(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Transportation/Mathews-Bridge/i-JNcKTRq/0/L/title-L.jpg)
Quote
Former Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Public Information Officer Mike Goldman exposes the good, bad and ugly reality behind the past, present and future of Jacksonville's Mathews Bridge.
Read more: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-mathews-bridge-historic-or-an-expensive-relic/
Good read. I do feel like the decline of Old Arlington over the last couple decades has contributed to this delay.
I vividly remember going over the Matthews bridge just after it opened. We were scared to death. My mom pleaded with my dad to go back through downtown to get home. We travelled from Arlington to the northside over the Main St. bridge. It was in the late 60s before my mom would go back via the Matthews.
QuotePartially due to the high cost estimates of the Mathews, Debs said big ticket transportation priorities shifted to finishing and widening the I-295 Beltway to accommodate port traffic along the St. Johns River.
Yep, all the big dollars are going to the interstates. And, don't forget the $2 billion +/- for the Outer Beltway, our new interstate-in-the-making. If the Matthews Bridge was part of the interstate system, it would be in line for replacement dollars for sure.
I wonder if it would pay to do just that - take the Arlington Expressway all the way to I-95 via the MLK expressway and give it an I-x95 number 8)? Might also help divert some of that speeding traffic on Union and State away from the core of Downtown, making the property along those streets more amenable for Downtown development.
It would take Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval to add highways to the Interstate, and neither MLK nor the Arlington Xway meet current FHWA standards. And, since it would be pretty transparent that the reason to create I-995 (or whatever) is to fund a billion dollar project, pretty sure FHWA would give a hard No.
If I remember correctly, there was a study to add JTB to the Interstate system, perhaps as extending I-10, but it didn't make the grade.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 27, 2019, 10:13:42 PM
It would take Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval to add highways to the Interstate, and neither MLK nor the Arlington Xway meet current FHWA standards. And, since it would be pretty transparent that the reason to create I-995 (or whatever) is to fund a billion dollar project, pretty sure FHWA would give a hard No.
I realize they don't meet current interstate standards. That was actually my point... bring them up to that standard. We could call it the "Inner Beltway" 8).
As to being cover for replacing the bridge, show me a road project that doesn't serve one or more ulterior motives, typically for developers. By the way, some might argue the Outer Beltway is really about replacing the lowly Shands Bridge!
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 27, 2019, 11:38:53 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 27, 2019, 10:13:42 PM
It would take Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval to add highways to the Interstate, and neither MLK nor the Arlington Xway meet current FHWA standards. And, since it would be pretty transparent that the reason to create I-995 (or whatever) is to fund a billion dollar project, pretty sure FHWA would give a hard No.
I realize they don't meet current interstate standards. That was actually my point... bring them up to that standard. We could call it the "Inner Beltway" 8).
As to being cover for replacing the bridge, show me a road project that doesn't serve one or more ulterior motives, typically for developers. By the way, some might argue the Outer Beltway is really about replacing the lowly Shands Bridge!
To some extent, this is true. However, we aren't asking FHWA to pay 80% of the construction cost, as we would by trying to add MLK/Mathews/Arlington Xway to the Interstate system. Due to the declining gas tax revenue situation mentioned in the article, FHWA is struggling to provide funds to maintain and upgrade existing segments of the Interstate system. Some parts of the Interstate, including bridges are nearly as old as the Mathews, and in need of replacement.
To restate the 'gas tax problem' - Federal and State gas taxes are almost exclusively levied on each gallon of fuel sold, not a percentage of the price, like sales taxes. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, with more and more vehicles not using ANY gas, gas tax revenues are flattening out and declining - even with more miles being driven. Some states have experimented with "miles driven" taxes, but these have not been widely accepted, in part due to privacy concerns.
Florida DOT is looking to downgrade the Arlington Expressway, not beef it up.
http://northfloridatpo.com/images/uploads/docs/Arlington_Expressway_Study_Final_Report.pdf
That's the TPO and that study is collecting dust like most of them. It doesn't suggest FDOT's views towards the Arlington Expressway in any way.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on September 28, 2019, 02:11:44 PM
Florida DOT is looking to downgrade the Arlington Expressway, not beef it up.
http://northfloridatpo.com/images/uploads/docs/Arlington_Expressway_Study_Final_Report.pdf
Strictly speaking it is the North Florida TPO, not FDOT, that looked at rebuilding the Arlington Expressway into some sort of arterial roadway.
The concept has carried over into the "Needs Plan" of the NFTPO's 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. The Arlington Expressway is listed as "Context Sensitive Solution" between University and Atlantic Boulevards. Unfortunately, the Needs Plan list does not provide costs, or any other details, of the proposed projects, so it is hard (impossible) to tell what is meant by many of the entries in the Needs List.
http://pathforward2045.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Duval-List-and-Maps.pdf
According to a presentation to the TPO Board in September (2019), although it does not appear in the Needs Plan list (link above),
Quote
The replacement of the Mathews Bridge has been added. A new Bridge Investment Program has been announced and the Mathews Bridge would likely be eligible for replacement if included in the plan.
Link to presentation at bottom of this page: http://pathforward2045.com/presentations/
Also according to that presentation, they plan to adopt the Cost Feasible Plan - the projects the region can afford - this November.
Link to the 2045 "Path Forward" website: http://pathforward2045.com/
At an estimated cost of $1 billion, that bridge will have to fall down before it gets replaced.
Wouldn't it be great to tear this bridge down, build a wider and taller one that included bike and pedestrian paths, and raise the Dames Pointe so larger container ships and cruise ships could make it into the heart of downtown?
Quote from: jaxjaguar on September 29, 2019, 12:29:57 AM
... and raise the Dames Pointe so larger container ships and cruise ships could make it into the heart of downtown?
The Dames Point Bridge is symptomatic of Jacksonville doing things on the cheap, just doing things for the sake of doing them and/or not taking time to creatively plan and vision the future or evaluate consequences.
When Dames Point was proposed, it was advocated by the maritime industry here (which then included the major employer of thousands, Jacksonville Shipyards), that the bridge should be built higher than it is to accommodate, even then, the well established trend of ever larger ships.
But our politicos were in their usual rush to get the bridge built to satisfy powerful developers, such details be damned. Until we voted to replace tolls with the half cent sales tax, Dames Point was to be a toll bridge and there were concerns that tolls couldn't pay for a more expensive (i.e. higher) bridge. So JTA saved a few dollars by building it at a lower height just to get it done (there was no I-295 then and there wasn't exactly a stampede of traffic over it until many years later so the rush for those reasons wasn't really justified).
This decades old approach of getting it done fast and cheap without careful consideration of all the impacts with respect to major decisions just so we can appease special interests can now be seen in the current issues of the day such as JEA, the school board referendum, the pension plans and even the decriminalization of marijuana. As a result, we continue to make boneheaded decisions that limit this community's potential for decades into the future.
If you look carefully, you can find many more examples of this thinking such as the convention center, the Skyway, the courthouse, the port dredging, our rush to demolish our historic infrastructure without any replacement plans, our urban sprawl, our road building in lieu of mass transit investments (which were promised in the Better Jacksonville Plan but never done), even the original JIA terminal.
The clearance of 175 feet was the result of pressure from port interests, JTA wanted to build it shorter. At this point, I don't remember what they proposed, but do remember the Coast Guard permit was conditioned on going to 175 feet. Note that JTA did get away with not providing full width break-down lanes.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 29, 2019, 03:23:32 AM
When Dames Point was proposed, it was advocated by the maritime industry here (which then included the major employer of thousands, Jacksonville Shipyards), that the bridge should be built higher than it is to accommodate, even then, the well established trend of ever larger ships.
One can always find people advocating sometime being done "better". The thing is, Dames Point has nearly as much clearance the bridges in Brunswick and Savannah.
The city should, and has been, moving port facilities away from the heart of the city. The old port facilities couldn't accomdiate the larger ships. Hell, the river can't accomodate those bigger ships.
It was good to shift those to other non-residential areas more appropriate for that sort of activity.
The issue isn't that Dames Point wasn't built high enough. The issue is that one can always find some know-it-all someplace that is willing to do back seat driving. No doubt a few of this love to tell folks if the government had just listened to them, Jacksonville would be hosting Chinamax ships.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 28, 2019, 03:54:51 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on September 28, 2019, 02:11:44 PM
Florida DOT is looking to downgrade the Arlington Expressway, not beef it up.
http://northfloridatpo.com/images/uploads/docs/Arlington_Expressway_Study_Final_Report.pdf
Strictly speaking it is the North Florida TPO, not FDOT, that looked at rebuilding the Arlington Expressway into some sort of arterial roadway.
Thank for clarifying. That is an important point distinction. It sounds like a road diet for the Arlington Expressway isn't really in the works. Just that our local TPO has it on their radar.
Quote from: Kerry on September 28, 2019, 10:14:02 PM
At an estimated cost of $1 billion, that bridge will have to fall down before it gets replaced.
That is actually a pretty easy problem to solve. Sell the Bridge to Shad Khan and the money to replace it will be found post haste. Better yet, let Khan lease it so he doesn't have to pay property taxes on it.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on September 29, 2019, 11:39:00 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 29, 2019, 03:23:32 AM
When Dames Point was proposed, it was advocated by the maritime industry here (which then included the major employer of thousands, Jacksonville Shipyards), that the bridge should be built higher than it is to accommodate, even then, the well established trend of ever larger ships.
One can always find people advocating sometime being done "better". The thing is, Dames Point has nearly as much clearance the bridges in Brunswick and Savannah.
The issue isn't that Dames Point wasn't built high enough. The issue is that one can always find some know-it-all someplace that is willing to do back seat driving. No doubt a few of this love to tell folks if the government had just listened to them, Jacksonville would be hosting Chinamax ships.
Not back seat driving, front seat! It's a fact that the "know it all" experts in Maritime wanted the Dames Point Bridge higher. I guess you think the Government knows better because...? The same government that gave us the pension fiasco among countless misfires?
The bridges over Brunswick, Savannah and Charleston are 185 to 186 feet high and that extra 10+ feet makes a big difference. We will never have a bridge that can accommodate all ships but we can have one that accommodates many more. It should come down to ROI for our community, not just a few special interests.
If the current height was so desirable, you wouldn't still hear people today bemoaning it. Regardless, your style of shooting the messenger because you don't like the message speaks volumes about your open mindedness. You fit right in with the politicos you are trying to defend.
Hello from the future!
Congress and President Joe Biden (no idea if y'all expected this two years ago) have passed an infrastructure law with billions of dollars in funding for various infrastructure projects across the country.
Florida, as part of this legislation, is guaranteed $245 million for bridge repairs over the next five years, but also can compete for $12.5 billion in funding for "economically significant bridges" and $16 billion for "major projects".
Should Jacksonville seek funding to replace the Matthews? Or is this money better spent elsewhere?
Now's the chance to tear it down and build something with more clearance for larger ships (planning for the future when the Dames point needs replacing). As I've mentioned many times I really think we should move our Cruise Port as close to downtown as possible. It would force a few thousand people a week to visit the area and give us an opportunity to retain our cruise port since ships are getting bigger.
Add bike lanes and sidewalks to the new bridge to connect Arlington and Downtown. This is an excellent opportunity to connect residents outside of downtown to the Emerald Necklace project. With the increasing adoption of e-bikes this would be a great route. Could even add a pedestrian bridge access to Exchange Point. Widen the lanes for cars to reduce accidents.
This is just spitballing, and it'd probably be a financial nonstarter, but what if we tunneled it? It's about a mile and a half. Unlike PortMiami's tunnel it'd basically be a straight line, you could cut-and-cover the downtown approach and perhaps bury precast segments in the river like with the Transbay Tube. Exchange Island is probably the toughest part for its environmental sensitivity, but that's a problem with a new bridge anyway. That'd then give you the ability to restore the street grid on the downtown side.
How "out there" would that be?
I'm not sure Carnival, or any other, cruise line would want to come downtown. The current cruise port is about 12.5 miles from the mouth of the St. Johns. Relocating the cruise port to the Downtown Shipyards area would nearly double the distance to about 23.2 miles. However, this would require replacing the Hart Bridge also, as it has even less clearance than the Matthews. This would place the cruise port at Commodore Point, about 21.3 miles from the ocean. I had trouble finding the information, but I think the speed limit in the main channel is 25 mph (why it isn't in knots, I don't know). If a cruise ship could maintain that speed, it would take an hour to get from downtown to the jetties. This seems unlikely as cruise ships average 20 knots (23 mph) in open ocean cruising. The speed in a constricted river channel would likely be considerably less - making transit time significantly longer. How does that compare to other cruise ports?
To make the New Matthews usable for pedestrians and bicycles, even e-bikes, the grade will have to be more gradual. Along with a higher bridge, this will extend the touch-down point further into the Eastside.
The point I've also made a few times is that I seriously question how much sense it makes for us as a city to invest tens of millions into passenger cruising so we can still end up the #5 cruise port in the state.
The one comparable example I found distance-wise was the cruise port in Rotterdam, which is about 20 miles from the North Sea. However, Rotterdam is a massive port, and I don't think cruise lines would give Jax the same degree of consideration.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on November 18, 2021, 11:24:20 AM
This is just spitballing, and it'd probably be a financial nonstarter, but what if we tunneled it? It's about a mile and a half. Unlike PortMiami's tunnel it'd basically be a straight line, you could cut-and-cover the downtown approach and perhaps bury precast segments in the river like with the Transbay Tube. Exchange Island is probably the toughest part for its environmental sensitivity, but that's a problem with a new bridge anyway. That'd then give you the ability to restore the street grid on the downtown side.
How "out there" would that be?
I think it would be really cool off we buried all of the State/Union through traffic from I95 to Arlington. The cost would be absurd and it will never happen but it would be nice.
Also if we buried I-95 from I-10 to past Atlantic.
If we bury all these highways, can I have the concession for water pumps?
Quote from: acme54321 on November 18, 2021, 01:06:06 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on November 18, 2021, 11:24:20 AM
This is just spitballing, and it'd probably be a financial nonstarter, but what if we tunneled it? It's about a mile and a half. Unlike PortMiami's tunnel it'd basically be a straight line, you could cut-and-cover the downtown approach and perhaps bury precast segments in the river like with the Transbay Tube. Exchange Island is probably the toughest part for its environmental sensitivity, but that's a problem with a new bridge anyway. That'd then give you the ability to restore the street grid on the downtown side.
How "out there" would that be?
I think it would be really cool off we buried all of the State/Union through traffic from I95 to Arlington. The cost would be absurd and it will never happen but it would be nice.
Also if we buried I-95 from I-10 to past Atlantic.
I'm generally more inclined toward removal for a lot of these 50s-era arterials. I don't think we're obligated to make it as easy as possible to speed through downtown, and encouraging alternative options would be a lot more efficient. Even with I-95, I'm looking to think longer term in what the best way to get people through and around town is.
100%, yes, replace the Mathews bridge. Easy access from Arlington ought to be a major asset to downtown redevelopment. It's a relatively dense suburb and getting downtown is equally as convenient -- often more convenient, depending on beltway traffic -- than getting to SJTC. Regency Square Mall is dead and nightlife is extremely limited to non-existent, so hyperlocal competition is nonexistent.
Upgrade the Mathews bridge so we have emergency lanes and plan ahead for whatever public transit solution JTA might consider running over the river. If they're dying on the U2C hill, they better put in a dedicated transit lane. Arlington is a community of need, and better connections to Eastside/Downtown/Springfield will only help both areas as they seek to revitalize. I may also have a small element of self-interest in this position. ;D
Once you get to State and Union, if you can turn those into meaningful retail corridors, then slowing down the transit time on those streets would be great. Worst case, if you take steps to limit capacity on those heavily-used thoroughfares but don't see the development through, then it's a net loss. I would be nervous about anything the city thinks it can pull off in that area, given our tendency to default to half-measures.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on November 18, 2021, 08:58:31 AM
Should Jacksonville seek funding to replace the Matthews? Or is this money better spent elsewhere?
I've pondered this as well. On first blush, I'd say yes. After more analysis, it appears although functionally obsolete, the Mathews Bridge is structurally sound. On the other hand, we have at least 10 bridges, mostly in NW Jacksonville and the Northside, that are structurally deficient and currently in use. This includes the I-95 bridge over the Nassau River, Lem Turner Road over the Trout River and US 17/Main Street over the Broward River. From a safety perspective, I'm in favor of getting the structurally deficient bridges in town replaced with structures built to modern standards.
The Matthews definitely should be maintained/kept in place. When that boat hit it a while back and they closed it down for a week there was a major increase on Atlantic Blvd, it was a hot mess until they reopened it. The Hart expressway too.
One option might be to leave the Matthews Bridge in place, make it one way, and build a twin bridge next to it, one way in the other direction. I have seen this solution in several spots around the US. The best of both worlds, keeping the "historic" and still good bridge and adding more capacity to the crossing with lots of lanes for emergencies and future public transit vehicles.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on November 18, 2021, 11:48:04 PM
One option might be to leave the Matthews Bridge in place, make it one way, and build a twin bridge next to it, one way in the other direction. I have seen this solution in several spots around the US. The best of both worlds, keeping the "historic" and still good bridge and adding more capacity to the crossing with lots of lanes for emergencies and future public transit vehicles.
I like it. 2 one-way lanes on the Mathews, with an emergency lane and a transit lane. Duplicate in the other direction. There's zero demand for shared use paths given the configuration of the Arlington Expressway, unless they convert that to a boulevard simultaneously (ha).
I don't think the current capacity is a big issue; it's the proclivity of minor accidents to shut down traffic entirely that causes problems. The beauty of the expressway is if JTA ever gets serious about fixed transit, the median is ample enough to install public transit lanes without much ROW acquisition. Not to mention Regency Square Mall could tolerate a dose of TOD if such a transit system were to arrive. But that is quite a ways in the future, if ever.
If a new bridge were built adjacent to the existing one, it would definitely include a shared use path component. My guess is that path would end at University. The big question I'd have about a new bridge would be the path. Especially over the Eastside. Something would definitely have to come down to make room.
Yes, there will be a considerable amount of right-of-way needed, on both sides of the river, to add capacity in the Mathews Bridge corridor. Also, at the very least both the MLK/Sports Complex and University Boulevard interchanges will need to be totally rebuilt. This is easily a billion-dollar project.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on November 19, 2021, 12:08:23 PM
Yes, there will be a considerable amount of right-of-way needed, on both sides of the river, to add capacity in the Mathews Bridge corridor. Also, at the very least both the MLK/Sports Complex and University Boulevard interchanges will need to be totally rebuilt. This is easily a billion-dollar project.
That sports district interchange is a total cluster. It's crazy to look at the street grid in that area. If that mess could be simplified and the street grid in that area partially restored it would be awesome.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on November 19, 2021, 12:08:23 PM
Yes, there will be a considerable amount of right-of-way needed, on both sides of the river, to add capacity in the Mathews Bridge corridor. Also, at the very least both the MLK/Sports Complex and University Boulevard interchanges will need to be totally rebuilt. This is easily a billion-dollar project.
The best time to have begun planning this was probably a decade ago. The second best time is now. No reason we can't put together a vision and then find the funding when we can.
Mathews has definitely been a problem and ignored because of the cost. When I was on the Northeast Florida Regional Transportation Commission, it came up during one of the Long Range Transportation Plan updates. It was like a billion dollars and at the time, there was a set budget for projects that had to be split between six counties. Mathews got pushed aside because it would have ate most of that budget, leaving the surrounding counties needs largely unmet.
Understood Lake; but I think we all agree they need to tear down the old Matthews and rebuild/reconstruct a new one.
Lake, if I remember correctly, the Billion Dollar price tag included both approach expressways, but I could be misremembering.
heights, but where are you going to get the Billion? It's not on the Interstate system, or even Florida's Strategic Intermodal System - hgihly doubtful we can squeeze that much out of the BBB.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on November 20, 2021, 06:24:34 PM
Lake, if I remember correctly, the Billion Dollar price tag included both approach expressways, but I could be misremembering.
heights, but where are you going to get the Billion? It's not on the Interstate system, or even Florida's Strategic Intermodal System - hgihly doubtful we can squeeze that much out of the BBB.
We could start by reallocating the funding for the U2C. A nice down payment. Not a fan of redirecting mass transit funding to a bridge but if we are going to blow it anyway, might as well spend it on something needed and useful. Might be able to justify it further by including dedicated mass transit/bicycle/pedestrian pathways. LOL.
Different funding pot than the U2C and organization (JTA vs FDOT) altogether.
There is nothing preventing JTA from partnering with FDOT on a new Mathews.
^JTA itself. I definitely don't see a world where JTA would shift local U2C money to the Mathews Bridge.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 21, 2021, 07:24:44 AM
^JTA itself. I definitely don't see a world where JTA would shift local U2C money to the Mathews Bridge.
You are probably correct. Only a wholesale change in the appointed Board, which is unlikely unless there are significant changes in the people doing the appointing - Governor in Nov. 2022, and Mayor in May 2023.
As much as I would like to see them do something else, I don't think there's enough support for a complete sea change in that project. A lot of the problem is that people at large don't understand enough about autonomous vehicles to not believe the confidence of JTA. Another issue is that appointments like the JTA board are to often awards for political donors or allies, much moreso than for technical experience in transit. All that aside, I doubt any candidate for either office is going to see U2C as a big enough issue to make it a serious point of their campaign.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on November 21, 2021, 10:55:22 AM
As much as I would like to see them do something else, I don't think there's enough support for a complete sea change in that project. A lot of the problem is that people at large don't understand enough about autonomous vehicles to not believe the confidence of JTA. Another issue is that appointments like the JTA board are to often awards for political donors or allies, much moreso than for technical experience in transit. All that aside, I doubt any candidate for either office is going to see U2C as a big enough issue to make it a serious point of their campaign.
Agency, and now even college (see UF's handling of the new FL surgeon general joining their faculty), boards are mere tools of politicians that appoint them to further their agendas. Just look at SJRWM, JEA, JPA, JTA, DIA, DDRB, etc. to see the local versions of such effectively non-independent boards rubberstamping staff actions, such staff, in turn, kissing the rings of elected officials who appoint them and/or control their agency's budgets, etc.
How bad does the information have to be to get the JTA board to abandon U2C or the JPA board to have nixed the dredging project? No matter the negatives, these approvals were all foregone conclusions and the negatives had no chance of persuading the boards to veto or curtail such projects.
Boards are supposed to be part of a checks and balance system but it is nowhere close to working. Maybe boards should be elected like our school boards to get better accountability. It's odd that the do-nothing Soil and Water Conservation Board is elected but all the boards with potential real power are not.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on November 20, 2021, 06:24:34 PM
Lake, if I remember correctly, the Billion Dollar price tag included both approach expressways, but I could be misremembering.
heights, but where are you going to get the Billion? It's not on the Interstate system, or even Florida's Strategic Intermodal System - hgihly doubtful we can squeeze that much out of the BBB.
Charles, understand where you're going; but IMO it's up to the people in power, i.e. the powers that be that get paid the money by the taxpayers to "find that money," and "squeeze that turnip," so to speak. If the bridge needs to be replaced, and we all agree that it does, those whose job it is to get the bridge built and to find the money to get it built, need to "turn to," and get er done; I know, easier said than done; but again, it's not our job, and, that's what we pay them for.
^ If a twin bridge is built, does that cost $1 billion or only if the existing bridge is removed and replaced by one 2+ times bigger?
And, I agree, the money is out there (see U2C). It's all about priorities. As to JTA vs. FDOT, both depend quite a bit on Federal dollars. It could just come down to who can make the best case for directing the Fed's dollars, assuming politicos don't distort the process. I would imagine, politically speaking, the bridge would be far more popular than a project like U2C so, even in the world of politics, it should come out on top.
The underlying issue is that our visionless "leaders" aren't even talking about it.
If only that freighter had hit the bridge just a few feet over ... [assuming no one was hurt or killed]
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on November 21, 2021, 08:22:47 PM
^ If a twin bridge is built, does that cost $1 billion or only if the existing bridge is removed and replaced by one 2+ times bigger?
And, I agree, the money is out there (see U2C). It's all about priorities. As to JTA vs. FDOT, both depend quite a bit on Federal dollars. It could just come down to who can make the best case for directing the Fed's dollars, assuming politicos don't distort the process. I would imagine, politically speaking, the bridge would be far more popular than a project like U2C so, even in the world of politics, it should come out on top.
The underlying issue is that our visionless "leaders" aren't even talking about it.
I always assumed it would be a new span and that there would be efforts to keep the existing structure in place since it's structurally sound and historic in its own right. Either new or a replacement, that span would touch down deeper both into the Eastside and Arlington.
Applications are now open for the Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant program (https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-opens-streamlined-application-process-more-55-billion), with over $5.5 billion in funds available between three funding pools.
Last year (https://www.transportation.gov/grants/mega-grant-program/FY22awards), several bridges were funded by one of these pools, the National Infrastructure Project Assistance program, including the Brent Spence Bridge between Ohio and Kentucky, the Calcasieu River Bridge in Louisiana, and the Alligator River Bridge in North Carolina.
Although I wouldn't expect us to be prepared to even apply for this grant (which is due next month) now, it's worth considering the limited opportunity out there for such investment in the long run. It should be worthwhile to plan for potentially taking advantage of this grant in a later fiscal year before the infrastructure bill ends.