If you think about it, there is no bigger tourist attraction than the Fuller Warren (I-95) Bridge downtown. No location or structure in Jacksonville gets more "visits" by our city's visitors than this bridge when you consider that over 100,000 vehicles (lots more people when you add the passengers) cross it everyday and hundreds of thousands more view it from the river's banks, downtown, other bridges, by boat, or from the air. We won't even consider its countless appearances in photos shared 'round the world. Our 2005 Super Bowl was a mere pittance compared to the cumulative impact on our community of this bridge.
The Fuller Warren bridge is a large, imposing structure that dominates its part of the landscape. Particularly important, is that this bridge sits at the approximate point of where the St. Johns majestically expands from its relative narrowness downtown to its grand vista width southward making it a visual focal point extraordinaire.
So, architecturally, what does this strategically placed bridge contribute to our fair city? I say that due to its strictly functional design, the answer is a big nothing - and, in fact, it's more likely a giant detraction!
For starters, the bridge's profile shows it to have the look of little more than an oversized interstate overpass as it flies (mostly lurches) over the St. Johns. There is nothing to behold but utilitarian supports that only a structural engineer could love (well, maybe a concrete contractor also 8) ). The heavy handed and low slung design manages to sufficiently preclude most views of the often naturally gorgeous setting sun over miles of water from being seen anywhere near ground level downtown. At a minimum, it is a substantial and unavoidable elephantine divider between the sky above and the water and horizon below.
Passing over the bridge's roadway, one finds its aesthetics even more offensive. From here, one can hardly tell that they over water as the dull continuum of the interstate's standard design moves uninterrupted over the bridge. There is no demarcation to indicate the arrival of a distinctive visual experience or the opportunity to savor it once on the bridge.
Due to the banking of the pavement and the solid Jersey barriers, the average motorist has, for the most part, no westward view of the dramatic expanse looking south leaving one to wonder what lies beyond that remains unseen. The eastward view toward town is admittedly much more generous and serves Jacksonville well, giving one just a taste at what might have been. But, less one get too absorbed by the view, count on a jarring distraction by the giant overhead green "interstate signs" and the crammed in exit ramps to Park Street and San Marco Blvd that awkwardly start in the middle of the bridge.
Having a pedestrian/bicycle pathway or a pullover vista lane to take in one of the best views found in the city would be too much to ask as well, I suppose. Just think if one could rise from the river walks below to cross from one bank to the other at sunset! (Remember, the Golden Gate is an interstate, but it still allows for these pleasures, so it can be done!)
At night, the road lighting is, again, pedestrian interstate harshness. The profile lights installed along the bridge's sides fail to put much lipstick on this architectural pig.
So, what are we missing? Well, if we had a more inspirational, graceful, and thoughtful design, maybe people would have something indelible to remember Jacksonville by. Jacksonville might have acquired a symbol reflective of its natural beauty and the thoughtful appreciation of same (see Golden Gate Bridge). People might even think that Jacksonville has the ability to think on the level of a world class city by demonstrating in the most public of places its ability to create a great monument recognized throughout the world (see St. Louis Gateway Arch, Seattle Space Needle, Washington Monument, Eiffel Tower, etc.).
Alas, the bridge we have reflects the true nature of so much of our city - boring, blah, cold, uninspired, unimaginative, forgetful, economizing (i.e. cheap!), just a place on the map on the way to somewhere else in a hurry! Yet, it is hard to argue how truly representative it is. How very sad for all of us who love this place :-[ When will we ever learn?
Problem is that it is a Federal Interstate, not a U.S. Highway or State Route. It is CLEARLY marked at almost, if not every onramp to an interstate that bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law. Also, just a wild guess, I think the speeds may have another thing to do with this, not like the above part didn't already cover that part.
Also, asthetics were the last thing they were concerned with, they needed to quickly replace to much overused and crumbling old F.W. Bridge. It was also the only interstate toll bridge in the U.S., which really made no sense at all once the Jacksonville Expressway Authority was done away with in the 80's. As well, space restrictions didn't really allow for anything major or catchy, and they had to build it in such a way to flow into the new interchange with 10 and 95.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/08/travel/031107ravenel-bridge.395.jpg)
Charleston's Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge (US 17)
I agree that it would be cool if the bridge were more aesthetically pleasing or could accomodate cyclist and pedestrians. However, I don't know if its possible by law, considering its an interstate. The Golden Gate Bridge is not an interstate. Are there any new interstate bridges connected with pedestrian walks?
I'm still hurt the old Fuller Warren and Acosta Bridges were not kept for pedestrian use. Nevertheless, something like this would also be nice for the Matthews Bridge once its replacement is built. Unfortunately, I think it will come down like the two other older downtown river crossings.
Quote from: reednavy on January 29, 2009, 09:44:21 PM
Problem is that it is a Federal Interstate, not a U.S. Highway or State Route. It is CLEARLY marked at almost, if not every onramp to an interstate that bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law. Also, just a wild guess, I think the speeds may have another thing to do with this, not like the above part didn't already cover that part.
Also, aesthetics were the last thing they were concerned with, they needed to quickly replace to much overused and crumbling old F.W. Bridge. It was also the only interstate toll bridge in the U.S., which really made no sense at all once the Jacksonville Expressway Authority was done away with in the 80's. As well, space restrictions didn't really allow for anything major or catchy, and they had to build it in such a way to flow into the new interchange with 10 and 95.
Yes, I have heard from FDOT many times about the federal interstate standards. Yet, as I travel this country, I find countless concessions and exceptions where the local citizenry has raised their collective voices in protest or circumstances just could not accommodate the standards. So, I don't agree that there wasn't much more flexibility available for the design.
Nowhere is this more obvious, than in California. Where interstates cut across rocky hills and mountains, they often sacrifice emergency lanes. So too, in highly developed areas lacking sufficient rights of ways. When urban interstates pass through natural preserves, I have found miles of interstate lighting removed to maintain the darkness of the natural areas. One such spot is around the green space surrounding the reservoirs just south of downtown San Francisco. As to speeds, the interstate speed crossing the Golden Gate is reduced, as I recall, to either 40 or 45 mph in deference to the gawkers with no major impact on the flow of traffic (think of it as a speed akin to an exit ramp in an interchange).
Pedestrian's/bikers could be accommodated in several ways. One is an appropriately protective divider as on the Golden Gate. Another, would have been to put such a path above or below the roadway as it is on the Brooklyn Bridge (so that idea goes back to the 1800's!).
You are just making my point that no real thought went into this bridge. It was just a knee jerk reaction to a problem that existed for DECADES. We had plenty of time to prepare for it because it took forever to get it prioritized and funded for construction. The tolls were gone for 10 to 20 years before the bridge was replaced so I don't see where this was a factor. FYI, the Dames Point bridge was built with the intention of being a toll bridge until the voters eliminated tolls before its completion.
I-95 still has tolls in Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York as I recall unless they have been removed since my last travels in these areas. More tolls are on interstates in urban areas such as Boston. For that matter, the Golden Gate Bridge is a toll bridge!
QuoteAlso, aesthetics were the last thing they were concerned with ....
Thanks for ultimately supporting my point!
I will correct myself that the Golden Gate is not technically an interstate. It is US 101, a federal highway. In fact, it operates as an expressway system that is constructed in an interstate highway manner. Functionally, I still think that it demonstrates the fact that where there is a will, there is a way, to build a distinctive, pleasing, and community friendly interstate-style bridge without compromising significant interstate standards.
I think it was the only Interstate draw bridge remaining, at least on the east coast. As stjr pointed out, there are other interstates with tolls. Which were removed in 1989, and I think the bridge construction started in the late 1990s and continued until just a few years ago. And it was one of the first projects (or at least one of the biggest) on which "Corrine Delivers" - she managed to get a huge pot of money set aside for the new FW (in the neighborhood of $100 million if I remember correctly). I think reednavy is right, it had to fit into the existing space between Baptist Hospital and the I-10 interchange on the other side.
Knowing people, had they made it taller, there would people complaining that the height was blocking the view from downtown ... or something.
And the Golden Gate was built before the Interstate system, and it's standards - 1930s vs. 1950s.
Another, 'if I remember correctly' - the state offered the southern piece of the old bridge to the city, but the city turned it down - speculation (on this site, I believe) was this was due, in part, to pressure from Baptist Hospital, who didn't want "those people" (whoever they are) so close.
I meant draw bridge, my bad.
Existing laws and regulations prevent Federal Highway System roadways and bridges from supporting pedestrian related activies due to higher speeds and design constraints. So basically, safety concerns because guardrails and barriers can only take so much pressure.
Making the FW taller would've interfered with clearance issues below the Wolfson's pedestrian walkover for higher than usual loads. It also would've made making a new Park Street exit ramp impossible due to the proximity to the onramp beside Baptist and the steepness of the offramp approach. Same can be said for the San Marco and Main/Riverside/etc. offramps, and the Hendricks and Acosta onramps.
The bridge's width was only able to be so much as to fit into the right-of-way they had, while not significantly interfering with the old FW's traffic pattern.
Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple!
Now maybe there could have been a separate pedestrian bridge connecting the two sides of the river....and this might make sense if/when there are riverwalks on both sides....but the state/fed won't pay fo this...it will have to be the City and/or privately funded.
I think we are digressing from my original point which was primarily that the Fuller Warren Bridge lacks any element of real design or aesthetics and that Jacksonville missed the boat in not requiring it to do so. Regardless of the constraints, physical or Federal, I believe a much more elegant solution could have been conceived and built.
P.S. The Baptist-Nemours overwalk followed the design of the bridge, not the other way around. It may be that FDOT factored it in, but they would have been under no obligation to do so as it was not pre-existing to their designs.
A pedestrian access would have been icing on the cake, had there been a cake. I didn't intend this to be an essential element. [By the way, the idea that interstates run underground or underneath other highways and roads, with sidewalks, in urban areas (e.g. I-76 along the Schuylkill River near 30th Street Station in Philadelphia), is another example that led me to believe that if sidewalks were above or below, they would be deemed acceptable to the most calculating Federal engineer!]
fine...if you're looking for a signature bridge, look no further than the Dames Point Bridge....that waqs done by FDOT and will be an interstate by the end of 2009
No, these particular issues can and did affect the design of the bridge. Many things that seemed to be overlooked or appear not to be a real issue, can turn out to be as such.
Don't forget, I doubt the Navy would've allowed for suspension towers or a high, end to end steel arch.
We may not know, but it serves it's purpose just fine, moving people to where they need to go. Pedestrians and viewing spots have absolutely no reason to be on a major interstate bridge. It is a safety issue, plain and simple.
(psst ... tufsu ... JTA built the Dames Point Bridge)
Given the constraints cited by several above - how much more would a more elegant bridge have cost? Perhaps they could have sacrificed PS #4.
I don't argue that there were constraints for this bridge. But what structure isn't built with constraints. I don't automatically concede that the design must be totally sacrificed for constraints or that some of the constraints couldn't have been compromised or addressed with a bit more effort. Sometimes, constraints inspire the most creative designs. If we set our sites this low, we are doomed by our own expectations.
P.S. I don't quite follow the comment about the height and the Navy. This bridge is essentially downtown. I don't see it being any higher than nearby towers such as the Blue Cross or Aetna buildings. Heck, if the St. John condo building had been built just a few hundred feet from the southern end of the bridge, you would be near a 50 story building!
Quote from: stjr on January 29, 2009, 11:17:52 PM
P.S. I don't quite follow the comment about the height and the Navy.
Quote from: reednavy on January 29, 2009, 11:04:40 PM
Don't forget, I doubt the Navy would've allowed for suspension towers or a high, end to end steel arch.
Was this a reference to stjr's comparison to the St Louis Arch and space needle?
QuoteI don't automatically concede that the design must be totally sacrificed for constraints or that some of the constraints couldn't have been compromised or addressed with a bit more effort. Sometimes, constraints inspire the most creative designs. If we set our sites this low, we are doomed by our own expectations.
I believe this is the main point... and I agree. I have always hated the "Thats the way it has always been done" argument.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2009, 11:11:18 PM
(psst ... tufsu ... JTA built the Dames Point Bridge)
Given the constraints cited by several above - how much more would a more elegant bridge have cost? Perhaps they could have sacrificed PS #4.
sorry...I meant funded by FDOT
Honestly I think that the Acosta was a bigger miss for Downtown than the Fuller Warren. With its positioning much more could have been done with IT to define the skyline. The blue light is has helped, but it just shows how strategically positioned it is in the downtown skyline.
Reading today's MJ article on the need for the cruise terminal brings to the forefront another example of bridge planning lacking consideration of a full vision.
When the Dames Point bridge was built, many maritime interests were vocally against it because of its potentially restrictive clearance under the span, even then, for ships, and that its piers' location are in an area of the ship channel that can be tricky to maneuver for large ships. These questions were dismissed in the name of getting the bridge built without further ado.
And, now, because of this bridge, we are left with few options for modern cruise ships further inland. One day, we will be hearing about how cargo ships will be an issue. Weigh the costs of solving these problems (or not solving them, as the case may be) against what it might have cost to raise Dames Point another 10, 20, or whatever, feet at the time it was built.
Another example, IMHO, of cutting corners regarding the future with serious consequences and/or regrets when the future finally arrives (as it always does!).
I've been thinking more about the Fuller Warren....and have decided it is just fine as it is....here's why
1. The vistas from the bridge are uninterrupted
2. The view from down below is ok too with the curved structural elements and the lighting
3. The signature bridge for downtown (and the community as a whole) is the Main St Bridge
these three things also apply to the Acosta....although I wish that wasn't so expressway-like
Quote from: stjr on January 29, 2009, 09:15:50 PM
Having a pedestrian/bicycle pathway or a pullover vista lane to take in one of the best views found in the city would be too much to ask as well, I suppose. Just think if one could rise from the river walks below to cross from one bank to the other at sunset! (Remember, the Golden Gate is an interstate, but it still allows for these pleasures, so it can be done!)
At night, the road lighting is, again, pedestrian interstate harshness. The profile lights installed along the bridge's sides fail to put much lipstick on this architectural pig.
So, what are we missing? Well, if we had a more inspirational, graceful, and thoughtful design, maybe people would have something indelible to remember Jacksonville by? Jacksonville might have acquired a symbol reflective of its natural beauty and the thoughtful appreciation of same (see Golden Gate Bridge). People might even think that Jacksonville has the ability to think on the level of a world class city by demonstrating in the most public of places its ability to create a great monument recognized throughout the world (see St. Louis Gateway Arch, Seattle Space Needle, Washington Monument, Eiffel Tower, etc.).
Alas, the bridge we have reflects the true nature of so much of our city - boring, blah, cold, uninspired, unimaginative, forgetful, economizing (i.e. cheap!), just a place on the map on the way to somewhere else in a hurry! Yet, it is hard to argue how truly representative it is. How very sad for all of us who love this place :-[ When will we ever learn?
(http://www.b-l-n.com/Portals/0/images/wheeling_avenue_cantilever_1.jpg)
CANTILEVER some walks on the HART and FULLER WARREN along with some bridge-scaping. (http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Doccuments%20Reports/cantileveredwalks.jpg)
QuoteThis project included repairs to an early 1900's Army Corps of Engineers retaining wall, construction of a cantilevered walkway and three overlooks overhanging the White River, and ornamental lighting and railing. BLN provided the engineering design for the walkway and overlooks, survey and construction observation. The scope of this project increased several times to accommodate the City of Muncie's vision for this project. This walkway cantilevers a maximum of 6'-6" over the White River, and features three overlooks, which overhang the White River by 16'-0". This 1,640 foot long walkway connects two trailheads of the Muncie/Cardinal Greenway trail system.
The cantilevered sidewalk utilizes a large concrete deadman as a counterweight to prevent overturning of the walkway. The deadman varies in depth in relation to the width of overhang, which minimized project costs. Additionally, after structural analysis was completed, a strip footing was utilized to ensure no additional loading would be placed on the existing retaining wall. Exposed piles were used to support the three overlook area. Benches and flower planters were placed on the overlooks in the designated congregation areas, and are separated from the path through utilization of a concrete stamping pattern. Ornamental lighting and traffic signals placed throughout the area sit on concrete pedestals and are lined with decorative vehicular railing. Additionally, flag brackets and electrical outlets were attached to the ornamental lighting. This project received an ACEC Indiana Merit Award.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2009, 01:22:48 PM
I've been thinking more about the Fuller Warren....and have decided it is just fine as it is....
tufsu, great. I have a bridge I can sell you! ;D
The Cantileverd Sidewalk in my photos, was added to an "in place" older bridge. There is no reason we couldn't retro-fit the HART and FULLER WARREN with a cantilevered sidewalk and viewing platforms.
OCKLAWAHA
Alright, did anyone hear what I said?
Federal Highway System regulations say that no such will be allowed on an interstate highway, plain and simple.
It is a safety and liability issue.
The Hart Bridge is a different story, but once again, the fact it is designated an expressway has a good bit of merit to it. Also, sidewalks and views are the last things that FDOT is concerned about for it. I can also guarantee you, even if COJ could afford it, they wouldn't risk the safety of people on the bridge.
QuoteAllow bicycle travel on shoulders of limited-access highway bridges where access to the ends of the bridge can be provided (or exists on ramps that do not require merges across traffic) and wide shoulders make this practical. This approach has already been used successfully on Lewis and Clark Boulevard and on the Highway 370 bridge (in Missouri). Shoulders built to Interstate Highway standards have proven reasonably safe for bicycle travel, and 18 states permit bicycle travel on Interstate highway shoulders. Sometimes, it is necessary to build access paths to the ends of a bridge, but nonetheless, this very low-cost solution to access problems is warranted even when bicycle traffic volume is low. Shoulder access would even make sense, for example, on I-270 bridge across the Mississippi, though the Old Chain of Rocks bridge is near the I-270 bridge. For bicyclists with destinations north of I-270, the travel distance would be reduced by about two miles.
Guess we COULD do it, if we could get Florida off dead center. OCKLAWAHA
QuoteAlright, did anyone hear what I said?
Federal Highway System regulations say that no such will be allowed on an interstate highway, plain and simple.
It is a safety and liability issue.
Heard ya loud and clear Reed. As you are well aware rules and regs CAN change. With the proper argument and tenacity rules get changed all the time... :)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 30, 2009, 01:26:10 PM
(http://www.b-l-n.com/Portals/0/images/wheeling_avenue_cantilever_1.jpg)
CANTILEVER some walks on the HART and FULLER WARREN along with some bridge-scaping.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Doccuments%20Reports/cantileveredwalks.jpg)
QuoteThis project included repairs to an early 1900's Army Corps of Engineers retaining wall, construction of a cantilevered walkway and three overlooks overhanging the White River, and ornamental lighting and railing. BLN provided the engineering design for the walkway and overlooks, survey and construction observation. The scope of this project increased several times to accommodate the City of Muncie's vision for this project. This walkway cantilevers a maximum of 6'-6" over the White River, and features three overlooks, which overhang the White River by 16'-0". This 1,640 foot long walkway connects two trailheads of the Muncie/Cardinal Greenway trail system.
The cantilevered sidewalk utilizes a large concrete deadman as a counterweight to prevent overturning of the walkway. The deadman varies in depth in relation to the width of overhang, which minimized project costs. Additionally, after structural analysis was completed, a strip footing was utilized to ensure no additional loading would be placed on the existing retaining wall. Exposed piles were used to support the three overlook area. Benches and flower planters were placed on the overlooks in the designated congregation areas, and are separated from the path through utilization of a concrete stamping pattern. Ornamental lighting and traffic signals placed throughout the area sit on concrete pedestals and are lined with decorative vehicular railing. Additionally, flag brackets and electrical outlets were attached to the ornamental lighting. This project received an ACEC Indiana Merit Award.
OCKLAWAHA
Hey, thats cool! I spent two summers in Muncie recently. But most of the time I was only on the BSU campus.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2009, 10:45:26 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2009, 11:11:18 PM
(psst ... tufsu ... JTA built the Dames Point Bridge)
Given the constraints cited by several above - how much more would a more elegant bridge have cost? Perhaps they could have sacrificed PS #4.
sorry...I meant funded by FDOT
Uh, wrong again ... it was paid for by bonds sold by JTA, which were backed by tolls up to 1989 (just before the DP opened), and since then by the JTA half-percent sales tax (since then, combined with the BJP half-percent tax). The JTA project went from Heckscher Drive to Merrill Road. The DOT build 9A both north and south of the bridge.
And, if this creaky memory is working, JTA wanted to build the bridge with even less clearance over the river or between the piers - but the Coast Guard wouldn't issue a permit unless they went to 175' up, and took steps to protect the piers (it's on a curve in the channel).
I was atop the Modis building the other day at the River Club where many Jax visitors are taken to be impressed by the Jax views. I cast my eyes toward the Fuller Warren and realized from another vantage point that Jax surely missed a grand opportunity to build this bridge as an architectural landmark. It is actually a decently long span over the water with a prime impact location in the river and versus the rest of the City (i.e. a great counterpoint to the skyline) and would have been a great opportunity for a creative designer to make a major statement for both him/herself and for the Jax community.
Imagine, the river walks running under and around a world famous bridge instead of a "highway overpass". Or, the demand for high rise condos with a view of such a bridge.
Alas, it is and always will be an uninspired ribbon of concrete. No imagination or creativity whatsoever. Zzzzzzzzzz......
What is supposed to happen to the Matthews?
I miss the old River Road bridge over the canal to Lake Marco.
We called it the Thrill Bridge because, when appraoched at high speeds, you
thought your car would do a Steve Mcqueen type jump.
There was a study for replacing it: http://www.mathewsbridge.com/master.asp?menuChoice=home
but nobody has the huge amounts of money needed - I don't know if that site has costs, but I seem to remember around $600 million just for the bridge, from the MLK to University (that may include rebuilding those two interchanges). Rebuilding the two expressways was another several hundred million.
I did hear that DOT plans to repaint it, once they finish repainting the Hart (which just got started).
They did complete the surface replacement.
Thank God, and people still can't drive over the bridge.
QuoteIf you think about it, there is no bigger tourist attraction than the Fuller Warren (I-95) Bridge downtown.
You want to make a bridge a tourist trap? What and take away from the Fountain of Youth or the Old Jail down in St. Augustine? Wait, Clarke, is that the world's largest ball of mud a short drive down Forsyth to Newnan to Bay? Could it be, it is, the Shipyards mound of mud. Where once stood proud ships and a ship building business now stands mounds of mud.
2nd place award goes to the old JEA Generating grounds on the southside. Nice field of dreams.
I agree with most writers that the Fuller Warren Bridge is just another featureless ugly FDOT project. When it was being designed, I attended a couple of "Citizen Advisory Group" meetings to discuss the 'aesthetics' of the bridge. It was clear early on that the committee was just window dressing to give the appearance of legitimacy to the design process. In fact, the design was already set and the design firm (based in Washington state) had no intention of making any changes. Public input was viewed as a necessary evil, but was also ignored.
So...that train has left the station. What's next ? The Matthews Bridge is slated for replacement. I've seen a couple of concepts being floated by FDOT - One was appallingly ugly, the other was just regular ugly. We could use a really great bridge in place of the current Matthews Bridge - but we'll need a designer like Santiago Calatrava (Spain) or Norman Foster (Britain) in charge of the design. There are a lot of good people at FDOT, but the agency is not structured to produce great design. In fact, they are structured as a typical state bureaucracy in which conformity is rewarded, and controversy is avoided at all cost. We could use a citizen bridge design advocacy group to engage City Hall in the quest for a great new bridge.
Welcome David... We look forward to your insight!
QuoteSo...that train has left the station. What's next ? The Matthews Bridge is slated for replacement. I've seen a couple of concepts being floated by FDOT - One was appallingly ugly, the other was just regular ugly. We could use a really great bridge in place of the current Matthews Bridge
Before we replace the Matthews Bridge, we MUST deal with the ships below and move this traffic further North. The City must move the large ships north of Tallyrand, in exchange for a bridge no taller than that of the Acosta. Why do we need a bridge that will last for 50+ years be 60+ feet high? MOve the ships, save the money and in the process, add a rail line over the bridge. How many contemporary bridges that are 60+ feet high also feature a rail system too?
"Add a rail system" to a new Mathews Bridge????? Aren't you contradicting just about every other post you've made on this board, mtraininjax? Although, I agree, the new bridge (that no one can afford) should accommodate [rail] transit.
That said, I'm not sure it needs to be 150' but 60' is too low - need to find out how tall the ships are that serve the concrete facilities (those towers you can see from the stadium) between the Mathews and Hart (or pay to move those operations north). Also I think it would be too low for even the small Intracoastal cruise ships that now come to the Hyatt. And of course, we could forget any "tall ships" (sailing vessels) coming downtown.
Most of the large ships, south of the Matthews, are there because of the North Florida Shipyards. They would have to be bought out and it would be shortsighted to eliminate the possibility of large ships accessing the downtown riverfront.
I think the new bridge should be a tunnel. Can you imagine something like the Dames Point that close to downtown? I think it would look really awkward.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 11, 2009, 08:33:42 AM
"Add a rail system" to a new Mathews Bridge????? Aren't you contradicting just about every other post you've made on this board, mtraininjax? Although, I agree, the new bridge (that no one can afford) should accommodate [rail] transit.
That said, I'm not sure it needs to be 150' but 60' is too low - need to find out how tall the ships are that serve the concrete facilities (those towers you can see from the stadium) between the Mathews and Hart (or pay to move those operations north). Also I think it would be too low for even the small Intracoastal cruise ships that now come to the Hyatt. And of course, we could forget any "tall ships" (sailing vessels) coming downtown.
I'm certain that the new bridge will have transit lanes, be it rail, BRT or even Skyway.
Y'all need to know the Concrete Plant Silos are coming down - SOON. Looks like application has already been made and a redesign of Comadore Point is in the works. The Shipyard is going to expand, Mason Marine may expand too. The rail links might be lost. OCKLAWAHA
By "the Shipyard" do you mean that non-existent multi-use non-development by Maxwell House, or a real honest-to-goodness place that works on ships?
North Florida Shipyards. Its a real honest-to-goodness place that works on ships, that's also cramped for space.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/lakelander/Exchange%20Island/going-hart-bridge.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/lakelander/Exchange%20Island/crowley-terminal.jpg)
Every study that I've seen about the Mathews bridge has made provisions for at least one transit lane in either direction. So, as soon as we get the 1.5 Courthouses (this is my new monetary term) that it will cost to build this thing, we should be all set.
I like Ock's idea! I would like to see development of more bike, run, walk trails on the Northbank and the Southbank as well as joining them up. Add in some pretty riverside park space with picnic/exercise/vendor attractions (old generating station, maybe?) and downtown becomes much more attractive and livable.
Although the idea of converting Commodore Point into commercial and residential space is tempting, the environmental clean up costs of converting the cement plants and shipyard will be HUGE!
Is Commodore Point a part of the industrial preservation overlay? If so, any redevelopment, will be industrial in nature. In any event, if water front land became available, I could see JaxPort making a play for it.
The Mathews bridge alternatives identified in the PD&E study include three main options...
1. Build a new 8 lane bridge (no transit lanes)
2. Build a new 8-lane bridge w/ 2 lanes reserved for transit (and likely HOV)
3. Build a new 4-lane bridge (one direction) and rehab the existing bridge (other direction)
The potential for transit lanes w/ Option 3 was not made clear in the study.
The cost estimate for the project is about $300 million....and while that may seem out of reach, FDOT is gearing up to replace the I-95 Overland Bridge (the raised section from the Fuller Warren to south of US 1)....and the cost for that project is about $170 million!
tufsu, does the $300M for replacing the Mathews include rebuilding the MLK and University Blvd. interchanges? or just tying the new construction into what's there?
Doesn't the fact that the "Overland Bridge" is part of I-95 make it easier to get money for, than the Mathews Bridge, which isn't an interstate?
Curious - Google help me find out about "Overland Bridge" ... ahh, the DOT is about to have a meeting (scroll down just a little on this link)
http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/publicsyndication/default.aspx?location=publicmeetings_district2
With this and the I-95/JTB improvements planned, it would be nice if Amtrak began operation on the FEC. With a satellite station at the Avenues, trains passing through could be used as a commuting alternative between DT and the Southside. I wonder where is that resolution of support letter from the Council and Mayor's Office?
the $300 million is just for the bridge itself....widening the Arlington Expwy to 6 lanes would likely cost another $150 milion....and who knows how much it would cost to rebuild/widen the raised part of the expressway west of the bridge (by the sports complex).
As for the I-95 project, maintenance and capital projects are separate pots of money....FDOT usually sets aside x amount of fuel tax dollars for maintenance and the remainder then gets split out for capital projects....and the % needed for maintenance has been increasing over the last few decades.
What bothers me is that operations & maintenance costs are always part of the transit equation, but they rarely get mentioned when it comes to roads.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2009, 06:48:01 PM
With this and the I-95/JTB improvements planned, it would be nice if Amtrak began operation on the FEC. With a satellite station at the Avenues, trains passing through could be used as a commuting alternative between DT and the Southside. I wonder where is that resolution of support letter from the Council and Mayor's Office?
Probably in a landfill somewhere. ;D
(http://www.ausairpower.net/000-DDX-1S.jpg)
I believe this is the vessel they will be building
(http://www.bendermaritime.com/artwork/originals/large/Ironclads.jpg)
CSS ATLANTA...and some people think the South is behind the times? Maybe this is why they kicked the ass of the USA for 5 years... Ya know the more things change the more they stay the same.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 11, 2009, 01:43:07 PM
Although the idea of converting Commodore Point into commercial and residential space is tempting, the environmental clean up costs of converting the cement plants and shipyard will be HUGE!
I was down at Manson Marine and the Shipyard yesterday, they both indicated that the Cement plants haven't seen any
activity in a long time. The way they talked perhaps a handful of rail cars per year. The cars that are now scattered all around the complex on railroad sidings are empty, dead, and belong to the plant. Looks like they came home to roost. If the company was serious about making a buck, they would clean up those cars and send them out to earn per-diem hauling concrete from point A to B in Texas or Timbuktu.
Both yards told me the silos are on borrowed time and the discussion is already about how they plan to redevelop the land. I think the yard is worried that the Jag's and Stadium will grab it. The NF Shipyard has inked a deal with Grumman for a new class of Navy Destroyers, don't know if they are building part or all of the ships. It's a joint venture of the aerospace firm, and about 5-6 major American Shipyards. OCKLAWAHA
What sounds better and more appealing? Riverside Arts Market under (a) I-95/Fuller Warren [ask how many Jax newcomers even know its real name] Bridge, (b) Golden Gate Bridge or (c) Brooklyn Bridge.
Why? Two of these bridges are well known attractions in their own right due to their distinctive and timeless architecture. One is only recognizable as a bridge instead of a highway overpass because it has water below it instead of land.
If there are plans to replace the I-95 Overland Bridge, I hope the design includes aesthetically pleasing elements for a change.
(http://studioformwork.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/944_sheik-zayed-bridge.jpg)
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 11, 2009, 03:30:00 PM
The Mathews bridge alternatives identified in the PD&E study include three main options...
1. Build a new 8 lane bridge (no transit lanes)
2. Build a new 8-lane bridge w/ 2 lanes reserved for transit (and likely HOV)
3. Build a new 4-lane bridge (one direction) and rehab the existing bridge (other direction)
The potential for transit lanes w/ Option 3 was not made clear in the study.
The cost estimate for the project is about $300 million....and while that may seem out of reach, FDOT is gearing up to replace the I-95 Overland Bridge (the raised section from the Fuller Warren to south of US 1)....and the cost for that project is about $170 million!
My vote is for a new Matthews with 8 lanes, 2 reserved for transit.
As to the Overland I-95 bridge, why is this project on the boards? They reworked and expanded this section around 25 years ago or so, if I remember correctly. It seems to work well. What's wrong with it? Aren't there better uses for the $170 million than this? Like converting the half-built interchanges on I-295 and I-95 to fully ramped to avoid traffic lights on the connecting roads. How about rail mass transit! ;)
because some parts of the Overland Bridge are almost 50 years old, which means they will need to be replaced and/or rehabilitated....they are also going to add a third southbound lane on I-95 itself for that half-mile portion between the Atlantic exit and where the C/D road joins....
as for aesthetics, this will come during design....right now they are just finishing the PD&E....but a good example might be what FDOT D7 has done with I-4 and I-275 through the core of Tampa (although I hate how much land they will end up using).
I wonder if the plans include making 95/Philips/Atlantic a full interchange?
Yes, hopefully somebody will realize that people use Atlantic and Philips, it needs a direct link to the parking garage, perhaps flyover ramps to Hendricks.
OCKLAWAHA
I know there is some interchange modifications, but not sure what....two things I do know...
1. There are no plans for a ramp to/from the JTA garage
2. The ramp to Hendricks from the southbound C/D road out of downtown wil be closed
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 12, 2009, 03:58:55 PM
I know there is some interchange modifications, but not sure what....two things I do know...
1. There are no plans for a ramp to/from the JTA garage
2. The ramp to Hendricks from the southbound C/D road out of downtown will be closed
"the southbound C/D road out of downtown wil be closed"
Not sure what C/D stands for? Is this the road [also "recently" improved a few years back] coming off the end of the Acosta and Main Street bridges that exits on to Hendricks? (I don't recall any other road that would fit this apparent description.] This would be a huge loss to San Marco access and traffic efficiency. It would mean everyone has to exit down San Marco Blvd. through the Square. That ramp also feeds directly to the road leading to the JTA Kings Road garage as I recall. Please tell me it ain't so!
C/D stands for collector/distributor...and yes, you've got the right road.
Basically it means that the trip from downtown to San Marco will take the same route as it does going back (since there is no ramp in the northbound direction)...get off the Main Street Bridge on Riverplace and wrap around to Hendricks.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 12, 2009, 06:40:41 PM
C/D stands for collector/distributor...and yes, you've got the right road.
Basically it means that the trip from downtown to San Marco will take the same route as it does going back (since there is no ramp in the northbound direction)...get off the Main Street Bridge on Riverplace and wrap around to Hendricks.
All I can say is "Why?" It seems this will cause more congestion by routing all Acosta traffic to San Marco Blvd. and all Main Street traffic to Riverplace. For the Acosta it will force more traffic through a tighter and more congested (especially at the Square) corridor. For the Main Street traffic, it will force more traffic a longer way around and through many more lights causing extended congestion. This will do much to cut off the Southbank from the Northbank. I would think there has to be a better way to solve whatever problem they are trying to fix.
Do the people of San Marco appreciate that these changes are coming and what their impact will be? How about the rest of Jax? Where does FDOT cook these ideas up? What are they thinking?
All I want is a way to directly access San Marco from the northbound I-95 lanes. Right now, you have to exit at Emerson or pass the area and come back via the Southbank exits.
Quote from: stjr on April 12, 2009, 06:50:36 PM
Do the people of San Marco appreciate that these changes are coming and what their impact will be? How about the rest of Jax? Where does FDOT cook these ideas up? What are they thinking?
why don't you go to the public meeting and ask them?
its on 4/20 (starting @ 4:30pm) at the San Marco Library
We all should be at that meeting, an exit on Montana, Atlantic and Philips would be wonderful. It would allow traffic in either direction access San Marco and the Phantom Parking Garage. In turn it would probably double the ridership of the Skyway. Moreover BRT lanes (I'm talking the high dollar QUICKWAY) could be built where Gary Street is today. Bring the buses South over the Acosta, from Jefferson and Broad, Hence exit on HOV on Prudential to Baptist and hence Southward to the short Gary Street Busway and over the Florida East Coast Railroad to Kings Avenue Station. This same route could pass in front of Baptist Medical Center giving a balance to the Southbank Transit modes. If you want the northside of the Southbank you ride the Skyway, if you want the South or Medical side of the Southbank, you take the BRT.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 12, 2009, 09:31:35 PM
Quote from: stjr on April 12, 2009, 06:50:36 PM
Do the people of San Marco appreciate that these changes are coming and what their impact will be? How about the rest of Jax? Where does FDOT cook these ideas up? What are they thinking?
why don't you go to the public meeting and ask them?
its on 4/20 (starting @ 4:30pm) at the San Marco Library
Tufsu, thanks for the heads up. I don't know if I can make the meeting but will see if there are other ways to express an opinion. I will start another thread here on MJ to give interested parties a heads up. I couldn't find a project description detailed to the point of showing this ramp closing on DOT's site. I wonder, as a result, how many in the community realize this ramp is being closed?
YES! The holy grail I was looking for earlier in this thread: An interstate bridge with sidewalks! IT CAN BE DONE! Reednavy and Tufsu, care to explain your comments on this subject verses the picture below?Quote(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/592818468_cMEoo-M.jpg)
This sidewalk, connecting the Northshore with Downtown, is attached to an I-279 bridge. Should the same be considered for Jacksonville's Fuller Warren, Hart or Matthews Bridges?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-aug-elements-of-urbanism-pittsburgh
Quote from: reednavy on January 29, 2009, 09:44:21 PM
Problem is that it is a Federal Interstate, not a U.S. Highway or State Route. It is CLEARLY marked at almost, if not every onramp to an interstate that bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law.
Quote from: reednavy on January 29, 2009, 10:46:26 PM
Existing laws and regulations prevent Federal Highway System roadways and bridges from supporting pedestrian related activies due to higher speeds and design constraints. So basically, safety concerns because guardrails and barriers can only take so much pressure.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 29, 2009, 10:50:02 PM
Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple!
Quote from: reednavy on January 30, 2009, 04:11:47 PM
Alright, did anyone hear what I said?
Federal Highway System regulations say that no such will be allowed on an interstate highway, plain and simple.
It is a safety and liability issue.
My original comments:QuoteHaving a pedestrian/bicycle pathway or a pullover vista lane to take in one of the best views found in the city would be too much to ask as well, I suppose. Just think if one could rise from the river walks below to cross from one bank to the other at sunset!
QuoteYes, I have heard from FDOT many times about the federal interstate standards. Yet, as I travel this country, I find countless concessions and exceptions where the local citizenry has raised their collective voices in protest or circumstances just could not accommodate the standards. So, I don't agree that there wasn't much more flexibility available for the design.
....Pedestrian's/bikers could be accommodated in several ways. One is an appropriately protective divider as on the Golden Gate. Another, would have been to put such a path above or below the roadway as it is on the Brooklyn Bridge (so that idea goes back to the 1800's!).
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 29, 2009, 11:02:52 PM
fine...if you're looking for a signature bridge, look no further than the Dames Point Bridge....that was also done by FDOT and will be an interstate by the end of 2009
The Dames Point was built by JTA who turned it over to FDOT for maintenance when it was completed 20 years ago.
Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2009, 06:34:29 PM
Hmm. Stjr. With all that egg on the faces, it seems like the perfect time to order omelettes.
I like mine served with a side of crow.
They are even better when followed by thick succulent slices of humble pie.
What about you?
Stephen, it beats drinking the Koolaid! :DAutomatically refusing to even consider how sidewalks might be integrated with an interstate bridge is another example of common sense being trumped by the blind allegiance, even if well intended, to "all-purpose", inflexible, and bureaucratic rules, policies and thinking.
My Anti-Bureaucratic Creed: When planning, building, and operating our society, we should determine what end result we desire and/or need, and then figure the best solution to achieve those results utilizing common sense, flexible thinking, informed thought, and a pliable application of necessary rules, policies, procedures, and guidelines - not mindlessly and totally forgoing or subverting our needs and desires to protocols or standards that never contemplated or considered the situation at hand.
Something like this bridge in Richmond, VA?
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3075-p1020527.jpg)
Quote....Pedestrian's/bikers could be accommodated in several ways. One is an appropriately protective divider as on the Golden Gate. Another, would have been to put such a path above or below the roadway as it is on the Brooklyn Bridge (so that idea goes back to the 1800's!).
That's cool, thelakelander, I think such a thing would have to be much closer to the bridge level though, since this is still an active waterway.
Yes, the Richmond example would probably not be feasible for the St. Johns.
Nevermind the fact, stjr, that the Pittsburgh bridge is not 75ft over water either, and suicide would likely fail by plummeting to the water. Instead, you'd likely drown. Still, I don't expect FDOT to want to take the risk in doing such a project either. The design of the shown bridge also protects pedestrians better, instead of the concrete barrier on the bridges around here.
I'll admit it, I was wrong, but as I said, don't expect FDOT to be on board.
Maritime interests would prevent us from using one inch of space below the bridge deck. The Jersey Safety Barriers made of concrete are about as safe as it gets and pretty hard to climb. If we could get the City-State-Feds to do this to all of our bridges it would be fantastic. Even if access was just from the nearest roadway. Imagine a bike trail over the Buckman from US 17 to San Jose Bl..
If the walkway was caged and placed below the sight line from the bridge but above the bottom of the panels (deck) so one would even know it was there. A car would have to go completely over the rail and come to rest on the cage before anyone would be in danger. Those bridge panels appear to be a good 10' - 20' tall from the top of the bents (piers) to the top of the deck, plenty of room to hide an 8 - 9' foot tall pedestrian trail.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: thelakelander on August 05, 2009, 09:55:36 PM
Yes, the Richmond example would probably not be feasible for the St. Johns.
LOL, that bridge is taking things to an extreme! Our FDOT would never build a rope bridge because that's not in the standards manual and might take some extra creativity and persistence to get approved.
Quote from: reednavy on August 05, 2009, 10:06:27 PM
Nevermind the fact, stjr, that the Pittsburgh bridge is not 75ft over water either, and suicide would likely fail by plummeting to the water. Instead, you'd likely drown. Still, I don't expect FDOT to want to take the risk in doing such a project either. The design of the shown bridge also protects pedestrians better, instead of the concrete barrier on the bridges around here.
I'll admit it, I was wrong, but as I said, don't expect FDOT to be on board.
Reed, thanks for the admission.
My real point is that our state's DOT, while technically competent and well intentioned, is selling us and itself short by being overly rigid in applying the "rules of the road", to the detriment of our community. They should take pride in coming up with solutions to unique challenges that are both creative, innovative, community friendly, and imaginative while also being safe and cost effective rather than just shutting the door in everyone's face and saying its always by the book, every other idea or thought be damned.As to height and/or providing incentives to jumpers, if someone wants to jump off a bridge they will find away to do it no matter the brilliance of attempts by FDOT to deny them such a freedom and FDOT needs to take that off their list of concerns. The Buckman and Fuller Warren have no sidewalks but anyone can pull into the DOT provided emergency lane and make the "leap of a lifetime". Once your wet, no sense getting out of the rain.
As to risk, hey, driving is always risky, as is walking, in our auto dominated society. For that matter, everything has some risks and it can never be reduced to zero. FDOT is smothering its customers (that's us) with its overreaction to risk if this is truly how risk averse they are.
Regarding design, there is no question a sidewalk could be run along the Fuller Warren that could reasonably protect and segregate pedestrians from the interstate. We just need to commit to it as a priority worthy of the effort. To date, the Fuller Warren project has been devoid of any such effort IMHO which is why I started this thread.
Hopefully, the Pittsburgh bridge helps to "drive" home my point that anything can be done if we all want it bad enough and join together to get it done. ;D
The Skyline looks rather odd on the way to the Fuller Warren Bridge going North on I-95. South however is pretty spectacular, as you're crossing the bridge.
Has anyone else ever noticed how the Bank of America obelisk behind Modis makes it look like the Modis building is wearing a hat? ;D
I will not admit to being woirng....and no Stephen, there is no egg oin my face...as quoted, I previously said "Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple!"
As shown here, the pedestrians and bicycles are not on the roadway itself, but are physicaly separated by a barrier....and the path clearly starts and ends off the interstate....I have never said this couldn't be done....the bike trail adjacent to the Suncoast Pkwy in the Tampa Bay area is a perfect example.
Just understand this, a simple 3-4' jersey wall (concrete barrier) like the one on the Acosta Bridge won't suffice....the Suncoast Pkwy trail is set back (high speed clear zone) and has a fence that's probably at least 12' high separating it from the road.
Quote from: braeburn on August 06, 2009, 02:28:54 AM
The Skyline looks rather odd on the way to the Fuller Warren Bridge going North on I-95. South however is pretty spectacular, as you're crossing the bridge.
Has anyone else ever noticed how the Bank of America obelisk behind Modis makes it look like the Modis building is wearing a hat? ;D
Yeah, and to me it looks odd and weird with the tallest building (BOA) being hidden by MODIS, but it is what it is; they should have made BOA about 85 feet taller, that way it would be clearly seen from all angles regardless of MODIS covering it from about the neck and/or waist down.
Going north on 95 is a great skyline view (north to south), but my favorite is going north on I-95 across the Fuller Warren with the east-west view of the skyline.
Heights Unknown
A nice picture of the bridge Jacksonville did NOT build!
"THINKING BIG The Golden Gate Bridge under construction in 1937, when an era of huge public works projects was under way. "
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/11/29/weekinreview/29uchitelle01/articleLarge.jpg)
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/weekinreview/29uchitelle.html?_r=1&hp
we have the modern version of that...its caled the Dames Point Bridge
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 29, 2009, 11:03:22 PM
we have the modern version of that...its caled the Dames Point Bridge
The Fuller Warren should have been just as notable being on I-95 and as part of the Downtown "skyline".
WTF? When they built I-95 in the 50s, why did they have it curve all the way around the city through the poorer neighborhoods, just to save the downtown core? Isn't the shortest distance between 2 points a straight line, if we want to cute here?
Quote from: stjr on November 30, 2009, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 29, 2009, 11:03:22 PM
we have the modern version of that...its caled the Dames Point Bridge
The Fuller Warren should have been just as notable being on I-95 and as part of the Downtown "skyline".
The old one was green if memory serves me right, I want to know where the hell our neon is? Can you imagine a neon art project for that bridge? Notable, hell's bells, that sucker would be FAMOUS!
The new one is "anemic poop gray...." Oh my...OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: stjr on November 30, 2009, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 29, 2009, 11:03:22 PM
we have the modern version of that...its caled the Dames Point Bridge
The Fuller Warren should have been just as notable being on I-95 and as part of the Downtown "skyline".
I don't disagree, but keep in mind that the Golden Gate Bridge isn't in downtown SF either....that would be the Oakland Bay Bridge.
However, the FW is only about 3/4 mile long, not around a mile. I wonder if the could construct a beatiful arch from end to end, like the Gateway Bridge in Nashville.
(http://www.roctest.com/modules/AxialRealisation/img_repository/files/images/2001%2021%20Puente%20Envigado%2001_resize.jpg)
A short suspension bridge can still be a signature monument, this one is the gateway to El Poblado (the PVB of Medellin). I think its way too late to do this even as a decor, lighting could still give us some WOW without the expense of building need structures.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 30, 2009, 08:55:16 AM
Quote from: stjr on November 30, 2009, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 29, 2009, 11:03:22 PM
we have the modern version of that...its caled the Dames Point Bridge
The Fuller Warren should have been just as notable being on I-95 and as part of the Downtown "skyline".
I don't disagree, but keep in mind that the Golden Gate Bridge isn't in downtown SF either....that would be the Oakland Bay Bridge.
Tufsu, I think most would consider the Golden Gate to be within the Downtown/urban sphere of SF, even if removed from the high rises. Most importantly, how many "downtown" shots of SF are "framed" by the view over the bridge or with it in the background? Likely billions.
A world class design for the Fuller Warren could have done much the same for Jax. Instead, it's more likely a candidate for a Photo Shop outcrop. Tourists driving over it could hardly know they are even going over a bridge, it's so blah. And, traveling northbound or in the inner lanes southbound, one has no view of the great western and upstream expanse of the river and its spectacular sunsets. So much for introducing a few hundred thousand visitors a month to our greatest natural asset (How much would the COJ, Tourist Bureau, and Chamber pay for that exposure elsewhere?).
By the way, FDOT should re-sign the San Marco Blvd. exit with the addition of "Downtown-Southbank" and MOSH, especially if we are rebuilding San Marco Blvd. Maybe a few tourists (and locals) would be induced to spontaneously take the exit and explore the area.
At the same time though, you have an unobstructed view from the bridge as is right now, so it isn't a total loss.
Quote from: reednavy on November 30, 2009, 12:08:35 PM
At the same time though, you have an unobstructed view from the bridge as is right now, so it isn't a total loss.
Yes, if you are looking at the sky! ;D Just like most of the thousand plus miles on I-95. As noted, for most, the view westward is 100% obstructed. How much worse could it be?
By the way, I never heard of anyone crossing the Golden Gate or Brooklyn Bridges complaining their view was "obstructed". Rather, the bridges dramatically "frame" the views they afford. Further, with most modern designs, any "obstruction" would be minor.
Perhaps some focus should be put on the design of the new Matthews Bridge or preservation of the old steel through truss bridge? Its the next one to be replaced and we're one of the only cities in the Southeastern US to be blessed to have multiple large truss bridges downtown. As each bridge is replaced, its a unique feature of our community that will disappear.
So it was you gawking at the skyline - or trying to - that drifted over into my lane!!! Watch the road!! :D
Wonder how much more a signature bridge would have cost? Guess Mayor Delaney should have asked Corrine to "deliver" more funds so a fancier bridge could have been built.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 30, 2009, 12:27:53 PM
Perhaps some focus should be put on the design of the new Matthews Bridge or preservation of the old steel through truss bridge? Its the next one to be replaced and we're one of the only cities in the Southeastern US to be blessed to have multiple large truss bridges downtown. As each bridge is replaced, its a unique feature of our community that will disappear.
Good point Lake!
Our signature downtown bridge is the Main Street Bridge...and while I would like to have seen something special for the Acosta and I-95 bridges, I bet people would have brought up the increased cost argument....and we might have been stuck with a drawbridge on I-95 even longer.
I agree- I would have much rather seen the old Acosta bridge preserved.
As for the Fuller Warren, they replaced an ugly concrete draw bridge with a functional concrete bridge- atleast you don't get stuck in rush hour with the bridge up anymore.
Also, imo people need to concentrate more on driving than worrying about their view of or from the bridge.
They probably took into account the Baptist Hospital helicopter landing just a couple hundred, if that, yards away from the bridge. I don't know, but the FW arguement seems tired now, we're stuck with it and can't do anything about it.
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 30, 2009, 12:50:25 PM
... I bet people would have brought up the increased cost argument....
On this basis, the Fuller Warren is a great representation of Jax. Utilitarian, cheap, unimaginative, lacking vision, style, and grace.
The Golden Gate or Brooklyn Bridge may have cost a few dollars more (which by the way is trivial over the potential 100+ year life of the bridge), but what value do you put on the exposure and business the bridges have created for their respective cities? Priceless, no doubt. It's like the argument made about the Jaguars.
Cheap bridges, convention centers, hotels, mass transit options, public projects, transportation centers, airports, etc. .... cheap, cheap, cheap... it should be the new city motto. In the end, these projects may actually cost more, both because of the opportunities lost and because we end up replacing them over shorter lives than if they were built better to stand the tests of time.
By the way, sometimes its not the money spent, its the quality of the effort. Better design doesn't always cost more and sometimes might cost less (see the courthouse with a cheap design for a high price). We just don't seem to make the effort or have the smarts to take advantage of such opportunities.
I'm fine with spending money for quality....I've just noticed that many people in Jax. aren't
Quote from: reednavy on November 30, 2009, 01:32:36 PM
Also, imo people need to concentrate more on driving than worrying about their view of or from the bridge.
Many crossing the bridge are not drivers, they are passengers who are free to take in the view. And, even alert drivers must have some peripheral vision that would pick up on the areas they drive through. But, mostly, the bridge stands as a symbol of the City for those on the banks of the river, the boats that pass under it, the aircraft and high rise occupants that look down upon it, and for the endless photographic and video impressions made.
(http://k41.pbase.com/g3/63/566563/2/52986306.IMG_3916.jpg)
Not much left of the Veterans Memorial bridge in Palatka, just a few bronze statues, if you know where to look.
Well Palatka didn't get money to replace the glorious old Memorial Bridge, which was cut from the same mold as our Grand Avenue (in Ortega), or Bridge of the Lions, in St. Augustine. The "thing" is FDOT or USDOT peddled another Fuller Warren copy to Putnam County which prostituted its classic bridge on the alter of "new and improved." Thanks for nothing great war veterans, sucks to be you I guess... Or have they all died out now? Who cares today? They really didn't deserve a memorial taking pot shots across the French Countryside, at that damn little Austrian paper hanger.
The old Acosta was also preserved, or so we would be told back in 1984... Well where the hell is it today? Blubbb Blubbb Blubbb
Lastly we have the new Fuller Warren, which made me think, Palatka had its "Bridge of the War Veterans," St. Augustine has the "Bridge of the Lions," maybe we just need a sign that reflects our own City Leaders?
Anyone up for "Bridge of the Ass Holes?" THAT would make a hell of an arch!
OCKLAWAHA
I think the Old Acosta Bridge became a reef, did it not? Funny that it was supposedly so unstable, and yet when they used dynamite charges to crumble the counterweights, there it sat. :D. I Still have some pics of the Bridge , just before it came down,,, also some , somewhere of the Old Monticello Drug Co. Bldg ( the 666 building ) that came down to make way for the new ugly concrete Monster that replaced the Acosta.
Quote from: stjr on November 30, 2009, 01:34:12 PM
Cheap bridges, convention centers, hotels, mass transit options, public projects, transportation centers, airports, etc. .... cheap, cheap, cheap... it should be the new city motto.
But Jacksonville is the logistics center. Hahahahahaha!
What is planned for the Matthews Bridge down the road?
Quote from: Timkin on June 20, 2010, 11:20:58 PM
I think the Old Acosta Bridge became a reef, did it not? Funny that it was supposedly so unstable, and yet when they used dynamite charges to crumble the counterweights, there it sat. :D. I Still have some pics of the Bridge , just before it came down,,, also some , somewhere of the Old Monticello Drug Co. Bldg ( the 666 building ) that came down to make way for the new ugly concrete Monster that replaced the Acosta.
Heck yeah man! I loved fishing off the old remnants of the bridge when a gentleman(I forgot who) was leading the effort to make it into a public pier. Suprisingly I snatched a lot of redfish out there. On top of that, it was a great promenade with some amazing views of the city.
To me, whatever happens to the Shipyards site.. it would be an absolute tragedy if the dock adjacent to the courthouse is not made into a public pier.
Quote from: billy on June 21, 2010, 09:03:40 AM
What is planned for the Matthews Bridge down the road?
no specific plans....a new bridge would likely cost over $300 million and is not funded
which is probably why the center span was concreted in , to replace the dangerous grating that once was there............
Quote from: stjr on November 30, 2009, 12:08:39 AM
The Fuller Warren should have been just as notable being on I-95 and as part of the Downtown "skyline".
stjr You nail it. And that is why legislation needs to be introduced right now to compliment 2010-604 that would keep the Promised 680' Downtown Public Pier separate from the other 40 plus acres that was Shipyards/Landmar.
To quote North Miami when it happens we will have
"Jacksonville's front porch. Southern style"
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 29, 2009, 10:50:02 PM
Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple!
Now maybe there could have been a separate pedestrian bridge connecting the two sides of the river....and this might make sense if/when there are riverwalks on both sides....but the state/fed won't pay fo this...it will have to be the City and/or privately funded.
I know that this is way after the fact, but your statement is at least partially incorrect. Interstates can (and do) have cyclists on them, I have seen it with my own eyes, also horses. I would imagine that pedestrians are allowed on those stretches also. They have extra wide shoulders to accomodate these other user types.
Utah is currently trying to pass a law prohibiting pedestrians from their Interstates.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14498207
Measure to outlaw pedestrians on interstates advances
February 24th, 2011 @ 9:58am
By ksl.com
SALT LAKE CITY -- A bill that will outlaw pedestrians on Utah's freeways cleared the House Wednesday and is on its way to the Senate.
Currently, it's illegal to hitchhike on Utah's interstates but not to walk on them.
Rep. Lee Perry, R-Perry, who is also a Utah Highway Patrol lieutenant, is sponsoring . It would make it a class C misdemeanor to walk on an interstate except during an emergency. The fine would be determined by a judge.
Perry told the Standard-Examiner that previously troopers have thought it was illegal to walk on the freeway, but in reality it wasn't.
Although pedestrians on the freeway are not common, Perry says often they are transients moving on to a new location.
This from the FHA:
QuoteEach State establishes the operating rules that determine which vehicles are allowed on the Interstate highways under their jurisdiction. Most States do not allow bicyclists on the Interstate shoulders, but bicycle use is permitted in some States, particularly in the west where there is less traffic and where good alternative routes may not exist for bicycles. Determining if bicycle access should be permitted is done only after careful study and consideration of how bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic can safely negotiate on- and off-ramps. The safety of all roadway users must be considered. In addition, some Interstate highways, mainly in urban areas, have been built with bicycle paths.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm
In Florida, limited access highways are off limitis to bikes and pedestrians. These include interstate highways like I-95. With the Acosta and Main Street Bridges having pedestrian facilities in place as well as connections to the surface streets on either side of the river, having a pedestrian facility was certianly not critical. Also, not sure how many of you have actually walked next to interstate traffic but it is just freaking scary. I have inspected my share of interstate bridges, including the FW and the Myrtle Ave. Arch, and tell you what, there is nothing like a mirror of a semi truck flying by you at 60+ mph a foot or two from your skull to make you realize that its not such a good idea for people to be walking next to I-95.
As for the FW itself, I believe it was originally built to be a "local road" type bridge. When they were planning I-95, the FW was either just finished or nearly finished, it was also 4 lanes making it the logical choice to carry I-95 across the SJR.
When it was to be replaced, the biggest hurdle to overcome in the replacement was the phase construction and maintenance of traffic. It was not feasible to completely shut down the existing bridge to build the new one on alignment. A replacement bridge could not be completely built off the alignment due to constraints at each end of the bridge. One portion was built first, the existing one demolished, and then the rest was built. This method does not lend itself to the construciton of a "signature bridge" like a suspension or cable stayed structure. Due to the construction methodologies employed by those types of structures.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 12, 2009, 01:24:16 AM
If there are plans to replace the I-95 Overland Bridge, I hope the design includes aesthetically pleasing elements for a change.
(http://studioformwork.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/944_sheik-zayed-bridge.jpg)
Lake, saw this old post and was just wondering, how's your idea turning out? I suspect we will get the same ol' tried and true unimaginative FDOT concrete pillar/dirt mound project and your dream will remain just that, a dream.