10-95 Merger

[stjr]

The initial stoplight configuration was basically done to save money and the fact that the traffic wasn't as much of an issue there when it was constructed......  However, the solution will cost, at a minimum 100MM. 

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with road building protocols.  Why was JTB built to begin with?  Because dramatic growth was expected in the area it was serving.  So, why didn't they VISION/anticipate the future growth and plan for its later construction at the time rather than act surprised and spend $100 mm in the future for lack of planning?  JTB and I-95 is a story repeated hundreds or thousands of times at interstate interchanges around the U.S.  What happened there was totally predictable.  And, these guys call themselves experts?

[cline]

The initial stoplight configuration was basically done to save money and the fact that the traffic wasn't as much of an issue there when it was constructed......  However, the solution will cost, at a minimum 100MM.  

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with road building protocols.  Why was JTB built to begin with?  Because dramatic growth was expected in the area it was serving.  So, why didn't they VISION/anticipate the future growth and plan for its later construction at the time rather than act surprised and spend $100 mm in the future for lack of planning?  JTB and I-95 is a story repeated hundreds or thousands of times at interstate interchanges around the U.S.  What happened there was totally predictable.  And, these guys call themselves experts?

Well if the interchange was built initially to accommodate traffic 25-30 years into the future people would complain that we were overbuilding and spending unnecessary money to accommodate a demand that is decades away.  For example, if public money was being spent to build the Nocatee Parkway and flyover (which is around 150MM), I am pretty sure there would be collective outrage on this board since that facility won't see its capacity fulfilled for many many years.

But really the point of this all is that no matter how much capacity we build, roadway facilities will eventually become congested.  That's the fact.  Even this ultimate design alternative for JTB/I-95/US1 interchange will become congested in a couple of decades.  Bottom line, we can't build ourselves out of congestion.  This is one of the reasons that mobility options (including the Skyway) are vital.

[stjr]

^Cline, that wasn't my point.  I said where was the planning for "later construction"?  That means, why didn't JTA/FDOT acquire the needed land for the interchange and land bank it when the land was worth little and available since the road wasn't yet built.  Then, the ramps that were originally built should have been designed to be expanded in place, rather than being demolished and a new design created anew.  Also, the traffic light design should never have been used, regardless of the traffic count.  This is an interchange of two limited access highways (or should have been). 

This city is clogged with interchanges designed this way and now impossible or financially out of reach for proper correction.  Examples include Baymeadows, St. Augustine Road, SR 210, San Jose, Roosevelt, and Blanding.  How many times do we need to repeat this process before we learn our lessons?

By the way, the stop light interchange design seems to be a local/Florida favorite.  I don't see it much in other urban areas around the country.  Maybe you would like to comment on that.

[cline]

^Cline, that wasn't my point.  I said where was the planning for "later construction"?  That means, why didn't JTA/FDOT acquire the needed land for the interchange and land bank it when the land was worth little and available since the road wasn't yet built.  Then, the ramps that were originally built should have been designed to be expanded in place, rather than being demolished and a new design created anew.  Also, the traffic light design should never have been used, regardless of the traffic count.  This is an interchange of two limited access highways (or should have been).  

This city is clogged with interchanges designed this way and now impossible or financially out of reach for proper correction.  Examples include Baymeadows, St. Augustine Road, SR 210, San Jose, Roosevelt, and Blanding.  How many times do we need to repeat this process before we learn our lessons?

By the way, the stop light interchange design seems to be a local/Florida favorite.  I don't see it much in other urban areas around the country.  Maybe you would like to comment on that.

So how much extra land should they have bought?  Enough land to accommodate traffic demand in 1990, 2000, 2020, 2035, 2060 or beyond?

And stoplights at interchanges (specifically SPUIs) are used all over the country.  Its not just a FL thing.

[stjr]

So how much extra land should they have bought?  Enough land to accommodate traffic demand in 1990, 2000, 2020, 2035, 2060 or beyond?

Since there are clearly limits to the ultimate capacity/expansion of the roads servicing the interchange, they should buy enough land to match the impact on the interchange from that capacity being achieved.  The old expression, "A chain is as strong as its weakest link" should apply here.  What good is it to build out I-95 or JTB if the interchange connecting them can't service that traffic flow?

There is another alternative:  Take the hundreds of millions needed for these, often stopgap, interchange improvements and build out commuter rail for the same or less.  What do you think of placing a moratorium on interchange improvements like JTB and I-95 and putting the money toward mass transit?

[ChriswUfGator]

The initial stoplight configuration was basically done to save money and the fact that the traffic wasn't as much of an issue there when it was constructed......  However, the solution will cost, at a minimum 100MM.  

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with road building protocols.  Why was JTB built to begin with?  Because dramatic growth was expected in the area it was serving.  So, why didn't they VISION/anticipate the future growth and plan for its later construction at the time rather than act surprised and spend $100 mm in the future for lack of planning?  JTB and I-95 is a story repeated hundreds or thousands of times at interstate interchanges around the U.S.  What happened there was totally predictable.  And, these guys call themselves experts?

Well if the interchange was built initially to accommodate traffic 25-30 years into the future people would complain that we were overbuilding and spending unnecessary money to accommodate a demand that is decades away.  For example, if public money was being spent to build the Nocatee Parkway and flyover (which is around 150MM), I am pretty sure there would be collective outrage on this board since that facility won't see its capacity fulfilled for many many years.

But really the point of this all is that no matter how much capacity we build, roadway facilities will eventually become congested.  That's the fact.  Even this ultimate design alternative for JTB/I-95/US1 interchange will become congested in a couple of decades.  Bottom line, we can't build ourselves out of congestion.  This is one of the reasons that mobility options (including the Skyway) are vital.

You do have a point. There is a subset of people who complain about any government expenditure for anything. Spending an extra $30mm for future capacity, even when it is bound to save money in the long-run, would probably go over like a lead balloon.

Even though we all know it's idiotically shortsighted, expecting people to invest in something that won't bring benefits for 15 years is probably an unrealistic expectation, given the extremely polarized political climate of the past 10 years. This is the exact reason our state doesn't have reliable rail-based mass transit. It is frustrating.

[CS Foltz]

Gentlemen..............I concur! Seems to be a case of damned if we do or don't do! There is no short term or inexpensive answer for either of those situations! So what do the heck we do.........personally, if I had a choice, hold on the concrete and start for rail! Hold on the bus's and start up some rail! Can you see the direction I would like to go.........but this is just my humble opinion! I love that JTA mantra "Bus just like rail but cheaper" yeah........right!

[stjr]

You do have a point. There is a subset of people who complain about any government expenditure for anything. Spending an extra $30mm for future capacity, even when it is bound to save money in the long-run, would probably go over like a lead balloon.

In the case of FDOT projects, I don't see this as obviously valid.

Seems when it is State money (really, ours the taxpayers), there is far less scrutiny by the local populace of the cost of each road project.  FDOT is about to spend $170 million on the Overland Bridge project.  Tens and hundreds of millions more for other area roads and interchanges.  $48 million on a single ramp at 9A and I-95.  When did anyone locally complain or even question these expenditures?  My guess is, everyone figures its mostly someone else's money, i.e. they are taking it from taxpayers in other parts of the State or country (if Federal money is involved, which it usually is).  It amounts to a dash for cash.  (This is the same behavior that gave us the Skyway).

So, really, opposition from the public to spend a few more bucks to do these types of projects right is unlikely to materialize.

I suspect the better answer is that FDOT has a strong desire to extend the tentacles of its road network to the greatest extent today so it will have guaranteed "fix it" projects tomorrow.  Job security.  Cutting corners (literally  ) is the way to accomplish this.

[thelakelander]

If you were going to spend all that money, why not just make it 4 lanes or whatnot so the bottlenecks don't start up?

Put in four and it will still back up.  Have you checked out the new lanes on I-95 between JTB and Bowden?  Traffic still backs up during rush hour.  The bottleneck on I-95 just shifted north to Bowden/University where the lanes cut down from four to three northbound.  It will get worse as more development occurs on the Southside.  You can't pave your way out of congestion so why bother?  As a fiscal conservative, I would invest in a reliable mass transit alternative and let the bottlenecks happen.

The I-95 backup that starts around bowden/university daily is a direct result of whatever idiot made the exit for JTB end in a timed stoplight rather than using a flyover or cloverleaf. As a stopgap measure they added an extra "waiting lane" for people in line to exit, and this made things a little better for the rest of the traffic flow over the past couple months since it's been open.

I was talking about the situation on the northbound lanes, during morning rush hour, that I drive through every weekday.

If you fixed these congestion points, the 95/10 merge and the 95/JTB merge, the entirety of 95 between the airport and 295 would be relatively free-flowing, aside from accidents/blockages.

At what cost (financial, social, economic, etc.)?  Unless a building mortuarium goes along with improvements, relief will only be short term but the damage to the adjacent environment and neighborhoods will be long term.

Construction of MLK & I-95 through Brentwood and New Springfield


Under I-95: The once vibrant community of Sugar Hill

[Timkin]

progress

[konstantconsumer]

the annoying part of the 10-95 exchange is that so much confusion is abetted by the incorrect signs. 

[ricker]

I, like many of you, drive this expanse daily. more than once.
I am suprised to read that folks truly believe that the previous iteration of this junction was superior to what we will have at completion!
I cannot complain about the successful elimination of cross-weave maneuvers no longer required by motorists entering this zone.
If you cannot simply zoom out your focus and see that all is streamlined by designating I-10 Eastbound lanes 1 and 2 as thru lanes directly to !-95 north or south and all right-hand lanes are local exit/merge lanes.. . from McDuff to Adams DT_stay on a train and bypass town altogether kids.
I cannot agree that what we had before was better=safer.
sell me on that one!>?

Oh and entering 10 EAST from Stockton, seeking 95 North?  no problem. Left side turn signals flashing, checking my mirrors, that lane ends at Forest, and move over one more, and that's it.
If that's too aggressive for you then you should mosey on around via Edison and Irene streets and enter 95N from Forest St. if merging freaks you out.  But really, the old way was better!? c'mon joking right?

[ChriswUfGator]

I, like many of you, drive this expanse daily. more than once.
I am suprised to read that folks truly believe that the previous iteration of this junction was superior to what we will have at completion!
I cannot complain about the successful elimination of cross-weave maneuvers no longer required by motorists entering this zone.
If you cannot simply zoom out your focus and see that all is streamlined by designating I-10 Eastbound lanes 1 and 2 as thru lanes directly to !-95 north or south and all right-hand lanes are local exit/merge lanes.. . from McDuff to Adams DT_stay on a train and bypass town altogether kids.
I cannot agree that what we had before was better=safer.
sell me on that one!>?

Oh and entering 10 EAST from Stockton, seeking 95 North?  no problem. Left side turn signals flashing, checking my mirrors, that lane ends at Forest, and move over one more, and that's it.
If that's too aggressive for you then you should mosey on around via Edison and Irene streets and enter 95N from Forest St. if merging freaks you out.  But really, the old way was better!? c'mon joking right?

In my opinion, yeah. You have a valid point about everyone from Riverside who needed to enter at Stockton and then jack over 6 lanes to take 95 North, the new design certainly did clear that problem up somewhat since you only have to move one or two lanes now. But the rest of it, I mean, the proof's in the pudding. I drove through there yesterday at 3pm, coming from Springfield. It was not even rush hour yet, and 95 South was backed up well past the post office, probably almost to 8th street. 10 East was congested too.

Yes some little changes they made were improvements, but overall I have to say no, the traffic doesn't flow as well. Some of that undoubtedly has to do with the confusing/misleading/lack of signage, so I'm hoping it gets better as they finish installing the rest of the signs. And as far as safety goes, there probably has been an improvement in that, it's pretty hard to get hurt when you're only moving 10 miles an hour.

[spuwho]

So how much extra land should they have bought?  Enough land to accommodate traffic demand in 1990, 2000, 2020, 2035, 2060 or beyond?

Since there are clearly limits to the ultimate capacity/expansion of the roads servicing the interchange, they should buy enough land to match the impact on the interchange from that capacity being achieved.  The old expression, "A chain is as strong as its weakest link" should apply here.  What good is it to build out I-95 or JTB if the interchange connecting them can't service that traffic flow?

There is another alternative:  Take the hundreds of millions needed for these, often stopgap, interchange improvements and build out commuter rail for the same or less.  What do you think of placing a moratorium on interchange improvements like JTB and I-95 and putting the money toward mass transit?

Hey STJR;

I think it has been mentioned in other parts of this site, but JTB was never envisioned as a major arterial between Southside and I-95. The original plan was to have the Hart Bridge Expressway come all the way down to a place near the JTB/Southside interchange.

When that plan was blocked, they routed JTB over the original Belfort Road ROW which used to curve west at St Lukes and intersect with Philips Highway. What you see today between I-95 and Philips is a remnant of that old Belfort Road alignment. That is why JTB takes that funny jog to the south west of Belfort.

Now to some people's credit, they did purchase a significant portion of land in and around Bonneval & Philips & I-95 to facilitate a future interchange. That is what they are planning to use in the current proposals.

With no more existing rail between the city core and the beach, (The FEC Mayport Line was torn out in 1936) only a totally new solution could be built as a transit option.

[stjr]

Spuwho, you bring up another failure of our road planners:  Failure to have the bird-in-hand (i.e. an approved MASTER plan) before starting a project and then sticking to it.  If the Hart connection you allude to was not nailed down, then why was JTB even started?

This is the same issue that plagues most of Jax transit, downtown, and other public projects:  Failure to properly vision, design, and faithfully execute a comprehensive plan.  How many projects here disappoint, fail, or don't function adequately because of this affliction?  Lots.