The Mathews Bridge: historic or an expensive relic?
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Transportation/Mathews-Bridge/i-JNcKTRq/0/L/title-L.jpg)
Former FDOT Public Information Officer Mike Goldman exposes the good, bad and ugly reality behind the past, present and future of the Mathews Bridge.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-sep-the-mathews-bridge-historic-or-an-expensive-relic
Time for Florida to do what other states do, start saving.
Start setting aside monies for its replacement now so one does not have to throw out the toll question. Its not novel or ground breaking, its just common sense.
Gotta say Florida is weird sometimes. They abhor tolls but abhor taxes more. How do you think you are going to pay for all of this?
In a strange twist of irony, the very same bridge that fostered the exit from downtown, could be its limiting factor to recover.
Good article. I hope you can use more of Mr. Goldman's insights from his years at FDOT.
One safety issue not addressed, when the bridge opened, it had no divider wall between the lanes. After a number of head-on crashes, the divider was added.
The Mathews, Fuller Warren, and other toll-financed projects led to the creation of the Jacksonville Expressway Authority, which is now JTA.
One minor correction. Although the Dames Point (or Napoleon Bonaparte Broward) Bridge was slated to have tolls, the toll plazas were never built due to the Hazouri referendum.
^I've been talking to Mike about providing occasional content for a few months. He's a wealth of knowledge when it comes to Jacksonville history, transportation and infrastructure development.
$1 billion? Next idea please. It is quite a corner we have painted ourselves into with unaffordable urban sprawl. We had to borrow to build it (repaid by taxes or tolls) and we can barely afford to maintain it, let alone replace it. It is one of the biggest progress traps on the planet. It is time for Plan B.
On a related note, I wish we could stop naming public infrastructure after people, especially politicians that bankrupted us. I would prefer things were named after their function, location, or historical significance.
Quote from: Kerry on September 20, 2016, 11:37:02 AM
$1 billion? Next idea please. It is quite a corner we have painted ourselves into with unaffordable urban sprawl. We had to borrow to build it (repaid by taxes or tolls) and we can barely afford to maintain it, let alone replace it. It is one of the biggest progress traps on the planet. It is time for Plan B.
On a related note, I wish we could stop naming public infrastructure after people, especially politicians that bankrupted us. I would prefer things were named after their function, location, or historical significance.
Kerry, we would still have to pay for something to cross the river, be it ferries, tunnels, buses or trains. While in many cases, yes, the growth has been poorly managed, you still have to work with what is still in place.
Yes our physical presence is out growing our population expansion, but mobility is still key to a functioning economy.
Our current culture of "have now, pay later" will most definitely catch up with us.
Just wait until the Mathews start to fall apart right about the time the pension tax kicks in. People will then expect Florida Senator Curry to come up with the federal dollars to replace it since it was his pension tax that kept us from paying for a new one.
Wouldnt that be coincidence?
Quote from: spuwho on September 20, 2016, 07:51:36 AM
Gotta say Florida is weird sometimes. They abhor tolls but abhor taxes more. How do you think you are going to pay for all of this?
Wishful thinking, prayers or magic ?
Quote from: spuwho on September 20, 2016, 07:51:36 AM
Time for Florida to do what other states do, start saving.
Florida actually does a better job of maintaining its bridges than just about every other state.
My issue is that we keep building more lanes on our expressways and more flyover ramps....meaning maintenance costs will continue to increase
Quote from: spuwho on September 20, 2016, 11:53:18 AM
Quote from: Kerry on September 20, 2016, 11:37:02 AM
$1 billion? Next idea please. It is quite a corner we have painted ourselves into with unaffordable urban sprawl. We had to borrow to build it (repaid by taxes or tolls) and we can barely afford to maintain it, let alone replace it. It is one of the biggest progress traps on the planet. It is time for Plan B.
On a related note, I wish we could stop naming public infrastructure after people, especially politicians that bankrupted us. I would prefer things were named after their function, location, or historical significance.
Kerry, we would still have to pay for something to cross the river, be it ferries, tunnels, buses or trains. While in many cases, yes, the growth has been poorly managed, you still have to work with what is still in place.
Yes our physical presence is out growing our population expansion, but mobility is still key to a functioning economy.
Our current culture of "have now, pay later" will most definitely catch up with us.
Just wait until the Mathews start to fall apart right about the time the pension tax kicks in. People will then expect Florida Senator Curry to come up with the federal dollars to replace it since it was his pension tax that kept us from paying for a new one.
Wouldnt that be coincidence?
Well, I would challenge the assumption that something has to cross the river. While it would be a major change for a lot of people, not having a bridge or other means of crossing is certainly an option. This is an example of why the growth model doesn't work even though every politician preaches it. I don't think the culture of "have now pay later" will catch up with us - it HAS caught up with us. Now it might be possible for federal funds at some point but I don't know how much debt the US government will have available in 15 years.
I am a firm believer in progress traps and that many of them will end in some form of collapse because the solution simply isn't obtainable.
Progress trap: The condition human societies experience when, in pursuing progress through human ingenuity, they inadvertently introduce problems they do not have the resources or political will to solve, for fear of short-term losses in status, stability or quality of life.
Quote from: spuwho on September 20, 2016, 07:51:36 AM
Time for Florida to do what other states do, start saving.
Start setting aside monies for its replacement now so one does not have to throw out the toll question. Its not novel or ground breaking, its just common sense.
Gotta say Florida is weird sometimes. They abhor tolls but abhor taxes more. How do you think you are going to pay for all of this?
In a strange twist of irony, the very same bridge that fostered the exit from downtown, could be its limiting factor to recover.
I think a big part of the issue is that a lot of Jacksonville residents remember the toll gates and how much it slowed the flow of traffic down.
As long as there are no gates on the main lanes of traffic I don't have a problem with tolls.
I think there are very few infrastructure items, roads, bridges, schools, sewer, etc that include an appropriate funding included/budgeted for maintenance, and repairs over time. It's like when you buy a house and pay the mortgage, but don't have enough to replace the roof, AC, and other items down the road.
Quote from: Kerry on September 03, 1974, 08:18:01 AM
Well, I would challenge the assumption that something has to cross the river. While it would be a major change for a lot of people, not having a bridge or other means of crossing is certainly an option. This is an example of why the growth model doesn't work even though every politician preaches it. I don't think the culture of "have now pay later" will catch up with us - it HAS caught up with us. Now it might be possible for federal funds at some point but I don't know how much debt the US government will have available in 15 years.
I am a firm believer in progress traps and that many of them will end in some form of collapse because the solution simply isn't obtainable.
Progress trap: The condition human societies experience when, in pursuing progress through human ingenuity, they inadvertently introduce problems they do not have the resources or political will to solve, for fear of short-term losses in status, stability or quality of life.
Well, all of that is fine and dandy, but how would I get to work. I live on the north side of the river (riverside), but work on the southside. My company's building is located where it is for a reason, and it has nothing to do with "downtown being expensive or scary or parking". It's an industrial building adjacent to rail (we have a rail spur that goes inside of our facility).
Or, are you saying that I should live on the south side of the river and never cross?
QuoteIt's an industrial building adjacent to rail (we have a rail spur that goes inside of our facility).
(http://elitetiming.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/polk.png)
Your company is representing my hometown county well. Ship a good percentage of that freight on rail. Benefits their operation and also reduces the overall amount of truck traffic they really could be putting on the street!
Quote from: Steve on September 21, 2016, 08:37:25 AM
Quote from: Kerry on September 03, 1974, 08:18:01 AM
Well, I would challenge the assumption that something has to cross the river. While it would be a major change for a lot of people, not having a bridge or other means of crossing is certainly an option. This is an example of why the growth model doesn't work even though every politician preaches it. I don't think the culture of "have now pay later" will catch up with us - it HAS caught up with us. Now it might be possible for federal funds at some point but I don't know how much debt the US government will have available in 15 years.
I am a firm believer in progress traps and that many of them will end in some form of collapse because the solution simply isn't obtainable.
Progress trap: The condition human societies experience when, in pursuing progress through human ingenuity, they inadvertently introduce problems they do not have the resources or political will to solve, for fear of short-term losses in status, stability or quality of life.
Well, all of that is fine and dandy, but how would I get to work. I live on the north side of the river (riverside), but work on the southside. My company's building is located where it is for a reason, and it has nothing to do with "downtown being expensive or scary or parking". It's an industrial building adjacent to rail (we have a rail spur that goes inside of our facility).
Or, are you saying that I should live on the south side of the river and never cross?
That is the challenge isn't it. We built our entire world around a dead end - the automobile. For millennia the St. Johns River was a natural barrier to travel and starting in 1890 money was used to bridge that barrier. Since then more money has been spent and even more money will need to be spent in the future. What happens when we run out of money? Answer, problems temporarily solved by money become problems again. So what would you do? There are many answers; move closer to work, your employer move closer to you, take another bridge, find a different job, etc...
The challenge before us is how to build a functional economy and society without spending so much money on the movement of people. Humans did this for 10,000 years so we can do it again. No better time to get started than right now.
Flagler bridged the river with a railroad in the 1890s, which gave life to the rest of the state. The first automobile/streetcar crossing didn't come on the scene until the 1920s. Crossing the river at this point, isn't about little Jacksonville's livelyhood. We can do whatever we want, in terms of becoming a more sustainable community regardless of the Mathews Bridge. However, when it comes down to determining what happens with the Mathews, the decision, how to pay for it and the cost of paying for it will extend far beyond what Jax residents want and think.
One thing for sure - the financial obligation will not be met by Jacksonville. The money will have to come from the State or Federal government. I just don't think those two entities will have any money to give us when the time comes.
I'm not saying the river won't be passable, I am just saying that 7 bridges might be a few too many. Like many cities that are removing freeways at the end of their lifespan instead of spending money to rebuild them, it might be time to consider that option for other infrastructure like bridges. Of course, a less expensive type of bridge is always an option. How much does a new floating pontoon draw bridge cost?
Quote from: Kerry on September 21, 2016, 10:23:27 AMOf course, a less expensive type of bridge is always an option. How much does a new floating pontoon draw bridge cost?
Who cares? That's not even close to a realistic option.
Quote from: Kerry on September 21, 2016, 10:23:27 AM
One thing for sure - the financial obligation will not be met by Jacksonville. The money will have to come from the State or Federal government. I just don't think those two entities will have any money to give us when the time comes.
It's a state road, so yes that source will likely bear the brunt of the costs of eventually replacing or upgrading it. I wouldn't worry about them not having to funds to replace it when absolutely necessary. Money will just be shifted from some other future project like the Tampa/Jax expressway or northern outer beltway dream some would like to see.
Quote from: Kerry on September 21, 2016, 09:22:53 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 21, 2016, 08:37:25 AM
Quote from: Kerry on September 03, 1974, 08:18:01 AM
Well, I would challenge the assumption that something has to cross the river. While it would be a major change for a lot of people, not having a bridge or other means of crossing is certainly an option. This is an example of why the growth model doesn't work even though every politician preaches it. I don't think the culture of "have now pay later" will catch up with us - it HAS caught up with us. Now it might be possible for federal funds at some point but I don't know how much debt the US government will have available in 15 years.
I am a firm believer in progress traps and that many of them will end in some form of collapse because the solution simply isn't obtainable.
Progress trap: The condition human societies experience when, in pursuing progress through human ingenuity, they inadvertently introduce problems they do not have the resources or political will to solve, for fear of short-term losses in status, stability or quality of life.
Well, all of that is fine and dandy, but how would I get to work. I live on the north side of the river (riverside), but work on the southside. My company's building is located where it is for a reason, and it has nothing to do with "downtown being expensive or scary or parking". It's an industrial building adjacent to rail (we have a rail spur that goes inside of our facility).
Or, are you saying that I should live on the south side of the river and never cross?
That is the challenge isn't it. We built our entire world around a dead end - the automobile. For millennia the St. Johns River was a natural barrier to travel and starting in 1890 money was used to bridge that barrier. Since then more money has been spent and even more money will need to be spent in the future. What happens when we run out of money? Answer, problems temporarily solved by money become problems again. So what would you do? There are many answers; move closer to work, your employer move closer to you, take another bridge, find a different job, etc...
The challenge before us is how to build a functional economy and society without spending so much money on the movement of people. Humans did this for 10,000 years so we can do it again. No better time to get started than right now.
Well, The Five Boroughs of NYC has over 60 Bridges and Tunnels for vehicles. Now, New York went through a very dark period in it's history with prioritizing the vehicle, but the bottom line is suburbs will always continue to exist....and that's okay.
I think your solutions are extremely idealistic. For example, while pure office buildings can be built in other places, industrial buildings don't have that option in many cases. I'm not going to live in a sea of warehouses. That's the line of work that I chose and that's okay. I'm not going to choose another industry because I have to cross a bridge. I also don't have a fundamental issue paying my share for infrastructure improvements....but I have to know what I'm getting for my money.
Quote from: Kerry on September 21, 2016, 10:23:27 AM
One thing for sure - the financial obligation will not be met by Jacksonville. The money will have to come from the State or Federal government. I just don't think those two entities will have any money to give us when the time comes.
I'm not saying the river won't be passable, I am just saying that 7 bridges might be a few too many. Like many cities that are removing freeways at the end of their lifespan instead of spending money to rebuild them, it might be time to consider that option for other infrastructure like bridges. Of course, a less expensive type of bridge is always an option. How much does a new floating pontoon draw bridge cost?
I don't know if I agree, but whatever. Much of the traffic that uses I-295 and I-95 is passthrough traffic, and the reason that federal funding exists. Considering Florida's natural geography, Jacksonville will always have this.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2016, 09:01:38 AM
QuoteIt's an industrial building adjacent to rail (we have a rail spur that goes inside of our facility).
(http://elitetiming.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/polk.png)
Your company is representing my hometown county well. Ship a good percentage of that freight on rail. Benefits their operation and also reduces the overall amount of truck traffic they really could be putting on the street!
Considering all of our facilities, if we were to shift that rail volume onto a truck that would be a MATERIAL increase of trucks on the road.
Quote from: acme54321 on September 21, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Kerry on September 21, 2016, 10:23:27 AMOf course, a less expensive type of bridge is always an option. How much does a new floating pontoon draw bridge cost?
Who cares? That's not even close to a realistic option.
Actually, never mind with this idea. The new pontoon bridge on SR520 in Seattle cost $4.6 billion (although it is longer that what a Mathew's replacement would be). That is the least feasible of all options probably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Point_Floating_Bridge_(2016)
Don't wait too long to replace this thing. It will end up like the North River Tunnels on Amtrak.
Many bridges built in this era suffered from "under engineering" due to a general lack of steel during the Korean War and therefore had small levels of structural redundancy.
The truss for the Mathews (4 lanes wide) uses the same layout as the Tappan Zee bridge (7 lanes wide) in New York, which was finished a year after the Mathews.
The Tappan Zee was considered a huge risk by 2007 and the new Tappan Zee will be done next year, I am curious to know if the Mathews carries much of the same design and longevity risk the Tappan Zee did.
(http://i0.wp.com/www.newnybridge.com//wp-content/gallery/november-2016-main-span/TZC161026p0738lr.jpg)
(http://i0.wp.com/www.newnybridge.com//wp-content/gallery/october-2016-girders/TZC160914p0264lr.jpg)
Quote from: spuwho on November 27, 2016, 01:34:55 AM
Many bridges built in this era suffered from "under engineering" due to a general lack of steel during the Korean War and therefore had small levels of structural redundancy.
The truss for the Mathews (4 lanes wide) uses the same layout as the Tappan Zee bridge (7 lanes wide) in New York, which was finished a year after the Mathews.
The Tappan Zee was considered a huge risk by 2007 and the new Tappan Zee will be done next year, I am curious to know if the Mathews carries much of the same design and longevity risk the Tappan Zee did.
(http://i0.wp.com/www.newnybridge.com//wp-content/gallery/november-2016-main-span/TZC161026p0738lr.jpg)
(http://i0.wp.com/www.newnybridge.com//wp-content/gallery/october-2016-girders/TZC160914p0264lr.jpg)
The Tappan Zee took so long to get the approval to build. It seems as if there has to be some crisis to get the money and approval to build these structures!
It was always known the Tappan Zee was a "50 Year" bridge, the designers even said so when it was built. SoNY always assumed they could build a newer, better bridge later. Today it handles 3 times the traffic it was designed for while it rests on floating caissons, innovative for the era, but not really used for longevity.
It was the collapse of the I-35 bridge that created the urgency in their minds, but it took forever to get an agreement on the replacement.
Was the Mathews a "50 year" bridge as well? While the sizes are different, the designs are nearly identical in the trusses and cross members. Mathews has fixed caissons.
The politics of the Tappan Zee are interesting. It was built at the widest part of the Hudson because the narrower part a few miles downstream falls under the Port Authority of NY-NJ. The Gov. of NY wanted the bridge to be part of the tollway but couldn't overrule the port authority, who didn't want the tollway involved. When the port couldn't muster the dollars, the state took over, but had to use the best available spot farthest south on the Hudson that wasn't in the Port's jurisdiction.
The Goethals Bridge in Staten Island wasn't too far from the condition of the Tappan Zee!
(http://public.earthcamcdn.com/archives2/archives6/ecnetwork/us/nj/gbr/nj-project-alignment/archive1/2016/11/27/1515.jpg?i=1480364987252)
Quote from: SightseerLounge on November 28, 2016, 03:36:49 PM
The Goethals Bridge in Staten Island wasn't too far from the condition of the Tappan Zee!
(http://public.earthcamcdn.com/archives2/archives6/ecnetwork/us/nj/gbr/nj-project-alignment/archive1/2016/11/27/1515.jpg?i=1480364987252)
Goethals opened in 1929! It was definitely due.
Interesting is the Port used the exact same design as the Tappan Zee.
The towers are interesting for the cables, but I am not sure a Mathews replacement should look that way.
I may have missed it in the article, but does FDOT have a replacement plan for the bridge yet? Or a target date?
No and no...
Sure they do. It will be a bland grey concrete structure costing $30 billion, with an estimated completion date around 2070. But that's if they start by the end of this year.
Quote from: acme54321 on November 29, 2016, 11:58:57 AM
I may have missed it in the article, but does FDOT have a replacement plan for the bridge yet? Or a target date?
They did at one time around 2004/2005 timeframe. If you search the MJ archive you will see there have been several posts discussing that earlier plan.
FDOT took down the plan website in 2008 and you can recall parts of it on Wayback.
The replacement got as far as 1, maybe 2 public hearings then everything stopped.
I think Lake did a synopsis of the neighborhood impacts the the new bridge would have in East Jacksonville because FDOT wanted to redesign the MLK fishbowl next to the stadium and take a lot of residential out.
The last FDOT study I read on the Mathews replacement showed 2 cable stayed spans on each side of the current and using the old span for transit. The other plan showed a single 6 lane span with 2 transit lanes in the middle, with the old span being demolished.
Maybe it was Ock or Lake that told me that JTA put the kabosh on it so they could establish their "Flyer" service. The only limitation in that decision is that the Flyer has to share the same 2 lanes in each direction, which keeps it from "flying".
I have been doing a lot of research on bridge replacement spending recently. At the moment, many states are choosing to replace steel truss bridges built in the 1925-1935 eras as they have exceeded their design lives. I think people would be stunned just how many bridges in the US built in that era are still in daily use. They are the most expensive in many cases because they usually had to span a large body.
Right behind that is replacement of many of the plate and girder bridges built in the road building boom between 1950 to 1970. Most of these were part of the original Interstate Highway program. The I-35 bridge that collapsed was one from that era.
Finally, the rest of the dough is going to smaller secondary arterials whose bridges are usually reinforced concrete. Many of these were built by state DOT's as parts of the WPA or before the Feds started the HTF for general highways in the 1950's.
I saw that the new Tappan Zee and Goethals are designed as "100 + Year" bridges which is a good idea considering the cost to build them.
While it may be possible to keep the Mathews going indefinitely, usually the way DOT's do that is to start restricting their loads.
Another benefit the Mathews (and the Hart) bridges have is they dont have to withstand large temp swings like in the north (which causes the span to flex) and dont have the corrosive road salts.
There is a lot of research on the heartbeats and resonance of bridges now to model how the steel holds up to the daily load and temperature cycles.
I would imagine they have digitally mapped this resonance on the Mathews and have a good idea what the health of the bridge is.
Must have been Ock. I doubt the JTA Flyer would have stopped FDOT. If anything, a new bridge would be a plus for the Flyer because the new structure could be built with dedicated transit lanes. The real issue with replacing the Mathews is money. You're easily looking at a +billion dollar project when the day comes.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 29, 2016, 12:50:31 PM
Must have been Ock. I doubt the JTA Flyer would have stopped FDOT. If anything, a new bridge would be a plus for the Flyer because the new structure could be built with dedicated transit lanes. The real issue with replacing the Mathews is money. You're easily looking at a +billion dollar project when the day comes.
Something tells me that once the 4 major road projects wrap in Duval (over $1B in build cost) they will start looking at the Mathews again.
It does cost a lot, but my take is they went for the bigger bang for the buck with Overland, 9B and parts of the FCB and the JTB flyover.
Once those are done, aggregating the dough for a bridge redux wont take as long as one thinks, unless the economy goes into the tank again.
Personally, I doubt it. That's not exactly how funding works for projects like that. For funding purposes, if it's a roadway capacity project, it will have to end up on the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) cost feasible project list.
QuoteBased on current needs and forecasted future growth, the LRTP is a list of multi-modal transportation projects that are needed and can be funded over a 20-year horizon. The Plan is updated every three to five years with projects that are needed the most and can be funded, considering new growth trends, developments and technologies.
http://northfloridatpo.com/planning-studies/lrtp/
Here's a map of adopted cost feasible projects (which the Mathews did not make it on) through 2040:
https://issuu.com/northfloridatpo/docs/tpo_summarybrochure_pathforward_201?e=19110718/30156370
Here's a link to the larger list of unfunded projects (which includes the Mathews):
https://issuu.com/northfloridatpo/docs/appendix_k_-needs_plan_project_cost?e=19110718/33992666
Shown towards the bottom of page 9, the cost to build a 6-lane bridge with transit, was estimated in 2013 to be $1.2 billion.
Not only is the cost feasible funding pot not unlimited, it's also shared between multiple North Florida counties: Duval, Clay, Nassau and St. Johns. On top of that, it's then split between multiple modes: Roadway, Bike/Ped, TSM&O, Context Sensitive Solutions, Transit and Freight.
An expensive project like the Mathews will struggle to make the LRTP cost feasible project list because it means little to no money will end up being dedicated to much of anything else across multiple counties for decades.
Unless Trump has a New Deal program up his sleeves, I'm of the opinion that the Mathews (as long as it's structurally sound) will still be in its current state 20 years from now.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 29, 2016, 03:39:23 PM
Personally, I doubt it. That's not exactly how funding works for projects like that. For funding purposes, if it's a roadway capacity project, it will have to end up on the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) cost feasible project list.
QuoteBased on current needs and forecasted future growth, the LRTP is a list of multi-modal transportation projects that are needed and can be funded over a 20-year horizon. The Plan is updated every three to five years with projects that are needed the most and can be funded, considering new growth trends, developments and technologies.
http://northfloridatpo.com/planning-studies/lrtp/
Here's a map of adopted cost feasible projects (which the Mathews did not make it on) through 2040:
https://issuu.com/northfloridatpo/docs/tpo_summarybrochure_pathforward_201?e=19110718/30156370
Here's a link to the larger list of unfunded projects (which includes the Mathews):
https://issuu.com/northfloridatpo/docs/appendix_k_-needs_plan_project_cost?e=19110718/33992666
Shown towards the bottom of page 9, the cost to build a 6-lane bridge with transit, was estimated in 2013 to be $1.2 billion.
Not only is the cost feasible funding pot not unlimited, it's also shared between multiple North Florida counties: Duval, Clay, Nassau and St. Johns. On top of that, it's then split between multiple modes: Roadway, Bike/Ped, TSM&O, Context Sensitive Solutions, Transit and Freight.
An expensive project like the Mathews will struggle to make the LRTP cost feasible project list because it means little to no money will end up being dedicated to much of anything else across multiple counties for decades.
Unless Trump has a New Deal program up his sleeves, I'm of the opinion that the Mathews (as long as it's structurally sound) will still be in its current state 20 years from now.
I remember you mentioning before that the Mathews is not on any long term planning schedules and so this is not surprising.
I been around government long enough to know that anything is possible. I am not looking for one, but one political payback could change everything.
But even if it were added to the 2040 plan, it would probably take that long to complete the EIS, CG, DOT and public reviews before any ground is broken.
It took 10 years to get the new Tappan Zee and that was an expedited process!
After the Mathews was repaired post the boat strike, it was deemed fit for purpose and I believe it.
It falling into the river would speed things up...
Quote from: thelakelander on November 30, 2016, 01:44:23 PM
It falling into the river would speed things up...
According to a FDOT bridge engineer, that last bridge strike came within a few seconds of toppling the span. If the Navy crane hadnt have broken backwards and gave way, we would be dusting off the replacement plan right now.
The new Lewis & Clark Bridge opened over the Ohio River (also called the "East End Bridge" ) 2 weeks ago with much fanfare.
This now provides relief for traffic through central Louisville using I-265.
Model for a new Mathews? Note in the drone footage, the healthy amount of pedestrian/bicycle space was included in the design. Ahem, take note FDOT, it can be done.
https://www.youtube.com/v/_5S1dtegI6U
Minus the cables, it looks like the Fuller Warren Bridge project FDOT will be starting this year.