This is another reason why we should at least push for Amtrak to return to the FEC with a satellite station somewhere in the Southside. At least then, their trains could be used by local commuters between DT and the Avenues area. I don't know if its possible, but perhaps we could push commuter rail on this corridor through to help deal with the impending five year I-95 construction project? That's how Tri-Rail got started up.
QuoteMassive road construction on the interstate - yes, more of it - is coming in 2011 or 2012.
By Larry Hannan
One of the most heavily traveled roads in Jacksonville is structurally deficient and will be torn down and replaced, a five-year project that will continue to snarl traffic downtown on Interstate 95.
The Florida Department of Transportation will begin demolishing a 2-mile elevated portion of I-95 south of the Fuller Warren Bridge in 2011 or 2012. The project will disrupt traffic on I-95 from north of Palm Avenue to south of San Diego Road, over Hendricks, King and Montana avenues.
The cost: $182 million, or about $30 million more than the cost of the ongoing construction at the intersection of interstates 10 and 95.
The state will begin the new work at about the same time the intersection work is concluding, which, when all is completed, means motorists will have seen continuous I-95 construction in downtown Jacksonville for more than a decade.
The roadwork means changes for drivers who use the Acosta and Main Street bridges to access the interstate or who exit on Atlantic Boulevard or Philips Highway. And some motorists will no longer be able to use the current Hendricks Avenue exit.
That worries some local business owners.
"We've seen a mini renaissance around here in the last few years with new hotels, banks and restaurants like Panera's," said Jorge Brunet-Garcia, creative director of Brunet-Garcia Multicultural Advertising and Public Relations on Hendricks.
"When there was construction on Hendricks a few years ago it really hurt some of the businesses," he said, "and I hope that doesn't happen again."
The work, though, was inevitable. James Bennett, a development engineer for the state transportation department, said this portion of I-95 is one of the oldest elevated roadways in the area and has begun to deteriorate.
The state will have to keep six lanes operating while the roadway is torn down and replaced. That makes the project more time-consuming and expensive, Bennett said.
It will also mean more headaches for drivers.
The state will widen by one lane a current two-lane, southbound access road off I-95 that runs from the Acosta Bridge to just south of Philips Highway. Southbound traffic will be diverted off I-95 onto the access road for most of the project.
The northbound lanes will be demolished early in the project and a new elevated road will be built. Northbound traffic will be diverted to the existing southbound lanes. After the new northbound lanes are built, traffic will shift and the southbound lanes will be torn down and replaced.
Once the roadway is finished, southbound traffic will be shifted off the access road onto the newly built lanes.
Because the access road is only available via the Acosta or Main Street bridges, the transportation department will build a new exit from southbound Interstate 95 that will connect to the access road east of San Marco Boulevard.
That exit will remain because the agency will shut down southbound exits on Interstate 95 that access Atlantic Boulevard, Beach Boulevard and Philips Highway. Motorists will have to use the access road to use those exits but can still get to Atlantic and Beach without going through a traffic light.
Transportation officials said it will be unsafe for motorists to get on Hendricks from the Main Street bridge because the exit comes up too quickly after getting on the access road.
City Councilman Art Shad, whose district includes San Marco, said the Hendricks move is frustrating for him.
"It does disappoint me to lose the Hendricks exit," Shad said, "even if they have all sorts of fancy transportation reasons for losing it."
Barbara Bredehoeft, co-owner of bb's Restaurant on Hendricks, said she doesn't really know yet how the construction will impact her.
"I think most of my customers come from downtown, so I should be all right," Bredehoeft said. "But there's probably no way to know for sure until the construction begins."
The money for construction is coming from the state and federal government, but no money from the recently approved stimulus package is being used. Bennett said the cost was higher than the interchange project because the transportation department is tearing down an existing structure and rebuilding it with another elevated roadway.
Although calling an elevated road structurally deficient brings to mind the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis in 2007, project manager Brandi Vittur said it is safe.
No businesses or homes are expected to be taken as part of the right of way acquisition, Vittur added.
The construction area includes two Skyway stations in the San Marco area. Jacksonville Transportation Authority spokesman Mike Miller said the Skyway stations at Riverplace and Kings Avenue will continue to operate during the project, but a walkway between the Kings Avenue station and a nearby parking garage may have to be shut down.
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-04-15/story/roadwork_early_warning_think_i-95_is_bad_now
Well, Lake, we scooped the paper on this one (see http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4786.0.html ). I do wish the drawings of their plans were available on the DOT's internet site but I couldn't find them. Maybe someone else could find something and provide the link. You would think by now, DOT would have this figured out.
There is no question all these changes will make a significant and lasting impact on Downtown, Southbank, and San Marco accesses, and, based on the article, perhaps even the beach roads, St. Nicholas, and Phillips Highway. I am not sure of the exact meaning of the following quote but it appears that a single ramp will provide access to the two beach roads and Phillips Highway:
QuoteBecause the access road is only available via the Acosta or Main Street bridges, the transportation department will build a new exit from southbound Interstate 95 that will connect to the access road east of San Marco Boulevard.
That exit will remain because the agency will shut down southbound exits on Interstate 95 that access Atlantic Boulevard, Beach Boulevard and Philips Highway. Motorists will have to use the access road to use those exits but can still get to Atlantic and Beach without going through a traffic light.
That's ONE ramp for THREE four-lane State roads, two of which are also Federal highways. That seems like a lot of traffic for a single ramp. It also appears that, by the absence of its inclusion, a traffic light will now be necessary to access Phillip Highway. Not clear is whether the new ramp causes the elimination of the current Fuller Warren exit just rebuilt to San Marco Blvd. All this is curious, because, per DOT records, that whole series of exits, other than San Marco Blvd, along with the entire overland bridge was enhanced and rehabilitated in 1989, just twenty years ago.
I would think that community involvement in these plans should be significant. Prior to tufsu's post this past week, I never saw any mention of this project in the T-U, news, etc. How many others are equally uninformed at this late date?
Unfortunately, from the tone of the article, it appears this is so far along as to be unstoppable/unchangeable. If the City Council rep is already resigned to it, what hope is there for public input at next week's hearing to make a difference? Has anyone ever experienced a significant change to DOT plans as a result of public input?I would think proponents of the $ky-high-way would see this as an opportunity to shine. But, ironically, per the quote below about the severance of the Kings Road parking garage, I guess that ain't gonna happen either.
QuoteThe construction area includes two Skyway stations in the San Marco area. Jacksonville Transportation Authority spokesman Mike Miller said the Skyway stations at Riverplace and Kings Avenue will continue to operate during the project, but a walkway between the Kings Avenue station and a nearby parking garage may have to be shut down.
I plan on dropping by the public hearing to see if drawings will be available. With the new hotels going in, next to the garage, the walkway part sucks if will be shut down for an extended amount of time. As for the access road exits, they are already in place. The Atlantic Blvd exit is to the left and there is a right exit to Philips Highway before the access road hits I-95.
Five years... FIVE freeking years... >:( :o ???
The project is inevitible. I'm guessing that given the right price this thing could be finished more quickly. That's a lot of damn money though!
All I'm saying is, think this is bad, wait for JTB and 95 to be redone. OMFG is that going to be chaos.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 15, 2009, 06:59:13 AM
I plan on dropping by the public hearing to see if drawings will be available. With the new hotels going in, next to the garage, the walkway part sucks if will be shut down for an extended amount of time. As for the access road exits, they are already in place. The Atlantic Blvd exit is to the left and there is a right exit to Philips Highway before the access road hits I-95.
Lake, you may be right about reusing the existing exits but I didn't find that clear from reading the article in the paper or the map accompanying it. I also am unclear how the exit for the "access road" interfaces with the existing Acosta and Main Street Bridge I-95 entries and what is existing and what's new for the "access" road. It would be nice to see detail down to the level of individual traffic lanes. Have you seen this yet?
It would be nice if they built the auxiliary lanes that were planned years ago.
I think the limits were:
Northbound 95: From JTB on ramp to Bowden on ramp
Southbound 95: From Bowden on ramp to JTB off ramp
Better yet, since Jacksonville seems to have permanent Mass Transit B Gon spray applied, a C-D separated system like what is currently in place at Blanding on Northbound 295 West Beltway and will extend to Collins, would be nice.
Here's another study for I-95 improvements. It's a 42.8 MB file, though.
http://i95.edats.com/library.pl?getfile=11I-95 Short Term Improvements_Final Report 072706.pdf (http://i95.edats.com/library.pl?getfile=11I-95%20Short%20Term%20Improvements_Final%20Report%20072706.pdf)
Alternatively, http://i95.edats.com/library.pl?category=All%20Documents&sort=eventid&rsort=0 (http://i95.edats.com/library.pl?category=All%20Documents&sort=eventid&rsort=0) > I-95 Short Term Improvements_Final Report 072706.pdf
I think JTA is still planning those extra lanes between JTB and Bowden, they even had a public meeting a few months ago. Don't know what their schedule is, though.
Target completion date: 2000never.
QuoteI think JTA is still planning those extra lanes between JTB and Bowden, they even had a public meeting a few months ago. Don't know what their schedule is, though.
It is currently in the design phase. The target completion date is 2010. JTA is also leading a PD&E study for a complete interchange modification at I-95/ Philips Highway / Butler Blvd. I believe they have already come up with some alternatives.
http://www.butler95.com/index.html
QuoteI don't know if its possible, but perhaps we could push commuter rail on this corridor through to help deal with the impending five year I-95 construction project? That's how Tri-Rail got started up.
Tri-rail is sliding into bankruptcy, even with all the construction on I-95 in Palm Beach County over the last 5 years, not enough people, in the GOOD times would give up their cars for tri-rail. They could operate at 30 trains a day by October 2009, and still they only received 7,100 petitions to ask counties to spend more to help their bloated budges. How could anyone suppose that the public would do so with any commuter rail?
So I-95 will be rough, go through town take the Hart bridge and be done with it. It dumps onto Atlantic and Beach blvd and will get you down to the southside very easily, at speeds of between 65 and 55 mph. Traffic is not so bad here that we don't have alternatives.
If interested, the public hearing for this project is scheduled for this afternoon.
QuoteI-95 Overland Bridge Replacement
District: Two
Meeting Type: Hearing
Date: Monday, April 20, 2009
Time: 4:30 pm to N/A
Location Name: San Marco Library / Balis Community Center
Street Address: 1513 LaSalle Street
City: Jacksonville, FL 32207
Purpose:
You are invited to a public hearing to discuss the I-95 Overland Bridge Replacement project. The project begins 1200 feet south of San Diego Road and ends 200 feet north of Palm Avenue. The hearing will be held Monday, April 20, 2009, at the Balis Community Center, 1513 LaSalle St., Jacksonville, Florida 32207.
Doors will open at 4:30 p.m. to allow you time to review and discuss the exhibits and have your questions answered by one of our staff. The formal portion of the public hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m., with an audio/visual presentation followed by an opportunity for public comment.
It is the policy of the Florida Department of Transportation's District Two to prohibit materials and/or exhibits in our public workshops, meetings or hearings that are not the property of the Department. Therefore, no outside party will be allowed to display or hand out materials in any of these events.
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the Overland Bridge, which carries both northbound and southbound traffic on I-95 and spans Hendricks Avenue, Kings Avenue, and Montana Avenue in downtown Jacksonville. The bridge is being replaced due to structural deterioration which is causing the need for frequent repairs. This public hearing is being held to present the Project Development & Environment Study, discuss the Department’s recommendations and to receive your input.
As of March 30, 2009, the report will be available for your review during normal business hours at the San Marco Library, 1513 LaSalle St., Jacksonville, Florida 32207 and the Florida Department of Transportation’s Urban Office, 2198 Edison Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204.
This hearing is being conducted to inform the public of the project and afford the public the opportunity to express views concerning the location, conceptual design and social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed improvements. The Department is required by Florida Statutes to give notice to those persons who properties lies in whole or in part within 300 feet of either side of the centerline of any alternative considered (even though they may not be directly affected).
Those who wish to submit written statements may do so at the hearing or mail them to the address below no later than April 30, 2009. All comments received by this date will become part of the public hearing record. All residents, property owners and interested persons or groups are encouraged to come and participate. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or family status.
Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Mrs. Brandi Vittur at the number below at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing to review and discuss this important transportation improvement project.
Primary Contact: Mrs. Brandi Vittur, P.E., Project Manager
Primary Phone: (800)749-2967 or (386) 961-7468
Primary E-Mail: brandi.vittur@dot.state.fl.us
Additional Contact: Mr. Bill Henderson, Planning & Environmental Manager
Additional Phone: (800) 749-2967 or (386) 961-7873
Additional E-mail: bill.henderson@dot.state.fl.us
Expires: 4/21/2009
Quote from: reednavy on April 15, 2009, 11:20:39 AM
All I'm saying is, think this is bad, wait for JTB and 95 to be redone. OMFG is that going to be chaos.
It's soooooooooooooooo necessary though...
That's the biggest idiotic bottleneck I've ever seen. The intersection of two major highways shouldn't end in a red light. Whatever genius came up with that idea in the first place should get canned. If there was a simple flyover ramp for people taking 95s to JTBe, there would be no gigantic backups on a daily basis that extend as far back as beach or university.
The geniuses who came up with that idea didn't know at the time that JTB would become an expressway and would be extended to the beach....that all came later!
And that "simple" flyover ramp will likely cost $50 million aone...not including any other interchange modifications!
We need some other alternatives besides highway. Not saying highways are bad, but let's give people choices.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 21, 2009, 07:51:43 AM
The geniuses who came up with that idea didn't know at the time that JTB would become an expressway and would be extended to the beach....that all came later!
Not knowing JTB would go to the beach? Or that it would be an expressway? (It never had lights east of I-95, just interchanges.) Who didn't know that? As I recall, the whole project was master planned all the way, it was just built in phases, with the first phase ending at St. John's bluff with a 10 cent toll booth. Then the two lane hour glass with only one span at the Intracoastal Waterway before the second span finally was built after one too many fatal accidents. The land owners along the way gave land in return for interchanges to their properties. I think it even had pavement planned for being extended at the original terminus at St. Johns Bluff. How far back would one have to go to predate the vision to go to the beach?
Regardless of all this, it has been at least 30 plus years since the current arrangement was known, plenty of time to reengineer the I-95 interchange with JTB before all those hotels were built and swallowed up all available land that might have enabled a better functioning solution.
The State's policy dictated by the Legislature (as I'm told by DOT officials) of only buying exactly that land needed for current construction, and not buying a few extra acres of expansion land at what is often little extra costs relative to their projects and especially before their completion raises the surrounding land values, has never made any sense. Years later, when interchanges become bottlenecks due to overuse of their original designs, the State is often left with few and very expensive options given the constraints of the surrounding infill developments. It's why we have half interchanges with traffic lights at Blanding, San Jose, St. Augustine Road, JTB, Baymeadows, University, Emerson, etc. even though many of these area could use full ones. Had extra land been bought for only a few more dollars when these interchanges were originally being built "in the middle of nowhere", imagine what might have been.
Quote from: stjr on April 21, 2009, 10:52:00 AM
The State's policy dictated by the Legislature (as I'm told by DOT officials) of only buying exactly that land needed for current construction, and not buying a few extra acres of expansion land at what is often little extra costs relative to their projects and especially before their completion raises the surrounding land values, has never made any sense.
That's called eminent domain law....you can only condemn the amount of land that you an "prove" is needed....and just so you know, FDOT's studies are usually at least 25 years out....right now, their PD&E sudies are for horizon years of at least 2035....but if they can't prove the need for something in the horizon year (and often the mid yearwhich would be around 2020-2025), they have a very hard time getting the land through eminent domain.
I believe they already have the ROW needed for the 95/JTB improvements.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 21, 2009, 11:00:07 AM
Quote from: stjr on April 21, 2009, 10:52:00 AM
The State's policy dictated by the Legislature (as I'm told by DOT officials) of only buying exactly that land needed for current construction, and not buying a few extra acres of expansion land at what is often little extra costs relative to their projects and especially before their completion raises the surrounding land values, has never made any sense.
That's called eminent domain law....you can only condemn the amount of land that you an "prove" is needed....and just so you know, FDOT's studies are usually at least 25 years out....right now, their PD&E sudies are for horizon years of at least 2035....but if they can't prove the need for something in the horizon year (and often the mid yearwhich would be around 2020-2025), they have a very hard time getting the land through eminent domain.
Well, maybe the State should negotiate better with surrounding landowners when building a new interchange. If you want "us" to build anything here at all, voluntarily sell us at Fair Market Value the land we need for the inevitable future. Landowners would also benefit by voluntarily cooperating because they would be ensuring smooth access to their remaining properties in lieu of having a bottleneck at their doorstep that discourages visits to their property.
Alternatively, 25 years is a long time. Most of these interchanges seem to start needing improvements well before then. Maybe the State needs a more aggressive traffic growth model to demonstrate "need". There may also be some subjectivity in making the case of when the improvements are necessary providing additional wiggle room. Whatever, I think the State needs to find better ways to meet the "need" threshold they are using so they can the appropriate land up front via eminent domain. It's far less painful, even to the landowners, than having all that uncertainty of the future hanging over everyone and maybe going through eminent domain years later, after the land is developed.
All I know is that whatever the process is, it isn't very good or cost efficient for the taxpayers. There has to be a better way.
What makes you think that FDOT (or any other agency) automatically goes to eminent domain?
They always start by asking landowners to voluntarily sell their property....but most folks know that going to court usually yields a higher amount than "fair market value".
And believe me, the traffic models are plenty aggressive enough....but often building what is truly "needed" according to traffic projections is not feasible...whether because of costs, impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, etc.
Perfect example...previous models here in Jax. have shown the need for every expressway to be 8-10 lanes....how much do you think it would cost to widen I-10 or I-95 in the urban core to 8-10 lanes...or the Arlington Expressway (including the part near the sports complex)?
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 22, 2009, 09:41:12 PM
What makes you think that FDOT (or any other agency) automatically goes to eminent domain?
They always start by asking landowners to voluntarily sell their property....but most folks know that going to court usually yields a higher amount than "fair market value".
I assumed eminent domain was most prevalent and thought this to be reinforced by your previous comment that the limiting factor in land acquisition was to show "need" in eminent domain cases:
QuoteThat's called eminent domain law....you can only condemn the amount of land that you an "prove" is needed....and just so you know, FDOT's studies are usually at least 25 years out....
So, if owners voluntarily sell, can FDOT buy more land for future growth without showing "need" within 25 years or whatever? It may be worthy to pay a bit of a premium for a subject property to get a voluntary sale and avoid a "needs" test that forces the State to pay up big time in later years.
if folks voluntarily sell, an agency can acquire as much land as they want...the agency can also acquire, through eminent domnain, the amount of land needed according to their traffic studies...even if they don't use all of it right away.
A recent example of this is I-4 and I-275 in Tampa...FDOT bought enough land for 6 general use lanes, 4 special use lanes, and rail....even though they only built 6 lanes on I-4 and are building 8 lanes on I-275....as a result, the median is huge!
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 22, 2009, 11:28:57 PM
if folks voluntarily sell, an agency can acquire as much land as they want...the agency can also acquire, through eminent domnain, the amount of land needed according to their traffic studies...even if they don't use all of it right away.
A recent example of this is I-4 and I-275 in Tampa...FDOT bought enough land for 6 general use lanes, 4 special use lanes, and rail....even though they only built 6 lanes on I-4 and are building 8 lanes on I-275....as a result, the median is huge!
Now that's a model that needs to be repeated in Jax!
I believe that the landowners donated the land for JTB so it would be built through their properties. As such, it would have been nice to push for more land to support the inevitable need for bigger interchanges. With the owners controlling hundreds or thousands of acres along JTB, a few more given for future accommodations would have been a win-win for all. A missed opportunity, it would appear.
The upside to the coming congestion as development fills in is that more people may be inspired to support mass transit as a solution to the problem since expanded interchanges won't be as feasible.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 21, 2009, 07:51:43 AM
The geniuses who came up with that idea didn't know at the time that JTB would become an expressway and would be extended to the beach....that all came later!
And that "simple" flyover ramp will likely cost $50 million aone...not including any other interchange modifications!
Yeah, but what did JTB cost to build? $50 million is a drop in the bucket from that perspective.
When they decided to put JTB in as an expressway, they should have just done the I-95 flyover ramp then, as part of that construction project. Whoever thought the silly red light was OK was a real dumba$$
Does anyone have I-95-JTB master plans from when the interchange was first built? Anyone have links to land use variances over time?
I read a study a few years ago that defined the 95 ultimate configuration at 8 lanes in most sections, excluding downtown. That would place the breakdown/emergency lanes close to the sound barriers around University and Emerson.
If I-95 was widened to 8 lanes north of JTB, it would mean acquiring ROW....while there is room on the sides (between the shoulder and the noise wall), that land is being used for stormwater retention...which means finding pond sites....best guess is that would cost in the neighborhood of $15 million per mile....just for pond ROW!
as for adding or reconfiguriong ramps, its not as simple as it sounds...you either need an Interchange Modification Report (IMR) or an Interchange Justification Report (IJR), in addition to the environmental impact study....both the IMR and the IJR cost at least a million dollars and, like the PD&E study, require federal approval.....so its a 3+ year detailed planning process before design and permitting even begin.
Wash your brains out with this: QuoteVested Interests
Most believe that the land use plan guides the transportation planner. However, as Newman and Kenworthy point out, "one of the major reasons why freeways around the world have failed to cope with demand is that transport infrastructure has a profound feedback effect on land use, encouraging and promoting new development wherever the best facilities are provided (or are planned)...momentum develops which is very hard to stop. The obvious response to the failure of freeways to cope with traffic congestion is to suggest that still further roads are urgently needed. The new roads are then justified again on technical grounds in terms of time, fuel and other perceived savings to the community from eliminating the congestion. This sets in motion a vicious circle...of congestion, road building, sprawl, congestion and more road building. This is not only favorable to the vested interests of the road lobby and land developers but it also builds large and powerful government road bureaucracies whose professional actors see their future as contingent upon being able to justify large sums of money for road building...In this way road authorities can become de facto planning agencies directly shaping land use..." The immensity of these organizations is now such that approximately one out of every five dollars spent in the U.S. is related directly or indirectly to the auto industry (an industry that employs over 15 percent of the total U.S. workforce).
Supply and Demand
It seems, therefore, that we should be less concerned about eliminating "shortages" of traffic lanes and parking lots. As was pointed out above, reducing congestion may do more harm than good. As for shortages, U.S. cities provide about three to four times as much road per capita as in European cities, and 80 percent more central city parking, according to Newman and Kenworthy.
Not only do these researchers find a relative excess of space for cars, but they also argue that traffic congestion has several positive effects on a community: It reduces the number of vehicle miles traveled and therefore the amount of gasoline consumed. It also increases the viability of transit. As early as the 1960s, European cities (and more recently, certain U.S. and Canadian cities), started to acknowledge that attacking congestion was an exercise in futility. It was found that building and widening roads "was destroying cities and not helping the congestion situation either." In fact, by increasing road capacity, we are merely putting off the day of reckoning when a more rational, less auto-dependent society is forced upon us by the high cost of such dependence.
Robert Best, writing in the July 1992 issue of Land Lines (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy) also looks with disdain upon the traditional "supply-side" approach of transportation policy-makers. By investing heavily in new highways to accommodate traffic increases, Best points out that motorists are able to travel at will -- with little or no penalties (in terms of congestion delays or travel fees) to constrain their driving. Partly as a result, congestion levels have skyrocketed.
Increasing the supply by building and widening roads is akin to solving energy problems by increasing the rate of off-shore oil drilling. In other words, increasing the amount of pavement is a short-term "quick fix" which encourages further dependence on socially and environmentally destructive behavior.
Fortunately, there is a rational alternative. Today, more progressive transportation planners are using "demand management" strategies to solve traffic problems. Instead of pouring millions of dollars into neighborhood-destroying road widenings, these planners strive to reduce the amount of driving -- which is akin to the low-cost and environmentally sustainable strategy of using conservation as a solution to energy shortages. Demand management is now being employed in cities such as Boston and Los Angeles, where massive supply-side efforts in the past have led to spectacular and costly failures to eliminate traffic problems
OCKLAWAHA