Washington, DCIn a quest to expose this sorry excuse residents have encountered from our industry professionals over the years, here's a comprehensive, yet partial, list of Interstate freeway bridges in the United States with bicycle/pedestrian crossings:
1. Scudder Falls bridge on I-95 between Pennsylvania and New Jersey
2. I-80 Carquinez Bridge linking Vallejo and Crockett CA - separated bicycle/pedestrian path.
3. Interstate 90 floating bridges across Lake Washington, Seattle - motor traffic lanes plus bike/ped lane immediately adjacent, separated by a cement barrier.
4. I-494 over the Mississippi River near Minneapolis, Minnesota - path is immediately adjacent to the freeway, separated by a stone barrier.
5. Squaw Peak Freeway in Phoenix AZ
6. Appalachian Trail at I-80 Delaware Water Gap NJ-PA
7. Wonders Way on the Ravenel Bridge Charleston S.C.
8. I-84 Newburgh Beacon Bridge over the Hudson River, NY
9. I-84 Bulkley Bridge over the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT - sidewalk on south side of bridge for bicycle/pedestrian use, separated by concrete barrier
10. I-278 Triboro Bridge, New York City
11. I-295, Tukeys Bridge, Portland, Maine - separated from the freeway by a jersey barrier; no known incidents
12. I-279 over the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh--12 ft ada compliant ped/bike lane cantilevered off the superstructure
13. I-95 Gold Star Memorial Bridge over the Thames River, New London, CT
14. George Washington Bridge I-95 NY-NJ includes a sidewalk accessible to pedestrians on the south side and a path accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians on the north side
15. Ben Franklin Bridge I-76 PA-NJI-494 bridge over the Mississippi River near Minneapolis, Minnesota
16. I-494 bridge over the Mississippi River near Minneapolis, Minnesota
17. I-95/I-495 (Woodrow Wilson) Bridge over the Potomac on the Capital Beltway in Washington, D.C., has an adjacent shared-use path on the bridge for more than a mile
18. I-90 bridge over the Fox River in the Chicago area has a bicycle path underneath the main bridge
19. I-80 crossing the eastern reaches of San Francisco Bay has an adjacent bicycle/pedestrian path
20. I-680 crossing San Francisco Bay in California will have an adjacent bicycle/pedestrian path
21. I-10 over the Colorado at Blythe, CA
22. I-80 Yolo Causeway bridge, between Sacramento and Davis, CA - approximately 3-mile section over the Yolo Bypass that includes a bike path physically separated by a barrier from the westbound traffic lanes
23. I-82 Columbia River bridge between Washington State and Umatillan, OR
24. I-5 bridge over the Columbia River at Vancouver, WA--sidewalks on both sides.
Woodrow Wilson Bridge I-95 MD-VA (proposed)
25. The Record of Decision for two planned new interstate highway bridges across the Ohio River in or near Louisville includes separated bicycle/pedestrian facilities for both bridges
26. Interstate 395 bridge across the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. (immediately adjacent sidepath separated via jersey barriers)
27. Interstate 66 bridge across the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. (immediately adjacent sidewalks on each side separated by guard rail)
28. The I-395 and I-66 bike/ped facilities have existed for more than two decades without any safety problems related to their immediate proximity to the roadway.
http://mobikefed.org/2006/05/bicycle-paths-interstate-freeway-bridges
Well...I guess it is possible!
Quote from: David on December 11, 2013, 03:09:33 PM
Quote from: cline on December 11, 2013, 02:58:26 PM
So what is this magic capacity number where all traffic will flow smoothly at all hours of the day? 6 lanes, 8 lanes, 10 lanes, 12 lanes? Sorry, but we could add 16 lanes and they will eventually get congested.
8 lanes total. More passing options. Even with 3 lanes each way you still get stuck behind cars next to each other doing the same exact speed.
No more than 8 though. If they try to go to 10 lanes I'll stand in front of the bulldozers.
Hmm..I don't think you understand how most traffic backups occur.
I do. I just want more lanes for passing during non peak hours.
Thanks for the Interstate/pedestrian sidewalk compilation Lake. Way more than I thought they would be (after I learned the few earlier today).
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2013, 05:59:51 PM
22. I-80 Yolo Causeway bridge, between Sacramento and Davis, CA - approximately 3-mile section over the Yolo Bypass that includes a bike path physically separated by a barrier from the westbound traffic lanes
LOL, You Only Live Once!!!! Sound like it should be a BASE jumpers paradise or something.
Hey Lake,
This seems pretty sudden. No public hearings, no studies.
Was this in the TPO plan?
I agree, they should include a pedestrian way.
I would like to see the study that shows how much traffic in that space is local vs regional/national. I-95 hosts a lot of pass through traffic.
No, this was not in the TPO plan. It and the funding just materialized out of the blue.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2013, 07:55:50 PM
No, this was not in the TPO plan. It and the funding just materialized out of the blue.
Hmmmm. then there has to be something of a higher priority than this, geez, it's not even in the TPO plan.
When these projects appear out of blue I usually start sniffing around the political angles.
I thought I read that it was coming from the Outer Beltway fund? I wonder how the Clay County Economic Development folks feel about that?
I heard it was coming via the postponing of adding manged lanes on I-295 between Dames Point and I-95.
Quote from: spuwho on December 11, 2013, 08:07:31 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2013, 07:55:50 PM
No, this was not in the TPO plan. It and the funding just materialized out of the blue.
Hmmmm. then there has to be something of a higher priority than this, geez, it's not even in the TPO plan.
When these projects appear out of blue I usually start sniffing around the political angles.
What could the political angle be? Someone doesn't want to merge left to Roosevelt so they requested an unneeded flyover? Add lanes to the bridge which I don't even understand. When you get on at Park you have to go left unless you want to go to San Marco so how does another lane on the right help anything?
Quote from: Kay on December 11, 2013, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: spuwho on December 11, 2013, 08:07:31 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2013, 07:55:50 PM
No, this was not in the TPO plan. It and the funding just materialized out of the blue.
Hmmmm. then there has to be something of a higher priority than this, geez, it's not even in the TPO plan.
When these projects appear out of blue I usually start sniffing around the political angles.
What could the political angle be? Someone doesn't want to merge left to Roosevelt so they requested an unneeded flyover? Add lanes to the bridge which I don't even understand. When you get on at Park you have to go left unless you want to go to San Marco so how does another lane on the right help anything?
When a reason is found to build something when that reason didn't exist before, it should make one pause as to why. Especially when it doesn't fall in the planning process. No reason to get paranoid or anything, but road construction is usually not an altruistic process.
Because the project is considered an "Operational Improvement" and not a "Capacity Improvement" it does not have to be in the TPO LRTP.
Can you explain how it improves the operation?
Pedestrian paths? You've got to be joking, of course it's impossible, this is Jacksonville.
For 34 years I/We've been pushing for a 'money losing streetcar,' now within a year or two, we've found $150 million for a 'money losing highway.' Will channel 4 report it that way? Will the radio? Will the TU? Business Journal? etc?
What the hell is a pedestrian? You wouldn't mean those two legged creatures with the big targets painted on their backs would you? Keeping score, we're number 3 in the nation, why stop now? Let's go for number one!
A six story building? Insurance company and office space? Who needs them downtown, they can move to Orange Park, or St. Johns, or maybe way out by Town Center. You guys lack imagination, just think somewhere along Roosevelt or University, they could put up their very own big bright plastic sign complete with bright lights and a ½ acre of parking. It's only jobs after all.
I suspect the right exit to go south/west on I-10 has more to do with the curvature/radius and the Stockton Street exit, exiting on the left would have shortened the curve and probably brought the exit lane much farther up the flyover and THAT would have increased the cost. So mark it down as probable a safety and money decision.
Quote from: Kay on December 11, 2013, 10:12:18 PM
Can you explain how it improves the operation?
From what I understand, they claim it will reduce the need for existing traffic to merge within a short distance. I don't know if that's worthy of a $136 million investment but some at FDOT believe so.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2013, 07:55:50 PM
No, this was not in the TPO plan. It and the funding just materialized out of the blue.
Supposedly this is an "operations" project, not a capacity project....only capacity projects are included in the TPOs LRTP.
That said, all projects have to be included in the TPO's 5-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),,,,and this brand new one to be funded in 2016 isn't in there (yet)
Quote from: dougskiles on December 11, 2013, 08:29:24 PM
I thought I read that it was coming from the Outer Beltway fund? I wonder how the Clay County Economic Development folks feel about that?
nope...they are still moving full steam ahead on that...in fact there is over $100 million proposed for ROW acquisition for the next segment (between Blanding and US 17)
Photo examples of other cities that have created a utopia on the backs of their highways mean little to me... To wit:
BOGOTA
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/ScreenShot2013-12-11at112902PM_zpsa1c1dab3.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/ScreenShot2013-12-11at112926PM_zps211d4329.png)
MEDELLIN
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transit-Heavy-Rail/ScreenShot2013-12-11at113145PM_zps26c974c4.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transit-Heavy-Rail/ScreenShot2013-12-11at113220PM_zps96b2b685.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/TRANSIT%20monorail%20and%20Skyway/ScreenShot2013-12-11at113400PM_zps32ac7fc5.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/ScreenShot2013-12-11at114236PM_zpsf454057a.png)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/ScreenShot2013-12-11at114228PM_zps9abb81e4.png)
Nuff said, any questions?
QuoteNeedless to say, the community objected much the same as the Riverside community seems to be objecting to this proposal.
hahaha, I don't see the Riverside community jumping up and down condemning this, yet. I don't see anyone but a handful on this board protesting the events.
Like a previous post said, if the FDOT does not spend the 120 million here, in jobs, work and business, they will spend it elsewhere, and they believe it will relieve congestion, and something needs to be done to help the poor residents of Orange Park and Middleburg get onto Blanding faster than trying to weave their way over across multiple lanes of traffic to get on US 17 south. Its a great game of Frogger in its current state! ::)
Quotehahaha, I don't see the Riverside community jumping up and down condemning this, yet. I don't see anyone but a handful on this board protesting the events.
That's because FDOT has deliberately tried to give this issue as little light as possible. We are making sure people start knowing about this neighborhood killing road.
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2013, 05:20:43 AM
Like a previous post said, if the FDOT does not spend the 120 million here, in jobs, work and business, they will spend it elsewhere...
Could it be possible that this is okay and that perhaps it should? Is this the only place for an "operational improvement" in the region?
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2013, 05:20:43 AM
QuoteNeedless to say, the community objected much the same as the Riverside community seems to be objecting to this proposal.
hahaha, I don't see the Riverside community jumping up and down condemning this, yet. I don't see anyone but a handful on this board protesting the events.
Like a previous post said, if the FDOT does not spend the 120 million here, in jobs, work and business, they will spend it elsewhere, and they believe it will relieve congestion, and something needs to be done to help the poor residents of Orange Park and Middleburg get onto Blanding faster than trying to weave their way over across multiple lanes of traffic to get on US 17 south. Its a great game of Frogger in its current state! ::)
You are wrong, the Riverside community has already begun to jump up and down and say no more. The RAP board approved a transportation strategic plan that includes no more highway expansion next to our neighborhood. We researched the long term TPO plan to see if there was anything on the horizon that would affect us and there was not. This is a complete surprise.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2013, 05:36:49 PM
The widening appears to be taking place on the southside of the bridge. You can see shift to the south where the Park Street ramp goes through that 6-story building instead of just north of it. New infrastructure appears to be highlighted in purple (elevated structure) and blue (ramps).
I understand that part, Lake, but in the picture you show, there are 4 lanes BEFORE the ramp is even figured in on the west-side (Riverside side) of the FWB.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/i-gZ3MwN8/0/XL/i95-Five%20Points%20Close-XL.jpg)
One the east-side (San Marco side), where did those additional lanes go? I only see 3 passing by the Wolfson Tower. They don't appear to be adding ANY additional travel lanes, only a dedicated on/off ramp to San Marco.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/i-Nxjqt3d/0/XL/i95-Fuller%20Warren-XL.jpg)
Seriously? Add on top of that the lack of bike / ped facilities and you end up with $120 bridge from 5-ponts to San Marco that doesn't really serve anyone else except those few people, unless I'm interpreting these drawings completely wrong, but I don't think I am.
There would be four southbound lanes passing by Wolfson. However, the outside lane isn't a through lane at that point. It's marked differently because it is preparing to branch off and feed "Ramp E" (in the image below), which is being built as a part of the Overland Bridge project.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/I-95-Overland-Bridge-2012/i-VGG7wXL/0/XL/Overland%20Bridge%201-XL.jpg)
click here for larger images:
Fuller Warren Bridge
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/gallery/35300233_t5ZXLR#!i=2961827173&k=KRKRQ7m&lb=1&s=A
Overland Bridge
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/gallery/26320140_fqWPQ5#!i=2192977442&k=VGG7wXL&lb=1&s=X2
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 07:01:25 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2013, 05:20:43 AM
QuoteNeedless to say, the community objected much the same as the Riverside community seems to be objecting to this proposal.
hahaha, I don't see the Riverside community jumping up and down condemning this, yet. I don't see anyone but a handful on this board protesting the events.
Like a previous post said, if the FDOT does not spend the 120 million here, in jobs, work and business, they will spend it elsewhere, and they believe it will relieve congestion, and something needs to be done to help the poor residents of Orange Park and Middleburg get onto Blanding faster than trying to weave their way over across multiple lanes of traffic to get on US 17 south. Its a great game of Frogger in its current state! ::)
You are wrong, the Riverside community has already begun to jump up and down and say no more. The RAP board approved a transportation strategic plan that includes no more highway expansion next to our neighborhood. We researched the long term TPO plan to see if there was anything on the horizon that would affect us and there was not. This is a complete surprise.
How do residents assist in supporting you on this? This plan is terrible, there is a) no real need for the expansion, the backup comes from the overland bridge on the San Marco side, not from this section of it, and b) with 17 and 95 the way it is now, they've taken enough property in riverside for highways already.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 07:44:20 AM
There would be four southbound lanes passing by Wolfson. However, the outside lane isn't a through lane at that point. It's marked differently because it is preparing to branch off and feed "Ramp E" (in the image below), which is being built as a part of the Overland Bridge project.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/I-95-Overland-Bridge-2012/i-VGG7wXL/0/XL/Overland%20Bridge%201-XL.jpg)
click here for larger images:
Fuller Warren Bridge
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/gallery/35300233_t5ZXLR#!i=2961827173&k=KRKRQ7m&lb=1&s=A
Overland Bridge
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/gallery/26320140_fqWPQ5#!i=2192977442&k=VGG7wXL&lb=1&s=X2
So then you agree that they're not adding any more 'capacity', only more dedicated on/off ramps. There are still only going to be the 3 lanes each way.
How is this supposed to 'ease congestion' except for what I interpret as only a few drivers that are going directly from the Park St on ramp to San Marco and/or (now) the Ramp E exit. Anyone coming from 95-N or I-10 is still going to have to weave over 2-3 lanes to get to their exit. The traffic getting on at Park street will now have to deal with a higher volume of faster traffic if they plan on continuing SB on I-95.
IMO, this will actually cause more congestion than we have now due to everyone hitting the same bottleneck at a higher rate of speed.
Oh, I'm not a proponent of this project. I think the $136 million is better spent elsewhere to be honest. However, if it does happen, it needs to address more than moving cars across the river.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 09:17:51 AM
Oh, I'm not a proponent of this project. I think the $136 million is better spent elsewhere to be honest. However, if it does happen, it needs to address more than moving cars across the river.
I didn't think you were. I'm pretty sure you would most definitely have some other plans if you were in charge of spending $136M of the state's money. I was just asking some questions and you seem to be the only one attempting to provide answers.
So aside from a lack of additional ACTUAL capacity and a probable complete fail at alleviating any of the backup that occurs already, where do place the odds of this project actually happening? Or anyone here with any 'inside info'.
It seems to me, based on the non-info and the amount of work that's already gone into it, that this was 'the plan' all along, but rather than do it all once, someone decided to ensure that he/she would be collecting a check for 20 years instead of 10.
QuoteIt seems to me, based on the non-info and the amount of work that's already gone into it, that this was 'the plan' all along, but rather than do it all once, someone decided to ensure that he/she would be collecting a check for 20 years instead of 10.
That's pretty spot on analysis.
This plan has to be stopped.
QuoteYou are wrong, the Riverside community has already begun to jump up and down and say no more. The RAP board approved a transportation strategic plan that includes no more highway expansion next to our neighborhood. We researched the long term TPO plan to see if there was anything on the horizon that would affect us and there was not. This is a complete surprise.
Kay, I think the idea of spending all this money to fix something that we all knew was going to be an issue is lunacy. But the reality is that FDOT does what it wants where it wants to who it wants, with little that the "little guy" can do or say. As it stands now, the Riverside Dog park has to spend THOUSANDS of dollars cleaning up the mess that FDOT left behind with the last attempt of fixing the Fuller Warren, and RAP cannot get FDOT to clean up their old mess. How do you plan to address the new Mess and get better results? If this is a knife fight, better bring a gun, you need more ammo than passing out stickers at RAM saying no more Fuller Warren.
Quotegoing to be interesting, i think. ;)
I agree with you, but the results of dealing with FDOT so far are, FDOT does not really care.
Full house at today's TPO meeting. This project is on the agenda for discussion. I'll provide an update when the time comes...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 12, 2013, 08:12:16 AM
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 07:01:25 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2013, 05:20:43 AM
QuoteNeedless to say, the community objected much the same as the Riverside community seems to be objecting to this proposal.
hahaha, I don't see the Riverside community jumping up and down condemning this, yet. I don't see anyone but a handful on this board protesting the events.
Like a previous post said, if the FDOT does not spend the 120 million here, in jobs, work and business, they will spend it elsewhere, and they believe it will relieve congestion, and something needs to be done to help the poor residents of Orange Park and Middleburg get onto Blanding faster than trying to weave their way over across multiple lanes of traffic to get on US 17 south. Its a great game of Frogger in its current state! ::)
You are wrong, the Riverside community has already begun to jump up and down and say no more. The RAP board approved a transportation strategic plan that includes no more highway expansion next to our neighborhood. We researched the long term TPO plan to see if there was anything on the horizon that would affect us and there was not. This is a complete surprise.
How do residents assist in supporting you on this? This plan is terrible, there is a) no real need for the expansion, the backup comes from the overland bridge on the San Marco side, not from this section of it, and b) with 17 and 95 the way it is now, they've taken enough property in riverside for highways already.
At this point I think that emails to FDOT are appropriate. The comment period for the proposed Work Program is open until December 31. As far as I know, there hasn't been any meetings specifically regarding this project. Below is the contact info from the meeting notice posted on the FDOT website:
Written comments will be received by the Department at the workshop or hearing and until December 31, 2013. Comments should be addressed to:
Mr. Greg Evans, FDOT District Two Secretary
1109 S. Marion Avenue, Mail Station 2000
Lake City, FL 32025-5874
(800) 749-2967 ext. 7800
Greg.Evans@dot.state.fl.us
Quote from: icarus on December 11, 2013, 04:54:06 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on December 11, 2013, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on December 11, 2013, 04:33:04 PM
OR if its about the 'burbs- build a new bridge between the Fuller Warren and the Buckman? Direct from 17 to Phillips/University?
Let's not get silly
Its not silly ... JTB was originally proposed to go through to San Jose and then over the river to 17. Needless to say, the community objected much the same as the Riverside community seems to be objecting to this proposal.
Realistically, I think the most you can expect in terms of DOT concessions is the possibility of a pedestrian lane. Otherwise, this upgrade is going to happen as designed.
So, you think building a bridge through Ortega or NAS Jax is a concept that's not silly?
FDOT's James Bennett is currently describing need for project. Says he drives it every day. He knows where backups are.
Wants to eliminate all merging conditions between Overland Bridge and US 17.
Why now? Found out $130 million express lane project on 1295/Dames Point isn't needed. FDOT did not want to lose the $130 million for this region to other areas of the State.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Wants to eliminate all merging conditions between Overland Bridge and US 17.
Tell him to do it within the current footprint or not at all.
Says project was just announced on Monday. Says it's in planning process. Public will be involved in planning it.
Just mentioned dog park. Says planning hasn't gotten that far to say it can't happen. Says this project is excellent opportunity to keep $130 million in NE Florida.
Bill Bishop is speaking. He's pissed off. Says FDOT is creating automatic antagonism.
Says he'd rather see money go elsewhere instead of to a bad project.
Bennett defends project. Says it's only being announced now because they were able to secure funds. Says they will work with community. Bishop mad that TPO has had no input that money maybe better spent elsewhere.
They claim need for project comes from working with community to get cars of Post/College and Overland Bridge. Says we don't want to lose money. Planning started in July.
Bishop still pissed.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 11:47:50 AM
Why now? Found out $130 million express lane project on 1295/Dames Point isn't needed. FDOT did not want to lose the $130 million for this region to other areas of the State.
I could have told them that from the beginning
Why can't they spend the $130 million on the road (that everyone wants) out near Oakleaf instead of tolling it (which no one wants)?
Quote from: fieldafm on December 12, 2013, 12:06:04 PM
Why can't they spend the $130 million on the road (that everyone wants) out near Oakleaf instead of tolling it (which no one wants)?
oh don't worry...they're spending plenty of $ on that too
Or spend the $130 million on the literally dozens of resurfacing projects that are needed around town on state-controlled roads?
Forget about transit, bike lanes, etc for a minute... if they want to spend the money on roads... then fix the ones we already have that need fixing.
Reggie Brown believes we have to support this project.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 12, 2013, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on December 12, 2013, 12:06:04 PM
Why can't they spend the $130 million on the road (that everyone wants) out near Oakleaf instead of tolling it (which no one wants)?
oh don't worry...they're spending plenty of $ on that too
Yes, but they are tolling it. Instead of taking on more bond debt, move this money over to that project and ce las vie to tolls?!?
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 12:08:14 PM
Reggie Brown believes we have to support this project.
F@ck that!
^ but that would go against everything that the FDOT Secretary has been preaching....they don't need the toll revenue for building the project, but they will for maintaining it
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 12:08:14 PM
Reggie Brown believes we have to support this project.
he also believes we should support Sons of Confederate Veterans
Regarding the Outer Beltway, they have $119 million for ROW acquisition to. Lots more to widen Blending to feed into beltway.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 12, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
^ but that would go against everything that the FDOT Secretary has been preaching....they don't need the toll revenue for building the project, but they will for maintaining it
The money for building the road doesnt come out of thin air. It's bonded and underwritten to be paid off over a long period of time (meaning the state pulls out their credit card and pays back the investment community over a 15-20-30 year period).
Two other big projects mentioned too. 1295/95 interchange will be rebuild as a four level interchange on north side in 2016. Cost $165 million.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 12:13:10 PM
Two other big projects mentioned too. 1295/95 interchange will be rebuild as a four level interchange on north side in 2016. Cost $165 million.
So, why build 9B? That was sold as needing to relieve congestion from 95/295 interchange (which we all know was BS) b/c simply adding one lane on each side of the interchange wouldn't work.... but now they are building those lanes anyway?
FDOT is talking about spending over $300 million dollars in the next three years to upgrade two interchanges they just completed in the last couple of years. That's insane!
Paul Bremer tells Bennett this is a stupid project. Carmen speaking now.....but my phone is about to die.
Still blaming need for community wanting modifications on Overland Bridge project as a reason for this. Admits public outreach can stop project.
Bennett continues to valiantly defend project.
Meeting over.
I would hate to be on the receiving end of the tongue lashing that Bishop gave Bennett. OUCH!
It was real obvious from the beginning of their excuses to Bishop that they pulled this project together over the past few months to avoid losing the money from this district.
Bennett really stepped in it when he whined about having to go through that intersection twice per day. Poor baby!
Quote from: fieldafm on December 12, 2013, 12:14:30 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 12:13:10 PM
Two other big projects mentioned too. 1295/95 interchange will be rebuild as a four level interchange on north side in 2016. Cost $165 million.
So, why build 9B? That was sold as needing to relieve congestion from 95/295 interchange (which we all know was BS) b/c simply adding one lane on each side of the interchange wouldn't work.... but now they are building those lanes anyway?
FDOT is talking about spending over $300 million dollars in the next three years to upgrade two interchanges they just completed in the last couple of years. That's insane!
The rebuild project is on the north side....they added a new flyover ramp last year, but other parts of the interchange are nearly 40 years old
That said, I'm not in favor of the project....the loop ramps do OK still
That sounds like quite the meeting. Good backlash so far.
QuoteJust mentioned dog park. Says planning hasn't gotten that far to say it can't happen. Says this project is excellent opportunity to keep $130 million in NE Florida.
Oh, wow, we have to actively waste money on roads or else we won't be able to spend more money on roads. Remind me again how much we will make off this project? I've heard that other forms of transportation or not revenue producing enough.
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Wants to eliminate all merging conditions between Overland Bridge and US 17.
Tell him to do it within the current footprint or not at all.
From what I can tell, most of it will be within existing ROW. Seems like the most significant ROW impacts would be in the Five Points area and a few North Riverside residences near the I-10/US 17 interchange.
Let me repeat this:
QuoteFDOT is talking about spending over $300 million dollars in the next three years to upgrade two interchanges they just completed in the last couple of years. That's insane!
And by doing so they are going to bulldoze businesses, parks, further intrude on quiet residential neighborhoods and essentially shut down the Riverside Arts Market during the construction (which could probably wipe out two seasons of RAM- and all of the small businesses -read: unsubsidized jobs- who make a substantial portion of their living off the market).
I haven't been this mad for a long, long, long, long time.
Quote from: fieldafm on December 12, 2013, 12:06:04 PM
Why can't they spend the $130 million on the road (that everyone wants) out near Oakleaf instead of tolling it (which no one wants)?
From how it sounded at the meeting, this specific project was sold as a way to keep the $130 million in our region. With that in mind, if it can't go to this project, then money will be moved to other areas of the state in need of operational improvements.
^All of this highlights how bad communication and coordination has become between many of our public agencies. Perhaps if others had known we'd have $130 million to play with, other potential alternative projects in need of similar funding could have been considered and sold to the State.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Wants to eliminate all merging conditions between Overland Bridge and US 17.
Tell him to do it within the current footprint or not at all.
From what I can tell, most of it will be within existing ROW. Seems like the most significant ROW impacts would be in the Five Points area and a few North Riverside residences near the I-10/US 17 interchange.
Maybe it will be within the current ROW. But while the project is going on (for numerous years) they will need a place to store all of their equipment and random stuff- that place will be under the Fuller Warren- the same place that we currently have RAM and may eventually have the dog park. Like Doug said earlier, look at where they are stationing all their equipment for the Overland Bridge project. Are we expected to put RAM on hold for X-amount of years while this project is going on and just magically expect it to start back up? RAM was decades in the making and stalling it for years would not be good.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 12, 2013, 01:52:05 PM
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/12/11/reading_custom-8c3ebc957d35124325655c6eff8c7ca11146f4b5-s40-c85.jpg)
Quote from: cline on December 12, 2013, 01:52:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Wants to eliminate all merging conditions between Overland Bridge and US 17.
Tell him to do it within the current footprint or not at all.
From what I can tell, most of it will be within existing ROW. Seems like the most significant ROW impacts would be in the Five Points area and a few North Riverside residences near the I-10/US 17 interchange.
Maybe it will be within the current ROW. But while the project is going on (for numerous years) they will need a place to store all of their equipment and random stuff- that place will be under the Fuller Warren- the same place that we currently have RAM and may eventually have the dog park. Like Doug said earlier, look at where they are stationing all their equipment for the Overland Bridge project. Are we expected to put RAM on hold for X-amount of years while this project is going on and just magically expect it to start back up? RAM was decades in the making and stalling it for years would not be good.
My personal intent is to kill it dead. We can do this!
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Wants to eliminate all merging conditions between Overland Bridge and US 17.
Tell him to do it within the current footprint or not at all.
From what I can tell, most of it will be within existing ROW. Seems like the most significant ROW impacts would be in the Five Points area and a few North Riverside residences near the I-10/US 17 interchange.
There is not room in the existing FDOT right-of-way for the additional south bound lanes from Stockton to the bridge in a coupe of areas. One is at the corner of Gilmore and Margaret where there is a masonic lodge building. Another is in Riverside Park unless the put it on top of the existing lanes
In the sketch, it seems like most of the improvements in vicinity of Stockton would be built within existing ROW:
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/35300233_t5ZXLR#!i=2961827208&k=hDftBwW&lb=1&s=A
We cannot forget about the proposed flyover which will greatly exacerbate the noise in the neighborhood and take some of N. Riverside.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2013, 02:47:46 PM
In the sketch, it seems like most of the improvements in vicinity of Stockton would be built within existing ROW:
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/35300233_t5ZXLR#!i=2961827208&k=hDftBwW&lb=1&s=A
Ennis, there simply isn't room in a couple of places. There is less than ten feet between the masonic lodge building and the existing FDOT fence. The color coding on that section is a bit strange. They show the "new pavement" color with a yellow "bridge color" line beside it. Are they planning to elevate these sections? If I am reading the pictures correctly there is already pavement where they have coded for new pavement.
^The way the preliminary drawing looks to me, some work may include reconfiguring existing lane/shoulder widths to accommodate the extra lane in that section. Kay is right about the flyover. There will probably be some noise impacts in the neighborhood below it. I also notice that the flyover appears to be in the bed of a creek that feeds McCoys Creek. What's the plan for runoff? Will a stormwater pond be required?
lake,
what was the general consensus with the TPO Board...where they in favor or no?
It seemed mixed. Councilman Bishop was very critical of the process and questioned the project altogether. Others seemed to believe the work was needed and that everything should be done to keep the $130 million local.
I guess using the $130 million on something other than roads is completely out of the question?
Yes. Basically, they've boxed us into the position of it's going to this project or to another city.
^Such BS. Our own Governor didn't have any problems killing HSR and giving that money to another city.
That's the local decision the community will have to make either way. Scott told the Feds no and had no problem seeing that HSR money go to other states, so the precedence for turning down money is there.
It wouldn't bother me if they sent they money elsewhere.
Save for a few years between projects, the stretch of I-95 between I-10 and Emerson has been underconstruction for about the last 15 years. I can't imagine something causng more congestion than a full blown construction project. The best congestion relief policy FDOT could adopt would be a moratorium on highway construction.
Just looking at my notes from today's TPO meeting. Something else I found interesting was what sounded like a list of priorities at FDOT. It's a great help in understanding how and why certain decisions are made and certain projects pushed instead of others.
1. Safety (this project falls in this category)
2. Resurfacing/Preservation (maintenance of existing facilities)
3. Bridge replacement program
4. Capacity (most roadway expansion projects)
Other stuff they do too
Traffic Ops
Enhancements
Public Transportation
Off-Systems Projects
Quote from: dougskiles on December 12, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Save for a few years between projects, the stretch of I-95 between I-10 and Emerson has been underconstruction for about the last 15 years. I can't imagine something causng more congestion than a full blown construction project. The best congestion relief policy FDOT could adopt would be a moratorium on highway construction.
A moratorium on road construction?! Surely you jest!
Cripes, what a boondoggle. Good work if you can get it though--talk about job security.
Quote from: Lunican on December 12, 2013, 03:41:43 PM
I guess using the $130 million on something other than roads is completely out of the question?
maybe...nut proabbly only if it is another Strategic Intrastate System (SIS) highway project
Can someone please clarify how much of the $130M they're expecting to keep 'local'?
Overland Bridge Project Contractor:
Archer Western Contractors, Inc. of Tampa
9B Contractor:
Archer Western Contractors
Atlanta, GA
295 / Collins Rd Contractor:
Superior Construction Co
2045 E Dunes Hwy, Gary, IN 46402
Matthews Bridge (Ongoing Maintenance and Repairs):
Intech Contracting, LLC of Lexington, Kentucky
I'm sure they source plenty of concrete/substrate etc from Gate. And they probably hire some local subs to do some of the work, but seriously?????? We don't to lost the $130M for this area? Puh-leeze.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 12, 2013, 05:37:54 PM
Can someone please clarify how much of the $130M they're expecting to keep 'local'?
Overland Bridge Project Contractor:
Archer Western Contractors, Inc. of Tampa
9B Contractor:
Archer Western Contractors
Atlanta, GA
295 / Collins Rd Contractor:
Superior Construction Co
2045 E Dunes Hwy, Gary, IN 46402
Matthews Bridge (Ongoing Maintenance and Repairs):
Intech Contracting, LLC of Lexington, Kentucky
I'm sure they source plenty of concrete/substrate etc from Gate. And they probably hire some local subs to do some of the work, but seriously?????? We don't to lost the $130M for this area? Puh-leeze.
Ah, but the physical capital stays here in Jax. Think how much money we'll make as the highway appreciates in value with each passing semi truck.
*not directed at anyone in particular
Instead of rallying and pouting, is it possible that we could more effectively account for our gray hairs and hoarse voices by relentlessly reaching out to secure the inclusion of sound walls along I-10 between Luna and the FDOT Urban office along with pedestrian facilities in both directions over the Fuller Warren between Park and Palm?
Has it been made public how many blocks and of which 3 streets will be "realigned" (closed) in order to accommodate a pricey retention pond?
Imagine how much better the signage and greenery could be throughout this zone with plenty of dollars left over for pedestrian and biking facilities over the bridge if we were successful in 86ing the flyover!?!?
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 02:56:48 PM
We cannot forget about the proposed flyover which will greatly exacerbate the noise in the neighborhood and take some of N. Riverside.
Is it possible to successfully seek the implementation of a maximum speed of 45MPH between Luna and Palm in order to reduce excessive noise?
At this point emails to FDOT are appropriate. The comment period for the proposed Work Program is open until December 31.
Written comments will be received by the Department until December 31, 2013, and should be addressed to:
Mr. Greg Evans, FDOT District Two Secretary
1109 S. Marion Avenue, Mail Station 2000
Lake City, FL 32025-5874
(800) 749-2967 ext. 7800
Greg.Evans@dot.state.fl.us
Did no one learn anything from Jeff Speck's presentation earlier this week? Here's his TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city.html
This bridge project is so wrong, so unimaginative, so much a failure regarding the neighborhoods/bikers/pedestrians, and it needs to be stopped.
Something tells me that listening to Jeff Speck isn't a high priority of FDOT.
I told some of my friends in Chicago and NYC about these extra lanes on the Fuller Warren and they are really excited to get down to Jax asap.
Just kidding. They actually asked if Jacksonville is on the east or west coast of Florida.
Quotetake some of N. Riverside.
Have you been through North Riverside lately? Anything with a bulldozer would be welcome.
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 13, 2013, 08:59:31 AM
Quotetake some of N. Riverside.
Have you been through North Riverside lately? Anything with a bulldozer would be welcome.
Which was the result of previous highway expansions. This latest highway expansion would further encroach upon the neighborhood... pushing the present condition you speak of even further into the neighborhood (. One action always causes multiple reactions.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Ernest and Dellwood looked like Roselle Street now? (That's sarcasm, btw)
Lunican it's not our fault your friends aren't good with geography. If there was any will within FDOT to allocate the funds to other projects, it could be done. The TPO could see that it happens.
Quote from: Lunican on December 12, 2013, 11:30:16 PM
I told some of my friends in Chicago and NYC about these extra lanes on the Fuller Warren and they are really excited to get down to Jax asap.
Just kidding. They actually asked if Jacksonville is on the east or west coast of Florida.
Haha. Then they asked "your interstates are only 3 lanes wide in most places? Sorry, we can't visit there. We only frequent cities with 10 lane highways at a minimal.
I was a little overzealous in my love of (driving on) super highways at first. I can see why people are upset about this project now. I'll stick with my trips to Atlanta to satisfy my love of doing 90 and zipping across 8 lanes of traffic to fast paced electronic music.
And I'm more interested in the lane expansions further south on 95 anyhoo. No one cares about that right? No dog parks will be displaced off Baymeadows or 295.
Quote from: David on December 13, 2013, 09:43:51 AM
Quote from: Lunican on December 12, 2013, 11:30:16 PM
I told some of my friends in Chicago and NYC about these extra lanes on the Fuller Warren and they are really excited to get down to Jax asap.
Just kidding. They actually asked if Jacksonville is on the east or west coast of Florida.
And I'm more interested in the lane expansions further south on 95 anyhoo. No one cares about that right? No dog parks will be displaced off Baymeadows or 295.
I'm sure people do care. Are they going to be tearing down office buildings and houses? This project affects the neighborhood I live in which is why I care.
^ I don't think the toll lanes being built will affect any housing on the south end of town. Should be plenty of existing ROW to complete it.
I see your point about the Fuller Warren project. That would upset me too.
Quote from: David on December 13, 2013, 09:57:24 AM
^ I don't think the toll lanes being built will affect any housing on the south end of town. Should be plenty of existing ROW to complete it.
I see your point about the Fuller Warren project. That would upset me too.
That's the rub though. We're pretty much out of space to expand this thing anymore without tearing down structures. If we don't say enough is enough now then 20 years from now we will be having this same conversation except it will be about expanding it to 18 lanes or something crazy. When does it end?
Quote from: David on December 13, 2013, 09:43:51 AM
I was a little overzealous in my love of (driving on) super highways at first. I can see why people are upset about this project now. I'll stick with my trips to Atlanta to satisfy my love of doing 90 and zipping across 8 lanes of traffic to fast paced electronic music.
Well Atlanta's MSA is over 5 million and eats up a chunk of Georgia. One the other hand, Jax's MSA hasn't even cracked 1.5 million. Anyway, you must be zipping through at 3am in the morning. All those lanes are clogged during the weekdays.
QuoteI'll stick with my trips to Atlanta to satisfy my love of doing 90 and zipping across 8 lanes of traffic to fast paced electronic music.
Average commute time in Atlanta is in a different (much worse) universe than Jacksonville. My rush hour commute was well North of an hour each way. I can get from Fairfax to the Town Center(which is a fairly lenghty trip) in well under a half hour in the morning and in the afternoon.
I was in Houston a few weeks ago on business, listening to local sports radio during rush hour. It was the first time I had ever heard traffic updates (time from Point A to Point B) expressed in terms of hours rather than minutes.
You see how successful Atlanta and Houston were in building their way out of traffic congestion.
"IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME!" The reverse of that is that if you don't build it, they will find another route.
Yes, I'm usually barreling through Atlanta late at night, very early in the morning or on the weekends. I know better than to attempt that drive up I-75/85 between 7am-8pm.
Up there, If you're only doing 80 you get ran over. Atlanta drivers are very entertaining to watch.
Quote from: David on December 13, 2013, 12:20:00 PM
Yes, I'm usually barreling through Atlanta late at night, very early in the morning or on the weekends. I know better than to attempt that drive up I-75/85 between 7am-8pm.
Up there, If you're only doing 80 you get ran over. Atlanta drivers are very entertaining to watch.
For me the most successful driving through Atlanta is to time it for 10:30AM on Sunday. People are either asleep or at church. No traffic. I zoom right through downtown in no time.
Earlier today I very slowly drove, then parked, walked and photographed the areas of James St and Lenox in North Riverside which stand to be razed if the flyover intended to further eliminate last minute lane changes from SanMarco to Roosevelt becomes reality. One singular historically valuable home may be lost if not moved. Other properties appear noncontributing or have been severely altered beyond relevance to preservation. I am not for decimation of human scale or the "quiet enjoyment" of one's property, however this is not the true definition of that terminology as concerns fee simple bundle of rights. Several individuals stand to be what some may consider handsomely compensated for their relocation and inconvenience. And again, as has been pointed out already in the comments above, very little unimproved land is being consumed by this expansion.
While I do loathe wonton waste of tax dollars in all forms, I do love abundant safety measures fully implemented. I adore sidewalks, crosswalks, lower speed limits, road diets, pedestrian biased infrastructure and any encouragement to bike instead of drive, and I applaud efforts to accommodate the vehicular movements of local and non resident motorists, travelers, delivery drivers, et al accessing both sides of the river in this rarefied transcontinental junction.
I learned today that none of this recent release of information actually qualifies as news, which may come as no surprise to many readers and some posters here (as I am rarely the first to know anything). Once I peeled my peepers and looked at the undersides of much of the structure of the elevated portions of I-10 it became apparent that many vertical members were designed to receive future horizontal supports for expanded road deck. I was told that this Flyover has been repeatedly proposed since before the creation of the retention pond along I-10 immediately west of the Roosevelt/I-10 connector.
I have been making and taking calls to and from friends and contacts in and near Tally, and feel that if there is no stopping this widening of the Fuller Warren and the flyover to Roosevelt, we can at least and therefore must band together and prevail upon the DOT and see the inclusion of multi-use paths in each direction over the bridge at minimum and seek a permanent reduced speed zone surrounding the interchange to assist in the reduction of the constant noise in order to attempt to add to the many ways some of us strive to preserve and enhance the relative quality of life enjoyed by residents of Riverside and Murray Hill.
Please join in the collective voice.
Kay, passionately dedicated sweetheart bulldog that you are, please do not misunderstand my leanings in this matter. For I too - from my home, two blocks from yours, hear the nonstop waterfall-like rush of the traffic noise from the most interior portion of my property at any hour day and night, but I also like the roar of the trains. I understand that soundwalls do nothing to mitigate the noise generated by vehicles on flyovers, which is why I asked about the possibility of us adding a permanent maximum speed limit reduction in this zone east of Luna, along with the multi-use paths over the bridge, to our most reasonable list of must haves.
When we spoke on your porch last time I knocked, this is what I needed to ask of you.
You asked me to email you and I just simply could not cull enough details until a somewhat later date.
Well, now, this is later.
Can we work together?
Field, Mike - please do not succumb to the repeated fear mongering.
You have enough going on for which many of us are all moved and quite thankful!
Could you share your contact who told you RAM would be out of commission!
THIS CANNOT HAPPEN!
Because of the project limits and scheduled phases, likely the Dog Park site location is THANKFULLY also an inconvenient place for heavy equipment and supplies storage for this Project, (WHEW) and there exist at least two other sizeable parcels nearer to the proposed flyover which are already large lighted fenced lots with minimal overhead trees / lines.
Like James, Lenox, and the lot at the T intersection of Crystal. I doubt RAM will close, at all.
How about storing and staging equipment at Annie Lytle once the school is fully sealed and mothballed?
This might allow for the fencing and outdoor lighting to be restored and the site monitored regularly..?
WIN-WIN??
As concerns the bridge widening, the underside of the eastern end will remain home to construction vehicles and equipment for some time as I was told. I read a special converted previous warship with an unusually mounted crane retrofit would be a possibility for placement of some materials for the road deck. Surely this could allow even a cantilevered system of walkways to be securely attached to the widened bridge so that our most basic human ability to amble could be safely and responsibly provided.
IF we cannot stop any of the flyover or widening from happening let's at least stay on top of pushing for protected, separated bike and ped lanes, and maintain our outreach to continually improve upon the WHY and HOW we and our neighbors choose Riverside, Downtown, by finding sites for the DOT to use during the project to keep Lackawanna and Forest Parks open regardless of scope.
And again, please email the DOT, the mayor, your council person, MHPA, RAP and your State Rep to raise awareness for the absolute NEED for bike and ped connections to be included if any of this is to be done at all ever (reference the numerous photo evidence and bridge locations displayed above - many examples - thanks to the distinguished Mr.Ennis Davis)
We CAN do this!
I understand we now currently have Road Rangers if your vehicle stalls or you crash.
Some have AAA or factory+dealership supplied road side service.
Many drivers have a similar service through their insurance provider.
BUT.
What happens when your cell phone dies and you cannot call?
Or, what if you are the victim of a hit and run and you cannot find your phone?
If you simply need to walk off the bridge, a safe way to do so seems necessary.
More Lanes, more cars, possibly increased chance you may end up needing to actually walk off the bridge one day - it is the most highly traveled crossing.
If the State DoT is worried about pedestrians throwing items at cars or some such trivial garbage, there are ways to protect BOTH the motorists AND the users of the barricaded multi-use lane, CHAINLINK TUNNEL!
I have already emailed FDOT requesting the bridge bike/ped "lanes". I encourage other to do the same. It only takes a minute.
What if we don't want the highway expanded any more into our neighborhood?
What if the operational improvements can be made without the highway being expanded into the neighborhood?
Quote from: stephendare on December 15, 2013, 12:01:15 AM
Quote from: Kay on December 14, 2013, 10:28:03 PM
What if we don't want the highway expanded any more into our neighborhood?
Then we are going to have to band together to make something different happen.
Working on a plan of action.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 15, 2013, 12:07:30 AM
What if the operational improvements can be made without the highway being expanded into the neighborhood?
This may be a good compromise.
They won't do that because it wouldn't spend all $136 million dollars. Too cheap a solution and we would still have a couple of years of nighttime construction to endure.
How do you know the money couldn't be spent? All that's been done to date is one conceptual sketch of how to resolve the operational problem. Speaking from experience in this particular industry, there are multiple ways to skin the cat and improve the community in the process (on FDOT's dime). Plans are in the works.
I was being cynical and sarcastic, Lake. Apologies. FDOT has that effect on me.
The ad-hoc group that you are part of could out plan the FDOT clowns any day. Probably way more years of experience there than in Lake City. Look forward to the alternatives that are developed by your group.
Just the letters FDOT give me a headache :)
After all of this construction, nothing will be done about the death maneuvers that have to be performed after getting on the Fuller Warren from San Marco to get to I-95 North during Rush Hour! Its not worth life and limb to try to prove how tough I am as a driver, so I get off at Park!
I'll get on I-95 North at Forest! I've had to go I-10 West from Forest to get to Roosevelt! That single lane after the merge takes me right to Roosevelt Blvd!
If I am coming over the I-95N to I-10W flyover, and there is a wall of cars from I-95S, then I'll get off at McDuff! It is just not worth the trouble to try to muscle my way over to Roosevelt Blvd.
It takes a few more minutes, but I still get to where I am going!
Most people won't do that! Routines are hard to break, and the majority of people won't give up the "convenience" of going "straight" home!
A lot of those people don't give a Damn if it rips up the Arts Market, or they don't care if it kills a dog park! If the bridge widening will get them to wherever they are going a little faster, ("Suburban" Hell) then they will be all for it happening!
The real problem is the way that the roads were built coming from Clay County! There are only two main ways from Clay to the Fuller Warren: Blanding and Roosevelt! When Blanding runs into Roosevelt, then all of that traffic goes into US 17! That mythical bridge from Timuquana to JTB would alleviate some of the pressure off of the Fuller Warren!
Of course, that would make new traffic problems, but everyone would benefit from another option! Politics don't work like that! Commuter rail would also give another option to commuters! How about some river ferries?
Look how long it took the FDOT took to start SunRail!
I could go into the "conspiracy" of oil, highway, and the automobile, but that has already been established!
A saying that I have been saying for a while is: "If it makes sense, they won't do it!"
Then, again, it does make sense! There is too much money involved in having an autocentric community with no balance! Someone is going too make money off of this construction! Insurance, car maintenance, registration, licensing, etc...this is just too much to give up!
FOLLOW THE MONEY! Who is profiting off of this project? This is America in general! It's going to be like the FDR in NYC: Always under construction!
I-4 in Orlando will be widened to Southern Cal standards! Blanding will be ten lanes wide! It's not the roads that I am annoyed with right now! The over building and lack of balance between modes is a cause for concern! The Fuller Warren bridge widening is an example of that!
Miami and Orlando have had to acknowledge that the big construction projects on their major thoroughfares have to have an alternative! Jacksonville could be ahead of the game!
Follow the money!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 12, 2013, 08:12:16 AM
Quote from: Kay on December 12, 2013, 07:01:25 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2013, 05:20:43 AM
QuoteNeedless to say, the community objected much the same as the Riverside community seems to be objecting to this proposal.
hahaha, I don't see the Riverside community jumping up and down condemning this, yet. I don't see anyone but a handful on this board protesting the events.
Like a previous post said, if the FDOT does not spend the 120 million here, in jobs, work and business, they will spend it elsewhere, and they believe it will relieve congestion, and something needs to be done to help the poor residents of Orange Park and Middleburg get onto Blanding faster than trying to weave their way over across multiple lanes of traffic to get on US 17 south. Its a great game of Frogger in its current state! ::)
You are wrong, the Riverside community has already begun to jump up and down and say no more. The RAP board approved a transportation strategic plan that includes no more highway expansion next to our neighborhood. We researched the long term TPO plan to see if there was anything on the horizon that would affect us and there was not. This is a complete surprise.
How do residents assist in supporting you on this? This plan is terrible, there is a) no real need for the expansion, the backup comes from the overland bridge on the San Marco side, not from this section of it, and b) with 17 and 95 the way it is now, they've taken enough property in riverside for highways already.
I'd asked Kay how residents can help support killing this project back on December 12, but perhaps it slipped through the cracks. So I'll ask again: I think it is unnecessary and destructive, how do residents help support RAP in killing this project?
http://www.riversideavondale.org/index.php?id=255
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 29, 2013, 06:03:10 PM
http://www.riversideavondale.org/index.php?id=255
Step one Chris is to email FDOT and City Council members and State legislators your opposition. The link tufsu included provides the information.
From RAP's email today:
ACTION NEEDED! FDOT Only Allows Public Comments to December 31!
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has recently proposed an approximately $136M project that would widen the Fuller Warren Bridge. The project also contains two other parts that would build a flyover ramp for westbound traffic on I-10 to US 17 (Roosevelt) and create/modify lanes on I-10 eastbound from the Stockton Street exit through the ramp onto I-95 southbound. A rough graphic representation of the proposed project is available and can be viewed here. However, FDOT has not provided any more detailed information about the proposed project, which is estimated to take three years to construct.
The Riverside Avondale Historic District, the Riverside Arts Market, the Artist Walk extension of the Riverwalk, Riverside Park, and North Riverside will all likely be impacted. We do not yet know how much additional right of way will be necessary, what specific buildings and/or homes will need to be demolished, or the extent of negative impacts of construction on our neighborhood. We have significant concerns related to the process and potential effects of the project itself that should be addressed BEFORE the proposed project is funded or approved:
We encourage you to contact the FDOT District 2 Secretary Greg Evans at: Greg.Evans@dot.state.fl.us by December 31, 2013 to voice your concerns about the FDOT's failure to follow normal and best planning practices and the potential negative impacts of this proposed project. See below for talking points on the failure in the process and the negative impacts of this project. There should be additional opportunities for public input, but they will likely occur after the project has been funded.
It is also important that your local elected officials hear our concerns. District 14 Councilman Love, District 9 Councilman Jones, At-Large Councilman Lumb, and At-Large Councilman Anderson all represent the impacted area and Councilman Bishop, Councilman Brown, Councilman Carter, and Councilman Gaffney all serve on the TPO Board. They can be contacted at: JimLove@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net
Duval Representatives Lake Ray and Reggie Fullwood serve on the Florida House of Representatives Transportation & Economic Development Appropriations Subcommittee and Duval Representative Audrey Gibson serves on the Florida Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development. They can be contacted at lake.ray@myfloridahouse.gov, reggie.fullwood@myfloridahouse.gov, gibson.audrey.web@flsenate.gov.
Concerns About The Process
Lack of Notice; Lack of Proper Planning; and Lack of Meaningful Opportunity for Public Input
• FDOT has been planning the project since July, 2013 and did not announce the proposed project to the public until a meeting on December 9, 2013;
• Although the December 9, 2013 meeting was noticed as a public meeting, neither the notice nor the agenda described or identified the proposed project in any way;
• Prior to the week of December 9, 2013 FDOT did not provide any information related to the proposed project to the Mayor's Office, the Jacksonville City Council, the City of Jacksonville Planning Department, or the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization Board (TPO) responsible for approved FDOT Work Programs;
• The proposed project was not previously included in the FDOT District Two Five Year Work Program or Long-Range Plan;
• FDOT proposed this project only after losing another project in District 2, to avoid losing $130M to another District;
• The deadline to receive public comments on including the proposed project in the FDOT District 2 Tentative Work Program for FY 2014/15 through FY 2018/19 is December 31, 2013, less than one month after the citizens of Jacksonville were made aware of the proposed project for the very first time;
• A Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) study will not be conducted before the project is funded, which does not follow the normal process;
• A design-build process will be used to construct the proposed project, resulting in an even further compressed and overlapping planning process; and
• It should not be a foregone conclusion that the proposed project is simply accepted and built as proposed – FDOT has suggested that it is all or nothing.
Concerns About The Project
No Demonstrated Need For the Proposed Project and Significant Potential Negative Impacts
• No specific data, study, or other objective information demonstrating the need for widening the Fuller Warren Bridge or constructing a flyover from I-95 to US 17 have been provided;
• The primary basis for the project articulated by FDOT has been the effect of the Overland Bridge project currently under construction. As with the I-10 I-95 interchange itself, the true success or failure of the Overland Bridge project and its impact on I-95 traffic cannot be known until it is completed and allowed to operate. A project currently under construction should not be the basis for circumventing the normal FDOT Five Year Work Program process;
• Previous expansion of the I-95/I-10 Interchange has already encroached into the neighborhood and had negative impacts on the neighborhood as a result of years of construction and significant additional noise;
• The Riverside Arts Market is located under the Fuller Warren Bridge and the City should ensure it is not negatively affected by the proposed project. With the City's commitment and support the Riverside Arts Market has helped create jobs, economic activity and drawn visitors to Jacksonville's core;
• The Artist Walk extension of the Riverwalk and the dog park being developed at Riverside Park will also utilize space under the Fuller Warren Bridge and I-95 and the City should ensure they are not negatively affected by the proposed project. The Jacksonville City Council has approved both of these projects, with FDOT's blessing, which are critical in continuing the positive cultural and economic momentum in the area and helping connect downtown with Riverside;
• Almost $15M is included in the proposed project to buy right of way. Homes and buildings will likely have to be demolished to provide additional right of way necessary for construction of the proposed project, in particular for the Fuller Warren expansion and the flyover from I-95 to US 17, and we do not know how Riverside Park may be impacted;
• The proposed project's impact on the St Johns River and McCoy's Creek is not known and a PD&E study will not be completed before the proposed project is funded; and
• The proposed project will cause the urban core to suffer through another three years of construction, virtually ongoing since 1996, that is designed to support vehicles passing through/driving by the urban core, not to it.
Please also let RAP know your input. We will be involved throughout this process and will be working with all parties involved to ensure that the neighborhood and the City's concerns are addressed.
I'll do it.
^Thank you, Chris.
We have lived for 10 years with FDOT "modifications" to the I-10 I-95 interchange and were hoping for an end to it. Here's a few more thoughts.
This project will affect not only our homes in historic neighborhoods but the City's oldest best used park with playgrounds and pathways. But despite their protective restrictions and covenants our parks are not immune to state eminent domain. Just look at the stinky drainage ditch where landscaping and trees used to be and imagine the destruction of those adjacent live oaks to make way for more overpass. Our St. Johns River will again have large bridge pilings sunk into it affecting river traffic, manatees and fish, sediment transport into wetlands and sea grasses. Something for boaters, watermen and waterfront homeowners north and south to prepare for. And then the Roosevelt Blvd. flyover lane. This highway is already a known deathtrap for pedestrians and cyclists.How will it improve by helping motorists move onto it faster from the interstate?
It would be wonderful to think that this project was a well planned project to help better connections for cars and trucks across the river and result in a more beautiful and vibrant city for visitors and locals. It would be nice to think that just a few tweaks and $138 million would be well spent. It would be great to see huge benefits flow to Jacksonville simply by increasing the number of cars that can speed across the river or flow onto Roosevelt Blvd. But, it just ain't so.
The fact of the matter is that based on population predictions the bridge will not be able to sustain the amount of cars. No one wants more construction, but its these same people who will be complaining, later on, that there are mass back ups. Why are so many people in Jax so against progress?
Quote from: jaxinatl on December 30, 2013, 10:05:29 AM
The fact of the matter is that based on population predictions the bridge will not be able to sustain the amount of cars. No one wants more construction, but its these same people who will be complaining, later on, that there are mass back ups. Why are so many people in Jax so against progress?
I'd hardly call widening an interstate "progress".
+1 ^ You beat me to it, Ben!
There are not more cars on this highway and overall miles driven everywhere in the country are falling. TPO says traffic counts through the interchange are unchanged from the time of the opening.
Alternatives to the gas tax are being proposed since miles driven are falling along with better mileage figures.
This whole project is just District 2 inventing a place to spend 130 million.
Let me see if I understand this: Riverside Avondale Preservation (RAP) opposes the Florida Department of Transportation spending $130 Million to relieve the congestion experienced by 146,000 vehicles crossing the Fuller Warren Bridge daily because the improvement might temporarily interfere with a grocery and trinket market that operates 6 hours, one day a week, 9-10 months out of the year? Wow! just Wow!
Quote from: Glenn OSteen on December 30, 2013, 10:39:26 AM
Let me see if I understand this: Riverside Avondale Preservation (RAP) opposes the Florida Department of Transportation spending $130 Million to relieve the congestion experienced by 146,000 vehicles crossing the Fuller Warren Bridge daily because the improvement might temporarily interfere with a grocery and trinket market that operates 6 hours, one day a week, 9-10 months out of the year? Wow! just Wow!
No you don't seem to understand this. According to RAP's website these are some issues with the project:
•No specific data, study, or other objective information demonstrating the need for widening the Fuller Warren Bridge or constructing a flyover from I-95 to US 17 have been provided;
• The primary basis for the project articulated by FDOT has been the effect of the Overland Bridge project currently under construction. As with the I-10 I-95 interchange itself, the true success or failure of the Overland Bridge project and its impact on I-95 traffic cannot be known until it is completed and allowed to operate. A project currently under construction should not be the basis for circumventing the normal FDOT Five Year Work Program process;
• Previous expansion of the I-95/I-10 Interchange has already encroached into the neighborhood and had negative impacts on the neighborhood as a result of years of construction and significant additional noise;
• The Riverside Arts Market is located under the Fuller Warren Bridge and the City should ensure it is not negatively affected by the proposed project. With the City's commitment and support the Riverside Arts Market has helped create jobs, economic activity and drawn visitors to Jacksonville's core;
• The Artist Walk extension of the Riverwalk and the dog park being developed at Riverside Park will also utilize space under the Fuller Warren Bridge and I-95 and the City should ensure they are not negatively affected by the proposed project. The Jacksonville City Council has approved both of these projects, with FDOT's blessing, which are critical in continuing the positive cultural and economic momentum in the area and helping connect downtown with Riverside;
• Almost $15M is included in the proposed project to buy right of way. Homes and buildings will likely have to be demolished to provide additional right of way necessary for construction of the proposed project, in particular for the Fuller Warren expansion and the flyover from I-95 to US 17, and we do not know how Riverside Park may be impacted;
• The proposed project's impact on the St Johns River and McCoy's Creek is not known and a PD&E study will not be completed before the proposed project is funded; and
• The proposed project will cause the urban core to suffer through another three years of construction, virtually ongoing since 1996, that is designed to support vehicles passing through/driving by the urban core, not to it.
Quote from: Glenn OSteen on December 30, 2013, 10:39:26 AM
Let me see if I understand this: Riverside Avondale Preservation (RAP) opposes the Florida Department of Transportation spending $130 Million to relieve the congestion experienced by 146,000 vehicles crossing the Fuller Warren Bridge daily because the improvement might temporarily interfere with a grocery and trinket market that operates 6 hours, one day a week, 9-10 months out of the year? Wow! just Wow!
What congestion problem?
Even FDOT admits the car count is roughly unchanged from when they built it originally.
Spouting off with no information. Wow! just wow!
Quote from: Glenn OSteen on December 30, 2013, 10:39:26 AM
Let me see if I understand this: Riverside Avondale Preservation (RAP) opposes the Florida Department of Transportation spending $130 Million to relieve the congestion experienced by 146,000 vehicles crossing the Fuller Warren Bridge daily because the improvement might temporarily interfere with a grocery and trinket market that operates 6 hours, one day a week, 9-10 months out of the year? Wow! just Wow!
Considering that the congestion now occurs for at most one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon and only on weekdays, I would say that's about even...and that's only if you think congestion delays and outdoor public events/commerce should be treated remotely on the same level!
Quotebecause the improvement might temporarily interfere with a grocery and trinket market that operates 6 hours, one day a week, 9-10 months out of the year?
Nice way to gloss over the fact that $15mm of taxpayer money will be spent to seize private property by eminant domain and demolish homes, businesses and parks in the process.
Quoterelieve the congestion experienced by 146,000 vehicles crossing the Fuller Warren Bridge daily
If the Fuller Warren is considered 'congestion', perhaps you havent ventured too far North or South on I-95.
Sigh. They won't be happy until they have destroyed Riverside, will they? Here's an idea. If one bridge / road is too congested for you, try a different one. Stay in the right lane on I-95 and take the Acosta, which is hugely underutilized. Or get off at Emerson and take the Hart. Ditto. Underutilized. Or get off at Park and pick up I-95 at Forest, like an earlier post suggested.
Oh wait, no, don't do that! I just gave away my communting secrets.
Hope you all are sending your comments/concerns to the FDOT please.
I'm probably really going to regret this but ....
(1) is the area potentially impacted by eminent domain involve anything other than a commercial building and some minor non-historic structures? And, would the proposed improvements further encroach on Annie Lytle to the point DOT condemns the structure?
(2) did anyone ever truly believe that RAM would never be impacted by either road construction or maintenance??
(3) in looking at the proposed flyover for US-17, while admittedly raising the traffic in the air, it does seem to push it further away from the existing residential. also, the back-up from US-17 is a major factor in the congestion on the fuller warren and at the stockton ramp. So, of all the proposals doesn't the US-17 ramp make most sense?
It seems to me that the flyover to US-17 and the correction of the ramp from Stockton to I-95 would correct most of the issues complained of.
As someone trying to get to my kids on the other side of the river (san marco) from Roosevelt at rush hour, I have found that I have no options.... gridlock on I-10, traffic jams on park and riverside (not that rushing through residential area should be an answer), and no real effective way to utilize acosta or hart heading east.
There are some real traffic issues albeit only during peak times. I understand the opposition to the improvements but does anybody have some constructive suggestions other than bike lanes???
There are ways to fix some of the congestion issues without widening the roadway itself and impacting the neighborhoods.
I'd be interested in hearing all of the ideas.
I understand we are faced with this issue because of a real lack of planning and forward thinking on the existing design but obviously some changes are mandated even if alternatives to what is proposed by DOT.
Looking at the designs again. It seems the Us-17 flyover will require condemnation of a few structures North of I-10. The correction of the lane issue from Stockton to just West of I-95 doesn't seem to impact Riverside Park or proposed dog park and only a portion of the commercial edge of Riverside (non-historic).
Plus those two changes would not impact the St. Johns River and would be east of McCoy's creek so impact to it should be minimal.
I guess what I am saying is .... if these two changes were made and the overland bridge was completed ... would the changes to fuller warren be necessitated?
I would to like to see the traffic study to understand where these people are coming from and going to. Lets face it buses will never move enough people to make a real dent in cars ... but if we knew the where(s) and to(s), it would make advocating mass transit that much easier.
QuoteLooking at the designs again. It seems the Us-17 flyover will require condemnation of a few structures North of I-10. The correction of the lane issue from Stockton to just West of I-95 doesn't seem to impact Riverside Park or proposed dog park and only a portion of the commercial edge of Riverside (non-historic).
There is no way to add a lane from Stockton without closing Rosselle Street since the current lane is at the edge of the street. There is no right-of-way left there.
There is no way to add a lane that goes past Riverside Park without taking additional right-of-way because the existing elevated lanes are right at the edge of what is left of the park after past takings for the approach to the bridge.
When asked about this, FDOT says, "Unicorns!" or the BS, engineering, political obfuscation equivalent.
I looked at the map Dogwalker. What i was discussing was the correction of the stockton ramps with I-10. It would result in potential closure of a portion or Roselle that i would not call highly traffic and more than likely the taking of the ambulance service.
This is where I proposed stopping the improvements. It seems to me the focus should be on overland bridge and US-17 interchange not fuller warren
Quote from: icarus on December 30, 2013, 07:31:57 PM
Plus those two changes would not impact the St. Johns River and would be east of McCoy's creek so impact to it should be minimal.
I suggest looking at the flyover again...it sits right on top of the creek
I just hope that they even consider pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure when they do follow through with this widening project. Especially since the old Fuller Warren would've made a PERFECT Pedestrian Bridge but now is a sunken man-made reef...It's the only way to shrink our vast city and to FINALLY connect San Marco with Riverside directly. I used to cycle over The Fuller daily while living in San Marco and it was truly a breeze of a commute, but nowadays with the widening project they have taken away most of the shoulder that I told myself was somewhat safe to travel over in three minutes instead of adding twenty extra minutes trekking over The Acosta...
Just figured that this point should be raised in regards to actually being useful to ALL types of transportation, not just for the automobiles...of course I am living in my hometown of Car Town USA just based upon distance(s) citizens must commute daily, but for those of use living within the urban core who will be impacted by this project most I think it's something to consider...At least it would help all sides since we all know it'll come to fruition and put pocket change ins someone's back pocket :P
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 30, 2013, 08:57:18 PM
QuoteLooking at the designs again. It seems the Us-17 flyover will require condemnation of a few structures North of I-10. The correction of the lane issue from Stockton to just West of I-95 doesn't seem to impact Riverside Park or proposed dog park and only a portion of the commercial edge of Riverside (non-historic).
There is no way to add a lane from Stockton without closing Rosselle Street since the current lane is at the edge of the street. There is no right-of-way left there.
You can add a lane between Stockton and I-95 without closing Rosselle Street or acquiring more ROW. The question that remains to be answered is if FDOT will go this route or not. Since they've set aside millions for ROW acquisition people can't help but wonder.
I actually don't have any problem coming off the current I-95 North to I-10 West flyover, and merging left to get off at Roosevelt Blvd (US-17), but I can see someone who is less gifted at the wheel than me not making that merge. ;)
Sometimes I pick up my boy to go to the Jags game, and the 8th Street on ramp (I-95 South) merging left to the Union St off ramp to EverBank Field is very similar.
I've never had a problem either but some additional signage on the flyover from I-95 to I-10 would help the white knuckle drivers out there. Yet FDOT is looking to sink all of that money into this particular project. No extra flyover means not all the money gets spent locally. It's a crazy way to plan buttthat's the system we've set up in this state.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 31, 2013, 07:16:41 AM
I've never had a problem either but some additional signage on the flyover from I-95 to I-10 would help the white knuckle drivers out there.
I agree, I even said that earlier. Uh, the DOT sometimes adds wrong signage. Like I-95 Northbound before the Fuller Warren; Three lanes all have the 'I-95' marker painted on the surface, although that right lane actually goes to I-10 West, SMH.
I have been trying to wrap my head around the lack of comprehensive planning- in a town that seems all about paying for consulting...
Who thought it would be a good idea to isolate the hart and acosta from 95? There are very obvious ways they could have been connected- especially during the building/planning of the interstates/extensions...
Especially since the acosta was the first bridge to cross the river.
In all the talk of DT revitalization, have the DIA or whomever, sat down and talked to DOT about further utilizing the urban bridges?
I was remarking to my SO- that the exit for union st- and subsequently the Mathews (which I cross several times daily) is very poorly marked from 95 in terms of where it actually goes. If people from elsewhere are trying to go to the beach- they are directed by signage to use JTB, when they could shave 20 minutes off the drive taking the Mathews to Atlantic...
It really is boggling, how far out of their way past leaders have gone to disenfranchise DT.
I think most people are not looking to put more vehicle traffic downtown. however, most people don't realize that the Martin Luther King Expressway connects I-95 to the Matthews Bridge and Hart Bridge while avoiding downtown, the Fuller Warren Bridge and overland bridge.
Quote from: icarus on January 02, 2014, 01:24:20 PM
I think most people are not looking to put more vehicle traffic downtown. however, most people don't realize that the Martin Luther King Expressway connects I-95 to the Matthews Bridge and Hart Bridge while avoiding downtown, the Fuller Warren Bridge and overland bridge.
construction notwithstanding, yeah MLK is the way to go to if you're coming South on I-95.
Yeah, I switch over to the Hart, using Emerson pretty often, if headed DT or north. If it's Riverside, coming from the Southside, I take the Acosta to Riverside Ave. or Forest.
All great ideas ..... But, as I mentioned in a previous post ... there is no relief for coming from 17 to San Marco .. south.
Although, on some occasions and times, I've found its faster to backtrack to cross the Buckman and come north on San Jose. Face it the Fuller Warren and the 17/I-10/I-95 interchange is a major traffic choke point ... at least two times a day monday through friday.
I don't travel much in that direction, but I'd assume you'd take the same alternative routes in reverse.
Quote from: icarus on January 02, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
All great ideas ..... But, as I mentioned in a previous post ... there is no relief for coming from 17 to San Marco .. south.
how about taking 17 to 95 north and getting off at either Forest or Forsyth...and then heading over the Acosta Bridge and down San Marco Blvd
That is a very plausible idea but for the fact that traffic from Stockton/I-95 backs up to US-17/I-10 ... and you can't even get off US-17 onto I-10 .... and when you finally do ... traffic is so backed up that you can't get over to get to the I-95 North lanes .....
My only purpose in pointing the situation out is to highlight the less than perfect planning of the existing roadways and to provide a basis for proposing alternatives to the proposed plans ... I still believe changes could be made in the existing right of way and without altering Fuller Warren that would provide significant relief.
^ I've say in same trying to get downtown. For some reason the ramp from 17N onto 10E backs ups horribly. I've been stopped past mcduff and sometimes as far back as Edgewood. I had thought it was due to general construction on 10/95 interchange but apparently it wasn't.
I think some of it may be people coming on to 10E and almost stopping trying to get over ... But typically once you're actually on 10, it is clear sailing until right at the bridge.
Bring in another Planner & Consultant layer.
FDOT tripped over itself, per the process,regardless of the stated project details.This latest episode is in fact atypical.
The folks that orchestrated Clay County Brannon Chaffee & Lake Asbury (attempt 1 ,2) "Sector Plans" could play a dandy role.They adhered to Process masterfully,boldly. Some may have scattered and are current FW related players.There are whispers:transportaion study is "Black Science". :o
The predicted demise of the Automobile is heart warming- we'll probably see the First Coast Outer Beltway and a host of other long established sprawl schemes promoted as "network alleviation" in the mean time.
Watch for it-dashed hopes for Fuller Waren;enter "By Pass", "Network Alleviation". SR 23,Outer Limits Beltway.
I've overheard Blue Hairs in Avondale speak positively of the benefits of The Beltway. Some may have invested in the Brannon Chaffee Corridor-but the key narrative is-diverting all that nasty traffic out of core Jacksonville.
(...waited until the Outer Limits of 18 page thread to merge on! LOL)
Quotehow about taking 17 to 95 north and getting off at either Forest or Forsyth...and then heading over the Acosta Bridge and down San Marco Blvd
If people did that, they would not complain about the traffic backup that the FDOT idiots designed as part of the new Fuller Warren Bridge. 1 lane of traffic merging I-10 East with traffic from Stockton. The engineer in charge of that design should be strung up, tarred, feathered and run out of town. Its a nightmare on a good day, add some rain, Ugh!
People will not take the route to Forest, because their GPS takes them off their course. They will not change. Trying to get them to change is like trying to convince suburbanites that it is SAFE to park downtown. lol
Quote from: I-10east on December 31, 2013, 06:02:09 AM
I actually don't have any problem coming off the current I-95 North to I-10 West flyover, and merging left to get off at Roosevelt Blvd (US-17), but I can see someone who is less gifted at the wheel than me not making that merge. ;)
If anyone has difficulty with this merge, they shouldn't be driving. You have almost a full mile to get one lane over to the left.
^ to be more accurate, it is 0.6 mile
Let it stay the way it is. People already use alternate routes, and more importantly there is no reason to destroy a natural creek, close local roads, and demolish private property in a historic district, for a 'fix' that, looking at it, won't fix what everyone's complaining about anyway.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 03, 2014, 08:14:45 AM
^ to be more accurate, it is 0.6 mile
0.7 at its most conservative according to Google Maps ;)
Additionally, I had forgotten if you're in the left lane coming off 95 South you don't even need to make that single lane change to the left to get off at Roosevelt.
If you are coming north on I-95, you need to shift over a minimum of two lanes in order to exit at US 17....if coming from I-95 north (heading south), then you don't....check yourself on Google Maps
And make sure when using Google Maps, measure from the end of the solid white line ;)
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 03, 2014, 12:07:25 PM
If you are coming north on I-95, you need to shift over a minimum of two lanes in order to exit at US 17....if coming from I-95 north (heading south), then you don't....check yourself on Google Maps
And make sure when using Google Maps, measure from the end of the solid white line ;)
Yeah, I was confusing myself with the directions there.
From today's RAP Newsletter; quotes from some messages to the head of District 2 FDOT:
*At Large Councilman Robin Lumb:
"For the record, and as the elected representative of 875,000 citizens of Duval County, I object to the FDOT's proposed widening of the Fuller Warren Bridge and the I-10 flyover based on the concerns I've raised in my previous communication with the northeast Florida Transportation Planning Organization. Please advise Mr. Bennett and others representing the FDOT on this project that I intend to take a leading role in representing the interests and concerns of my constituents in this matter."
*Preston Haskell, Founder and Chairman of The Haskell Company:
"First of all, this bridge is only 12 years old and is performing well. .... Through traffic moves smoothly at most times, and overall traffic volume is below design capacity. ... To my knowledge, no safety hazards exist at any of these three locations and the accident rate at any of them is not high. Second, it is simply counterintuitive that we should suddenly spend a sum 35 percent greater than the bridge’s original 2002 construction cost on “improvements.†... Third and perhaps most important, there are many other transportation priorities on which $136 million could be more productively expended."
*Lisa Rinaman, St. Johns Riverkeeper
"FDOT shocked the community on December 9, 2013, when the District 2 Tentative Work Program for FY 2014/15 â€" FY 2018/19 was released and included the highly controversial project to widen the Fuller Warren Bridge. This project had not been previously included in FDOT District 2’s 5-year Work Program or Long-Range Plan. ... In addition, this proposed project could threaten the St. Johns River and McCoy’s Creek. Unfortunately, FDOT has not conducted the required Project Development and Environmental Study.
Finally, the widening of the Fuller Warren Bridge is a threat to the Riverside Arts Market which has been an economic success that draws thousands of people to downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River each week."
*Mark Hudson, North Florida Land Trust
"Road construction must be predicated on a proven public need, for which FDOT has provided none. No study has indicated a public transportation need for the Project, nor has any elected official, transportation planning organization, or public advocacy group. In fact, the only stated necessity for the Project has been a “use it or lose it†argument about losing the funding to another transportation district. “Use it or lose it†is not, in fact, an argument of public necessity at all, merely a bureaucratic necessity.â€
Let me ask this question from a foggy memory:
Wasn't the original intent of the new interchange designed so that all traffic heading 95N or 95S, oming from west of the 17 exit is supposed to stay in the far left lanes, while the traffic coming on from 17 is supposed to stay in the far right lanes?
What happened to the signage, lane striping, lane/exit identification and the diverters and such? Their original plan made sense, it was just never followed through to the end and now you have this absolute CF where no one knows exactly where they're supposed to be to make the exit they need to make.
Rather than spending an additional $136M on not even fixing the problem, why not spend $1.36M finishing the original job as proposed?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 05, 2014, 06:35:31 PM
Rather than spending an additional $136M on not even fixing the problem, why not spend $1.36M finishing the original job as proposed?
So you see, there are these things called "plans" that we make using "consultants" and if we actually execute the plan
completely than we won't be able to hire "consultants" to make "plans" to "fix" the problems.
or so it seems.
:P
Edit: Sometimes I wonder about the institutions who give out the degrees to people who cannot execute a written/illustrated plan.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 05, 2014, 06:35:31 PM
Let me ask this question from a foggy memory:
Wasn't the original intent of the new interchange designed so that all traffic heading 95N or 95S, oming from west of the 17 exit is supposed to stay in the far left lanes, while the traffic coming on from 17 is supposed to stay in the far right lanes?
It seems like it, but they should have put overlapping barriers in to force people to follow this. I don't, but I wouldnt have a choice if it was forced.
We don't have traffic here in Jacksonville, compared to this nightmare:
http://www.businessinsider.com/atlanta-traffic-jam-pictures-2014-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/atlanta-traffic-jam-pictures-2014-1)
well if it snowed you would
Quote from: mtraininjax on January 29, 2014, 11:55:36 AM
We don't have traffic here in Jacksonville, compared to this nightmare:
http://www.businessinsider.com/atlanta-traffic-jam-pictures-2014-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/atlanta-traffic-jam-pictures-2014-1)
just one more reason not to build massive flyover ramps!