Does anyone think it would be a good idea to build a bridge connecting University and 103rd?
I think we can all agree that the Buckman and the Fuller Warren are the most congested bridges in Jacksonville during traffic hours. If there's an accident on the Buckman then you're basically SOL because you either need to sit an hour in traffic for an hour or you'll need to drive 30 mins north to the Buckman or even further south to the Shands bridge to avoid the congestion.
103rd and University are already both popular roads and a bridge would be approximately right in the middle of the Fuller Warren and the Buckman. The proposed bridge would likely pull traffic from both bridges alleviating traffic drastically while making the overall traffic flow around Jax more convenient.
The stretch of river in that area is approx. 2 miles according to google maps.
(https://imgur.com/a/aTUOXE2)
This was proposed in the past and actually made it through the design phase before it was defeated by the residents of Ortega.
I don't see it even being a consideration until congestion on the other two bridges gets REALLY bad. Lets be real. Traffic here isn't actually that bad.
If something ever got built it would be between Timuquana and JTB and would be expressway style. A massive impact to the neighborhoods and I don't think the ROI would be there for it to overcome the hurdles. I bet it would be pushing $1B to construct.
At that point, it is Timuquana Road. Also, my measuring on Google Maps, from the intersection of Timuquana and Roosevelt to University and San Jose, is more like 3.25 miles.
This has been in and out of transportation plans for as long as there have been transportation plans. For the last 20 or 30 years, pretty much "out" of any plans. Drawbacks include (in no particular order), the presence of an active Naval Air base at the west end; plus, the Florida Yacht Club and Timuquana Country Club on the west end; an established, and well-off, neighborhood on the east end; the cost of a new bridge; the cost of upgrading to handle the increased traffic Timuquana Road (a state road), Roosevelt Boulevard (a federal/state road), University Boulevard (a state road), and San Jose (a state road); other higher transportation priorities (for example, replacing the 67 year old Mathews Bridge or transit or ...).
So, don't see it happening.
And what they said. ^
I worked on the plans a long time ago, in the '80s. There was an alignment done. It connected to JTB and was limited access. The plan ran right through San Jose CC. Ortega would also be impacted. It would be best if it could go on NAS, but that is out of the question. Considering the cost versus impacts it is a hill too tall to climb. It would be above $1.0 billion easy, plus the R/W cost so around $1.5 billion.
Not only can we not afford a new bridge, we have to find a way to replace the Mathew Bridge which alone is over $1 billion. The future is not more roads, it's less roads.
Quote from: Kerry on January 10, 2020, 11:52:03 AM
Not only can we not afford a new bridge, we have to find a way to replace the Mathew Bridge which alone is over $1 billion. The future is not more roads, it's less roads.
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads." Dr. E. Brown
Quote from: Kerry on January 10, 2020, 11:52:03 AM
Not only can we not afford a new bridge, we have to find a way to replace the Mathew Bridge which alone is over $1 billion. The future is not more roads, it's less roads.
Where we're going, we don't need roads...
(Unless you live in the suburbs)
For once, I agree with Kerry. Spending several billion dollars on a brand new bridge, and hoping that the communities in the way would allow us to literally run them over with asphalt, and then directing said bridge around an active military facility is absolutely nuts. I know the traffic sucks, I've been stuck in it, but the solution to that is going to have to be getting cars off the road, not adding more lanes.
There's a reason modern urban planning paradigms don't focus on constructing brand new highways with massive river crossings. It's unsustainable.
A Lakewood/San Jose to Ortega/Roosevelt Bridge was on some people's drawing board/maps going back up to 60+ years ago. Even then, the affected neighborhoods said "no way." And, that's before a lot of infill development in the 60 years since. Also, given those areas are probably home to well over half the movers and shakers in this City, good luck overcoming that.
They couldn't even get Butler Blvd. to terminate at San Jose Blvd., as once planned, due to heavy neighborhood opposition so imagine trying to access a developed riverfront point for a bridge.
Your better chance would be some type of ferry service from Lakewood to Ortega. As an historical point, I have been told (but unable to currently verify) this actually existed around the war years when a ferry transported workers from the Bolles School property to NAS. If true, maybe they should have kept that up 8)
If it were up to me...
I'd knock down the Matthews, send the traffic to the Hart and use the land reclaimed from the based of the Mathews to move the cruise port. Then raise the Dames Point to 220-230' to allow larger cruise ships in. Expand the skyway to have a stop between the stadium and arena.
Worst case scenario even if there was only had the 1 ship that's there now, you'd still put 2500 people in the core on a weekly basis. Say 20% of those passengers stay downtown. That's 500 extra people per week staying in the core. Say half of those people use the skyway to get to the new cruise port. That's almost 13,000 additional riders on that new line per year... not even counting the people who would ride it on event days. Run an additional Skyway extension to the corner of Riverside Ave and Forest St and you give those cruise guests even more incentive to stay intown longer / use the transit since they'll be closer to riverside / the new hotel being built there. Eventually you can boost ridership high enough to start charging again... Use that revenue to build the fancy autonomous fleet that's been discussed and BAM! Downtown has better transit, more tourists and can earn more money to maintain it's infrastructure.
I assume you meant raise the Dames Point (Broward) Bridge to 220-230'.
Do you have a printing press in your basement to print out the $5 to $10 Billion all this would cost? :D
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 11, 2020, 10:09:45 AM
Do you have a printing press in your basement to print out the $5 to $10 Billion all this would cost? :D
Right? I mean, good God. Where do you even start with this? Trying to cap Arlington Expressway and direct the hundred thousand cars a day that travel on it down University to the Hart? Raising (which really pretty much means rebuilding) the Dames Point 50' higher?
There's just no way in heaven or hell that the cost of the infrastructure would ever be worth the revenue.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on January 11, 2020, 01:25:24 PM
Raising (which really pretty much means rebuilding) the Dames Point 50' higher?
Wouldn't it be easier to just dredge another 50' out of the channel below?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 11, 2020, 05:25:18 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to just dredge another 50' out of the channel below?
Maybe, but that's not the point. While cruise ships have gained in draft (how much of the ship is underwater), much more of their height has been gained above the waterline. Dredging wouldn't solve that problem, unless you're dredging so much that you decrease the water level of the entire river by 50 feet. At which point, you'd need canal-style locks because the water level of the river is now below that of the ocean.
Long story short, no.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 11, 2020, 05:25:18 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on January 11, 2020, 01:25:24 PM
Raising (which really pretty much means rebuilding) the Dames Point 50' higher?
Wouldn't it be easier to just dredge another 50' out of the channel below?
Not sure if serious. I hope not serious...
Now that sunpass has been implemented in Jax you could use that and bonds to shift the traffic pattern. The Hart still has some life in it, so we could use the revenue to build a better wider bridge with pedestrian and cycle lanes where the Mathews is now, in the future.
Sure it would be crazy expensive, but the Mathews and Hart are going to need to be replaced eventually. If they were properly redone now, so that larger ships could access downtown you can give the sports district an additional revenue stream during the off seasons. The problem with thinking "this will cost 5-10 billion" is that 30 years from now that won't matter. The additional revenue that could be generated + inflation would make the price moot. Jacksonville is perpetually stuck in a state of stagnation do to being slow to capitalize on development booms, low interest rates and destroying things with now replacement lined up.
I'm not saying this is the best use of that amount of money, I'm just staying on the topic of new bridges ;). Regardless, you've gotta spend money to make money... But don't spend it knocking down buildings to create giant parking lots lol.
Any politician recommending, or even suggesting, putting tolls on the Hart or Mathews Bridges would lead to bringing back the tradition of tar and feathers. I will have to do some research, but I recall seeing recently that toll roads take many years before they do any more than cover the debt service (interest) on the bonds sold to finance the construction. The article was from the Miami area, where they are complaining that their toll roads (Turnpike) are paid for, and the 'profit' is going to new toll roads in north Florida. Also, it is unlikely the tolls on the Express Lanes on I-295 will ever reach that milestone.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 12, 2020, 08:37:49 AM
Also, it is unlikely the tolls on the Express Lanes on I-295 will ever reach that milestone.
SERIOUSLY. I drive 295 in this section nearly every morning. If they $0.50/car, There's no way they more than a couple hundred bucks a day. Tops.
I contend they could have just added the extra lane between Old St Augustine and 95, called it a day, and it would work just as well. No way the few cars that use these lanes is worth the expense of building.
From talking to folks at FDOT, their policy at the time was that any new lanes on Interstates had to have tolls. Under the new Governor, just the opposite, new lanes are to be free. So, we will have new lanes with tolls between the Buckman Bridge and I-95, then between SR 9B and UNF; then all future new lanes will be free (like from UNF to south of the Dames Point Bridge).
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 12, 2020, 01:19:46 PM
From talking to folks at FDOT, their policy at the time was that any new lanes on Interstates had to have tolls. Under the new Governor, just the opposite, new lanes are to be free. So, we will have new lanes with tolls between the Buckman Bridge and I-95, then between SR 9B and UNF; then all future new lanes will be free (like from UNF to south of the Dames Point Bridge).
They should convert the toll lanes to free, too, because I would bet there is a good chance the cost of collecting the tolls is/will exceed the revenue from so doing 8). I am of the opinion the toll lanes where Rick Scott's work around for building roads to support his developer/road builder supporters during the recession when the State was less well off.
What we really should be doing is redirecting the interstate funds more to mass transit and underfunded maintenance/support of non-interstate roads that are falling further and further behind. If they have any net toll revenue, lets redirect it there too.
There really isn't much room left to expand capacity on the interstates anyway and at some point they are going to have to find a better way to enable the transport of people in this State.
Quote from: acme54321 on January 11, 2020, 09:31:40 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 11, 2020, 05:25:18 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on January 11, 2020, 01:25:24 PM
Raising (which really pretty much means rebuilding) the Dames Point 50' higher?
Wouldn't it be easier to just dredge another 50' out of the channel below?
Not sure if serious. I hope not serious...
8)
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on January 12, 2020, 10:03:30 PM
I am of the opinion the toll lanes where Rick Scott's work around for building roads to support his developer/road builder supporters during the recession when the State was less well off.
But of course, what would the construction crews have to do if they weren't building express lanes (other than building the HSR system he cancelled in favor of more roads)?
Quote
What we really should be doing is redirecting the interstate funds more to mass transit and underfunded maintenance/support of non-interstate roads that are falling further and further behind. If they have any net toll revenue, lets redirect it there too.
But that would mean not pouring billions (https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/08/28/floridas-new-toll-roads-are-supposed-to-help-these-counties-but-they-dont-want-it/) into building toll roads on the west side of the state. We can't have that.
Quote
There really isn't much room left to expand capacity on the interstates anyway and at some point they are going to have to find a better way to enable the transport of people in this State.
"Sounds like the next Governor's problem."
- Every FL Governor
I am kind of "end game" type person. Where are we going with freeway construction and why not just cut right to the end.
Atlanta has squeezed every last inch of capacity out of their interstate system. The have express lanes, hov lanes, you can drive on the shoulder during rush-hours, metered on-ramps, variable speed limits, express busses, van shares, car pools, park and rides, and every other conceivable traffic mitigation strategy you can think of, and where has it gotten them? They have more traffic than ever and a rush hour that last 4 to 5 hours - even on weekends and now they will have to spend untold billions on maintenance and even more on rail because it is their only option left whether they like it or not.
Why follow that model? Stop the insanity of more roads and just go straight to rail. One set of rails has more passenger capacity than 15 lanes of interstate.
Rail should not be done until express buses have been used on dedicated lanes. The state is already losing around $100 million a year on Tri-rail and Sunrail. Build it they will not come. That said building more than 10 lanes (5 each way) is pointless. If you think the road business owns politicians then square it and it's rail or light rail. MARTA has more employees than the GDOT and loses Millions each year.
Transportation is changing and I'm not sure what the future is if we truly get self-driving cars. Things will be quite different in 10 years, hopefully, more carpooling and few cars. You can't build your way out of it and rail is a better graft machine than roadways.
Quote from: Transman on January 16, 2020, 04:35:24 PM
Rail should not be done until express buses have been used on dedicated lanes.
Since there are different types of rail serving different types of trips, an express bus on dedicated lanes won't demonstrate much. Also, building dedicated lanes can get just as expensive as some forms of rail. It really depends on what the community desires, the corridor characteristics and what the end game (long term vision) is but rail should be considered when capacity needs and community's quality of life calls for it.
Quote from: Transman on January 16, 2020, 04:35:24 PM
That said building more than 10 lanes (5 each way) is pointless. If you think the road business owns politicians then square it and it's rail or light rail.
Quote from: Kerry on January 16, 2020, 03:44:51 PM
I am kind of "end game" type person. Where are we going with freeway construction and why not just cut right to the end.
The road construction business is big business. Until we find another business model to keep feeding those who make a living off of it, we'll keep spending serious tax money on it.
Talk about rail's capacity is a red herring. Rarely do any corridors require high capacity transit. More so, a long time ago technology improvements have enabled bus service that can handle a million+ trips a day.
As for rail, I'm not sure what the point of it would be. Metro JAXes use of transit, like the rest of post WWII sun belt, is anemic. For example, if you look at USDOT stats, Tampa and Minneapolis have @3 million in their transit areas. Yet MPLS has 3 times as much transit. And it's not about sprawl, there's less than a 10 point spead on their sprawl indexes.
I'd really like to see JTA focus on mobility for the poor and working class.
QuoteI'd really like to see JTA focus on mobility for the poor and working class.
Hopefully, this should be a high priority of focus no matter what the mode is, along with integration of supportive land uses. Combined, these create an environment of upward economic mobility and access.