QuoteFederal stimulus money first earmarked for other work could pay to start construction of the long-planned Florida 9B highway in southern Jacksonville, a state spokesman said Thursday.
“We’re focusing on projects that move the most people, and 9B is high on that list,†said Dick Kane, a Department of Transportation spokesman.
The first work would apparently involve some of the route between Florida 9A and U.S. 1 near Bayard, although the parameters of any project aren’t clear.
QuoteA project list the state developed last December to weigh possible stimulus work considered two 9B projects. One running north of U.S. 1 was projected at that time to involve about $105 million in design-build contracts and total costs topping $125 million. A smaller project, referred to as the 9B stub, was projected to involve more than $30 million in design-build work and about $38 million in total costs.
full article: http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-09-17/story/stimulus_leftovers_could_jump_start_9b_construction
(http://www.house.gov/mica/Images/SR9B.jpg)
Will it be profitable?
^Agreed. If we're supposed to hold public transit to that standard, why not roads?
Other than potential tax basis increase from development (which rail also brings), how will 9b pay to maintain itself? Will we see a profitable return on investment or will it be a multi-million dollar boondogle (with the added bonus of more car-based sprawl)?
I would hope there would be better -- let alone more sustainable uses -- for leftover stimulus money than 9b.
The only positive I even see is a new interchange near Racetrack Road for Julington Creek. That'll help relieve traffic from Old St Aug. Road and especially from San Jose Blvd.
The biggest negative, it'll ruin the Bayard area.
I've stated my opinion on this one too many times.
All I can say now is "whoopie!" :(
I see potential for developers to have at it.............gee that's enough land to put many many subdivisions into place..........but where is the rail? I just see more asphalt and concrete and developers salivating!
sure there's plenty of land....but the area north of I-95 won't really open up because there's no access to it from the road.
tufsu1..........if you have a main artery traveling though, it is only a question of time before developers start something the taxpayers will have to finish! I made a trip toward Palatka down 206 off of 95 and that stretch which only 6 years ago was pretty empty and it's already starting to build up! It is only a question of time and I still have to ask............where is the rail at?? We have to have more than just asphalt/concrete to travel on then we do now, so why ain't it happening?
Good question Stephen...why is it so hard to understand?
There is a big difference between a road (like a collector or arterial) that provides access to adjacent parcels and an expressway which does not.....the only development generated by construction of a expressway is off roads that "interchange" with the expressway....in the case of SR 9B, that would only be US 1 (which of course already has development potential/pressure without 9B).
Now clearly the 9B extension and the associated CR 2209 extension could lead to more development in St. Johns County, but the first leg of the road will not.
All that notwithstanding, I am not a big fan of SR 9B....but it has to do with the excessive/unnecessary cost, not the potential for new suburban development.
tufsu1 ...........I agree with "excessive and unnecessary cost" aspect. But looking ahead at a ten year time line, it would be an invite for developers to get involved simply because right now land is cheap and an open spot such as that is an invite that most large developers would not pass up on. I also agree that the interchanges would be the first spots to get enhanced and that will lead to even more development. I would mention the Merrill Road area as an example. Ten years ago that was a two lane highway, 9A had not been installed and what was there then? Not a lot at all, but look at it now! Southside connector was a minor road, two lane and what is there now? Strip Malls out the wazoo, Condos going up on both sides, Apartments and the like and its is increasing...........nice that we are gaining a tax base but at what cost?
All I have to say is DOWN WITH MANDARIN and SOUTHSIDE. Destroy it all with concrete, stop lights and Mickey Dees!
9B is not a bad highway project at all. Oh My God, did Ock say that? YEP! Anyone who drives I-95 south of downtown, can look around and see container trucks speeding south on the super slab. They already shuffle around downtown from Blount Island, and Talleyrand Terminals. When the new terminal is built out, it will be fully automated, able to handle more containers, more diversity, and quicker load or turn around times then any other terminal in the country. We are talking about a MILLION more 18 wheelers of which a good 30-50% are headed south. Don't worry about it now, just wait until 5:15 at I-95 and JTB, or Southside, or I-295. This will be the nearest thing to gridlock this city has seen since pulling up the streetcars in 1936. 9-B is a short JAXPORT reliever. A simple east side bypass, that will shoot south to tap 95 and US1 miles below the current choke points.
I could see a need for it as far as SR210, I can also see the need for a better river crossing at the Shand's Bridge. As for the rest of the planned fantasy belt, I could see a traffic reliever running from I-10 so SR21 Blanding Bl, down in Middleburg, but that's about it for now.
OCKLAWAHA
I'm a guessing your referring to "Old Middleburg Road" Ock? Either way a great idea for any concrete/asphalt company but hell on wheels for the people who already live there. If the stupid Dames Point Facility had rail to begin with rather than after the fact........would make a world of difference today and tomorrow!
9B and the Outer Beltway are two different projects. Are you guys aware of their price tags?
SR 9B (I-95 to SR 9A) - $164 million for 4.7 miles
SR 9B (I-95 to Racetrack Road) - $12 million for 0.7 miles
First Coast Outer Beltway (I-95 to US 17) - $1.8 billion for 13.2 miles
First Coast Outer Beltway (US 17 to Blanding) - N/A for 17.3 miles
First Coast Outer Beltway (Blanding to I-10) - N/A for 15.4 miles
I don't see either of these streets as really being relievers for traffic on I-95, I-295, I-10 or port traffic. I see them opening up fresh virgin soil for future development. Even 9B can do this around US 1, with the simple extension of service roads paralleling the highway to provide visual exposure to the undeveloped land it will cut through. Imo, there are other options for dealing with future anticipated traffic that are worth exploring and more affordable. This isn't the 1970s and 1980s, so additional highway expansion projects don't have to be your final answer.
lake you will get no argument from me there! Cost is ridiculous on a per mile basis and yes I think there are better ways to do the same thing! As I stated before..........both a 9A and 9B extension will just open the area up for developers.........plain and simple! Our tax dollars hard at work getting ready to make money for developers! Now if a developer wanted to foot the bill for the extensions that would be something else but I don't see that happening............I mean that would throw the bottom line out the window so to speak!
Which is why they should be required to to it for all new development. A desirable urban core can enhance property values throughout a city and its suburbs. More sprawl will beget more sprawl.
They are supposed to pay for area enhancements through a special fee...........forgot the name of the darn thing but it is supposed to be used for traffic upgrades, sewer, water, power and the like. Somehow the Council, in it's infinite wisdom seldom used it at the area that was being developed. Here at Linkside, when DR Horton bought the old Golf Course, he was going to have to pay something like 900K! Of course since that did not come to be, never heard anything further about it! But there is some kind of a tax,special fee or whatever that is added to permitting and the like!
IIRC, the developers of Nocatee were held responsible for redoing 210 as well as the racetrack road connector.
Most of that is in St Johns County, if that makes any difference. Methinks there are some unhappy folks dealing with those costs in this market.
Yes I have been down there...........nice set up! Cell tower down there I had to visit just before bridge about a year ago and the roadway is done very nicely but all developers should be held to those standards. If they wish to build then they need to build the roads also! Not let tax dollars do it for them and they take it from there!
Agreed.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 22, 2009, 06:40:21 AM
9B and the Outer Beltway are two different projects. Are you guys aware of their price tags?
SR 9B (I-95 to SR 9A) - $164 million for 4.7 miles
SR 9B (I-95 to Racetrack Road) - $12 million for 0.7 miles
First Coast Outer Beltway (I-95 to US 17) - $1.8 billion for 13.2 miles
First Coast Outer Beltway (US 17 to Blanding) - N/A for 17.3 miles
First Coast Outer Beltway (Blanding to I-10) - N/A for 15.4 miles
I don't see either of these streets as really being relievers for traffic on I-95, I-295, I-10 or port traffic. I see them opening up fresh virgin soil for future development. Even 9B can do this around US 1, with the simple extension of service roads paralleling the highway to provide visual exposure to the undeveloped land it will cut through. Imo, there are other options for dealing with future anticipated traffic that are worth exploring and more affordable. This isn't the 1970s and 1980s, so additional highway expansion projects don't have to be your final answer.
pretty sure I know where these costs came from...and as such, you should be aware that the 9B segment from I-95 to Racetrack is low....the $12 million doesn't include the extra ramps that would need to be built at I-95....so the real cost is probably closer to $75 million
Wow. Any idea on the full cost of the Outer Beltway between US 17 and I-10?
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 22, 2009, 09:38:42 AM
pretty sure I know where these costs came from...and as such, you should be aware that the 9B segment from I-95 to Racetrack is low....the $12 million doesn't include the extra ramps that would need to be built at I-95....so the real cost is probably closer to $75 million
WOW! For less than 5 miles with no revenue coming from it? It doesn't take a genius to see that this falls way short of what $75 mil could do for a rail line.
Make 9B a toll connector, end of discussion.
Not to pile on Ock, but I too disagree with the necessity of 9B for a truck traffic reliever. If the truck will aready be cruising on I95 and 9A all that will be necessary are some upgrades to the I95/I295 south interchange. I was designed to allow for future expansion. The current bottleneck is the western side of the interchange. If your correct in saying that the additional truck traffic will be related to the port, they will all use the eastern portion of the interchange and steer clear of the bottleneck. For the same money or less we can upgrade the interchange and save millions of acres of untouched land the destructive fate of development.
Besides, 9B will do nothing more than ease access from northern St. Johns to southern Duval allowing for more of the Duval tax base to live south of the border. IMO, making it easier to live in the burbs does nothing for Jacksonville or the region, for that matter.
^ The Captain supports this post.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 22, 2009, 09:41:03 AM
Wow. Any idea on the full cost of the Outer Beltway between US 17 and I-10?
The Outer Beltway cost shown of $1.8 billion is correct....and is for the full 46 miles from I-10 to I-95.
Not sure how much the portion from I-10 to US 17 is....but the part from I-10 to Blanding is about 1/3 of the total cost.
" A billion here, a billion there; after a while it adds up to real money", - Everett Dirkson, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives circa 1965.
I do agree with the general concensus........9B extensions won't do much except allow developers to create more Homes etc........etc! Money could be better spent for HSR/LR but thats just my take!
You might not know that in our last Legislative session, the requirement for "concurrency", that the developers had to pay part of the cost of road expansion, was lifted in the cause of "stimulating the construction industry."
Now the taxpayer has to bear the full costs of expanding the roads to accommodate new development.
Don't you feel better now?
Not so much.
"concurrency"............thats the word, much thanks there Dog Walker! I believe that Daniel Davis had a finger in its removal.........gee I could not guess why?
Well, sucks to be us, because if 9B is not built at least to I-95 South, here is what we have today.
I-95 124,000 cars daily With the projects Port Traffic we'd be looking at adding 2,740 Container Trucks, which is equal to about 5 auto lengths each.
In my book, while I hate the sprawl, I live in it! In fact I always have, Portland, Los Angeles, Fresno, OKC, Lake Mary, Jax (several times). The only time I escaped, was while hanging in a commune near Yosemite, laying on a blanket while a dozen naked nymphs danced around us! (If you don't understand might I suggest the movie "Taking Woodstock!" It's a sort of "This was your life" type of film.
Back to the roads, consider each of those 2,740 trucks are going to smash the freeway into so much broken gravel. Drive I-95 under the I-295 South interchange to see this in action. One truck, passing a given point, will do the damage of 8,000 auto trips over the same slab. So if we follow the idea of "fixing" the South 95/295 interchanges how much will it cost us not only in maintenance, but also in auto repair? Taking these rigs through downtown from the port is a really bad idea, get them on 9-A/9-B and out of town. Keep them off of the already overcrowded 95. Just the bandaid on 95 is going to cost us dearly.
OCKLAWAHA
Ock.....I agree! Band Aid's will not get it! Stupid City did not take rail into account to begin with and trying to do something about now is like letting the fox into the hen house! All of that truck traffic running 9A out onto 95 will just expedite roadway failures.........and what irritates me the most is not only do I get to pay for now but I will get to pay for it in the future also! Stupid City and lack of a plan or a vision just burns my butt! But Hay...........gonna make all that money for the Dames Point Facility! All of which I will not see one iota of!
Ock, what's the difference between "fixing" the I95/I295 interchange we already have versus the additional cost of building and maintaining a new section of highway and interchange further south?
The truck will already be using 9A and I95 between the terminal and I295. Why add more roadway and another interchange to the mix that will also be used by the same truck traffic?
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 25, 2009, 12:21:27 PM
Well, sucks to be us, because if 9B is not built at least to I-95 South, here is what we have today.
I-95 124,000 cars daily With the projects Port Traffic we'd be looking at adding 2,740 Container Trucks, which is equal to about 5 auto lengths each.
In my book, while I hate the sprawl, I live in it! In fact I always have, Portland, Los Angeles, Fresno, OKC, Lake Mary, Jax (several times). The only time I escaped, was while hanging in a commune near Yosemite, laying on a blanket while a dozen naked nymphs danced around us! (If you don't understand might I suggest the movie "Taking Woodstock!" It's a sort of "This was your life" type of film.
Back to the roads, consider each of those 2,740 trucks are going to smash the freeway into so much broken gravel. Drive I-95 under the I-295 South interchange to see this in action. One truck, passing a given point, will do the damage of 8,000 auto trips over the same slab. So if we follow the idea of "fixing" the South 95/295 interchanges how much will it cost us not only in maintenance, but also in auto repair? Taking these rigs through downtown from the port is a really bad idea, get them on 9-A/9-B and out of town. Keep them off of the already overcrowded 95. Just the bandaid on 95 is going to cost us dearly.
OCKLAWAHA
Shouldn't the vast majority of this container traffic be transported via rail?
Tell that to CSX, who has talked about a yard out by the port.
Also, put the S-Line back and and transfer some of the truck traffic to FEC rail. You eliminate some port traffic off the highway and have the rail needed for commuter service for a fraction of the cost. Freeway construction isn't the only answer to dealing with traffic congestion.
Yes, but apparently FDOT hasn't received that memo yet.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 25, 2009, 12:58:10 PM
Also, put the S-Line back and and transfer some of the truck traffic to FEC rail. You eliminate some port traffic off the highway and have the rail needed for commuter service for a fraction of the cost. Freeway construction isn't the only answer to dealing with traffic congestion.
AH! HA! OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Jason on September 25, 2009, 12:39:43 PM
Ock, what's the difference between "fixing" the I95/I295 interchange we already have versus the additional cost of building and maintaining a new section of highway and interchange further south?
The truck will already be using 9A and I95 between the terminal and I295. Why add more roadway and another interchange to the mix that will also be used by the same truck traffic?
Actually Jason, CS and others, it really wouldn't make a huge difference if the traffic joined at the current 295-95 interchange, by adding lanes and bridges. The rub would come when it's evening rush and those big trucks start backing up on 9A all the way back to Baymeadows Road. Meanwhile over on 95, it's already stopped from downtown to SR210. Nothing another 1,000 trucks or so would hurt. (smile).
My contention is 9B is the nearest thing to a TRUCK-WAY (as opposed to BRT Busways) we'll ever see. If we simply MUST use concrete for the answer to every transportation related problem, then 9B is the lesser of two evils. At least commuters wouldn't have to deal with this until they reached the 9B/210 exit/interchange.
Lakelander gets the prize for figuring out my play on this subject. RAIL IS LESS COSTLY AND WE ALREADY HAVE THE SOLUTION BUILT! Damn Jacksonville! Just Damn!OCKLAWAHA
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/41763727.jpg)
Lets call this photo, REALITY CHECK - JACKSONVILLE!
OCKLAWAHA
Ock.........I agree to a point. Rail should have been the first choice for moving freight in and out of the Dames Point Facility not trucks! I was raising hell on the JOL Forum when that first came up. 9A was discussed as the primary moving artery for both in and out and the plan then was to widen and beef up that road. We, the taxpayers, were going to pay for that enhancement knowing full well it would have to be redone within 3 years tops again. Rail was not discussed at that time and now it is! Lack of planning, thanks to Mr Ferrin and his expertise, but road is not the answer. This is one time that rail should have been integrated from the very start rather than after the fact. Whatever route is used will have to be redone within several years just due to the weights traveling over it...........so a 9A or 9B extension is just a bandaid plus it will allow developers to do their thing in that area and once again...........we get to pay for it!