Renderings of the new Shands Bridge
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Clay-County-Port-and-Reynolds/i-hjX9LHH/0/X2/DSCF3654-L.jpg)
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-jan-renderings-of-the-new-shands-bridge
I love it. As someone who often drives the Shands to/from work, they can't build it fast enough. There is so much truck traffic on the bridge that I often get anxious with big semis barreling towards me.
The design incorporating the pedestrian/bike path is much needed as there are so few ways to cross the St. Johns except by car/boat. It looks to me like they might leave small sections of the old bridge at both sides to serve as fishing piers? That is thoughtful because there are usually dozens of fisherman who fish from the ends of the bridge now.
It'd be cool if the left the whole old bridge for recreational use.
Very meh. I thought it would at least have less supports than that.
Buckman Chapter 2.
I get it, its the lowest bid design.
I just saw proposals for three new bridges in the midwest. All used either cable stayed or decorative arch. I am just wondering if there is a way to make this bridge more iconic without breaking the piggybank.
Quote from: acme54321 on January 11, 2016, 06:57:19 AM
It'd be cool if the left the whole old bridge for recreational use.
They at least will take the center section out, to allow for sailboats and larger ships to travel past the bridge. As it is now, the larger sailboats cannot go under the current bridge. Which is weird, as this is the only bridge over the St. Johns between here and Orlando that is like that.
Is that a bike and pedestrian lane I see there?
So, would one have to get on a toll road to be able to use this bridge?
Does this mean they are going to raise the bridge clearance at least closer to the ICW "required" 65 feet?
Frankly, I don't care what it looks like as long as it is high enough and strong enough.
wait...was it that thing alongside the road....is that a multi-use path next to a limited access facility?
;)
Quote from: Tacachale on January 11, 2016, 09:07:55 AM
Is that a bike and pedestrian lane I see there?
you definitely cannot call it a "lane". Don't you know those bike lanes aren't allowed on limited access facilities?
Quote from: Dapperdan on January 11, 2016, 09:39:02 AM
So, would one have to get on a toll road to be able to use this bridge?
at one time there was discussion that people just going between US 17 and SR 13 would be able to use the bridge without a toll. The way to do that of course is only have the toll gantrys (free-flow plazas) west of 17 and east of 13.
The plan is if you get on at SR 13 and off for US 17 then there is no toll. The bridge span length determine the cost, with the exception of the main canal. A "signature bridge" cost would be out of site. As it is this crossing is around $300 million.
Quote from: Transman on January 11, 2016, 11:09:20 AM
The plan is if you get on at SR 13 and off for US 17 then there is no toll. The bridge span length determine the cost, with the exception of the main canal. A "signature bridge" cost would be out of site. As it is this crossing is around $300 million.
The new bridge over the Ohio from Kentucky to Indiana in Louisville is forecasted
at $1bn. That was for either a cable stayed tower approach or arched.
A similar project for the new I-69 bridge over the Ohio at Evansville came in at $1.4bn.
But these are significant spans traversing larger channels than the St Johns and include the cost for approaches due to such a large flood plain.
But the new Stan Musial Veterans Bridge in St Louis (the "Stan Span") over the Mississippi got built for $346 Million after going through some cost reviews. That excludes the approach costs which were costed seperately.
The new Louisville span was priced at $238 Million excluding approach costs.
So I think it is possible to be iconic based on the geography and the budget.
Quote from: Transman on January 11, 2016, 11:09:20 AM
The plan is if you get on at SR 13 and off for US 17 then there is no toll. The bridge span length determine the cost, with the exception of the main canal. A "signature bridge" cost would be out of site. As it is this crossing is around $300 million.
$300 million is less than 15% of the full cost of the First Coast Expressway. If FDOT wanted to do something special (or if a community made them), they would find the money.
First, the project is too expensive. Now you want an expensive pretty bridge? Which is it?
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 11, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
First, the project is too expensive. Now you want an expensive pretty bridge? Which is it?
I am saying for 300m, FDOT can do way better. Asthetics do matter. This isnt some remote bridge crossing a country creek near Wakulla.
This is Floridas signature river. Design it like it matters to us.
Not everything has to look as utilitarian as the Fuller Warren and Buckman.
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 11, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
First, the project is too expensive. Now you want an expensive pretty bridge? Which is it?
$300 million for a 4-lane bridge over a mile long is too expensive? That's a steal! Detroit's new hockey stadium is $627 million, more than double this structure.
What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?
My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge. $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.
A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ .
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 12, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?
My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge. $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.
A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ .
Lower clearance wouldnt drive an exception to a cable stay approach. And the opposite, you can use pre-stressed concrete to exceptional heights.
Overall, no relationship.
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 11, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
First, the project is too expensive. Now you want an expensive pretty bridge? Which is it?
Some entities seem to want to build new roads and widen others. If they want to spend money on roads, maybe that's ok...but they'll have to address citizen concerns.
For example, FDOT wants to expand the I-275/I-4 interchange near downtown Tampa. That has some people living in surrounding neighborhoods pretty upset. In response, FDOT is hosting a series of workshops to help define potential aesthetic features that can be done with the project. None of those "pretty things" will be free, and yet they will likely be included. Check out this website to see where they got the idea...
http://www.tampabayexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TBX-Community-Aesthetic-Options.pdf
Yep...those would be some of the ideas developed here in response to expanding the I-10/I-95 interchange. The local FDOT district didn't want to do these things, but in the end, they agreed to many of the requests made. In the end, FDOT here is unlikely to pay for all of the aesthetic treatments....but down in Tampa they likely will.
And where do you think that Shands Bridge multi-use path idea came from? Yep, again the ideas presented to FDOT here regarding expanion of the Fuller Warren Bridge.
IT IS TIME THAT CITIZENS (TAXPAYERS) BEGIN TO DEMAND BETTER FROM OUR PUBLICLY-FUNDED AND PUBLICLY-OWNED FACILITIES!
Quote from: spuwho on January 12, 2016, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 12, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?
My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge. $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.
A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ .
Lower clearance wouldnt drive an exception to a cable stay approach. And the opposite, you can use pre-stressed concrete to exceptional heights.
Overall, no relationship.
Sure, you CAN structurally support anything with enough concrete and steel, but would it be cost effective? Why not use pre stressed/ post tensioning on Dames Point or Sunshine?
It's also horizontal clearance, of course. No need for structurally expensive bridges when standard AASHTO or FIBs work fine.
These are the most important features when estimating bridge costs; without a doubt, there's a relationship.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2016, 09:44:07 PM
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 11, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
First, the project is too expensive. Now you want an expensive pretty bridge? Which is it?
Some entities seem to want to build new roads and widen others. If they want to spend money on roads, maybe that's ok...but they'll have to address citizen concerns.
For example, FDOT wants to expand the I-275/I-4 interchange near downtown Tampa. That has some people living in surrounding neighborhoods pretty upset. In response, FDOT is hosting a series of workshops to help define potential aesthetic features that can be done with the project. None of those "pretty things" will be free, and yet they will likely be included. Check out this website to see where they got the idea...
http://www.tampabayexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TBX-Community-Aesthetic-Options.pdf
Yep...those would be some of the ideas developed here in response to expanding the I-10/I-95 interchange. The local FDOT district didn't want to do these things, but in the end, they agreed to many of the requests made. In the end, FDOT here is unlikely to pay for all of the aesthetic treatments....but down in Tampa they likely will.
And where do you think that Shands Bridge multi-use path idea came from? Yep, again the ideas presented to FDOT here regarding expanion of the Fuller Warren Bridge.
IT IS TIME THAT CITIZENS (TAXPAYERS) BEGIN TO DEMAND BETTER FROM OUR PUBLICLY-FUNDED AND PUBLICLY-OWNED FACILITIES!
I was merely pointing out the irony of the variety of opinions here. Try not to get so hot and bothered.
BTW, FDOT recently held a Public Meeting in Green Cove Springs last month. Didn't see anything on here about it, Lake.
Quote from: strider on January 11, 2016, 09:40:42 AM
Does this mean they are going to raise the bridge clearance at least closer to the ICW "required" 65 feet?
Frankly, I don't care what it looks like as long as it is high enough and strong enough.
This seems to be the common opinion among many taxpayers when given the cost details for expensive infrastructure. Would you be willing to pay more in tolls or gas taxes for visual improvements? Unfortunately, for many, the answer is no. The loud voices of a few always drown out the majority.
Look, I'm all about adding value, visual aesthetics, and investing more in our public infrastructure. Public support just doesn't seem to be there, yet.
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 12, 2016, 11:09:50 PM
BTW, FDOT recently held a Public Meeting in Green Cove Springs last month. Didn't see anything on here about it, Lake.
I must have missed it, which probably happens quite often with the amount of time I'm out of town for work. Next time, if you come across something you deem worth posting here, please do!
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 12, 2016, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: spuwho on January 12, 2016, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: southsider1015 on January 12, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?
My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge. $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.
A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ .
Lower clearance wouldnt drive an exception to a cable stay approach. And the opposite, you can use pre-stressed concrete to exceptional heights.
Overall, no relationship.
Sure, you CAN structurally support anything with enough concrete and steel, but would it be cost effective? Why not use pre stressed/ post tensioning on Dames Point or Sunshine?
It's also horizontal clearance, of course. No need for structurally expensive bridges when standard AASHTO or FIBs work fine.
These are the most important features when estimating bridge costs; without a doubt, there's a relationship.
You stated that bridge clearance was a limiting factor in what bridge type to use for the Shands and I am saying it is not.
I have seen the smallest of suspension bridges in golf communities and the tallest of reinforced concrete (Confederation Bridge). One of the largest suspended spans (Verazano Narrows) and thousands of your typical federally funded concrete and girder arrangements.
As long as the design can meet the requirements at hand and fit within its defined budget, then you are good.
I am saying that for 300 million, I think they can do better asthetically and still stay fiscally responsible.
Quote from: spuwho on January 13, 2016, 08:11:42 AM
I am saying that for 300 million, I think they can do better asthetically and still stay fiscally responsible.
I think that's the rub. The FDOT does not come across as an agency that puts any thought into things like that, and the result is what you see.
FDOT tweeted a link to this article yesterday from their official account. If nothing else, it shows they are aware of this website/forum and the constituency it represents.
Aesthetics can be tricky. Put yourself in a bureaucrat's shoes (and I don't use that term pejoratively). Whatever the extra dollar amount, how could you fiscally justify the additional cost to the taxpayer? I know this is a larger question of the value added by the aesthetic enhancements but it is, at best, wildly subjective.
Quote from: NIMBY on January 13, 2016, 11:20:14 AM
Aesthetics can be tricky. Put yourself in a bureaucrat's shoes (and I don't use that term pejoratively). Whatever the extra dollar amount, how could you fiscally justify the additional cost to the taxpayer? I know this is a larger question of the value added by the aesthetic enhancements but it is, at best, wildly subjective.
Good question. Whatever the answer is can be easily found from what our peer cities are accomplishing with similar projects across the state. Here's a few random projects out there where aesthetics were included on some level:
Cross Seminole Trail Overpass over I-4 (similar to utilitarian I-95 pedestrian overpass north of State & Union)
(http://www.johnweeks.com/cablestay/pics/sanford22.jpg)
http://www.johnweeks.com/cablestay/pages/ped01.html
I-395 bridge replacement in downtown Miami (similar in scale and context to Jax's Overland Bridge replacement)
(http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/544186ccf92ea138f7007772/p14-structural-lotus-4c.jpg)
http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/17/i395-bridge.php
I-4 overpass in Tampa's Ybor City (Similar to I-95 over Riverside and Brooklyn)
(http://www.genesisgroup.com/images/screen_photos/474_1378220159.jpg)
http://www.genesisgroup.com/projects/474.php
I-4 Ultimate pedestrian bridge and gateway signage (similar to utilitarian I-95 pedestrian overpass north of University)
(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6179381/i-4-ultimate-maitland-bridge-rendering*750xx3400-1913-0-144.jpg)
http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/2015/08/when-you-can-expect-to-see-i-4-ultimate-s-first.html
My advice is if you want better looking infrastructure projects in NE Florida, copy whatever the larger regions in the state are doing to improve their projects. This doesn't mean certain design features have to look the same. What you want to replicate is the process that led to the better designs and funding approval for them.
Quote from: NIMBY on January 13, 2016, 11:20:14 AM
FDOT tweeted a link to this article yesterday from their official account. If nothing else, it shows they are aware of this website/forum and the constituency it represents.
Aesthetics can be tricky. Put yourself in a bureaucrat's shoes (and I don't use that term pejoratively). Whatever the extra dollar amount, how could you fiscally justify the additional cost to the taxpayer? I know this is a larger question of the value added by the aesthetic enhancements but it is, at best, wildly subjective.
I completely get that FDOT as part of accountability have to work in a way that maximizes value to the taxpayer. Being a taxpayer myself, I am not asking them to break the bank all in the name of good looks.
DOT's tend to work with templates for bridge design. This makes bidding and maintenance predictable and easier to plan for. Clearly the new Shands fits with that template approach. That is why it looks just like many other bridges in the FDOT footprint.
But there are other templates available from other DOT's now that can be leveraged so that bidding can remain the same, predictable.
New spans planned for I-69 @ Evansville, I-69 at the Mississippi/Arkansas river crossing and I-49 in Arkansas, are all going to use the same template as the "Stan Span" in St Louis.
I am not saying that is the template of choice for the new Shands, I am just saying that there are options nationally that can be leveraged without requiring an expensive reinvention of the wheel but yet add better aesthetics.
^You don't have to leave the state. FDOT has some pretty "cool" projects popping up across Florida.
Here's a thought: Build a bridge designed to not only last 100 years, but also design it so that it can be reasonably expanded versus building a new one alongside it.
For those who might be interested, listed below is a bridge type selection guide that was put together for the new I-265 bridge over the Ohio River (East End Bridge). I am not saying the Shands should look like this, but there are rational guides to how bridge types can be designed. The example here was $221 Million.
http://kyinbridges.com/library/bridge-type-selection/ (http://kyinbridges.com/library/bridge-type-selection/)
The choice made was a Diamond Tower/Cable Stayed Approach.
(http://www.kyinbridges.com/images/eebda2/design_a1.jpg)
It will have full pedestrian access.
(http://www.kyinbridges.com/images/eebda2/walka1.jpg)
They are looking at a "dim" LED lighting approach, so that it doesn't look like an airport runway with the associated light pollution, yet adds elegance to the riverfront.
(http://www.kyinbridges.com/images/eebda2/night1.jpg)
Here is the current state.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1681/24788487111_24351814a1_z.jpg)
^ keep in mind the Shands Bridge is likely 3-4 time longer than the Ohio River bridge. So the $220 million price tag would be well over $500 million here.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 07, 2016, 08:22:07 PM
^ keep in mind the Shands Bridge is likely 3-4 time longer than the Ohio River bridge. So the $220 million price tag would be well over $500 million here.
This particular approach wouldnt work as well because the main channel for the St Johns River here is not centered like it is on the Ohio River.
But looking at the bridge selection guide certainly provides some opportunities.
I was reading up on another example of some new bridges coming up on the horizon and it reminded me of the Shands discussion.
The Illinois-Iowa Memorial Bridge (I-74) over the Mississippi is slated to be replaced. FDOT ruled it as one of the worse condition bridges in the US. Unique in being a "dual" suspension layout because the original was built in 1935, and a second span was built in 1959 of the exact same design by famed bridge designer Ralph Modjeski.
1935
(http://historicbridges.org/iowa/i74/3644777567_7f0521fb09_o.jpg)
Today
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/I-74_Bridge.jpg)
The replacement spans, designed by Modjeski's (Modjeski & Masters) firm, will cost roughly $850 million (for 2 spans) with a total project cost of over $1B when considering approach engineering, etc.
(http://www.modjeski.com/image.ashx?id=6559f4fe-1770-4bc0-949e-2649dc1c24df)
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/qctimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/85/a85ae84d-71a6-526e-9495-28f3970e5da1/56676f053279a.image.jpg)
While this is very expensive to build, the offset channel of the St Johns at the Shands crossing makes it tough for this design to work.
Another bridge I observed was the Kit Bond Bridge over the Missouri north of Kansas City.
(http://www.johnweeks.com/river_missouri/pics/chrisbond43.jpg)
This design may be more applicable to a Shands as it requires the same kind of precast structured approaches, and you can maintain a single tower for the cable stays over the main channel of the St Johns.
Another thought was something inline with the Clark Bridge over the Mississippi, with a single post for the cables, and a shallow cable draw, it can be arranged over the channel much more easily.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Clark_bridge_west_alton_mo_dec_2009.jpg)
I'd be interested in the costs of those suspension bridges. Because they ain't cheap.