State Rd 9B

[fsujax]

Imagine the outcry if we were proposing to spend $30 million a mile on a transit project and that amout is only for 5.5 miles of road. Disgusting. I-795 is not needed. Just like 675, 985 and 575 really do not do much to help traffic in metro Atlanta, except dump more cars onto an already crowded highway network and cause huge choke points.

[Gators312]

Not sure there can be a conspiracy theory on land use when the ROW and centerline for I-795 (9B) was struck and acquired many years ago. Plenty of time for a property to turn over several times before the actual road was built.  However I did find it somewhat convenient on how the state designed a bridge for a future interchange behind Bayard that connects to nothing. Davis family can say thanks for that!

LOL, what other reason is there for the road?  You don't really believe we build these things to relieve traffic congestion do you?  I agree that this isn't a conspiracy. This is just typical business and it's been going on across the country for decades.

Exactly Lake.   Not a conspiracy, but I think there would be much more scrutiny of how our tax dollars are spent if more people understood what is going on.   

If they really cared about relieving congestion you wouldn't see the Clay County portion routed in the way they have planned.  This is all about opening up land for development by Reinhold and other well connected parties in all 3 counties.   The former head of FLDOT Kopelousos was hired as County Manager. What does that tell you about the GOB network and making sure they get what they want.   

[control]

Just when I thought they were done cutting, more clearing has started within the last week.  Looks like they are prepping land for the feeder/distrubutor lanes on the south end of the interchange.

second phase going through to I-95

maybe starting to clear for the Bass Pro Shop, scheduled to open in roughly the area you are describing in 9 months


Right, but the land appeard to be completely cleared for the interchange and within the last week they have started clearing even more.  Mainly on the southwest side of the highway.  Just amazes me how much "has" to be cut down for this thing.

[thelakelander]

I doubt it. I don't believe Bass Pro is an official go at this point.

[edjax]

They show St Johns County on their website as future store. 

[thelakelander]

For comparison's sake, Fuddrucker's claimed they were coming to the Jacksonville Landing.  They've even went as far as pulling a building permit and doing some initial construction.  THis went on for a few years before we finally accepted it wasn't going to happen.

With that said, Bass Pro isn't opening that store until they can get access from I-95.  At this point, I don't believe funding to extend anything south of the I-95/SR 9B interchange has been found or approved.  Even if funding were rapidly found, I'd seriously doubt construction would already be underway. Government doesn't work that fast.

[edjax]

According to their website the key was when the state funded the 9B/l95 interchange.  So it would appear that was the key.  Agree clearing now probably not for them at this point as the interchange will not be done until 2016 but it would appear they plan to open prior to Phase 3 of 9B

[thelakelander]

Yeah, they won't be able to open until they have access from the new interchange to Race Track Road.  That's the part that isn't funded.  Maybe St. Johns County will pay to build it?

[tufsu1]

the issue of who will build Phase 3 of 9B has not been resolved yet...and it most likely won't get built until 2016...so don't expect to see Bass Pro Shops before then

[Jason]

Land clearing continues.  Jersey barriers are up on the northbound side of I95, and the sound walls continue to rise...

[themathochist]

Understood, but how does one subsidize a road designed as part of a national network? You will never see densities that will pay for I-71 through Redhaw, Ohio. Your subsidy discussion assumes that all roads must have adjoining densities to validate their existence. That approach doesn't make sense when you are designing as part of a national system.

Is I-795 needed as part of the national system? Probably not. Is it needed as part of a regional transportation system. Probably. Is it needed to get from Nocatee/St Johns to the Edge City? As evidenced by the backup on 295 East from Philips Hwy to the future 795 merge this morning, I would say yes.

I believe the national network would be just fine without the Outer Beltway and 9B.  History indicates that cities like Portland and Memphis didn't suffer when they stopped expressways from penetrating their cores.  Others like Milwaukee have actually seen more economic development from taking existing expressways down.

Being in the transportation planning industry, I've seen the data behind enough models used to justify projects like this that I'm highly skeptical of them in general.  I really wish we'd just admit we do these things to open up cheap land to new development opportunity and to keep the road construction industry alive. 

I-295 backs up because of a bottleneck caused by a reduction in northbound lanes at an interchange where you also have traffic trying to merge in from an on-ramp.  Such a situation can be resolved without investing a couple of hundred million on a new highway a few miles south.  The same thing still occurs on I-295 westbound where I-95 traffic merges in heading to Mandarin and Orange Park.  On top of that, the construction of the 9B ramp, resulting through lanes shifting through the construction site doesn't help with rush hour traffic flow either.  A cheaper option would have been to six lane 9A/I-295 from the start.  Now we're paying for 9B and toll lanes in I-295.

With that said, I believe a portion of 9B was actually funded with stimulus dollars.  So one could argue it's a "jobs" project.

I take I-295 to 9A every day to work and it makes me really mad to see how 9B has made the traffic around the interchange EVEN WORSE. Now, not only is there heavy traffic due to lane reduction and on-ramp merging from Phillips Hwy, we also have another traffic snag just a few hundred feet further along, where 9B merges with 9A and there is yet another set of lane reduction. A simple widening of lanes would have been a better option for both traffic and reduction in sprawl.

[spuwho]

Understood, but how does one subsidize a road designed as part of a national network? You will never see densities that will pay for I-71 through Redhaw, Ohio. Your subsidy discussion assumes that all roads must have adjoining densities to validate their existence. That approach doesn't make sense when you are designing as part of a national system.

Is I-795 needed as part of the national system? Probably not. Is it needed as part of a regional transportation system. Probably. Is it needed to get from Nocatee/St Johns to the Edge City? As evidenced by the backup on 295 East from Philips Hwy to the future 795 merge this morning, I would say yes.

I believe the national network would be just fine without the Outer Beltway and 9B.  History indicates that cities like Portland and Memphis didn't suffer when they stopped expressways from penetrating their cores.  Others like Milwaukee have actually seen more economic development from taking existing expressways down.

Being in the transportation planning industry, I've seen the data behind enough models used to justify projects like this that I'm highly skeptical of them in general.  I really wish we'd just admit we do these things to open up cheap land to new development opportunity and to keep the road construction industry alive. 

I-295 backs up because of a bottleneck caused by a reduction in northbound lanes at an interchange where you also have traffic trying to merge in from an on-ramp.  Such a situation can be resolved without investing a couple of hundred million on a new highway a few miles south.  The same thing still occurs on I-295 westbound where I-95 traffic merges in heading to Mandarin and Orange Park.  On top of that, the construction of the 9B ramp, resulting through lanes shifting through the construction site doesn't help with rush hour traffic flow either.  A cheaper option would have been to six lane 9A/I-295 from the start.  Now we're paying for 9B and toll lanes in I-295.

With that said, I believe a portion of 9B was actually funded with stimulus dollars.  So one could argue it's a "jobs" project.

I take I-295 to 9A every day to work and it makes me really mad to see how 9B has made the traffic around the interchange EVEN WORSE. Now, not only is there heavy traffic due to lane reduction and on-ramp merging from Phillips Hwy, we also have another traffic snag just a few hundred feet further along, where 9B merges with 9A and there is yet another set of lane reduction. A simple widening of lanes would have been a better option for both traffic and reduction in sprawl.

I agree on one point here. I have been observing the backup there since it opened. 295 East is 3 lanes from 95 to just east of Philips highway, where it declines to 2 lanes. Goes under 9b, and then merges with the 2 lanes of 9B and back to 2 lanes once again!  So it causes two kinds of backups now.

I tried using 295 East at evening rush and its a waste of time. The issues are the same as traffic restacks itself after so many lane reductions. It doesn't clear until past Baymeadows (but backs up again north of JTB)

Something got left out when FDOT had the 9A/9B interchange redesigned to reduce costs. I will have to go back and look at the original layout FDOT had in mind and see what got dropped.

They were discussing adding a 3rd lane on the 295 East Beltway between 9B and Merrill Road, but with the Overland Bridge project in flight, and the need to reconstruct 95 between University and 295 in the south, it might be a few years before it is done.

[mbwright]

You would think that after all these years, freeways could be properly designed for traffic flow.  I recall when the Buckman bridge reopened, they had to do a bunch or redos to the merging lanes between UNF and Mandarin.  Seems like they did the most complicated way possible, but was later redone.  I don't think the traffic engineers, road engineers talk to each other, or drive.

[carpnter]

Understood, but how does one subsidize a road designed as part of a national network? You will never see densities that will pay for I-71 through Redhaw, Ohio. Your subsidy discussion assumes that all roads must have adjoining densities to validate their existence. That approach doesn't make sense when you are designing as part of a national system.

Is I-795 needed as part of the national system? Probably not. Is it needed as part of a regional transportation system. Probably. Is it needed to get from Nocatee/St Johns to the Edge City? As evidenced by the backup on 295 East from Philips Hwy to the future 795 merge this morning, I would say yes.

I believe the national network would be just fine without the Outer Beltway and 9B.  History indicates that cities like Portland and Memphis didn't suffer when they stopped expressways from penetrating their cores.  Others like Milwaukee have actually seen more economic development from taking existing expressways down.

Being in the transportation planning industry, I've seen the data behind enough models used to justify projects like this that I'm highly skeptical of them in general.  I really wish we'd just admit we do these things to open up cheap land to new development opportunity and to keep the road construction industry alive. 

I-295 backs up because of a bottleneck caused by a reduction in northbound lanes at an interchange where you also have traffic trying to merge in from an on-ramp.  Such a situation can be resolved without investing a couple of hundred million on a new highway a few miles south.  The same thing still occurs on I-295 westbound where I-95 traffic merges in heading to Mandarin and Orange Park.  On top of that, the construction of the 9B ramp, resulting through lanes shifting through the construction site doesn't help with rush hour traffic flow either.  A cheaper option would have been to six lane 9A/I-295 from the start.  Now we're paying for 9B and toll lanes in I-295.

With that said, I believe a portion of 9B was actually funded with stimulus dollars.  So one could argue it's a "jobs" project.

I take I-295 to 9A every day to work and it makes me really mad to see how 9B has made the traffic around the interchange EVEN WORSE. Now, not only is there heavy traffic due to lane reduction and on-ramp merging from Phillips Hwy, we also have another traffic snag just a few hundred feet further along, where 9B merges with 9A and there is yet another set of lane reduction. A simple widening of lanes would have been a better option for both traffic and reduction in sprawl.

I agree on one point here. I have been observing the backup there since it opened. 295 East is 3 lanes from 95 to just east of Philips highway, where it declines to 2 lanes. Goes under 9b, and then merges with the 2 lanes of 9B and back to 2 lanes once again!  So it causes two kinds of backups now.

I tried using 295 East at evening rush and its a waste of time. The issues are the same as traffic restacks itself after so many lane reductions. It doesn't clear until past Baymeadows (but backs up again north of JTB)

Something got left out when FDOT had the 9A/9B interchange redesigned to reduce costs. I will have to go back and look at the original layout FDOT had in mind and see what got dropped.

They were discussing adding a 3rd lane on the 295 East Beltway between 9B and Merrill Road, but with the Overland Bridge project in flight, and the need to reconstruct 95 between University and 295 in the south, it might be a few years before it is done.

What got left out was any semblance of common sense by the designer/engineer.  They have 4 lanes reducing down to two in less than a mile, I am not a traffic engineer and I could have told them that was going to be a problem.  What they should have done is reduce 9B down to 1 lane before it merges into 295N and then either let that one lane merge into the right lane of 295N or extend it all the way to Baymeadows Rd where it would become an exit only lane.  The way they have it designed now is beyond riciculous. 

[pierre]

What got left out was any semblance of common sense by the designer/engineer.  They have 4 lanes reducing down to two in less than a mile, I am not a traffic engineer and I could have told them that was going to be a problem.  What they should have done is reduce 9B down to 1 lane before it merges into 295N and then either let that one lane merge into the right lane of 295N or extend it all the way to Baymeadows Rd where it would become an exit only lane.  The way they have it designed now is beyond riciculous.

I was going to post something similar. Why not bring 9B down to one lane prior to it merging with 9A. It would seem like an easy fix.

Maybe I just haven't been to enough cities, but it sure seems like we have more "lane endings" and "merger lanes" than any city I have been to.