Where Jacksonville Ranks: Freeway Lane Miles Per Capita

[Bewler]

so basically you support building a new expressway on the edge of downtown...and that would be different from I-95 how?

It wouldn't. I already said it's pretty much impossible to get 95 to go directly through our city at this point. This would just be an easier way to get to the stadium from 95 and might encourage more people driving through to actually visit our downtown if it took them to actual destinations.

Not to mention if you did have to do any demo it would be the homes of the people on the south bank who have kept us from having an awesome music venue at Met Park. So preferably we could bulldoze their houses while they were in them.

[JFman00]

so basically you support building a new expressway on the edge of downtown...and that would be different from I-95 how?

It wouldn't. I already said it's pretty much impossible to get 95 to go directly through our city at this point. This would just be an easier way to get to the stadium from 95 and might encourage more people driving through to actually visit our downtown if it took them to actual destinations.

Not to mention if you did have to do any demo it would be the homes of the people on the south bank who have kept us from having an awesome music venue at Met Park. So preferably we could bulldoze their houses while they were in them.

There is absolutely no need to run a highway through a CBD or urban neighborhood to get people to visit. In fact, doing so often accomplishes just the opposite. There's a reason why New Orleans is working towards pulling down the Claiborne, why Seattle is pulling down the Alaskan Way Viaduct, why San Fran didn't replace the Embarcadero, why New Yorkers so strenuously objected to Moses proposed roadways, why Niagra Falls is removing its Robert Moses State Parkway, and why Portland removed its Harbor Drive Expressway. The examples go on.

Rerouting 95/10 would only further disrupt urban neighborhoods, wreck the existing street grid and serve no benefit bar making it easier for people to get crosstown without having to spend time in-between. If that last goal is what you desire, by all means, let's keep destroying downtown. Just remember, you can't be a suburb of nowhere.

[Bewler]

Man, you guys are ridiculous sometimes.

You make one proposal (that no one bothers to fully read and comprehend apparently) and suddenly you "support" it as a plan. As if I'm flying the flag of an ideology.

Sorry didn't realize you guys hated suggestions.

If that last goal is what you desire, by all means, let's keep destroying downtown. Just remember, you can't be a suburb of nowhere.

At what point did I ever mention wanting to destroy downtown? Go ahead, re-read my comments and tell me.

[JFman00]

Dumping another high-volume roadway onto Bay St would be a great way to discourage efficient land-use (pedestrian-friendly/transit-oriented development). With the Main St bridge, Hart Bridge and ridiculously car-friendly State/Union St pairing, I fail to see how the Sports District is insufficiently accessible by auto.

I think the disagreement here is your initial contention that having I-95 cut through downtown would have been the ideal situation to start with.

[tufsu1]

I think the disagreement here is your initial contention that having I-95 cut through downtown would have been the ideal situation to start with.

exactly

[Bewler]

Alright fine, instead of through DT it can just go over it.

[David]

Nope, that would be an elevated highway. They cast dark shadows to the properties that line it below and create a sense of disconnect in the community.  You're no good at pretend city planning Bewler!

[JFman00]

Alright fine, instead of through DT it can just go over it.

The majority of my examples were arguments against doing just that; that building more limited-access roadway anywhere downtown is a backward and wasteful idea. Road projects that reduce the impact on their surroundings are often good ideas (Big Dig, Alaskan Way tunnel replacement, Congress Parkway bridge reconstruction in Chicago), but costs often spiral out of control especially when they involve going below-grade. The argument nowadays is for urban roadways to integrate and improve their surroundings by being friendly to multiple forms of transit, especially pedestrians.

[Bewler]

Well I was just trying to find a good compromise David. If I had things my way I would have 95 cut a path of destruction through DT starting with the Modis building (ideally this would occur during the middle of a work day to kill as many people as possible) and then widen it to twenty lanes on each side for no reason.

But that's just me.

[JFman00]

You might be joking but the scary thing is that it happens, and there are people out there that would take such a suggestion quite seriously. Look at Pensacola's I-110. They destroyed 30 blocks of neighborhood, and relatively recently expanded it to 6 lanes.