[I know there is a thread based on Mike Goldman's op-ed "The Mathews Bridge: historic or an expensive relic?" from September 2019, but I can't find it. A viable 'search' function would be really cool!]
Action News had a story last night (12/3) about a "Mathews Bridge Task Force."
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/it-needs-be-done-new-community-task-force-sets-sights-mathews-bridge-replacement/YLPP42JGQFE6XKBDFW4UQPJ5C4/
Quote
There's a new push to replace the Mathews Bridge.
A newly formed community task force is set to discuss safety and structural concerns with the 72-year-old St. Johns River crossing.
The group has already had one meeting, but many more are likely to follow.
It all got started after the Jacksonville History Center's Alan Bliss wrote an op ed advocating for the bridge's replacement.
"It's not going to be easy. Nobody has said anything of the kind, but it needs to be done," said Bliss, who is now serving as Chair of the Mathew's Bridge Task Force. "The idea really of the task force is basically to continue to raise awareness about this and increase the attention to it, because it's going to be a generational project."
Completed in 1953, the 72-year-old iconic burgundy bridge serves as the major traffic artery connecting downtown to Arlington.
But Bliss argued the bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
...
Bliss said it's his hope the task force will get the ball rolling by illustrating the need for a replacement, calculating what it would cost and creating momentum within the community.
...
The Mathews Bridge Task Force has its next meeting in January.
Bliss said it's his hope to get some sort of action plan together within the next few years and possibly have design concepts ready even earlier than that.
The op-ed mentioned in the article is from the Times-Union in August 2024.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/08/14/history-doesnt-matter-when-it-comes-to-jacksonvilles-mathews-bridge/74779902007/
Quote
It's true that the Mathews is old and that its design and construction methods are no longer in use. It is also true that replacing the bridge would be fabulously expensive and complicated, requiring years of planning, effort and disruptions. But it is nearly inevitable that the day for its replacement will come.
About the same time, Mark Woods had an opinion piece on aging bridges and sports stadiums.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2024/04/10/aging-bridges-and-shiny-stadiums-make-a-very-american-story/73256285007/
The Action News article also quotes FDOT says the bridge is well-maintained and "structurally sound" (although it is "functionally obsolete"), and there are no plans to replace it. The North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (NFTPO) has not included a Mathews Bridge project in the last two or three Long Range Plan updates. Prior to that, it was only included as a study, so FDOT or JTA could spend federal or state dollars on a study. The primary reason - the anticipated cost of a Billion dollars or more to replace the bridge and upgrade the approach roads in Eastside and Arlington. The bridge is on the FDOT's Strategic Intermodal System, so it would be eligible for federal dollars.
Who established this Task Force?
Who is on it? The Action News article names Councilman Amaro and Alan Bliss of the Jacksonville History Center, and author of the op-ed.
Are the meetings public? Is public notice provided?
The last time this was looked at, well over a decade ago now I feel, it was around $1 billion. Without a doubt, that cost is much higher now.
Not sure what this taskforce can accomplish, outside of getting FDOT to conduct a study. With that said, the Brooklyn Bridge was built 142 years ago and its still standing. The Mathews Bridge is 72 years of age. Its not in danger of falling into the river, so while functionally obsolete, it could be with us quite a while. While additional study and structural evaluation would be needed, rehabiliation could also be another option than outright replacement. Look no further than the I-95 Myrtle Avenue Overpass project in LaVilla as proof of this.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 04, 2025, 01:29:44 PM
The last time this was looked at, well over a decade ago now I feel, it was around $1 billion. Without a doubt, that cost is much higher now.
Not sure what this taskforce can accomplish, outside of getting FDOT to conduct a study. With that said, the Brooklyn Bridge was built 142 years ago and its still standing. The Mathews Bridge is 72 years of age. Its not in danger of falling into the river, so while functionally obsolete, it could be with us quite a while. While additional study and structural evaluation would be needed, rehabiliation could also be another option than outright replacement. Look no further than the I-95 Myrtle Avenue Overpass project in LaVilla as proof of this.
You are right, the price tag for a new bridge and updated approach roads was in the neighborhood of One Billion Dollars 10 or so years ago. Today, it is probably $1.5 Billion, and by the time construction happens, probably be north of $2 Billion.
The I-95 Myrtle Avenue Overpass is a good example of building parallel structures to accommodate increased traffic. If I remember correctly, rehab of the original silver overpass was limited, and included restriping the old bridge with two lanes + a breakdown lane in each direction, instead of 3 lanes and no shoulder.
As long as FDOT stays away from a full-blown Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Study, they don't need to worry about it not being in the Long-Range Transportation Plan. So, a planning and structural study of the bridge should be okay.
^ Likely not feasible, but going to throw it out there... what about double decking the roadway? Could that be engineered? If so, may be cheaper than alternatives. Next best could be adding a parallel bridge. Seen that in several places.
The Matthews bridge is one good reason I could not live in Arlington. Intimidated by its height and its limited capacity... rather not deal with it.
I doubt it would be worth engineering to attempt to double deck. I recall a light weight form of concrete was needed at the deck because the structure could not support the extra weight. Adding a parallel bridge is a possible option, similar to what was done with the Howard Franklin Bridge over Tampa Bay decades ago.
Not even thinking about the bridge but more so the land and the ROW acquisition needed to build a new bridge. The base of the west end of the Mathews has so many different types of residential, commercial and industrial zoning types along with the need of soil remediation in these areas because it once was a heavy manufacturing area.
Also, that interchange will need a major overhaul/reconfiguration as it's no where near current limited access highway standards.
Ennis - you think a realistic reconfiguration would encourage/divert highway traffic to the MLK expressway and knock down the elevated portion of the Mathews Bridge expressway from the interchange to Liberty St to restore the street grid in the Eastside?
IMO this is a huge task. Numerous studies has to be done and it will take a LONG time before we see anything actually happen. But since it's being considered. A traffic study and analysis would need to be done. It's been there for so long that the area around it has been built up on the east side. The bridge ultimately needs to be widened to accommodate more vehicles not only during peak commuting but especially for game day and large events. The same needs to be done on the Hart.I would really hate for the look to go away because it's iconic- rather than something like the Buckman or new Shands. Tampa and Miami are in the process of either building new DT bridges or design phase. And this bridge should be a double decker with the top bottom service road and having a true tunnel leading up to the Southside Connector. Top branching off at different Arlington streets with parks and retail covering the tunnel - Central Park like imo. Huge project and highly unlikely or realistic, but it would be nice.
That bridge will still be there in 50 years, guaranteed. No one is going to have the appetite to spend north of $1B to replace that thing unless it becomes structurally deficient or taken out by a ship.
Something I've wondered for a parallel addition or replacement: would a new bridge need to be as high? We don't have the shipyards and stuff upriver anymore and I never see large ships at the terminal/facility just south of the bridge on the west side of the river.
Quote from: duvaldude on December 11, 2025, 11:58:02 AM
Something I've wondered for a parallel addition or replacement: would a new bridge need to be as high? We don't have the shipyards and stuff upriver anymore and I never see large ships at the terminal/facility just south of the bridge on the west side of the river.
Well, there was that time in 2013 when a US Navy vessel being towed to a shipyard upriver (south) of the Mathews Bridge struck the bridge, closing it for a month for repair. Engineers said at the time that if the collision had been a few feet one way or the other, the whole thing may have come down.
So, no, I don't see a new Arlington bridge being any lower than the current one.
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/fdot-suing-us-navy-for-4-million-after-ship-hits-mathews-bridge/77-118593479
Quote from: duvaldude on December 11, 2025, 11:58:02 AM
Something I've wondered for a parallel addition or replacement: would a new bridge need to be as high? We don't have the shipyards and stuff upriver anymore and I never see large ships at the terminal/facility just south of the bridge on the west side of the river.
Fincanteri is/was supposed to be putting a 500' dry dock on Commodore Point. Although, it looked like they finished the bulkhead work for it last year, but I haven't seem any activity lately, so I don't know what the deal is with that. I thought they got some city incentives for it too.
Either way, the shipyards are still there and they do work on ships large enough to need the clearance.
That's an interesting thought duvaldude. The river doesn't have much utility for large ships past downtown with all the lower clearance bridges there. The Hart & Arlington bridges are as high as they are for a pretty short stretch of the river to have access for boats of that size.
If you go back to the Super Bowl in 2005, the bridges were an issue for sending larger cruise ships downtown.
My thought is a bridge can't be "too high." If a parallel bridge was built, I would consider building it higher than the existing bridge with the expectation that if the existing bridge doesn't outlive the new parallel bridge, it would be replaced with a higher bridge to match the higher parallel bridge. So, over time, the overall height of bridges would be higher than today and, eventually, the ever-taller ships could move further up the river.
See the JEA power lines now being raised and the complaints about the height of the Dames Point bridge (which were predicted at the time it was built but were ignored to save a few dollars). These demonstrate the trends for taller ships requiring higher clearances.
Planning for the future, not just today... a quality in short supply in Jax.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on December 11, 2025, 06:51:45 PM
If you go back to the Super Bowl in 2005, the bridges were an issue for sending larger cruise ships downtown.
See the JEA power lines now being raised and the complaints about the height of the Dames Point bridge (which were predicted at the time it was built but were ignored to save a few dollars). These demonstrate the trends for taller ships requiring higher clearances.
Planning for the future, not just today... a quality in short supply in Jax.
If I remember correctly, the current 175' clearance is a result of the port interests convincing the US Coast Guard that the clearance proposed by JTA was insufficient. I think JTA was proposing the mid 160s. Also, the span between those big piers is longer than JTA proposed because the USCG forced the southern pier onto the shore of Quarantine Island, instead of next to the channel.
I've come up with a solution! We can build bridges that have sections that can move out of the way, then it doesn't matter how tall the ship is! Someone pay me.
Quote from: acme54321 on December 12, 2025, 06:52:01 AM
I've come up with a solution! We can build bridges that have sections that can move out of the way, then it doesn't matter how tall the ship is! Someone pay me.
We had those... the Acosta and Fuller Warren were both originally that way. People complained about having to stop for boats (imagine stopping traffic today on I-95 for 20+ minutes for a boat to clear!) and FDOT got tired of maintaining the mechanisms and paying round-the-clock bridge tenders so all gone now ;D. Main Street bridge is last one standing in Jax. Bridge of Lions in St. Augustine still works that way too. And the railroad bridges over the St. Johns and Ortega rivers.
Quote from: acme54321 on December 12, 2025, 06:52:01 AM
I've come up with a solution! We can build bridges that have sections that can move out of the way, then it doesn't matter how tall the ship is! Someone pay me.
I am unclear on your concept. Could you render an image using pen or pencil on paper of such a river crossing? ;)