QuoteCities might soon get federal money to tear down inner-city highways that federal dollars built in the first place — and use that money to reinvest in communities of color that those highways destroyed.
Shortly before the holiday recess, then-Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and a coalition of 25 Democratic senators introduced a $435 billion economic justice bill called S5065 that included a $10-billion pilot program aimed at helping communities tear down urban highways, and rebuild the surrounding neighborhoods with the needs of underserved communities in mind.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/11/senate-considering-10b-highway-removal-bill/
It seems there are a lot of places in Jacksonville that could perhaps benefit from this, or a state version of it. The Arlington Expressway immediately comes to mind. The remaining Hart Bridge ramps. The Main Street bridge ramps.
Hmmm ... maybe my post was removed to improve the community? (Or, I forgot to hit "Post")
To recap - I can see this program applying to not only the Arlington Expressway but also the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. Not so sure about the Hart Expressway Ramps, although removing the remaining stubs makes sense, just not from this program. The North Florida TPO did a study on the Arlington Expressway a few years ago (however, it was more than 3 years ago, so isn't on their website).
Regarding the Main Street Bridge ramps, I see no applicability to those on the north end of the bridge. The Southbank elevated section is a possibility, if the surrounding area would meet the bill's definition of 'neighborhood' or 'community'.
Interesting on multiple fronts.
I definitely see Arlington Expressway fitting the bill to a degree. The interesting thing is that a lot of the neighborhood sort of grew up around the expressway vs. the expressway coming in and destroying the neighborhood (i.e. MLK).
Now what's interesting about MLK is while it definitely hurt the neighborhood, the road is used really extensively by trucks because of the development of the port, particularly the section from I-95 to the port. Realistically, you can't just remove the road and put the historic street grid back into place. Obviously you can bring it back to grade and eliminate the freeway part of it, though now you have a ton of trucks on surface streets - I suppose that's better but even with great road design I'm not sure that makes it pedestrian friendly. In short I feel like you have to consider it almost like 3 roads: New Kings to I-95, I-95 to the curve at Haines Street, and the curve to the Stadium/Hart Bridge.
Other places I could see this is the entire southbank save for I-95 (thought you might have a hard time selling the "neighborhood"), and potentially Roosevelt from Edgewood to I-10.
Putting aside I-95 and I-10 itself I think those are the candidates here.
QuoteHmmm ... maybe my post was removed to improve the community? (Or, I forgot to hit "Post")
I didn't see another thread about this, if there was one, my bad.
QuoteThe North Florida TPO did a study on the Arlington Expressway a few years ago (however, it was more than 3 years ago, so isn't on their website).
Here's (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-sep-reimagining-the-arlington-expressway) an article from this site about it. I was brainstorming about what redeveloping Arlington would look like a little while ago and came across it. One thought that came to mind was the possibility of LRT (or tram/BRT/etc) in the median, perhaps connecting JU to JWB's College Park and the (hopefully) redeveloped Regency Square. Going with perhaps a slightly narrower median than 98 feet (I don't see people using a park slapped in the median of a big road like that) could be room for such a line. And if the federal dollars ever appear to replace the Matthews, it could be extended into Downtown. Send it down State or Union and terminate at the Rosa Parks station.
QuoteThe Southbank elevated section is a possibility, if the surrounding area would meet the bill's definition of 'neighborhood' or 'community'.
I was thinking Southbank, no idea what the clearance could be for the Northbank ramps. I'm not sure a ramp could hit Independent that steeply. Not to mention they're already getting rid of the Independent Drive on-ramp this year.
I could see just about every expressway built in the 50s and 60s outside of I-10 and I-95 being potentially eligible. MLK Parkway, the Arlington Expressway (especially the Eastside section), the ramps that connect the Hart Bridge to MLK Parkway and the little US 17 stub between Murray Hill/Lackawanna and Riverside. MLK would be transformational. That thing has negatively impacted just about every established neighborhood east, north and northwest of Downtown.
Quote from: Steve on February 12, 2021, 12:52:05 PM
Other places I could see this is the entire southbank save for I-95 (thought you might have a hard time selling the "neighborhood"), and potentially Roosevelt from Edgewood to I-10.
Putting aside I-95 and I-10 itself I think those are the candidates here.
Besides the Main Street Bridge on the Southside, it's just the Acosta ramp at that point, right? I could see leaving that part alone. (Unless a realistic Skyway replacement gives us the chance to redo part of the bridge anyway. ;D)
Roosevelt is definitely a good potential choice. Looking at a map, I wonder what the take would be on the section from the Hart to MLK parkway, how that is negotiated without the Matthews ramps in the mix. And, I see that there's a big interchange that if replaced with surface streets could provide a lot of new development space north of the stadium.
To go to an extreme, we could do like DC and remove I-95, the ultimate urban core destroyer, from the urban core and force all interstate traffic around our beltway :)!
Joke received, but to humor it for a moment. We're definitely not the nation's capital. DC has a substantial metro system to get people in and around their urban core. Perhaps I'm unimaginative, but I doubt we'd be willing to touch it after blowing half a billion dollars and more on the downtown approach on the Southbank, the Fuller Warren widening, and now the I-10 widening. Removing the portion of I-95 between I-10 and MLK Parkway could be very interesting in terms of reconnecting historic black neighborhoods to Downtown, if we were inclined to do so (and had adequate plans to make up for it with transit connectivity).
Now, if you were saying to actually copy DC and take out all of I-95 within the I-295 beltway, we'd be cooking with gas. Cut off the south end at maybe Phillips Hwy vs 295 itself, make Phillips the primary corridor through the Southside (the pressure to widen it vs building a transit corridor would be immense), redo the connection to the Fuller Warren, reconnect all of the surface streets the highway cut off. The infill opportunity would be incredible.
DC isn't immune. The historic Black areas of have I-295, I-395, and I-695 slicing through them. It will be interesting to see what cities would be interested. I can see discussion to take out some highways drawing local opposition.
QuoteJoke received, but to humor it for a moment. We're definitely not the nation's capital. DC has a substantial metro system to get people in and around their urban core.
The DC beltway predates the Metro by decades. I beleive I-95 didn't run through DC due to well connected opposition mostly. No doubt, the occupants at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and "workers" on Capitol Hill probably didn't want the traffic in their backyards :). They had more pull than the urban core areas in the rest of the country since they were the ones funding the interstate system to begin with.
Developers and their elected friends in Maryland and Virginia were probably more than happy to facilitate the traffic to build out their sprawling suburbs.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 12, 2021, 03:18:04 PM
DC isn't immune. The historic Black areas of have I-295, I-395, and I-695 slicing through them. It will be interesting to see what cities would be interested. I can see discussion to take out some highways drawing local opposition.
This brings up a point - in many cities the highways extend to the White suburbs where they connect people from the burbs, through Black neighborhoods, to city centers. Get rid of the highway and you're affecting the suburbs, not the core.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 12, 2021, 03:18:04 PM
DC isn't immune. The historic Black areas of have I-295, I-395, and I-695 slicing through them. It will be interesting to see what cities would be interested. I can see discussion to take out some highways drawing local opposition.
I meant that in terms of the nation's capital being more likely to make that level of investment in public transit and highway removal. I am well aware of the many residents and communities that have no federal representation. Although it seems DC was more a case of the highway being canceled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Freeway_(Washington,_D.C.)) in the first place than removing it.
But yeah, absolutely. I imagine suburbanites and sprawl-focused developers being pissed at the concept of cutting off their Silk Road.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 12, 2021, 03:26:39 PM
QuoteJoke received, but to humor it for a moment. We're definitely not the nation's capital. DC has a substantial metro system to get people in and around their urban core.
The DC beltway predates the Metro by decades. I beleive I-95 didn't run through DC due to well connected opposition mostly. No doubt, the occupants at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and "workers" on Capitol Hill probably didn't want the traffic in their backyards :). They had more pull than the urban core areas in the rest of the country since they were the ones funding the interstate system to begin with.
Developers and their elected friends in Maryland and Virginia were probably more than happy to facilitate the traffic to build out their sprawling suburbs.
Not by that much, actually. You can maybe call it two decades if you go from when the Beltway was formally approved in 1955 to when the Metro opened in 1976. WMATA was formed in 1966, 2 years after the Beltway's completion and 11 after its approval. And the law to develop a metro was passed before the initial portions of the Beltway were even completed.
Thought I'd play around and toss together a map of the ideas I've seen here.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1g7RwdC1TX-apj-vitS48Heues4WYImgv&usp=sharing
Quote from: marcuscnelson on February 12, 2021, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 12, 2021, 03:18:04 PM
DC isn't immune. The historic Black areas of have I-295, I-395, and I-695 slicing through them. It will be interesting to see what cities would be interested. I can see discussion to take out some highways drawing local opposition.
I meant that in terms of the nation's capital being more likely to make that level of investment in public transit and highway removal. I am well aware of the many residents and communities that have no federal representation.
No problem! I posted that in response to Jaxlongtimer's post:
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 12, 2021, 01:10:17 PM
To go to an extreme, we could do like DC and remove I-95, the ultimate urban core destroyer, from the urban core and force all interstate traffic around our beltway :)!
QuoteAlthough it seems DC was more a case of the highway being canceled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Freeway_(Washington,_D.C.)) in the first place than removing it.
It appears quite a few proposed for Jax were canceled as well. At one time the Arlington Expressway was proposed to go straight down State & Union to connect to I-95. The Hart Bridge Expressway abruptly ends at Beach Boulevard because the rest of it was canceled due to community opposition. Same goes for a bridge that would have connected JTB with 103rd Street. Riverside stopped one as well. Communities with political influence were able to get these projects stopped while the disenfranchised were paved over unfortunately.
Don't forget the proposed bridge from the (then) 20th Street Xway to a point somewhere between Fort Caroline and Merrill Roads, and continue out to the Wonderwood Connector. And speaking of the Wonderwood Connector - it was originally proposed as a limited-access expressway.
Regarding the Hart Expressway's termination at Beach Boulevard, instead of continuing on the diagonal to what is now JTB around UNF - it was community opposition and that of the businesses along Beach Boulevard and in the Jax Beach CBD that didn't want all the traffic shifted to Ponte Vedra.
That proposed Riverside expressway and bridge to San Marco was a catalyst in the formation of Riverside-Avondale Preservation.
It's funny, I've been so shocked at the rampant highway building that already exists around here, and is still continuing, and yet it's still strange to hear that they wanted to build even more.
And then they wondered why Downtown was doing so poorly.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 12, 2021, 10:10:26 PM
It appears quite a few proposed for Jax were canceled as well. At one time the Matthews was proposed to go straight down State & Union to connect to I-95. The Hart Bridge Expressway abruptly ends at Beach Boulevard because the rest of it was canceled due to community opposition. Same goes for a bridge that would have connected JTB with 103rd Street. Riverside stopped one as well. Communities with political influence were able to get these projects stopped while the disenfranchised were paved over unfortunately.
There was once also talk of extending the end of University Blvd. W. across the river once as I recall, likely before JTB was conceived. Looking at a map, that would have seemed to be more likely than extending JTB based on the neighborhoods that would be impacted and the length of the river crossing. Short of crossing the river, JTB was at least proposed to extend to San Jose Blvd. but residents shot that down too. It is kind of amazing that there ended up being no river crossings between the Fuller Warren and the Buckman Bridges. That's a lot of miles in a now-developed area to not be able to cross. But, glad it turned out that way as it maintains more neighborhoods. Imagine the Buckman traffic whizzing through the Lakewood area.
I just remembered that they're still planning to expand I-95. Something like 13 lanes from the county line to Downtown. Is there any way to press the brakes on that, or is the momentum too much at this point to try?
I think the ship has sailed over the horizon.
The Transportation Improvement Program of the North Florida TPO http://northfloridatpo.com/planning/tip includes these projects
Construction (sometimes as "Design-Build" where the Design and Construction are under a single contract, instead of separate contracts) is funded from International Golf Parkway to the Overland Bridge (Atlantic Boulevard), with the earliest project starting in Fiscal Year 2021/22 (July 2021 thru June 2022) the piece between JTB and Atlantic Boulevard. Some projects also include funds to acquire Right-of-Way, which I have not included here.
Starting in St. Johns County:
International Golf Parkway to SR 23 (First Coast Expressway) $109M in FY22/23
First Coast Expressway to Duval County Line (SR 9B) $177M in FY24/25
Into Duval
County Line (SR 9B) to I-295 $131M in FY23/24
I-295 to Baymeadows $109M in FY24/25
Baymeadows to JTB $39M in FY25/26
JTB to Atlantic Blvd. $365M in FY21/22
Total Construction and Design-Build over the six years $930 Million
I don't know what the number of lanes will be, but the new lanes will not be tolled Express Lanes, they will be free general use lanes. The state policy (that is, the Governor) changed regarding toll and free lanes. But, without the buffers, and other reasons, the "footprint" should not be as wide with all free lanes. As I recall, all the right-of-way needed is for stormwater retention ponds.
Wow, time flies! I didn't realize that I-95 project between JTB and Atlantic was coming up so fast.
^ amazing considering how far some major projects are being pushed out in other parts of the state
A billion dollars. I can't believe it.
Imagine all the things you could spend a billion dollars on. The sheer level of transit connectivity you could build with a billion dollars. And we're going to spend it on more lanes on the interstate. And no one is going to blink an eye. Just... incredible.
Working on some stuff related to showing Color of Law examples in Jax. Our limited access highways are a great example. Somehow SJTC and random apartment complexes on I-295 are getting noise walls but we still don't have them in the most densely populated areas of the city that were sliced by I-95 and MLK Parkway 60 years ago. Anyone know why?
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Color-of-Law-February-2021/i-KjL747m/0/d0c2fe1c/X3/20210214_103605-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Color-of-Law-February-2021/i-Lw5dhWH/0/4a8c4559/X3/20210214_103943-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Color-of-Law-February-2021/i-M5cjSgF/0/64f22cdb/X3/20210214_104613-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Color-of-Law-February-2021/i-FXrfQcg/0/d798fccf/X2/20210214_111808-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Color-of-Law-February-2021/i-M46p72f/0/89133c9c/X2/20210214_125235-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Moncrief-January-2021/i-sDp5pxR/0/2f7c6156/X2/20210131_094207-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Moncrief-January-2021/i-xQzMFgt/0/e9a9c569/X3/20210131_101628-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/New-Springfield-December-2020/i-pmHgz6D/0/f8c32a16/X2/20201231_141852-X2.jpg)
[Damn. Long post lost to errant keystroke. Will recreate and be back in a bit.]
Reader's Digest version - Federal rules didn't require sound walls back when I-95 and MLK were built. Now FDOT must consider them any time they build new, or expand existing, highways with adjacent residential land uses.
Figured that was likely it! That makes it a perfect Color of Law example. While the policies have changed, the most disenfranchised neighborhoods still get the short end of the stick since no funds are dedicated to retroactively fix the systemic discriminatory problems that led to a change in the federal rules in the first place. As such, the newer areas where White flight continues to shift still benefit at the expense of the areas that need help the most.
Back when I-95 and the MLK Parkway were built (the 1960s) Federal law did not require consideration of the noise (or many other) impacts on the adjacent landscape. When the I-295 East Beltway and JTB were built, it was mostly through undeveloped land. I don't remember when the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began to require sound walls, but even if the requirement were in place, there were no (or very few) residences to be impacted. Now, to use FHWA funding, FDOT (or any other agency using Federal funds) must consider the noise impacts on nearby residential areas when constructing new, or expanding existing, highways.
From the FHWA website about Noise Barriers
Quote
What are Noise Barriers?
Noise barriers are solid obstructions built between the highway and the homes along a highway. They do not completely block all noise they only reduce overall noise levels. Effective noise barriers typically reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 decibels (dB), cutting the loudness of traffic noise by as much as one half. For example, a barrier which achieves a 10-dB reduction can reduce the sound level of a typical tractor trailer pass-by to that of an automobile.
Barriers can be formed from earth mounds or "berms" along the road, from high, vertical walls, or from a combination of earth berms and walls. Earth berms have a very natural appearance and are usually attractive. They also reduce noise by approximately 3 dB more than vertical walls of the same height. However, earth berms can require a lot of land to construct, especially if they are very tall. Walls require less space, but they are usually limited to eight meters (25 feet) in height for structural and aesthetic reasons.
When Are Noise Barriers Required?
Noise barriers are not always required at locations where an absolute threshold is met. There is no "number standard" which requires the construction of a noise barrier. Federal requirements for noise barriers may be found in Title 23 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise."
The Federal Highway Administration noise regulations apply only to projects where a State transportation department has requested Federal funding for participation in the improvements. The State transportation department must determine if there will be traffic noise impacts, when a project is proposed for (1) the construction of a highway on new location or (2) the reconstruction of an existing highway to either significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment or increase the number of through-traffic lanes. If the State transportation department identifies potential impacts, it must implement abatement measures, possibly including the construction of noise barriers, where reasonable and feasible.
Federal law and Federal Highway Administration regulations do not require State transportation departments to build noise barriers along existing highways where no other highway improvements are planned. They may voluntarily do so, but they are solely responsible for making this decision.
Openings in noise barriers for driveway connections or intersecting streets destroy their effectiveness. In some areas, homes are scattered too far apart to permit noise barriers to be built at a reasonable cost. Noise barriers are normally most effective in reducing noise for areas that are within approximately 61meters (200 feet) of a highway (usually the first row of homes).
Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_barriers/design_construction/keepdown.cfm
That link discusses other aspects of Noise Barriers, such as public acceptance.
So, because FDOT is widening I-295 and part of JTB for the Express Lanes project, and because there are residences now adjacent to both highways, and studies showed there would be an increase in noise that could be mitigated by sound walls, they are included as part of the highway expansion project. I have not been by the site recently, but I doubt there are sound walls adjacent to the purely commercial parts of Town Center, as they are intended to protect residents. Sound walls can be built for commercial areas, but the thresholds for impact are higher.
When (if) FDOT ever expands I-95 or MLK, they will have to study whether the new lanes will increase the noise to the adjacent residents and if sound walls will mitigate that new noise. Note the last paragraph of the piece quoted above. Due to the frequent ramps along MLK (if it were expanded), a sound wall may not be effective due to all the "holes" it would have. Of course, any hypothetical reconstruction could reduce the number of these on/off ramps. Another factor that reduces the effectiveness and increases the cost of sound walls is when the highway is elevated.
In your last picture, I don't see where a wall could be built, due to how close both the local street and the lanes of MLK are to the fence (right-of-way) line.
To your point about retrofitting older facilities, you are right that it is seldom done, and that there are no funds dedicated specifically to such projects. Sound walls are expensive, and their funding comes from the same pot of money used to build new, or expand existing, highways.
Apparently, the last time the average cost of sound walls was calculated was around 2010, as that's the year most Google hits cite. At the time, the average cost of a typical 25 foot high sound wall was $32 per square foot. Applying inflation (not construction inflation), that is about $38.60 per square foot. Thus, each linear foot of sound wall is $960; so a sound wall 1,000 feet long would cost nearly one million dollars.
To expand on my point above about residential vs. commercial - as part of the same Express Lane project, FDOT agreed to build the sound walls first along I-295 between Gate Parkway and Baymeadows Road, to protect the residents there from construction noise. There was quite a bit of pressure from parents at the two Twin Lakes schools because "schools" are not covered under the same noise thresholds as residences, and FDOT wasn't going to (and didn't) continue the sound wall the quarter-mile or so to shield both schools.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 15, 2021, 11:03:07 AM
Apparently, the last time the average cost of sound walls was calculated was around 2010, as that's the year most Google hits cite. At the time, the average cost of a typical 25 foot high sound wall was $32 per square foot. Applying inflation (not construction inflation), that is about $38.60 per square foot. Thus, each linear foot of sound wall is $960; so a sound wall 1,000 feet long would cost nearly one million dollars.
Current 12-month moving average for 14' noise walls (tallest standard noise wall in FDOT standards) is $480/LF, and that's only for the cost of the wall. Factor in labor, contingency, engineering, and adjacent reconstruction in order to meet new construction criteria, you've likely got a price similar to what you listed if not higher.
^The last picture just generally shows a negative quality of life issue for a residential community. People's backyards are literally the service drive with a billboard towering over their house and nothing to keep kids from wondering into the the path of fast moving auto traffic.
Excluding the three railroad overpasses, I think MLK would be a prime candidate for replacement of a limited access facility with more of an at-grade /complete streets oriented boulevard remake. With the service drives, it takes up a lot more space than necessary, while lacking sufficient bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and crossing opportunities.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 15, 2021, 11:03:07 AM
To your point about retrofitting older facilities, you are right that it is seldom done, and that there are no funds dedicated specifically to such projects. Sound walls are expensive, and their funding comes from the same pot of money used to build new, or expand existing, highways.
Apparently, the last time the average cost of sound walls was calculated was around 2010, as that's the year most Google hits cite. At the time, the average cost of a typical 25 foot high sound wall was $32 per square foot. Applying inflation (not construction inflation), that is about $38.60 per square foot. Thus, each linear foot of sound wall is $960; so a sound wall 1,000 feet long would cost nearly one million dollars.
To expand on my point above about residential vs. commercial - as part of the same Express Lane project, FDOT agreed to build the sound walls first along I-295 between Gate Parkway and Baymeadows Road, to protect the residents there from construction noise. There was quite a bit of pressure from parents at the two Twin Lakes schools because "schools" are not covered under the same noise thresholds as residences, and FDOT wasn't going to (and didn't) continue the sound wall the quarter-mile or so to shield both schools.
Basically the reason a expressway got built through Moncrief and not Venetia. The never ending story of the power of political influence and the haves and have nots. Overall, a big systemic discriminatory problem that isn't resolved by simply changing policy. It's the acknowledgement that the damage has already been done and actually making it a priority to fix the problems in the areas that need it the most, no matter the cost...even if it means some other projects in newer areas can't be built. I guess that's what the $10 billion for highway removal would finally be attempting to do. Finally putting our money where our mouths are at from the federal level. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
As for SJTC, it is pretty crazy seeing a wall being built in front of Seasons 52, True Food Kitchen, The Capital Grille and the new Restoration Hardware store. I know they have an apartment complex or two on either side of the town center but definitely a first for me.
I agree with you completely that we need to address problems caused by past discriminatory practices, even if it means "new" stuff is postponed or canceled. About back-converting MLK, the railroad overpasses are an important consideration. What is the truck traffic like along the section of MLK between I-95 and "the curve"? FDOT spent a lot of money just a few years ago to rebuild that curve to make it easier for big rigs going to/from the Talleyrand Port; presumably because there is a lot of truck traffic.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 15, 2021, 10:43:17 AM
In your last picture, I don't see where a wall could be built, due to how close both the local street and the lanes of MLK are to the fence (right-of-way) line.
I have actually seen noise walls with less than the margin of a standard shoulder or no shoulder at all (won't be missed on MLK since there isn't any now) where they were added in older areas so it may be possible on MLK. They could also eliminate much or all of the green space in the middle of MLK to push the lanes inward and create added space on the outside to more easily accommodate a sound wall. Road will be ugly as heck in that case so it's a trade off. Lastly, they could eliminate, readjust or narrow the service roads to find more room. Lake's idea of making it a local boulevard would be the nicest result if the traffic allowed for it.
Agree with Lake, it all comes down to priorities. Developers "control" funding via their political donations. It's why I tend to look for candidates they don't support and would have a hard time supporting Daniel Davis given his early support from same.
Found these interesting sound walls in the meantime:
(https://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Highway-Acoustic-Walls-1a.jpg)
(https://previews.123rf.com/images/morris71/morris712008/morris71200800355/154181182-warsaw-poland-15-august-2020-the-anti-noise-glass-tunnel-and-overpass-trasa-torunska-highway-in-nort.jpg)
There there is this idea from the Netherlands where the walls look like stained glass and double as solar panels:
(https://www.industrytap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/solar_noise_barrier.jpg)
Here is a variation on that theme:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8_pWamnb_N0JvRX9bRZt0sxjR9OwQLsHHgw&usqp=CAU)
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 15, 2021, 12:10:32 PM
I agree with you completely that we need to address problems caused by past discriminatory practices, even if it means "new" stuff is postponed or canceled. About back-converting MLK, the railroad overpasses are an important consideration. What is the truck traffic like along the section of MLK between I-95 and "the curve"? FDOT spent a lot of money just a few years ago to rebuild that curve to make it easier for big rigs going to/from the Talleyrand Port; presumably because there is a lot of truck traffic.
I think a revamp could keep some of the recent bridges over the railroads in place while revamping other areas like 20th Street between Liberty and Kings or Haines between the 21st Street interchange and TIAA Bank Field.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 15, 2021, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 15, 2021, 10:43:17 AM
In your last picture, I don't see where a wall could be built, due to how close both the local street and the lanes of MLK are to the fence (right-of-way) line.
Lake's idea of making it a local boulevard would be the nicest result if the traffic allowed for it.
Should be able to make it work. Would likely need to be six lanes in some stretches.
2019 AADT86,500 - Blanding Blvd - I-295 to Wells Rd
80,000 - US 17/Park Ave - I-295 to Wells Rd
64,000 - Atlantic Blvd - St. Johns Bluff Rd to Kernan Blvd
63,000 - Blanding Blvd - Wells Rd to Kingsley Ave
62,000 - US 17/Park Ave - Wells Rd to Kingsley Ave
62,000 - San Jose Blvd - I-295 to Loretto Rd
59,500 - Beach Blvd - Hart Bridge Expressway to Southside Blvd
59,500 - MLK Parkway - I-95 to US 1751,500 - Arlington Expressway - Mathews Bridge to A. Philip Randolph Blvd
50,000 - MLK Parkway - US 17 to E 8th St47,500 - Arlington Expressway - A. Philip Randolph Blvd to Liberty St
46,000 - MLK Parkway - E 8th St to Mathews Bridge31,000 - MLK Parkway - Kings Road to I-95It could be possible to remake both MLK Parkway and the Arlington Expressway between the Mathews Bridge and Liberty Street. That would certainly be a boost to the viability of the Eastside, efforts to alleviate the blockage of Hogans Creek and tie the Emerald Trail from Springfield to the Shipyards. The busiest stretch is between I-95 and 21st Street, which is comparable to Beach Blvd and less than San Jose Blvd in Mandarin. Can't imagine having all those interchanges between I-95 and 21st Street would be allowed if designed to today's standards.
If one wants to improve the lives of the children growing up on the Eastside, you have to end the failed public schooling system they're stuck with. 20%, 50, 70% of students graduating from some Jacksonville high schools that functionally illiterate or that can't do basic algebra. It's been a disaster for generations.
If one want to appease the urban elite and their aself hte for the cars they drive for 10,000 of miles every year, remove MLK freeway.
Given that we just passed a sales tax increase dedicated to education, and that our state government has been more concerned about football games than quality education, what exactly are you looking for DCPS to do right now?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on February 15, 2021, 03:38:31 PM
If one wants to improve the lives of the children growing up on the Eastside, you have to end the failed public schooling system they're stuck with. 20%, 50, 70% of students graduating from some Jacksonville high schools that functionally illiterate or that can't do basic algebra. It's been a disaster for generations.
If one want to appease the urban elite and their aself hte for the cars they drive for 10,000 of miles every year, remove MLK freeway.
The urban core has a ton of systemic discriminatory issues and policies that need to be changed. Public education is one of them but not the only. Just as important to schooling is the environment people grow in and what they are subjected to outside of the walls of school. When we know better, we should strive to do better. That means correcting the wrongs of the past, even when it comes to public infrastructure.
bl8 - while your comment about education is not untrue, completely different pots of money. We could stop spending any dollars on roads and - under current funding laws - not a dime could go schools.
lake - I looked at the Florida on-line traffic counts, and it looks like MLK has about 10% - 11% trucks, much higher than some of the other roads on that list (less than 5%). This doesn't make it un-doable, but the New MLK Boulevard (or maybe a true "Parkway") would have to limit the number of full intersections - perhaps to Main, Liberty, keep the new interchange to the Port, 8th, and 1st? The other side streets could be right turn only.
With the spacing of Boulevard and Pearl, and their importance to neighborhood connectivity, it would likely make sense to keep the stretch between I-95 and 21st Street as limited access and make safety improvements where necessary.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on February 15, 2021, 03:38:31 PM
If one wants to improve the lives of the children growing up on the Eastside, you have to end the failed public schooling system they're stuck with. 20%, 50, 70% of students graduating from some Jacksonville high schools that functionally illiterate or that can't do basic algebra. It's been a disaster for generations.
If one want to appease the urban elite and their aself hte for the cars they drive for 10,000 of miles every year, remove MLK freeway.
Thanks for the completely useless post
A few items about interstate construction. Ike wanted to route all of the traffic around the beltways around the cities and was not happy when he got outmaneuvered by local politicians. You can search google for - Yellow Book. Quote about it below.
Good Article Link - https://www.enotrans.org/article/federal-highway-policy-under-president-eisenhower-1957-1961/
"At the meeting, Eisenhower said he had never seen the Yellow Book of urban Interstate maps before, and the subsequent discussion of the urban Interstate extensions is so remarkable it needs to be quoted at length (again, from Bragdon's recollection):
The President went on to say that the staff had also advised him that in the course of the legislation through the Congress, the point had been made that cities were to get adequate consideration on a 'per person' basis in view of the taxes they paid; in fact, that they were to get more consideration since they paid much more in taxes per person and in total than persons in rural areas.
The President added that this was what the Congress had been told, and that he was given to understand that this, together with the descriptions in the Yellow Book which they had before them when considering the legislation, were the prime reasons the Congress passed the Interstate Highway Act. In other words, the Yellow Book depicting routes in cities had sold the program in Congress...
"He went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way. He pointed out that when the Clay Committee Report was rendered, he had studied it carefully, and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who had steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.[31]
Bragdon said that at the end of the April 1960 meeting, Eisenhower "reiterated his disappointment over the way the program had been developed against his wishes, and that it had reached the point where his hands were virtually tied."[32]
^ Great post and very interesting. Wonder what American cities would be like if Ike got his way. Ironic that the only major City (that I know of) that mostly followed Ike's vision was DC. Maybe it was out of respect to him since it was right under his nose :)?
You have to enjoy the irony of the situation. In the 1950s locals wanted to draw more people downtown and make it easier to shop in city centers. The opposite occurred with the suburbs springing up so people didn't have to go downtown to shop. Parking always an issue downtown costs money versus strip malls with free parking. We should let traffic get worse and more people will move back downtown to be centrally located. The highway removal idea is interesting and would make a great park system in the cities. Commuting now doable with e-bikes. Class 3 bikes that can go 28mph could move people better in some ways.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on February 13, 2021, 01:22:39 PM
A billion dollars. I can't believe it.
Imagine all the things you could spend a billion dollars on. The sheer level of transit connectivity you could build with a billion dollars. And we're going to spend it on more lanes on the interstate. And no one is going to blink an eye. Just... incredible.
Yeah... it really doesn't matter what the billions of dollars are spent on... someone ALWAYS has better uses for it. Example: The Perseverance Mars Rover mission... 2.5 billion...
Quote from: Transman on February 16, 2021, 03:59:42 PM
You have to enjoy the irony of the situation. In the 1950s locals wanted to draw more people downtown and make it easier to shop in city centers. The opposite occurred with the suburbs springing up so people didn't have to go downtown to shop. Parking always an issue downtown costs money versus strip malls with free parking. We should let traffic get worse and more people will move back downtown to be centrally located. The highway removal idea is interesting and would make a great park system in the cities. Commuting now doable with e-bikes. Class 3 bikes that can go 28mph could move people better in some ways.
I'm not sure I buy that being the premise. Maybe at the very beginning, but once it became clear the development opportunity they enabled, and white flight became easily possible, that picked up the ball pretty quickly to motivate highway construction. And later on we even got things like parking minimums to enforce the way of life they demanded.
Just "letting" traffic get worse seems pretty hard to do. Eventually people do demand that something be done. The problem is, that something is almost always in the form of highway widening. Austin's in a pretty big fight right now about TxDOT wanting to take I-35 from twelve lanes to twenty. Jacksonville's planned I-95 widenings take us to where Austin is now. But more importantly, while it's not like people
couldn't commute with e-bikes, we probably need to ask how realistic an option that is, especially for someone coming from Mandarin or E-Town. Not everyone is necessarily going to a company based downtown. A lot of companies are on Southside, or JTB, and roads like that. And I realize that replacing I-95 with nothing isn't really an option. You'd need to introduce some sort of mass transit system to the FEC/CSX corridor, and/or US-1 to make up for the number of people still needing to move around.
And the political capital to ignore the people screaming about their highways and freedom. Developers used to only demanding highways are going to be upset about not having that option, and will ensure that anyone at the state or local level promising to bring them back are well-funded. It's very much an uphill battle, not that it wouldn't be worth it.
^ I have always wondered if it would be feasible to put people in electric autonomous and community shared "mini-vehicles" that have minimal storage (e.g a load of groceries or so) and engine sizes. This would also be step up from e-bikes or other modes that expose users to the elements and don't offer the comforts of A/C, a radio and/or screen along with the ability to travel faster and further. They would be pre-positioned using usage algorithms so one could be called up in 15 minutes or less.
Different sized vehicles would be ordered based on the number of people to be transported so you only get what you need. Likewise, if a user occasionally needed more space for transporting personal effects or other "freight," a different type of such vehicle could be ordered.
Imagine all the space on our highways occupied by one person SUV's and pickups carrying nothing more than their cell phones. And, with autonomous vehicles, cars could travel in tighter configurations freeing up more space. If taken to the highest level, we might not even need traffic lights (the ultimate traffic congester) so traffic could be moving at all times in the most efficient manner.
Such a system would enable smaller roads and remove most parking lot acreage and garages freeing up a huge amount of land for redevelopment. It would also provide the flexibility to go where and when you want to that people don't get with mass transit vehicles. It would be the next best thing to a Jetson-style flying car.
I love all these kooky pie-in-the sky futuristic idealist ideas about transportation. They make me laugh a little bit.
I can always sense the slight bits of jealousy when people complain about SUV's and people driving pickup trucks taking up too much space, reminds me of the horrible perception Hummers had back in the '08 crash because they just guzzled so much gas, as if other vehicles weren't just as gas guzzling.
^ Nothing futuristic or pie-in-the-sky about what I suggested. We could implement it with today's technology. Autonomous and electric vehicles are on the verge of becoming the standard. The only thing left will be the sizing of the vehicles and management of their travels. The former will require cultural change and the latter comes down to sophisticated logistics software that, no doubt, people in the "intelligent transportation" world are already working on.
A day is a-comin' when we can no longer find room for - or are willing to pay the price for - the current and inefficient way of transportation. Just as gas price spikes have quickly removed large vehicles from the roads in past cycles, there will be costs in the future that will drive the desire to ultimately look at these "futuristic" solutions. The only question is "How long?"
^ If you say so... It's clearly not viable at a profitable cost since Uber abandoned its AV testing, and JEA seems to be stepping away from it's AV commitments (thank goodness)
Maybe in the future, but what happens when the internet goes out? Or when you don't have enough AmazonPoints to order a PrimeCar? Or if you make a social media post that barrs you from accessing your subscription services? Ever tried to order an Uber from the airport at 2am? "NO CARS AVAILABLE". Spooky situation to be in, I've been there firsthand.
You might want your ideas to be implemented, but not everybody does. I certainly don't.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on February 17, 2021, 04:37:01 PM
^ If you say so... It's clearly not viable at a profitable cost since Uber abandoned its AV testing, and JEA seems to be stepping away from it's AV commitments (thank goodness)
Maybe in the future, but what happens when the internet goes out? Or when you don't have enough AmazonPoints to order a PrimeCar? Or if you make a social media post that barrs you from accessing your subscription services? Ever tried to order an Uber from the airport at 2am? "NO CARS AVAILABLE". Spooky situation to be in, I've been there firsthand.
You might want your ideas to be implemented, but not everybody does. I certainly don't.
[
Good-natured SNARK ALERT!!!]
There were plenty of Ubers available, they just didn't want to pick YOU up! :D
Yeah... I'm with Petah on this one. This sounds like what was going on in the JTA boardroom when they decided it'd be a great idea to replace the Skyway with autonomous vehicles.
If Apple and Amazon and Google and Tesla and Uber want to play around with that concept, and hopefully put something usable together (for every segment of society, not just affluent tech people)? Good for them, they have billions of dollars to gain. But I think most people here ("here" being this site and this city) wouldn't see public expenditure on that as a responsible use of taxpayer funds. Suggesting to dismantle part of the Interstate in Florida at all is a pretty big jump by itself, not to mention replacing that capacity with public transportation. Trying to make the public wrap their heads around some kind of gee-whiz autonomous vehicle network that is supposed to be comparable to the Jetsons? No public administrator worth their salt would blow the political capital on even saying it out loud.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 17, 2021, 04:15:40 PM
^ Nothing futuristic or pie-in-the-sky about what I suggested. We could implement it with today's technology. Autonomous and electric vehicles are on the verge of becoming the standard. The only thing left will be the sizing of the vehicles and management of their travels. The former will require cultural change and the latter comes down to sophisticated logistics software that, no doubt, people in the "intelligent transportation" world are already working on.
A day is a-comin' when we can no longer find room for - or are willing to pay the price for - the current and inefficient way of transportation. Just as gas price spikes have quickly removed large vehicles from the roads in past cycles, there will be costs in the future that will drive the desire to ultimately look at these "futuristic" solutions. The only question is "How long?"
(this appeared after I started typing the first part)
I think it's very important I remind you of the fact that JTA, who has spent years trumpeting the autonomous vehicle as the future of mass transit, is now quietly overhauling its existing monorail after realizing it will need to stick around for at least another decade.
Even if a fully functional autonomous vehicle were to just
appear tomorrow, there are still millions of personal vehicles out there, that we're not going to just dump in the garbage. One of the major challenges of the rush to transition to EVs happening right now is that a new one is going to have you out about $40k, and you need to have a charging station either at your house or close enough to work to be practical. Working class people can't afford that. Suggesting that we're just going to replace all transit with an AV network, especially in marginalized communities full of people who the cars can't (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/5/18251924/self-driving-car-racial-bias-study-autonomous-vehicle-dark-skin) actually see (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/06/17/study-avs-may-not-detect-darker-skinned-pedestrians-as-often-as-lighter-ones/)?
I wouldn't mind a serious conversation about not requiring your own car to survive in this city, and making our infrastructure more useful, practical, and equitable. But insisting that the solution can be found in Silicon Valley is a fool's game.
I worked on some of the new highway designs in the Austin area. FDOT plan, which of course could change is to stop at 10 lanes, 5 each way. The FDOT realizes that you can't build your way out of traffic. All you have to do is look at all of the lanes built in Atlanta to see that it doesn't work. Managed lanes work but are too expensive and Jacksonville doesn't have the level of traffic to warrant them for the per-mile cost versus free lanes. I think doing 10 lanes in each direction is insane and a huge waste of resources.
All of the toll roads built in the Tulsa Oklahoma area have bike trails next to them either behind the sound walls or at the edge of the R/W with trees and landscaping buffering them from the roadway. Safely away from the traffic. Google Earth is your friend check it out. They have hundreds of miles of bike trails to take you anywhere you want to go. You just can't keep building that is not a solution. The next step is BRT then light rail.
It's possible you're working with different info than I am, but everything here (http://nflroads.com/ProjectDetails.aspx?p=5056) and here (https://fip.fdot.gov/Studies/Details/61) suggests more than 10 lanes on substantial portions. While FDOT might realize you can't build out of traffic, do the politicians funding it? Do the developers and voters pressuring the politicians?
I do agree that continually expanding highways isn't a solution, the question is gathering the public will to implement actual solutions. JTA a decade and a half ago basically proposed building new elevated bus highways about the same cost as an outright metro system, until it was whittled down into the First Coast Flyer. Commuter rail has been on hold since the Great Recession. "Life is a highway" has been true for some time here, and it'll take a lot of will and organization to change hearts and minds, even with the help of programs like what this thread is about.
LOL. All the naysayers here with their heads in the sand while the world passes us by.
It's reminds me about what people said about solar, wind power and electric cars (e.g. GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc.) a few decades ago. There was a time when some very smart people also didn't see a future in cell phones (e.g. AT&T), PC's (e.g. IBM) and digital photography (e.g. Kodak). Or, a few centuries ago, when the "know-it'alls" denied that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.
I would hardly use JTA as an example of anything cutting edge in transit (despite there pronouncements to the contrary). And, Uber gave up, in part, because the Google guy they hired to lead their AV effort stole Google's technology, Google sued and won big, and Uber fired the guy - all adding up to them holding a somewhat empty bag that cost them dearly. Ask Texans this week about their road networks, the 100 car pile up that killed 6 people, the thousands of accidents on ice and their "bullet proof" electric grid that has failed miserably. Every system has vulnerabilities - none are fully fail-safe but much can be done to minimize the risks. In the end, it's all about the trade offs.
Look, I am not saying this is for today or tomorrow. I am talking about an indetrminate point in the future.
Per the image below, when you have this many people on bikes that you have "parking garages" dedicated to them, then there are more progressive populations that would find my proposal more doable than the folks here in Jacksonville. The fact is Jacksonville is a follower, not a leader, so I don't expect, whatever the future holds, to see this City as an early adopter.
By the way, many on Wall Street value Google's Waymo at tens, maybe even hundreds, of billions of dollars. And, now, Apple (recent market value: $2+ trillion) is joining Tesla (recent market value: $750 to $800+ billion) in pushing an electric and autonomous car. These companies are not investing tens of billions in what they think are just pipe dreams. They represent some of the most forward thinking companies in the world and have regularly proven they are ahead of the rest of us in preparing for the future.
I see it as inevitable that transit will be revolutionized into something different than what we have today. It's only a question of what it will be.
If you think my currently feasible vision is off base, read the articles from CES in January about the push for flying cars led by no-less than Hyundai and soon to be all-electric vehicle GM and tell me how way-out my vision is.
Quote
'Flying cars' still aren't ready for takeoff, but automakers keep climbing aboard
Flying cars (and jetpacks) have fascinated the public and press for decades and are a surefire way to get crowds and coverage at an event. At this month's virtual CES, GM scored big buzz (and a significant stock-price bounce) from its numerous announcements, one of which was unveiling a flying-car concept that carries Cadillac styling cues.
Like most modern so-called "flying cars," GM's concept isn't really designed for roads or being driven at all, but is an autonomous, single-seat, electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing vehicle (eVTOL). Dubbed Vertile and just a rendering at this point, GM says it will be powered by a 90-kWh battery and is meant for short-distance travel, reaching a torpid top speed of 56 mph....
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/01/26/ces-automakers-flying-cars-evtol-aircraft/ (https://www.autoblog.com/2021/01/26/ces-automakers-flying-cars-evtol-aircraft/)
(https://s.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/1049x590/quality/80/https://s.aolcdn.com/os/ab/_cms/2021/01/25192023/cadillac-drone-pod-copy3.jpg)
(https://s.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/1049x590/quality/80/https://s.aolcdn.com/os/ab/_cms/2021/01/25192018/A182040_large.jpg)
(https://s.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/1049x590/quality/80/https://s.aolcdn.com/os/ab/_cms/2021/01/25192015/39978-HyundaiMotorTakesHuman-CenteredMobilityVisiontoNewHeightsatCES2020.jpg)
Amsterdam:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b4/f2/49/b4f24951e1f9d100074bde4af8bdf2c8.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/jIPMbegSwfVScqwvVrb1bSU1Q_HrlESKXQ2a_K8qS5DnQm9YAO7RcJFYzILM6eg1wLSIBp_aWIqYoHIeIkP1yMnqyQutZEbQb1oyeGs8iwFIXE--z8aIyHMbH9bAoA)