Bikes & Pedestrians On The Fuller Warren Bridge?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2979680476_D5NFRcq-M.jpg)
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) wants to spend $136 million to expand the Fuller Warren Bridge. They claim including a bicycle and pedestrian crossing as a part of the project isn't possible on an interstate highway. Here are some examples across the country that suggest otherwise.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-dec-bikes-pedestrians-on-the-fuller-warren-bridge
I'm guessing that the FDOT Executive is appointed by the Governor? If so, I would let the Governor know your thoughts as well.
Before anyone says this is a "northern thing", Charleston did the same thing when they tore down their old Cooper River Bridge (from Charleston to Mt Pleasant): https://lh3.ggpht.com/-ADpCLLV2S_s/Un2V1sEuIdI/AAAAAAAAAMo/Hhaoesym3Vk/s1600/SAM_0240.JPG
As long as they make it better than our Main Street Bridge path then I'm all for it. That path is half-assed, not nearly wide enough. Its barely wide enough for two people to stand side by side, let alone two bikes meeting. And if you're towing your kids in a trailer forget about it.
(http://www.localeikki.com/images/uploads/EP-130719608.jpg&maxw=600.jpeg)
It's not an interstate but it is pretty nice and representative of something that could be done with the Fuller Warren.
As for the Main Street Bridge, it has an excuse. It was built in 1941....Outside of the Acosta, ever other river crossing built in the decades following ignored all non motorized traffic.
Here are some Florida examples of limited access highways with bike/ped accommodations:
Suncoast Trail parallels the Turnpike Authority's Suncoast Parkway. IMO, something like this should have been included as a part of 9B and the First Coast Expressway. This one includes fencing for all those road engineers who fear pedestrians will run in front of or throw rocks at cars.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-9GgNNKQ/0/M/Suncoast%20Trail%20Tampa%20Bay2-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-9xkP7SJ/0/M/Suncoast%20Trail%20Tampa%20Bay3-M.jpg)
This is MacArthur Causeway in downtown Miami where I-395 and SR AIA come together. Ramps for a tunnel to the port are currently being constructed in the median of this bridge over Biscayne Bay. Take note of the sidewalks that exist on both sides.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-9hgx7nv/0/M/i-395%20Miami-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-6QN8Svn/0/M/i-395%20Miami%202-M.jpg)
I plan on spending a few hours in South Beach next week, so I may try and get some better pictures if time allows.
It can be done locally. A decent example of a bike/predestrian path is alongside the (relatively) new McCormick Road/Wonderwood Expressway corridor in the Ft. Caroline area. It goes from the end of Kernan Blvd to Mayport. Gets a lot of bicycle and some foot traffic and crosses several bodies of water, marshes etc.
Here you go!
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-W2JWcCb/0/M/Wonderwood%20Bridge-M.jpg)
Given the residential and employment population density adjacent to the Fuller Warren, I suspect it would be a pretty popular connection and something of a visual "gateway" for those driving through the area, if done right. For example, the new San Sebastian River Bridge in St. Augustine came out pretty nice.
(http://historiccity.com/wp-content/uploads/San-Sebastian-Image-2.gif)
(http://historiccity.com/wp-content/uploads/US-1-San-Sebastian-River-Bridge-8-15-12-9-c.jpg)
FDOT is using the fact that the Acosta Bridge is "so close" to the Fuller Warren bridge and provides bicycle and pedestrian access to refuse to consider the same for the Fuller Warren project.
The Acosta Bridge is also under capacity and it offers six lanes for cars. It's much easier for a driver to use the Acosta or Hart Bridge via Emerson (I know, I do all the time during rush hour) depending on where you're headed, then walking two miles out of the way in the heat or rain. Anyway, that's not a sound excuse since there is nothing on the books validating such a thought.
Thank you for the link. Email sent. Hope you don't mind, but I attached a link back to the editorial as well.
Imaging that, the
FLORIDA DOT doesn't want to do something pedestrian friendly! They're happy remaining high up on the list I guess:
Table 5: Top Three States With the Highest or Lowest Pedestrian Fatalities
State Name / Rank* / % / Number of Fatalities
The highest
California / 1 / 14.4 / 7,056
Florida / 2 / 10.4 / 5,125
Texas / 3 / 8.7 / 4,269
The lowest
North Dakota / 51 / 0.1 / 48
Vermont / 50 / 0.1 / 60
Wyoming / 49 / 0.1 / 71
Source: FARS 1997-2005 (Final), 2006 (ARF) * Rank based on fatality percentage
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810968.PDF (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810968.PDF)
Would Metro Jacksonville support the expansion of the bridge and the related north/south interchange expansions if a pedestrian/bicycle facility were added?
Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of FDOT spending money to improve traffic flow on I-95. Where the rubber meets the road is in the impact to surrounding residents, businesses, communities and how it fits within the overall long term goals of the city as a whole.
I can't speak on the behalf of Metro Jacksonville as a group but I would think this would be one of the concessions that would be needed. That's something that could economically benefit the revitalization of downtown (Brooklyn/Southbank), as well as encourage infill in Northern San Marco and Five Points. This is a form of infrastructure that lays the foundation for walkable communities.
With all of that said, I think it's too early in the game to say yes or no. At this point, we don't know what true negative impacts will be or determine the best methods for alleviating them....if those alternatives exist.
However, it's not too early to get creative in this discussion and for the community to shape a solution as opposed to being forced to accept whatever FDOT wants to do.
Let me elaborate on this a little more. From my point of view, what we have is an opportunity to create the type of high profile project that people claimed they wanted in all those visioning efforts and studies that have been conducted over the last decade.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Urban-Issues/Urban-Core-Vision-Plan/i-DJR2R44/0/XL/0736_UC%2BFinal%2BVision%2BLow%2BRes_Page_079-XL.jpg)
From COJ Urban Core Visioning Plan back in 2010.
We have an opportunity to get one of the things that helps make us a bride instead of a bride's maid when it comes to competing for economic development with other communities around the country that already realize the importance of quality-of-live investment. The way these vision plans get incrementally implemented is to hold all future projects proposed in your community to a higher standard than what has been allowed in the past.
So, from my perspective, instead of drawing the line in the sand and chaining myself to a tree in complete opposition (without all info present to make an informed decision), I'm willing to attempt to first work to see if there is a solution that benefits all parties and the city as a whole. If that solution or compromise doesn't materialize, then you make decisions based on the stack of cards you've been dealt. I typically take this earlier position for most community development issues.
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 23, 2013, 10:57:43 AM
FDOT is using the fact that the Acosta Bridge is "so close" to the Fuller Warren bridge and provides bicycle and pedestrian access to refuse to consider the same for the Fuller Warren project.
I think that argument is pretty weak, but if they want to use it, then turnabout is fair play....
As Lakelander notes, the Acosta Bridge is under capacity, so there should be no need to widen the Fuller Warren bridge. Imagine if everyone going between San marco and Riverside used the Acosta. Just count the capacity of both bridges and tell people that are sitting in delays on I-95 to use the Acosta instead.
This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):
"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."
The whole 316.091 section is worth a read regarding this issue. The pilot program referenced is ongoing in three locations: Pineda Causeway (SR 404), William Lehman Causeway (SR 856), and Julia Tuttle Causeway (1-595). The FDOT has a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council" website that contains meeting minutes for an update on the program if you're interested. It says preliminary findings are expected in March 2014.
Quote from: NIMBY on December 23, 2013, 01:29:17 PM
This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):
"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."
The whole 316.091 section is worth a read regarding this issue. The pilot program referenced is ongoing in three locations: Pineda Causeway (SR 404), William Lehman Causeway (SR 856), and Julia Tuttle Causeway (1-595). The FDOT has a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council" website that contains meeting minutes for an update on the program if you're interested. It says preliminary findings are expected in March 2014.
What's the difference between what's described in your post and the FDOT's limited access highway shown below (I-395/SR AIA in Downtown Miami)?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-9hgx7nv/0/M/i-395%20Miami-M.jpg)
Or this bridge situation by the Turnpike in Central Florida?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-9xkP7SJ/0/M/Suncoast%20Trail%20Tampa%20Bay3-M.jpg)
Both examples have dedicated sections for different modes that are physically separated. You can do this with the Fuller Warren, just like it has been done on all the other interstate examples shown in this article:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2979680390_J76Vzcq-M.jpg)
Interstate 95 over the Potomac River between Maryland and Northern Virginia.http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-dec-bikes-pedestrians-on-the-fuller-warren-bridge
Quote from: NIMBY on December 23, 2013, 01:29:17 PM
This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):
"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."
so basically you can't ride a bike in the travel or shoulder lanes of the roadway itself....which has nothing to do with constructing a barrier-separated bike facility adjacent to the roadway.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 23, 2013, 12:59:16 PM
As Lakelander notes, the Acosta Bridge is under capacity, so there should be no need to widen the Fuller Warren bridge. Imagine if everyone going between San marco and Riverside used the Acosta. Just count the capacity of both bridges and tell people that are sitting in delays on I-95 to use the Acosta instead.
I do it all the time if the Fuller Warrent is slow.
Under California law, if there is not a practical and safe local road for bicycling, the freeways must accomodate cyclists.
Pressure on FDOT can yield results. FDOT's original plan when it widened Miami's MacArthur Causeway decades ago included barrier walls that would have all but blocked drivers' view of Biscayne Bay. The Miami Herald stirred things up and the public put the pressure on the state to preserve the causeway's "view friendly" design. FDOT revised its plans and the water views were saved. I hope Metro Jacksonville's article will encourage everyone to let FDOT know a bike/pedestrian lane must be included on the Fuller Warren bridge. Other cities and states are waking up to the need for bike lanes. Let's do the same.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 23, 2013, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 23, 2013, 10:57:43 AM
FDOT is using the fact that the Acosta Bridge is "so close" to the Fuller Warren bridge and provides bicycle and pedestrian access to refuse to consider the same for the Fuller Warren project.
I think that argument is pretty weak, but if they want to use it, then turnabout is fair play....
As Lakelander notes, the Acosta Bridge is under capacity, so there should be no need to widen the Fuller Warren bridge. Imagine if everyone going between San marco and Riverside used the Acosta. Just count the capacity of both bridges and tell people that are sitting in delays on I-95 to use the Acosta instead.
Ya think! Their own argument makes the dedicated lanes from Riverside to San Marco and the reverse not necessary. What good for bike/ped is good for cars. I always use Acosta during heavy traffic times.
Let me start by saying that I would love to see future FWB bike/ped access. It's cool for all of us to sing Kumbaya, and there's absolutely ANY reason that a sidewalk shouldn't be aside the FWB's vehicular traffic, but I like to be objective at times like these by playing Devil's Advocate, to understand the likely issues with this. Again, I'm NOT against a sidewalk on the Fuller Warren.
I said this before; If a ped/bike lane is built alongside the Southbound lanes of the FWB, it will encroach on Nemours land on the other side of the pedestrian bridge pile on that deceleration off ramp; Not that it's an square acre of land by no means, but it seems like it would be an eminent domain issue. With that being said, a lil' red tape is nothing impossible to accomplish by no means.
The FDOT and everyone on MJ is talking about the Northbank's perspective, and the distance from the FWB to the Acosta, but what about the Southbank's? If a sidewalk gets built on the FWB, the Southbank will have three ped bridges, all within a pretty concentrated area.
I'm not saying ALL, but it seems like most pedestrian bridges on an interstate would be pretty isolated from any other ped bridges; The few that aren't are in VERY densely populated areas. Not that it can't be done, but if a FWB sidewalk is successful, we would have the first ped/bike access bridge on a major interstate in the state of Florida; After all, it's the FDOT that's in charge of this, non-relating to what's going on in NYC, Pittsburgh etc.
Quote from: I-10east on December 24, 2013, 12:55:05 AM
I said this before; If a ped/bike lane is built alongside the Southbound lanes of the FWB, it will encroach on Nemours land on the other side of the pedestrian bridge pile on that deceleration off ramp; Not that it's an square acre of land by no means, but it seems like it would be an eminent domain issue. With that being said, a lil' red tape is nothing impossible to accomplish by no means.
Not necessarily. Nevertheless, FDOT is talking about taking property to widen the bridge and adjacent ramps for cars only. This includes demolishing a six story building in Five Points.
QuoteThe FDOT and everyone on MJ is talking about the Northbank's perspective, and the distance from the FWB to the Acosta, but what about the Southbank's? If a sidewalk gets built on the FWB, the Southbank will have three ped bridges, all within a pretty concentrated area.
All going in different directions. The same goes for auto bridges. In a car, this isn't an issue but on foot in Florida's climate, this is an issue. Ideally, all of the river crossings should be multimodal. If FDOT is going to spend $136 million widening the FWB, they might as well get it right the first time.
QuoteI'm not saying ALL, but it seems like most pedestrian bridges on an interstate would be pretty isolated from any other ped bridges; The few that aren't are in VERY densely populated areas. If a FWB sidewalk is successful, we would have the first ped/bike access bridge on a major interstate in the state of Florida; After all, it's the FDOT that's in charge of this, non-relating to what's going on in NYC, Pittsburgh etc.
The FWB is in a densely populated area. Both Riverside and San Marco have more residents then downtown. Both sides of the river also have a pretty high employment density. If a bike/ped component is added, Jax could be a trendsetter in something for a change. Nevertheless, I've already shown an FDOT bridge (I-395/SR A1A) in Miami that includes a pedestrian component, as well as the trail that parallels the Suncoast Parkway in the Bay Area. I believe that I-275 in Tampa is getting a parallel trail as well, as a part of its expansion through that city's urban core. So this isn't as difficult or off-the-wall as some attempt to make it out to be. The precedent in this state has already been set.
^^^Reasonable counter-arguments.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 24, 2013, 01:28:11 AM
All going in different directions. The same goes for auto bridges. In a car, this isn't an issue but on foot in Florida's climate, this is an issue. Ideally, all of the river crossings should be multimodal. If FDOT is going to spend $136 million widening the FWB, they might as well get it right the first time.
Exactly. A walk on foot from 5 points to San Marco is one mile longer when taking the Acosta than the Fuller Warren, an extra 15-20 minutes if you're on foot.
If this were a 15 minute detour by car it wouldn't even be a debate. They'd build a bridge in a heartbeat.
Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2013, 01:38:08 PM
Quote"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."
not exactly an insurmountable obstacle nimby.
Stephen,
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think you cut the bold a little short and should probably include the rest of the sentence. I read it to say that it has to be part of the pilot program.
Lakelander,
I'm not quite adept at quoting yet, but I'll try to address the examples you cited. Regarding I-395/SR AIA in Downtown Miami, without seeing the actual right-of-way maps (which is what really matters here, given the statute), it appears that this is the point where I-395 changes to SR A1A. Therefore, the right-of-way type changes. To the east, over the causeway, it is not limited access and therefore the accommodation for pedestrians and bicycles.
For the Turnpike, I think that is a better example. It is clearly not in an area where the limited access right-of-way might end like in Miami. This is a guess, but there may be a parallel right-of-way dedicate to the path, directly adjacent to the roadway limited access right-of-way. That might actually be a workaround for the statute and may be worth public comment to FDOT. The limited access right-of-way ends at the back of the bridge way barrier wall and there is a normal right-of-way for the width of the path.
tufsu1,
I don't disagree, but you have to get the right-of-way straight first.
You have to look at this from the FDOT's perspective. They would have to seemingly violate a state statute to make this happen. What if the FDOT has to use eminent domain to acquire the property for the widening and potential bike/ped path? A right-of-way attorney representing a landowner could rip them apart.
Absent some creative right-of-way use, I don't see this as an option until the pilot program is further along, has positive results, and the statute is updated.
QuoteWhat if the FDOT has to use eminent domain to acquire the property for the widening and potential bike/ped path?
Lets be clear, they will be using eminent domain in ths highway expansion and taking out businesses, a park, disrupting RAM and further encroaching on entire blocks of residential property. In fact, they've allocated about 10 percent of the total project cost in just ROW acquisition.
This is a devastating project. To not even consider mitigating that devastation is unconscionable.
Quote from: NIMBY on December 24, 2013, 09:41:55 PM
Lakelander,
I'm not quite adept at quoting yet, but I'll try to address the examples you cited. Regarding I-395/SR AIA in Downtown Miami, without seeing the actual right-of-way maps (which is what really matters here, given the statute), it appears that this is the point where I-395 changes to SR A1A. Therefore, the right-of-way type changes. To the east, over the causeway, it is not limited access and therefore the accommodation for pedestrians and bicycles.
For the Turnpike, I think that is a better example. It is clearly not in an area where the limited access right-of-way might end like in Miami. This is a guess, but there may be a parallel right-of-way dedicate to the path, directly adjacent to the roadway limited access right-of-way. That might actually be a workaround for the statute and may be worth public comment to FDOT. The limited access right-of-way ends at the back of the bridge way barrier wall and there is a normal right-of-way for the width of the path.
QuoteYou have to look at this from the FDOT's perspective. They would have to seemingly violate a state statute to make this happen. What if the FDOT has to use eminent domain to acquire the property for the widening and potential bike/ped path? A right-of-way attorney representing a landowner could rip them apart.
Absent some creative right-of-way use, I don't see this as an option until the pilot program is further along, has positive results, and the statute is updated.
^The point I'm making is that they aren't violating a state statue. The statue you quoted talks about bicycles on a limited access facility or on its shoulder. The "facility" in "limited access" is generally considered to mean the roadway plus paved shoulder.
Quote from: NIMBY on December 23, 2013, 01:29:17 PM
This isn't just up to the whim of the FDOT, there are statutory restrictions based on the way the state owns the right-of-way, i.e. "limited access" or not (from FS 316.091):
"No person shall operate a bicycle or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or along the shoulder of a limited access highway, including bridges, unless official signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department of Transportation."
The whole 316.091 section is worth a read regarding this issue. The pilot program referenced is ongoing in three locations: Pineda Causeway (SR 404), William Lehman Causeway (SR 856), and Julia Tuttle Causeway (1-595). The FDOT has a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council" website that contains meeting minutes for an update on the program if you're interested. It says preliminary findings are expected in March 2014.
The examples shown and suggested for the FWB don't have human powered vehicles operating on a highway shoulder or the actual roadway. They are physically separated sidepaths with barriers separating their traffic from the roadway and its shoulder. Barrier separated sidepaths designed for bike and ped traffic have been permitted before in Florida on limited access facilities. Both the Suncoast Parkway Trail and the I-395/SR A1A sidewalk are examples.
The pilot program is about allowing bicycle traffic on limited access facility shoulders. That's a completely different animal altogether and something that doesn't sound really safe, IMO.
As for the eminent domain issue, I fail to see what they has to do with a bike facility. FDOT has already gone on record of desiring to take property and demolish a six story building in Riverside for their extra lanes. If that's the route they want to go, they'll deal with that situation regardless of whether a bike/ped component is included or not.
Btw, for anyone wanting to read the statues, here's a link:
Chapter 316
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter316/All
Chapter 349
Jacksonville Expressway Authority/JTA exceptions
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/349.04
Quote from: NIMBY on December 24, 2013, 09:41:55 PM
For the Turnpike, I think that is a better example. It is clearly not in an area where the limited access right-of-way might end like in Miami. This is a guess, but there may be a parallel right-of-way dedicate to the path, directly adjacent to the roadway limited access right-of-way. That might actually be a workaround for the statute and may be worth public comment to FDOT. The limited access right-of-way ends at the back of the bridge way barrier wall and there is a normal right-of-way for the width of the path.
The ROW is the same. The Suncoast Trail is just physically separated. This is the suggestion for the FWB. Due to there being ramps on both sides of the bridge, what was done with the Suncoast Trail is applicable with the FWB. Here's some more info on the Suncoast Trail.
QuoteAs part of the Suncoast Parkway project, a multi-use paved recreational trail called the Suncoast Trail was constructed parallel to the western side of the highway, and opened along with the Parkway itself in 2001.[9] The trail begins at Lutz-Lake Fern Road (Exit 16), and continues north for 41 miles to the highway's terminus at US 98. Four miles north of State Road 54, an additional 6.5-mile paved bicycle trail connects the Suncoast Trail to the J. B. Starkey Wilderness Park in New Port Richey. Use of the Suncoast Trail is free, but in late 2010, a $2.00 parking fee was implemented at the Lutz-Lake Fern (Hillsborough County) and State Route 54 (Pasco County) trailheads. Both counties offer annual passes, which are valid only within the county of issue. Motor vehicles are prohibited along the entire trail.
For most of its length, the Suncoast Trail stays close to the parkway, separated by fences, grass, and in some places concrete barriers. Bridges that cross rivers and streams were built with enough width to accommodate trail users. Where roads cross above the parkway, particularly north of State Road 52, the trail briefly strays from the parkway, allowing users to cross the intersecting road at-grade.
Pedestrian and cyclist crossing of minor cross streets is regulated by posted signs. At busier intersections, pedestrian crossing signals are part of the traffic signal systems already in place. The notable exception is at the State Road 50 interchange near Brooksville, where a dedicated overpass has been constructed to cross State Road 50, approximately 500 feet west of the main parkway.
full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Road_589
Lakelander,
See the typical section at the link below for the Suncoast Parkway extension. It was generated for the extension project, so I can't be sure if the right-of-way is the same for the current roadway but I would suspect it is. There is a parallel 50' standard right-of-way dedicated to the multi-use path. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I think it is important to your discussions and future interactions with the FDOT and TPO and may be a way to move forward.
http://suncoast2online.com/pdf/Suncoast3dTypical.pdf (http://suncoast2online.com/pdf/Suncoast3dTypical.pdf)
I can definitely see your point and may be misinterpreting the statute as disallowing bike/ped access.
If the link above didn't post, just google "suncoast3dtypical" and it should be the first and only result. I'll try to read a tutorial on using forums in the meantime!
Love the site, Merry Christmas all!
I checked the Suncoast Parkway's ROW last night on the Hernando County property appraiser's site. The trail and toll road are a part of the same ROW. I'll try and post a graphic of it later tonight.
Btw....the new trail that is being buikt in Tampa along with the I-275 widening is part of the highway ROW
Here's two GIS screenshots showing the Suncoast Parkway's ROW in Hernando County. Officially, the trail and the limited access roadway share the same FDOT ROW.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-2WnFZKm/0/M/hernando%20county%20GIS2-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-z4mh98w/0/L/hernando%20county%20GIS3-L.jpg)
Quote from: NIMBY on December 25, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
Lakelander,
See the typical section at the link below for the Suncoast Parkway extension. It was generated for the extension project, so I can't be sure if the right-of-way is the same for the current roadway but I would suspect it is. There is a parallel 50' standard right-of-way dedicated to the multi-use path. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I think it is important to your discussions and future interactions with the FDOT and TPO and may be a way to move forward.
http://suncoast2online.com/pdf/Suncoast3dTypical.pdf (http://suncoast2online.com/pdf/Suncoast3dTypical.pdf)
My guess is this linked typical cross section just shows a portion of FDOT's ROW being dedicated to the trail. However, in reality, they are both a part of the same official FDOT owned ROW.
The meeting I was able to attend that discussed this project, the FDOT rep wasn't against a pedestrian walkway as this thread suggests. When the question was posed, he said that due to its proximity to the Acosta Bridge they couldn't justify the added expense. He said it would be much easier approving additional funds if it were the Matthews or Buckman. He did say if funding could be found, they'd be amenable to including it.
Edit: the mtg this was discussed was a public mtg on the 19th in the st James bldg so there should be a public record transcript somewhere of his statements
sorry but I have a hard time with the Acosta argument.
The fact is they have "found" $135 million...I think they could find some savings in the project that would allow the bike trail to be added.
Its a simple matter of caring!
If they 'cared', then they wouldn't be ripping up private property, parks and open air markets.
Yeah, sounds like an excuse instead of a valid reason. My BS meter rises when I hear something like a 12' path being a major "extra" expense when a $136 million project was just created out of thin air ($15 million of which will go to take private property). The proposed Fuller Warren Bridge would have 11 lanes. Cut it down to 10 (five in each direction), traffic still flows and you have your bike/ped component for the same cost.
Speaking of FDOT and road widening projects, the pork is being fed statewide. I took US 27 from Central Florida to Miami earlier today. In little Clewiston, FDOT D1 is wrapping up construction on a massive full blown interchange on US 27 at SR 80, in the middle of sugar cane fields.
(http://www.sr80-us27.com/images/PhaseIV-1.jpg)
Total overkill.....
its all about moving freight...inland ports my friend!
LOL, that thing won't move anymore freight than the stop light it replaced.
Funding a multi-use path is easy. Just issue bonds to pay for the construction and charge the users a toll to pay off the bonds.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on December 27, 2013, 12:52:40 PM
Funding a multi-use path is easy. Just issue bonds to pay for the construction and charge the users a toll to pay off the bonds.
No problem, we'll also toll the auto lanes as well. That was really, really well received before on the Fuller Warren.
Very useful info, thanks. The bike/ped connection needs to be the first idea out of the gate if we're even going to consider this project.
QuoteThe bike/ped connection needs to be the first idea out of the gate if we're even going to consider this project.
Agreed, but RAP and the hush-hush groups in town will most likely try and kill the project before we ever see if it has a bike/ped connection.
There are a whole bunch of us in Riverside who are trying to kill this unnecessary and intrusive project. Nothing hush-hush about it. We're going to be yelling at every possible time and to anyone who can help us kill this thing.
FDOT has completely cooked up the reasons for this because they don't won't to lose money that was allocated for another project that has been cancelled. They have gone completely outside of the normal planning process and had never even hinted at the need for it in any of the regular channels. If there had been major problems with the new interchange and the new bridge they would have been talking about it long before now.
^ that said,many of these same people also understand that compromise may be necessary...and so yes, the bike path idea is being discussed.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 26, 2013, 10:55:23 PM
Speaking of FDOT and road widening projects, the pork is being fed statewide. I took US 27 from Central Florida to Miami earlier today. In little Clewiston, FDOT D1 is wrapping up construction on a massive full blown interchange on US 27 at SR 80, in the middle of sugar cane fields.
(http://www.sr80-us27.com/images/PhaseIV-1.jpg)
Total overkill.....
I snapped some pics while driving from Miami to Lakeland earlier today. Total overkill....
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Misc-Jax-Roads/i-95Z4zns/0/M/P1680919-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Misc-Jax-Roads/i-ZvgRdQ4/0/M/P1680920-M.jpg)
**reposting for posterity**
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
FDOT looks pretty intent on shooting down any possible bike lanes or pedestrian walkways:
Bullet Points addressing the request for Bike Lanes to be
added to the Fuller Warren Bridge as part of the I-10/I-95
Operational Improvement Project
Florida Statute 316.091prohibits bikes on the roadway or along the shoulder, including bridges, on limited access facilities; interstate highways.
Exception:
Projects selected for Pilot Project.
Criteria for Pilot Project:
• Must cross a water body
• No other street or highway crossing available for 2 miles from the entrance of the Limited Access Facility
Pilot Project Implementation specified in statute
• Three projects selected by October 1, 2012.
• Must begin pilot project by March 1, 2013.
• Must conduct pilot project for 2 years.
• Must submit report of findings and recommendations by Sept. 1, 2015
Current Project:
• Acosta Bridge entrance is within 1 mile on the north end of project
• Acosta Bridge entrance is within 0.25 mile on the south end of project.
Conclusion:
The addition of bikes lanes cannot be considered for inclusion on this project as per Florida Statutes. It also cannot be considered for the pilot project as the requirements for selecting and implementing have already passed, nor would the Fuller Warren Bridge have qualified as a pilot project due to the close proximity of the Acosta Bridge.
The 2013 Florida Statutes
TitLe XXIII Chapter 316 View Entire Chapter
MOTOR VEHICLES STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.091 Limited access facilities; interstate highways; use restricted.—
(1) No person shaLL drive a vehicLe onto or from any limited access roadway except at such entrances and exits as are estabLished by public authority.
(2) Except as provided herein, no person shall operate upon a limited access facility any bicycle, motor-driven cycle, animal-drawn vehicLe, or any other vehicle which by its design or condition is incompatibLe with the safe and expedient movement of traffic.
(3) No person shall ride any animal upon any portion of a limited access faciLity.
(4) No person shall operate a bicycLe or other human-powered vehicle on the roadway or aLong the shouLder of a
Limited access highway, incLuding bridges, unless officia signs and a designated, marked bicycle lane are present at the
entrance of the section of highway indicating that such use is permitted pursuant to a pilot program of the Department
of Transportation.
(5) The Department of Transportation and expressway authorities are authorized to designate use of shoulders of Limited access faciLities and interstate highways under their jurisdiction for such vehicuLar traffic determined to improve safety, reliability, and transportation system efficiency. Appropriate traffic signs or dynamic Lane control signals shall be erected aLong those portions of the facility affected to give notice to the pubLic of the action to be taken, clearly indicating when the shoulder is open to designated vehicular traffic. This section may not be deemed to authorize such designation in violation of any federal law or any covenant established in a resolution or trust indenture relating to the issuance of turnpike bonds, expressway authority bonds, or other bonds.
(6) The Department of Transportation shall establish a 2-year pilot program, in three separate urban areas, in which it shall erect signs and designate marked bicycLe Lanes indicating highway approaches and bridge segments of limited access highways as open to use by operators of bicycles and other human -powered vehicles, under the following conditions:
(a) The Limited access highway approaches and bridge segments chosen must cross a river, Lake, bay, inlet, or surface
water where no street or highway crossing the water body is availabLe for use within 2 miles of the entrance to the
limited access faciLity measured along the shortest pubLic right-of-way.
(b) The Department of Transportation, with the concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration on the interstate faciLities, shall establish the three highway approaches and bridge segments for the pilot project by October 1, 2012. In selecting the highway approaches and bridge segments, the Department of Transportation shall consider, without limitation, a minimum size of popuLation in the urban area within 5 miles of the highway approach and bridge segment, the lack of bicycLe access by other means, cost, safety, and operationaL impacts.
(c) The Department of Transportation shall begin the piLot program by erecting signs and designating marked bicycle Lanes indicating highway approaches and bridge segments of Limited access highways, as quaLified by the conditions described in this subsection, as open to use by operators of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles no later than March 1, 2013.
(d) The Department of Transportation shall conduct the pilot program for a minimum of 2 years foLLowing the implementation date.
(e) The Department of Transportation shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations from the pilot program to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by September 1, 2015. The report shall include, at a minimum, bicycle crash data occurring in the designated segments of the pilot program, usage by operators of bicycLes and other human-powered vehicLes, enforcement issues, operational impacts, and the cost of the pilot program.
(7) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishabLe as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.
With all due respect for bike lanes (if FDOT cared about bike lanes, they could spend the $100mm + on bike facilities on roadways they are responsible for in Duval County... you know, to 'keep the money in Jacksonville')... they shouldnt expand the f'ing roadway and destroy homes, business, parks and the Riverside Arts Market in the process in the first place.
This is one of the most egregious, wasteful and criminal acts in the history of taxpayer dollars by FDOT (the same people who refuse to fund the Mayport Ferry, instead they will use the money to build toll roads in the middle of Oakleaf/Westside AKA the middle of nowhere).
F@ck FDOT, and f@ck this project!!!
David, nobody should be asking for bike LANES. The proper terminology is a barrier separated PATH. They are two completely different things in reality and state statutes.
Field, from what I've heard, their latest plan expands the roadway within existing ROW by reducing shoulder and lane widths in certain areas. However, they will still need to add pilings into the river to widen the bridge there.
A physically separated multi-use path is what folks should be asking for. There is nothing in FDOT's standards that prohibit these and FDOT has built them on limited access highways throughout the state.
The Acosta bridge has a sidewalk and a shoulder. No official bike lane.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 06, 2014, 11:13:18 AM
David, nobody should be asking for bike LANES. The proper terminology is a barrier separated PATH. They are two completely different things in reality and state statutes.
Tell that to FDOT during next Monday's meeting. I'm just copying and pasting what was in their memo.
It's Feburary 10th 4:30-6:30 pm @ Riverside Park United Methodist church.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 06, 2014, 10:31:02 AM
With all due respect for bike lanes (if FDOT cared about bike lanes, they could spend the $100mm + on bike facilities on roadways they are responsible for in Duval County... you know, to 'keep the money in Jacksonville')... they shouldnt expand the f'ing roadway and destroy homes, business, parks and the Riverside Arts Market in the process in the first place.
This is one of the most egregious, wasteful and criminal acts in the history of taxpayer dollars by FDOT (the same people who refuse to fund the Mayport Ferry, instead they will use the money to build toll roads in the middle of Oakleaf/Westside AKA the middle of nowhere).
F@ck FDOT, and f@ck this project!!!
Completely agree with the comment and sentiment here as this idiotic scheme will also affect my home which sits on the edge of this stupid project. This bloated highway project has not one justification in terms of planned traffic relief. The regional TPO, the Council, the residents never heard of it until BAM! Are all you screaming taxpayer groups who complain about every wasted tax dollar really such hypocrites when it comes to highway scams?
Quote from: David on February 06, 2014, 11:32:01 AM
Tell that to FDOT during next Monday's meeting. I'm just copying and pasting what was in their memo.
It's Feburary 10th 4:30-6:30 pm @ Riverside Park United Methodist church.
^It's already being explained in public, will be mentioned at FDOT's meeting on Monday and shared with media venues and key stakeholders throughout the city!
Quote from: David on February 06, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
FDOT looks pretty intent on shooting down any possible bike lanes or pedestrian walkways:
Bullet Points addressing the request for Bike Lanes to be
added to the Fuller Warren Bridge as part of the I-10/I-95
Operational Improvement Project
Florida Statute 316.091prohibits bikes on the roadway or along the shoulder, including bridges, on limited access facilities; interstate highways.
Exception:
Projects selected for Pilot Project.
Criteria for Pilot Project:
• Must cross a water body
• No other street or highway crossing available for 2 miles from the entrance of the Limited Access Facility
Pilot Project Implementation specified in statute
• Three projects selected by October 1, 2012.
• Must begin pilot project by March 1, 2013.
• Must conduct pilot project for 2 years.
• Must submit report of findings and recommendations by Sept. 1, 2015
Current Project:
• Acosta Bridge entrance is within 1 mile on the north end of project
• Acosta Bridge entrance is within 0.25 mile on the south end of project.
Conclusion:
The addition of bikes lanes cannot be considered for inclusion on this project as per Florida Statutes. It also cannot be considered for the pilot project as the requirements for selecting and implementing have already passed, nor would the Fuller Warren Bridge have qualified as a pilot project due to the close proximity of the Acosta Bridge.
A few examples separated multi-use paths (not bike lanes) on limited access facilities throughout the state....
SR 60/Veterans Expressway near Tampa International Airport
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-fVtVL5f/0/L/SR%2060%20Tampa2-L.jpg)
Look at the jet. The path parallels the freeway's south side.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-ZqKzKfJ/0/L/SR%2060%20Tampa3-L.jpg)
You can see it to the right of this elevated ramp.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-sGdfMtn/0/L/SR%2060%20Tampa-L.jpg)
Here is another shot. You can see the physically separated (in this shot, it's a fence) multi-use path on the right.
SR 589/Suncoast Parkway(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-nT4ZztS/0/L/589%20-%203-L.jpg)
You can see the separated multi-use path on the left. It actually uses the same bridge structure to cross wetlands and waterways. This situation is basically identical to what could be a part of the Fuller Warren project.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-9xkP7SJ/0/L/Suncoast%20Trail%20Tampa%20Bay3-L.jpg)
Here's a street level shot. Look on the right and you'll see two cyclist.
Interstate 195 in MiamiHere's a shot of one of the limited access highways in the pilot program the FDOT memo refers to. The pilot program allows bikers to ride on the actual Interstate's shoulders, similar to if they were bike LANES. No one is asking for that in Jacksonville at the moment from what I can tell.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Freeway-Pedestrian-Bridges/i-b4Vr5V3/0/L/195-L.jpg)
As Ock has said many times in these discussion boards, don't let FDOT D2 insult your intelligence by peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining.
Here's how the Dutch do it: http://hovenring.com/
(http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd256/dellwooddaisy/198d48e5-1e93-45ae-80bd-5c045631d257.jpg)
(http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd256/dellwooddaisy/18IHN_DC6YBfN0PilIckbjw.jpg)
^Unfortunately, it's a totally different world. We can't even figure out how to pay for a simple pedestrian overpass over the Arlington Expressway or install sidewalks on Philips Highway near Avenues Mall. Now, your own local FDOT district is saying anything it can to not do anything but add more auto/truck lanes to the Fuller Warren, despite it literally being in the heart of town.
What was the financing and the legal entity behind the Wonderwood Expressway (limited-access highway), or McCormick Road, whatever you want to call it, in Arlington/Ft. Caroline/Mayport? It has sheltered bike/ped paths for miles. Very nice.
^I think it was JTA.
Here's the cross section of one of the largest FDOT projects in the state, the widening of I-595 in Broward County.
Totally slipped my mind, but it will have a parallel multi-use path as well.
(http://www.i-595.com/images/slides/Typical-Section.jpg)
Excuse my ignorance but if these are all in Florida, they're all done by FDOT - why won't they do this for Jax? It looks like FDOT can do good things, why are they opposed to doing it here?
QuoteExcuse my ignorance but if these are all in Florida, they're all done by FDOT - why won't they do this for Jax? It looks like FDOT can do good things, why are they opposed to doing it here?
They would then have to divert money away from neighborhood-killing roadway expansion.
Quote from: coredumped on February 06, 2014, 04:25:34 PM
Excuse my ignorance but if these are all in Florida, they're all done by FDOT - why won't they do this for Jax? It looks like FDOT can do good things, why are they opposed to doing it here?
There are seven different FDOT districts in Florida. Some are more progressive than others with various issues and vise versa.
(http://floridabicycle.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/florida-counties2.png)
D2 may simply not be as progressive in their understanding and acceptance of accommodating alternative modes of transportation as some districts with larger urban populations. The claim that they can't do a multi-use path on the Fuller Warren because it's against state law is silly and a perfect example of this. IMO, nearly every roadway they invest in should be multimodal. If a Suncoast Parkway can have a +40 mile multi-use path paralleling it, then SR 9B, I-295, etc. could too if we really wanted something like that.
Btw, I-275 is being expanded by FDOT D7 in Tampa between DT and Westshore. It will also have a parallel multi-use path. Here's a couple of images of that project:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/FDOT-Construction-Projects/i-Gs4JSPS/0/M/FDOT%20Roads%20-%20275-2-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/FDOT-Construction-Projects/i-tJQvqdL/0/M/FDOT%20Roads%20-%20275-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/FDOT-Construction-Projects/i-WZBH8n6/0/M/FDOT%20Roads%20-%20275-5-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/FDOT-Construction-Projects/i-nJNjWxD/0/M/FDOT%20Roads%20-%20275-4-M.jpg)
That Dutch thing looks cool - a horizontal Dutch Windmill!!
Quote from: IrvAdams on February 06, 2014, 03:30:01 PM
What was the financing and the legal entity behind the Wonderwood Expressway (limited-access highway), or McCormick Road, whatever you want to call it, in Arlington/Ft. Caroline/Mayport? It has sheltered bike/ped paths for miles. Very nice.
It was JTA. I worked on that project and I think the designer/planners considered the residential thoroughfare nature of roadway when including the pedestrian/bike paths.
BTW, Wonderwood is not a limited access facility.
Soon we may be and to safely ride our bikes on "multi-use pathways" but only if we all stand up and demand to be heard by the FDOT.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/mobile/article/2014-feb-fdot-misguiding-public-on-fuller-warren-bridge-project
http://www.10and95.com/_layouts/mobile/mbllists.aspx
Can we switch and get district 4 and 6?
Late to the discussion but the new Tappen Zee Bridge 20 miles north of NYC and the George Washington Bridge will also have pedestrian and bike lanes: http://newnybridgegallery.com/index.php
It's always hard with FDOT to tell whether they're being dishonest or ignorant. Likely a bit of both in this case.
When someone responds by showing you a law instead of a civil engineering reason or at least having a discussion about it, its pretty clear they don't want any part of it. If they know the law, then they know what is possible.
Hows does one get involved in a FDOT District I wonder? They aren't elected.
I went to the Riverside Arts Market on Saturday. I parked over there on May St beside that parking garage, and I couldn't believe may eyes, as I saw someone walking south on the I-95 Northbound Park Street off ramp. I dunno if it was the same guy or not, but then this incident happened below. Have anyone ever saw people walking across the Fuller Warren? There's definitely a need for a pedestrian component to the FWB.
www.actionnewsjax.com/content/actionlocal/story/JSO-officer-injured-after-responding-to-suicide/cXmiRS07rECo0z_r-3eAwg.cspx
I've witnessed people walking or biking over the Fuller Warren several times in the past. You have areas of decent density on both sides of the river and our climate, combined with the Acosta Bridge slopes are a huge disincentive to going two miles out of the way to cross the river. With that said, the scarier situation is when you encounter pedestrians crossing the Mathews Bridge.
The new I74 bridge spanning the Mississippi River between Illinois and Iowa just released plans to the public and it WILL include a biking and pedestrian component. This project involves two states and connects Moline IL and Bettendorf IA. It will be an interstate highway bridge with four lanes in each direction. The plans are complete and construction will start soon. So including this component IS being done!
photo from a QC Times article:
http://qctimes.com/gallery/traffic/new-i--bridge-drawings-and-maps/collection_924d2d7f-79d6-53b8-870f-e2b26ff310ed.html#6
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2014, 06:27:40 AM
I've witnessed people walking or biking over the Fuller Warren several times in the past. You have areas of decent density on both sides of the river and our climate, combined with the Acosta Bridge slopes are a huge disincentive to going two miles out of the way to cross the river. With that said, the scarier situation is when you encounter pedestrians crossing the Mathews Bridge.
We should set up weekly walks / bike rides as a protest.
Great find!
from what I've heard, FDOT is now working on plans that WILL include a dedicated bike/ped facility on the Fuller Warren Bridge
I'm in Chattanooga and have gotten to see and learn first hand about the revitalization of their downtown and riverfront. Much of it was due to the opening of the Walnut Street pedestrian bridge over the Tennessee River. I'll admit, it's pretty scenic but the Fuller Warren's location is just as impressive. If done right, the Fuller Warren project could deliver similar economic results on both sides of the river.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 25, 2014, 03:25:07 PM
I'm in Chattanooga and have gotten to see and learn first hand about the revitalization of their downtown and riverfront. Much of it was due to the opening of the Walnut Street pedestrian bridge over the Tennessee River. I'll admit, it's pretty scenic but the Fuller Warren's location is just as impressive. If done right, the Fuller Warren project could deliver similar economic results on both sides of the river.
I'm looking forward to your upcoming article and photos!
You prove the point that Jackonsville does not need to reinvent the wheel. All we need to do is emulate other successful cities and learn from past mistakes in planning, then adapt to our unique infrasturce and environment and create a bike/pedestrian plan even better than those other cities.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 25, 2014, 03:25:07 PM
I'm in Chattanooga and have gotten to see and learn first hand about the revitalization of their downtown and riverfront. Much of it was due to the opening of the Walnut Street pedestrian bridge over the Tennessee River. I'll admit, it's pretty scenic but the Fuller Warren's location is just as impressive. If done right, the Fuller Warren project could deliver similar economic results on both sides of the river.
agreed...and I also think there's a chance to do some more ped/bike friendly improvements to the Main Street Bridge as well
Some coverage for bikes on the Fuller Warren: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/fuller-warren-bridge-walkway-could-connect-riversi/ngZHX/
Thanks for the find Lunican....from what I have heard, many of the ideas suggested to FDOT in the City Council letter are in fact making it into the revised plans...that includes a smaller footprint, noise walls, decorative overpasses, and the bike/ped connection across the river.
I see an easy way to accommodate bicycles, takeout one of the tram lanes in the middle, (or both...) 8)
^ while this appears to be a snarky post, I'll bite...where exactly are the tram lanes on the Fuller Warren Bridge?
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 15, 2014, 07:48:20 AM
^ while this appears to be a snarky post, I'll bite...where exactly are the tram lanes on the Fuller Warren Bridge?
He's confusing the Acosta and the Fuller Warren.
^hahahaha
Not to mention the Acosta already has sidewalks on both sides ::)
^ and shoulders that will soon be marked for bicycles
Womp womp
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 15, 2014, 09:31:56 AM
^ and shoulders that will soon be marked for bicycles
If only the city could sweep the road surface on the shoulder. Those shoulders are a graveyard of broken plastic and glass. Got a flat last time I road it, which is unfortunate as it is the only decent elevation to be found in the city.
^ It is an FDOT facility....it is the state's responsibility
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 15, 2014, 03:56:29 PM
^ It is an FDOT facility....it is the state's responsibility
Well, that's not comforting.
A little more than three short years later, after initially being told a shared use path was not feasible. Moral of the story? Never underestimate the power of community advocacy!
QuoteFirst steps coming to expand Fuller Warren, add bike-pedestrian path
A $126 million project to expand Interstate 95's Fuller Warren Bridge, add a bike/pedestrian path and improve the interchange between Interstates 10 and 95 will start next month – with landscaping.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-03-17/first-steps-coming-expand-fuller-warren-add-bike-pedestrian-path
I spend a lot of time at FDOT public meetings since my house is very close to the overland bridge project. FDOT was surprisingly accommodating in listening to our comments and requests for the projects. It was nothing anywhere near as major as the pedestrian bridge but they made some minor design changes and a few more things without hesitation. I was pleasantly surprised. Now it's taking a year longer than it was supposed to.... not surprised by that though.
How definite/firm are the installation of "sound walls" as part of the project? No matter how they might be dressed up, it's not going to look good.
Will there be any issues for FDOT getting ROW along the river in front of Nemours? I believe that area is proposed for limited access, but not sure who owns it.
Construction is about to start. Issues with planning, design, ROW, money to construct, etc. should be resolved by now.
Quote from: Papa33 on March 22, 2017, 08:59:59 AM
How definite/firm are the installation of "sound walls" as part of the project? No matter how they might be dressed up, it's not going to look good.
I'd be shocked if it didn't happen. While those who live right next to it have to look at it, generally the argument for them is to reduce the noise, which is heard blocks in off the interstate.
Quote from: Steve on March 22, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
Quote from: Papa33 on March 22, 2017, 08:59:59 AM
How definite/firm are the installation of "sound walls" as part of the project? No matter how they might be dressed up, it's not going to look good.
I'd be shocked if it didn't happen. While those who live right next to it have to look at it, generally the argument for them is to reduce the noise, which is heard blocks in off the interstate.
I saw the 50% plans a while back and they had them. From what I recall, they're located between Selma and Post on both sides of Roosevelt. I wouldnt be surprised if they extend all the way to I-10.
Sound walls? Here is a road and aviation noise map...
https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a303ff5924c9474790464cc0e9d5c9fb
Quote from: acme54321 on March 22, 2017, 07:23:42 AM
I spend a lot of time at FDOT public meetings since my house is very close to the overland bridge project. FDOT was surprisingly accommodating in listening to our comments and requests for the projects. It was nothing anywhere near as major as the pedestrian bridge but they made some minor design changes and a few more things without hesitation. I was pleasantly surprised. Now it's taking a year longer than it was supposed to.... not surprised by that though.
Do you know what the slightly elevated road segment is between the offramp from I-95 south and Atlantic? It's maybe 150 yards long and 3 feet off the ground. It's very strange.