(https://photos.moderncities.com/Transportation/Hart-Bridge-Ramp-Removal-Plan/i-7gR5vLG/0/14109a4c/L/Hart%20Bridge%20Overpass%20Modification%20-%20A-L.jpg)
QuoteOn Thursday, March 14 from 4 to 6 p.m., the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will host a public meeting for citizens to review and comment on a proposed plan to remove the Hart/Talleyrand Expressway around TIAA Bank Field just east of Downtown Jacksonville. Here's a look at the proposed project that the many hope will spur new development within the Sports and Entertainment District.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/public-meeting-planned-for-expressway-ramp-removal/
I'm glad that these plans got rid of that ridiculous loop.
The intersection at the bottom of the bridge is only slightly more pedestrian friendly than Atlantic Blvd and Arlington Expressway. Good lord.
Quote from: Steve on March 08, 2019, 11:07:14 AM
The intersection at the bottom of the bridge is only slightly more pedestrian friendly than Atlantic Blvd and Arlington Expressway. Good lord.
That's what I was thinking. I appreciate why getting rid of the giant ramp would improve things visually - but I was wondering how such a busy/imposing road would make the area any better in the long run. If the aim is to make it more walkable and to tie the riverfront land in with the rest of the district, it would seem you would need to somehow reduce the size of the road. If it's massive like this, it seems it would be almost as much as a barrier as the ramp.
^That intersection was the first thing that popped up in my head when I first saw the concept.
I haven't looked at the traffic analysis but I wonder why they just don't close the rest of the elevated ramps behind Maxwell House, even if they don't have the money to raze them or immediately convert them into an elevated greenspace or trail system?
That would at least get rid of the high speed interchange at A.Philip Randolph Boulevard. Bay and Forsyth streets would become more congested through downtown but that may be a good thing for filling vacant storefronts west of Liberty Street on Bay and Forsyth. After all, the best thing this project achieves for the stadium area is making the properties around it directly accessible to more through traffic currently bypassing it. My guess is that's what's most important to the feasibility of development around the stadium because there's no way things like Lot J will work if there's no high AADT driving past the site with direct and easy access every day.
Also, as currently illustrated, just imagine JTA's AVs moving at a max of 25mph mixing in with cars and trucks come down those ramps and gunning it through there to hit the green lights. No way slow moving AVs should be allowed to mix in with regular traffic in this design scenario. To potentially accommodate future transit needs, an envelop for at least two transit only lanes should be reserved on the south side of Gator Bowl Boulevard adjacent to that proposed 12' sidewalk.
Another concern would be north/south pedestrian movement. This doesn't appear to improve pedestrian safety since the current viaduct completely removes high speed traffic from street level. This introduces conflict points between cars and peds that don't exist today. To eliminate/significantly reduce the potential of people jaywalking and getting hit by cars, some type of fencing or channelization will be needed to force pedestrians on both sides of the street to the few marked crossings at signalized intersections. Sort of like this project along US 92 in Daytona Beach:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/FDOT-US-92-Daytona-Beach/i-znx64Br/0/18c12472/L/20180611_173833-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/FDOT-US-92-Daytona-Beach/i-PV2sKBJ/1/ea8476e8/L/DSCF8619-L.jpg)
Something I noticed about the APR intersection - it appears the project removes the existing pedestrian crossing of AP Randolph, from Intuition to the sidewalk along the retention pond near First Coast News. So, to get from Intuition to the stadium or Daily's Place, instead of just crossing a 50 foot wide (estimate) street, you will have to cross Bay Street (4 lanes), cross South APR (4 lanes), walk to the intersection of relocated Bay Street eastbound and cross it (2 lanes), to use the new sidewalk on the south side of Bay Street. Then, when you get to Daily's/Stadium, cross Bay Street again - 4 lanes and a median.
It appears the merger of the remnant ramps from downtown and eastbound Bay Street will be controlled by a traffic signal, see the symbol near Georgia Street. Presumably, the ramp and Bay Street would get alternating green lights.
Yes, but can still see a scenario where you have occasional red light runners and drivers gunning it down that ramp or from EB Bay to make that light. A slow moving AV sharing lanes just exacerbates the potential negatives of that situation. From a safety perspective, pulling them out seems to make a bit more sense.
Oh, I agree, the slow-moving AVs will be a problem in mixed traffic. Wonder what the posted speed will be (for what that is worth).
I fear that the whole point of the project is merely to remove an eyesore ramp because it is 'ugly', more so than actually integrating autos and pedetrians in such a way that the property north of Gator Bowl Blvd. is seemless with the Riverfront property to the South of GB Blvd.
According to Florida Traffic Online, Gator Bowl Boulevard currently has an AADT of 4600 vehicles. The ramp currently carries 11400 vehicles past TIAA Bank Field with no way to directly tie into the Lot J/Metropolitan Park intersection. Taking it down means an AADT of 16,000 vehicles driving past your front door every day. In no way is that solution safer for cyclist and pedestrians.
However, a commercial site with access to 16,000 cars a day is more viable than one with 4,600. So to me it looks more like it helps pull expressway traffic into the area, making development around the stadium more feasible from a market perspective. Overall, there's nothing wrong with that concept (could even help the Elbow if the viaduct west of APR was closed and traffic is forced to enter downtown via Bay Street). The way it's addressed just needs to be modified to make it more multimodal friendly.
Why can't they just dress up the ramps and make them aesthetically pleasing?
Quote from: DrQue on March 08, 2019, 04:59:26 PM
Why can't they just dress up the ramps and make them aesthetically pleasing?
Mr. Khan said they are in the way of his development.
So how'd this go?
People hate it, not that it really matters....
QuoteResidents "Hart" bridge ramp, oppose demolition
Opponents of tearing down a piece of the Hart Bridge's elevated ramps had a chance to let rip with their criticisms Thursday during a public meeting that showed off the concept for the $39 million project that remains firmly on track to move forward and start affecting drivers in early 2020.
The demolition and reconstruction along a one-mile stretch where the ramp runs past the sports complex would bring traffic down to street level as drivers are going between the Hart Bridge and downtown.
City officials say that when the project is done by late 2021, the ground-level portion will add less than a minute of drive time while opening up a large area where Jaguars owner Shad Khan envisions a $2.5 billion "urban village" stretching from TIAA Bank Field to the St. Johns River.
Opponents scoffed at projections that motorists will see little impact to how much time they spend in traffic. They said the city is poised to tear down a segment of ramp that's in perfectly good shape so Khan can profit from the planned development.
"It's just a huge waste of taxpayers' money to make a fairy tale project look better," Jacksonville resident Kermit Dunwoody said.
Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190314/residents-hart-bridge-ramp-oppose-demolition
A good turn out. FDOT had 2 pairs of tables with maps: one showing the roads that will transfer from the state to the city, the other showing the map in The Jaxson article. There were several FDOT employees and consultants there to answer questions and explain the maps. Although this is primarily a City-driven project, the only city representative I saw was John Pappas, and he didn't have one of those bright yellow badges the FDOT folks wore. Most of the conversations I heard were citizens not happy with the project. Biggest concern was that removing the ramps will put too much traffic on Bay Street / Gator Bowl Boulevard, and not just on game days. People were also concerned about the cost, and traffic during construction.
FDOT folks did not have answers about whether, or when, the parking displaced by the project - both the lots under the existing ramp and the lot used for RV City for the Florida-Georgia game. I didn't hear if anyone was able to ask Mr. Pappas about this.
The FDOT will be giving the entire ramp system to the City - from Forsyth, Adams, Monroe and Duval Streets near Liberty, eastward to near the end of the Hart Bridge. That is what is shown in red on the first picture below
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n166/PlanMan/20190314_154241_zpsjmbu7lwn.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/PlanMan/media/20190314_154241_zpsjmbu7lwn.jpg.html)
Hampton Ray, FDOT explaining the project map (early, before the crowd arrived)
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n166/PlanMan/20190314_154818_zpslubapdcp.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/PlanMan/media/20190314_154818_zpslubapdcp.jpg.html)
Crowd shot - it got even more crowded after I took this.
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n166/PlanMan/20190314_161100_zpsrtehcdhd.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/PlanMan/media/20190314_161100_zpsrtehcdhd.jpg.html)
From the Times-Union article
QuoteOpponents scoffed at projections that motorists will see little impact to how much time they spend in traffic. They said the city is poised to tear down a segment of ramp that's in perfectly good shape so Khan can profit from the planned development.
"It's just a huge waste of taxpayers' money to make a fairy tale project look better," Jacksonville resident Kermit Dunwoody said.
"It's ridiculous what is going on in this city now," said Mark Stephenson. "It's all a land grab. It's all a money grab."
On the other hand
QuoteWhile most of those who turned out Thursday were against the demolition, urban planner Wiatt Bowers sought to make the case for demolishing all of the elevated ramp structure going to downtown.
After tearing down a portion of the ramps, the city plans to build new ramp connections from Gator Bowl Boulevard to the Hart Bridge and also from Gator Bowl Boulevard, also known as Bay Street, to the network of elevated ramps that arch over Hogans Creek and touch down at Liberty Street.
Bowers said the city should tear down the ramps over Hogans Creek as well, which would keep all the traffic on Gator Bowl Boulevard and Bay Street heading into the downtown.
"I think we have an opportunity to build a true boulevard that we can be very proud of and this isn't doing it," Bowers said.
He said other cities have transformed parts of their downtown by removing elevated roads, but Jacksonville won't gain as much with a half-measure that leaves intact some of the elevated ramp system.
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20190314/residents-skeptical-of-hart-bridge-ramp-demolition
WJCT -
QuoteDavid Bruderly, a retired engineer, said the Hart Bridge elevated ramps could be an important evacuation route during hurricanes and other emergencies.
"This is well above the flood line. So by taking this down, you make it difficult to use the Hart Bridge as part of your evacuation route for downtown," he said.
In addition to those concerns, some open house attendees also said tearing down the overpass isn't the best use of city funds.
"Downtown is coming together and it seems like a waste of time and a lot of money to be focusing on this Lot J," McEvoy asked. "It seems like the focus should be on the downtown core."
https://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-residents-raise-concerns-about-tearing-down-hart-bridge-ramps
Jacksonville Business Journal
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/03/15/public-inspects-hart-bridge-ramp-project.html?ana=e_me_set1&s=newsletter&ed=2019-03-15&u=qn2xgMusSvJCgTcRVcM9Dg07e466fb&t=1552658394&j=87250951
The evacuation route thing makes no sense. You don't wait for the flood to evacuate; you evacuate before the flood comes.
But regardless, what a good concept made into a mess with a terrible implementation. It's like they worked hard to make this thing pedestrian unfriendly.
I still wish that the part they are keeping could be turned into ped walkway ala highline. Maybe one side of it could be for the clown cars, the other for pedestrians. Could make a nice link to downtown from the stadium district.
Quote from: Steve on March 15, 2019, 10:06:21 AM
The evacuation route thing makes no sense. You don't wait for the flood to evacuate; you evacuate before the flood comes.
But regardless, what a good concept made into a mess with a terrible implementation. It's like they worked hard to make this thing pedestrian unfriendly.
Pretty much.
I'm convinced we don't really know what we're doing and that downtown will continue to fall below many's expectations after all the money being tossed around these days is finally lit on fire. Lots of big talk but the actions aren't necessarily resolving problems that aren't resolved by how much money we spend or invest to wipe out our sense of place.
Fortunately, this can be a salvageable project if common sense can be applied. The first part of the common sense approach is accepting what this is. It isn't about freight movement, hurricane evacuation bike/ped/traffic safety, etc. It's about economic development. Any professional in the transportation industry who will tell you differently is likely pulling your leg with no sound data behind them to support the argument. Now, with that said, there's nothing wrong with making public investments for the sake of stimulating economic development. This particular plan likely suffers from having too many roadway oriented engineers in the room (no offense to my engineering buddies out there :). Here's a few simple things that can improve the concept shown at last night's meeting:
1. Close the elevated portion west of A. Philip Randolph. Just because there's no money to demolish it doesn't mean it has to be open to auto traffic. Closing it means there's no reason to turn the intersection of A. Philip Randolph and Bay into an expressway interchange. Run that traffic Khan needs to make commercial development viable around the stadium, straight down Bay, through the Northbank and on to I-95. Downtown is a ghost town partially because most of the historical through traffic patterns have been shifted to bypass it. More traffic on Bay actually enhances the potential of filling vacant properties and storefront that have visible access.
2. Tighten up the intersection at Festival Park Avenue. It's heavily designed for cars at the expense of the crowds on foot that will move through there. There should be money savings and multimodal safety benefits from doing so.
3.Save JTA from themselves. The AV thing is likely doing to turn out into a disaster without more outside and multi-disciplined perspective. The proposed design of the street needs to be more context sensitive and multimodal friendly. Even if we're not going to pay for certain things today, some space should be provided on the south side of this corridor for the future inclusion of transit separate from roadway and bike/ped traffic.
4. Channelize pedestrians and cyclist. Unlike other cities that have turned elevated expressways into context sensitive boulevards, we're turning an existing low volume street into a highway where drivers will naturally gun it to make it through the few green lights to get back up on the bridge. Without some fencing or heavy landscaping, this will become a death zone for pedestrians. Physically channelizing them to marked crosswalks is one way to design to limit the potential safety hazards.
Finally pulled out the flyer I got at the meeting. Comments can be sent to either (both):
Brittany Chastain, FDOT Project Manager
FDOT
1109 S. Marion Avenue
Lake City, FL 32025
brittany.chastain@dot.state.fl.us
386-961-7520 or 800-749-2967
Duane Kent, P.E.
COJ Project Manager
City of Jacksonville
Engineering and Construction Management Div.
214 North Hogan St.
Jacksonville, FL 32204
rkent@coj.net
904-255-8910
Since this wasn't a Public Hearing, no deadline is given for providing comments. But, considering the accelerated pace of the project, I would send them soon.
Project info is supposed to be (it isn't as of 3pm 3/15) www.nflroads.com/Talleyrand
So, send your comments to FDOT and COJ. Although they may read this site, comments here don't have the same weight as direct comments.
Re: Steve's interesting use of words, regarding "...not waiting until the flood comes"...that brings to mind several questions about removing this ramp. If we are going to drive on the same street, at ground level, where the stadium is located, what do you think will happen to that street in the event of another Irma? Right now we have a ramp and we can get out of town high and dry if necessary. Plus I'm not wild about Mr. Khan taking ownership of the city in which we pay our taxes so that we can keep buying toys for him to play with when he tires of re-re-revamping the stadium ad nauseum. Those are my two cents.
Quote from: Steve on March 15, 2019, 10:06:21 AM
But regardless, what a good concept made into a mess with a terrible implementation. It's like they worked hard to make this thing pedestrian unfriendly.
some pretty good comments on First Coast News today....although I may be a bit biased ;)
Council President Scott Wilson is holding a Town Hall meeting on Wednesday, January 29 at 6:00 PM. The Hart Bridge Ramp Removal is listed as the primary topic; but is also will have representatives of various city agencies present. The meeting will be at 1855 West Road, which is an Elks Lodge.
Quote from: sandyshoes on March 15, 2019, 03:40:12 PM
Re: Steve's interesting use of words, regarding "...not waiting until the flood comes"...that brings to mind several questions about removing this ramp. If we are going to drive on the same street, at ground level, where the stadium is located, what do you think will happen to that street in the event of another Irma? Right now we have a ramp and we can get out of town high and dry if necessary. Plus I'm not wild about Mr. Khan taking ownership of the city in which we pay our taxes so that we can keep buying toys for him to play with when he tires of re-re-revamping the stadium ad nauseum. Those are my two cents.
The ramps and bridge close to traffic when winds get to 45 mph. You couldn't use them anyhow.
Flooding can occur before or after the winds reach 45 mph, or even if the winds never reach 45 mph. So, the bridge is useful for evacuation. Since some of the existing Bay Street/Gator Bowl Blvd. will part of the rebuilt roadway, it doesn't appear it is being raised up any.
No, it's definitely not being raised and it creates a more hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclist, as opposed to the current configuration. Seems like it's being done on the cheap for the sole purpose of making Lot J 100% accessible to all through traffic. The economic development component is understandable but there's better options out there to achieve that goal while addressing the other issues.
Just quickly pointing out the delightful fact that we're moving forward with the demolition of one of the most heavily used arteries into downtown Jacksonville (I cross it 10 times a week, myself) for the sole purpose of facilitating a development that hasn't been approved by City Council, will likely face increased scrutiny after the JEA situation (the DIA is already tightening the purse strings in terms of Rev grants - see: Maxwell House), and may or may not ever actually break ground.
Between this and all the other speculative demolition, Frankenstein has really made himself at home again downtown in the last year or two.
It would really be good to get an update on the status of Lot J's incentives package. I imagine anything Curry has proposed will face some additional scrutiny considering the JEA fallout and poor track record with previous deals. It would be foolish to implement demo of that bridge now, only to see Lot J die or be indefinitely postponed a few weeks or months later.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 08, 2020, 01:32:40 PMIt would be foolish to implement demo of _________ now, only to see ___________ die or be indefinitely postponed a few weeks or months later.
(http://snipboard.io/maJeKq.jpg)
Keep the ramps until you see steel being erected in lot J.
I could see supporting taking the ramps down regardless, if the difference in maintenance costs (ramps vs. at grade) was substantial over a 30-50 year period. The ramps are a jarring and disjointed feature of the area that won't be missed in that respect. The pedestrian/bicycle and related aspect of the new at grade road seem to be lacking though, but that could be corrected.
^You may not fully understand what they have planned. In general, taking the ramp down and converting the area to an Embarcadero type complete street would be a great idea. However, that's not what they're doing. It's amazing how we find ways to screw up good ideas. The plan is to take the middle of the ramp down to create an at-grade signalized intersection to make Lot J accessible to all expressway traffic. On either side of the new two signals will be ramps back to the existing elevated structures. If anything, it's a frogger type situation that's dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and likely screws with free flow expressway travel during special events at the stadium. IMO, if we're taking the ramp down, take all of it down and replace it with a nice multimodal boulevard connecting the Sports District to the Northbank. It would cost more upfront but provide more long term economic benefit and multimodal safety enhancements.
I never saw any sense in maintaining any section of the ramps if a demo was planned for any part of them, but assumed any reduction is better than none.
Here's the plan:
1) New interchange at A. Philip Randolph Boulevard since ramps west of Lot J will remain open to traffic
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Transportation/Hart-Bridge-Ramp-Removal-Plan/i-ZWq5ZMW/0/47fbee1e/L/Hart%20Bridge%20Overpass%20Modification%20-%20E-L.jpg)
2) At-grade, the existing Gator Bowl Boulevard will remain with a new traffic signal installed to give access to Lot J. On the south side of Gator Bowl Boulevard, a wider sidewalk will be constructed. On the northside, everything that is there today will remain.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Transportation/Hart-Bridge-Ramp-Removal-Plan/i-PpLNZv7/0/5e945ba1/L/Hart%20Bridge%20Overpass%20Modification%20-%20F-L.jpg)
3) Near WJCT, a second signal will be installed with an unorthodox way for pedestrians to maneuver between all the travel lanes.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Transportation/Hart-Bridge-Ramp-Removal-Plan/i-GM24rvh/0/26bb8659/L/Hart%20Bridge%20Overpass%20Modification%20-%20H-L.jpg)
In general, on either side of those lights, you'll have vehicles coming down ramps at higher speeds, likely gunning it to make it through the two green lights before going back up on the existing expressway segments on either end. Given these conditions, it would make sense to either...
A. Skip the interchange at A. Philip Randolph and permanently close the elevated section near Maxwell House. This is the cheapest option (other than a no-build) that would also benefit the Northbank, in addition to the Sports District. Curry and Hughes love demolishing things. Focus on that instead of buildings.
B. Channelize the high speed at-grade section that is proposed from pedestrians and cyclist. Channelization will stop potential jay-walking. However, a grade separated crossing for pedestrians and cyclist would be needed at some point.
It appears the second of the new interchanges will displace at least part of the FL/GA RV City location. As this is a popular, and likely money-making, part of FL/GA week, those RV spaces will need to be replaced, somewhere.
This looks so terrible. I would rather they bulldoze the portion of the elevated roadways for Khan's property and then just put launch ramps on either side for cars on the Hart expressway. Install large "Must be driving 100+ MPH to clear the gap" signs so that drivers know the appropriate speed.
That would be much safer for pedestrians, in my opinion.
In general, removal of the ramps does open the area up for more economic development opportunity. Across the country there great examples of this. Unfortunately, I really do believe these guys are in, over their heads when it comes to downtown. Many of the negative design issues on this project could have been worked out with more public engagement and transparency during the conceptual planning process. Instead, you got a design where major decisions were pre-determined behind closed doors, leading to a substandard but still expensive, outcome. When you think about it, pretty much a similar process and result with the city hall annex/county courthouse site, Landing demolition, Berkman 2 deal, JEA sale attempt, privatizing downtown parking, etc. Attempting to play chess when you don't even understand how to play checkers but too stubborn to admit it.
The interchanges seem absurd.
On the west end make the ramps pedestrian only, demo it back to Adams Street or somewhere behind Intuition with a simple spiral spiral or switchback ramp down to the street. That big fill ramp up at the end of A Phillip Randolph is going to look horrible.
On the east end why can't they just tee into the curve on Gator Bowl?
LOL - was anyone really expecting anything different? The good news, none of this will ever happen.
Quote from: Kerry on January 09, 2020, 01:02:34 PM
LOL - was anyone really expecting anything different? The good news, none of this will ever happen.
Construction on the bridge removal will begin this year.
Yeah, the way it has gone in the past, we'll spend millions razing the middle of an expressway to construct this, while the JEA fallout will sink Lot J. A decade from now, a new crop of residents will be asking who's dumb idea was it to take down an expressway for a stop light entering the surface parking lot of TIAA Bank Field.
When those ramps were built, everyone I know who had to go downtown every day loved them. They were too good to be true. Now, they want to tear them down for "economic development" Won't that hinder traffic travelling to the Landing, City Hall, and the Court House? Oh yeah, those are gone. The plan to further separate the CBD and Khanburgh is moving right along. It's a good thing Jacksonville's leaders aren't in Egypt. I'm sure they would want to demolish the Pyramids for some scheme to better the economy of Giza.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 09, 2020, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: Kerry on January 09, 2020, 01:02:34 PM
LOL - was anyone really expecting anything different? The good news, none of this will ever happen.
Construction on the bridge removal will begin this year.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Quote from: Snaketoz on January 09, 2020, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 09, 2020, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: Kerry on January 09, 2020, 01:02:34 PM
LOL - was anyone really expecting anything different? The good news, none of this will ever happen.
Construction on the bridge removal will begin this year.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Hahaha, didn't even catch that. Demolition will begin, but that precedes construction of course.
Anyone attend or see a report from the meeting yesterday?
With the demise of Lot J, how is everyone feeling about the Hart Bridge Ramp Removal now? It worked out much as I expected.
Quote from: Snaketoz on February 13, 2021, 12:12:42 PM
With the demise of Lot J, how is everyone feeling about the Hart Bridge Ramp Removal now? It worked out much as I expected.
Welp.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 08, 2020, 01:32:40 PM
It would really be good to get an update on the status of Lot J's incentives package. I imagine anything Curry has proposed will face some additional scrutiny considering the JEA fallout and poor track record with previous deals. It would be foolish to implement demo of that bridge now, only to see Lot J die or be indefinitely postponed a few weeks or months later.
Quote from: Snaketoz on January 08, 2020, 05:45:20 PM
Keep the ramps until you see steel being erected in lot J.
Me too.
Honestly, just read this whole thread. There seems to be a pattern in Jax of half-doing a project, then wondering why it doesn't work out.
Tearing down the viaduct? Probably a good idea.
Making it into a ground level highway? Wow, a step back.
This should have been a complete streets project. If there's too much traffic expected to go down Gator Bowl/Bay street, then fix the road network on that side of the city. Make Adams and Duval actually usable in the stadium area. Why is Gator Bowl treated as the off ramp into the city in the first place?
Definitely agree that Gator Bowl Blvd should have been a Complete Street. Some how we half assed it.
Flyover ramp has reopened.
Cannot get over how poorly this flyover fits with what the city is trying to do along the riverfront.
And, even after driving it daily for months, the design still feels exceedingly confusing and hostile to drivers.
When driving north into downtown, through traffic on Bay Street is quickly reduced down to a single lane, with the other two lanes being used to actively divert drivers away from the riverfront onto the flyover ramps.
And when driving south out of downtown, you're first routed off Bay Street and around the flyover, and then as you approach the Hart Bridge, there are three separate sets of traffic lights, two of which feel like they are legitimately like 10 feet apart, that are strangely timed and very easy to miss. I've blown through red lights going onto the Hart Bridge multiple times without even realizing it, and have seen a couple of pretty bad accidents already at both the roundabout going around the flyover and at the entrance to the Bridge.
So depressing that we can't even get a road right.
We should have finished the ramp removal project and fully routed an unobstructed Bay Street from the Hart Bridge all the way down to the CBD.
Without driving it yourself it's hard to describe, but the ramp just kills the sightlines between stadium district and Northbank and handicaps everything we're trying to do with the MOSH as well.
Genuinely hope someone doesn't get killed trying to figure out how to navigate what should be a simple, straight road.
What a shame. It'll always be silly that we spent all this time and money reconstructing the ramp and relocating the road around it instead of just demolishing the remaining bridges. It doesn't even make sense with the city's current long term plans, because they'd probably need to remove the ramps anyway if they want to build a convention center at the jail in "a few years." And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of traffic lights end up relocated anyway in order to properly connect to the Four Seasons or Lot J.
It really does seem that BUILD grant was almost uniquely poorly thought out, between both the ramp project and "innovation corridor" plan. I kind of wonder if the city would have gotten that grant if it happened a few years later under this administration.
The three lights in a row by the bridge are very poorly cycled. There are 2 lights for WJCT, which is extremely unecesarry. I drive this road everyday and it's maddening. Reducing west-bound traffic for 50 feet only to then expand it to 4 lanes at APR makes zero sense. The new MOSH will have the flyover as their front door and anything built on the parcel to the east will be fairly cut off from anything north of Bay.
I said it from the start that the flyover was ridiculous. Should have just cut the whole thing short and turned it into a pedestrian bridge or something with a corkscrew behind Intuition. I'm sure we'll pay $30M to have it all demolished in a few years once Sulzbacher is gone.
Could have just left it up there unused until the money came to raze the rest of it too. Really no need to rebuild the ramp.
It is a mess
Somehow got even worse in the last 48 hours.
Another red light has been added on southbound Bay Street, right at the point where traffic comes out of the wide curve circling the flyover ramps.
I kid you not, the light is totally hidden behind a blind corner and you cannot even see whether the light is green or red until it's almost too late to stop.
Also saw a scenario on my way home where the first traffic signal right as you approach the bridge was wide open and green, and like five car lengths in front of it, the second set of lights was red. People are trained from years of driving to keep the foot on the gas when they see a green light, but then you're asking them to come to a dead stop 20 feet later.
Even the striping on the actual on-ramp is weird. You bank and merge to the left for about 100 feet, and then you abruptly angle back over to the right.
It's all so baffling that, again, you almost have to drive it yourself to appreciate it.
Someone's gonna get killed out there with some of these lights and merges.
So this is a far cry from the Embarcadero!
New speed traps on the entrances and exists of the Hart Bridge as an FYI.
Got popped this morning.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on December 08, 2022, 10:52:17 AM
New speed traps on the entrances and exists of the Hart Bridge as an FYI.
Got popped this morning.
They have to pay for that project somehow! Sorry bud.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on December 08, 2022, 10:52:17 AM
New speed traps on the entrances and exists of the Hart Bridge as an FYI.
Got popped this morning.
It's always amazing to me when the city builds these wide limited access roads with huge ROWs, puts a 40 or 45 mph speed limit on it, and then penalizes people for driving at speeds commensurate with the road design. Roosevelt Blvd, Airport Road, Southside Blvd, and Normandy are some of my favorites. Outside of peak rush hour the roads are empty yet built larger than I-95 in parts of the mid-atlantic.
Totally ridiculous. That street should have been built with a design speed of 30 to 35 mph. It's an accident waiting to happen.