From the Office of the City Council
QuoteDecember 16, 2013
3:30 p.m.
Meeting Notice
Notice is hereby given that Council Member Robin Lumb, Council Member Greg Anderson, Council Member Jim Love and Council Member Warren Jones will meet on Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 1:00 pm in Conference Room A, located at 117 West Duval Street, Suite 425 (4th Floor), City Hall St. James Building. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the FDOT proposed $120 million widening of the Fuller Warren Bridge & the I-10-US 17 flyover.
All interested persons are invited to attend.
Please contact Donna Barrow, ECA At-Large Group 5, at (904) 630-7144, for additional information or email DLBarrow@coj.net.
An email from Robin Lumb to Jeff Sheffield, TPO Executive Director
Quote
December 16, 2013
Mr. Jeff Sheffield
North Florida TPO
1022 Prudential Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32207
Dear Mr. Sheffield:
As you know, news of the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) proposed $120 million widening of the Fuller Warren bridge and the I-10-to-US 17 flyover came as a complete surprise to Jacksonville City Council and apparently, to every other elected official in northeast Florida.
It also came as a surprise to many of my constituents who dread the thought of another highly disruptive FDOT project cutting through the heart of Riverside and Brooklyn. (In the interest of full disclosure I live in Riverside close by I-10.)
As a practical matter, almost everyone in Jacksonville and northeast Florida understood the necessity of replacing the old Fuller Warren bridge and for re-working the dysfunctional I-10/I-95 interchange. What they and I do not understand is the necessity for this new project. Those of us familiar with how traffic flows along I-10 and across the Fuller Warren are not persuaded that the modest improvements envisioned by the FDOT are worth the time, trouble and expense.
As per our conversation, you report that the FDOT believes it was within its rights to exclude the TPO from its planning because the project seeks to address "operational" concerns and is not for the purpose of expanding "capacity", a difference that strikes me as largely semantic. Regardless of how it rationalizes its behavior, however, it is difficult to believe that the FDOT is committed to the regional planning process when something of this size and magnitude is sprung on us without even the courtesy of a heads-up.
To be clear, unless the FDOT can develop a compelling rationale for this project it will face considerable opposition going forward.
The City of Jacksonville pays $217,000 a year to support the work of the TPO. We do this because we believe that regional planning and coordination is vital to maintaining a high functioning transportation network for northeast Florida. In the future, however, it will be hard to justify this expense if the TPO can't assure Jacksonville's taxpayers that it has the standing to demand better from the Florida Department of Transportation.
I ask that your organization examine the proposed project in detail to determine if the expenditure is A) warranted in terms of cost vs. benefit and, B) if it should be given priority over every other transportation project in northeast Florida.
Sincerely,
Councilman Robin Lumb
At-Large, Group 5
Jacksonville City Council
904-630-1387
117 W. Duval St, Suite 425
Jacksonville , FL 32202
PS – I'm told that the TPO's 5-year work program makes no mention of the FDOT's proposed FWB/I-10 project. Can you supply me with a copy of the long range plan developed by the TPO and advise if the project is included there?
Oh, there's a storm brewing in Jax! There's some corruption going on somewhere in the FDOT because they sprung this on everyone out of nowhere! Gotta love this!
They just have to fix some key issues in traffic flow from US 17 to San Marco! Somebody wants that money that the FDOT has in it's pocket!
The known chokepoints can be resolved for less than what they are proposing!
Anxiously excited to discover how suggestions regarding placement of new signage, any possible relocation of existing signage, the process and prioritizing which information is to be displayed, will be heard, and how receptive the department maybe it in hearing any statistics warranting the inclusion of pedestrian facilities over the bridge, especially when previous projects have been successfully completed and therefore set precedent.
Bump....
This meeting on the Fuller Warren Bridge expansion is scheduled for today at 1pm.
Quote from: Kay on December 16, 2013, 04:55:27 PM
From the Office of the City Council
QuoteDecember 16, 2013
3:30 p.m.
Meeting Notice
Notice is hereby given that Council Member Robin Lumb, Council Member Greg Anderson, Council Member Jim Love and Council Member Warren Jones will meet on Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 1:00 pm in Conference Room A, located at 117 West Duval Street, Suite 425 (4th Floor), City Hall St. James Building. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the FDOT proposed $120 million widening of the Fuller Warren Bridge & the I-10-US 17 flyover.
All interested persons are invited to attend.
Please contact Donna Barrow, ECA At-Large Group 5, at (904) 630-7144, for additional information or email DLBarrow@coj.net.
The community are voicing their concerns about the Fuller Warren expansion; Just like many on MJ had already. Concerning any future pedestrian/bike usage, Don Redman is in favor of bike lanes, but James Bennett from FDOT said "This is an interstate; There is not going to be sidewalks or bike paths put across this bridge on an interstate".
www.actionnewsjax.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoID=4838914&navCatId=20896
INTERSTATE 205 in Oregon. This is one of many INTERSTATE river crossings with bike/ped components included.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/I-205_Bike_Path.JPG)
If there's no bike/ped component, it won't be because it can't be done. It will be because FDOT simply doesn't want to do it. Did anyone here attend this meeting today? How did it go?
^^^I know, the way he said "This is an interstate" like a pedestrian/bike component has never been done before on an interstate. Admittedly, I didn't know about about the sidewalks on many interstates until the recent MJ thread. It does seem like individual states are very anal far as their laws are concerned. I've saw some highway designs in different states that they wouldn't dare build in Florida. Are there any ped&bike/interstate bridges in the state of Florida? It makes too much sense to build the sidewalk, and if anything it would be an effective compromising measure for the lane expansion.
The Suncoast Parkway in the Tampa Bay area includes a bike/ped component:
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2011/02/a4s_suncoast020511_161426a_8col.jpg)
I believe the multi-use path will be built parallel to I-275 in Tampa as a part of its widening as well. So the precedent is there.
I think the best example to show FDOT is on I-95 itself....on the DC beltway crossing the Potomac River
James Bennett's smirks, condescending smiles and arrogance towards our Councilmen and anyone else who dared question him was just infuriating. I am surprised that Don Redman kept his composure in spite of the way he was disrespected. Bennett actually cut him off with a curt, dismissive answer at one point.
Is there an opposite saying from Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?
Jeff Sheffield, ED of TPO, said that a bike/ped path over the Fuller Warren would not be approved because the Acosta bridge with those accommodations is so close by.
Which begs the question of why we have to widen the Fuller Warren when another facility is right down that street.
You can walk and bike across the George Washigton Bridge in NYC which happens to also be I-95.
The daily occurance of people riding bikes and walking across the Fuller Warren should be enough of a hint that a separated bike lane would be a good idea.
I could have sworn the Acosta is a sidewalk and shoulders that restricts bike/ped movement. The Fuller Warren also has the Acosta, Main, Hart and Mathews nearby. It's easier to drive to them than walk to the Acosta. It's also quicker to sit in rush hour traffic on the Fuller Warren in a car than walk or bike a mile out of the way to the Acosta. Long story short, I don't agree that it's not possible.
It is entirely possible and all need to share some images with decision makers to refute FDOTs position
Its entirely possible. What you are witnessing is departmental intransigence .
I've worked with DOT engineers before. They operate on strict standards that they set internally. It almost takes an act of God to get them cooperate on an issue like this.
Image heavy story already in the works. Will run before Christmas. Also, we can be that act of God. We've done it before, so it's possible...
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Image heavy story already in the works. Will run before Christmas. Also, we can be that act of God. We've done it before, so it's possible...
(http://www.azreptiles.com/forums/images/smilies/hail3qv.gif)
If they build a sidewalk on the FWB, it will have to be on the other side of the pile that supports that pedestrian bridge span (encroaching on Nemours, or whoevers land).
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Image heavy story already in the works. Will run before Christmas. Also, we can be that act of God. We've done it before, so it's possible...
i'd really like to see that personally. if the original superstructure is sufficient to support the additional proposed spans and there really is a limit on same grade pedestrian access, I would think a suspended walkway/bike/pedestrian access would work just fine.
You can put all of the lipstick you want in the way of bide/ped additions to that pig of a project and it still should be killed.
The ONLY reason it exists at all is that the district doesn't want to lose the money. The need for this is simply made up.
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 21, 2013, 09:34:10 AM
The need for this is simply made up.
This is something that will be pretty difficult to prove from a technical point....
Quote from: thelakelander on December 21, 2013, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 21, 2013, 09:34:10 AM
The need for this is simply made up.
This is something that will be pretty difficult to prove from a technical point....
Not when they finally release traffic counts and accident occurrence numbers. I'll bet that comparing the hourly road grades from before and after the new intersection was built will show that there is not nearly as much congestion on the new intersection as on the old.
If there were problems with the intersection, FDOT would have been talking to the TPO and getting changes into the work plan along with all of the other recommended projects that are in the pipeline. There was NO talk of concerns with this intersection with anyone inside or outside the FDOT until the quick need for an interstate project was evident.
Better to let the money go to another district than waste it on a project that damages this city more. The interstate should have been routed around the downtown bridges years ago; when the Dames Point Bridge was expanded.
I'm not sure crash rates really matter in the grand scheme of things. Auto LOS (Level of Service) and V/C Ratio (Volume/Capacity) will prove the opposite of the opinion of those who believe there's no problem. Forgoing $130 million spent locally is another thing that will be a major challenge politically.
BTW, you should be able to look up and download crash rates, traffic counts, etc. from FDOT's website. I'm not aware of them hiding this type of info.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 22, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
Forgoing $130 million spent locally is another thing that will be a major challenge politically.
Please expound a bit on this concept.
I posted this in another thread:
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.
Is there any process in place to track how much 'local' spending actually stays 'local'?
Local in this case means spent in District 2, not necessarily that is goes to local contractors. They don't want the folks in Tallahassee to say, "Oh, they didn't need the money in District 2 so we'll give it to the Tampa Bay District."
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Image heavy story already in the works. Will run before Christmas. Also, we can be that act of God. We've done it before, so it's possible...
Are sound walls included anywhere in the proposed scope of work?
What changes can we seek as the signage is a confusing mess for drivers unfamiliar with the entire area between 17/Edgewood, Luna/I-10, 8th/95, Emerson/95?
With such obstinance from the very entity capable of knocking Jax down the list of most dangerous MSA(s) for non motorized traffic, and thereby creating an enviable legacy by instead truly listening to the community, prevailing upon "the deciderers" leaves me with the feeling of defeat.
You're only defeated if you accept the initial negative response as face value.
Quote from: ricker on December 22, 2013, 05:45:50 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Image heavy story already in the works. Will run before Christmas. Also, we can be that act of God. We've done it before, so it's possible...
Are sound walls included anywhere in the proposed scope of work?
the need for them would be evaluated during the PD&E process, which is apparently underway