FDOT finds $120 million: Fuller Warren to be widened

[Kay]

Hope you all are sending your comments/concerns to the FDOT please.

[icarus]

I'm probably really going to regret this but ....

(1) is the area potentially impacted by eminent domain involve anything other than a commercial building and some minor non-historic structures? And, would the proposed improvements further encroach on Annie Lytle to the point DOT condemns the structure?

(2) did anyone ever truly believe that RAM would never be impacted by either road construction or maintenance??

(3) in looking at the proposed flyover for US-17, while admittedly raising the traffic in the air, it does seem to push it further away from the existing residential.  also, the back-up from US-17 is a major factor in the congestion on the fuller warren and at the stockton ramp.  So, of all the proposals doesn't the US-17 ramp make most sense?

It seems to me that the flyover to US-17 and the correction of the ramp from Stockton to I-95 would correct most of the issues complained of. 

As someone trying to get to my kids on the other side of the river (san marco) from Roosevelt at rush hour, I have found that I have no options.... gridlock on I-10, traffic jams on park and riverside (not that rushing through residential area should be an answer), and no real effective way to utilize acosta or hart heading east.

There are some real traffic issues albeit only during peak times. I understand the opposition to the improvements but does anybody have some constructive suggestions other than bike lanes???

[tufsu1]

There are ways to fix some of the congestion issues without widening the roadway itself and impacting the neighborhoods.

[icarus]

I'd be interested in hearing all of the ideas.

I understand we are faced with this issue because of a real lack of planning and forward thinking on the existing design but obviously some changes are mandated even if alternatives to what is proposed by DOT.

Looking at the designs again. It seems the Us-17 flyover will require condemnation of a few structures North of I-10. The correction of the lane issue from Stockton to just West of I-95 doesn't seem to impact Riverside Park or proposed dog park and only a portion of the commercial edge of Riverside (non-historic).

Plus those two changes would not impact the St. Johns River and would be east of McCoy's creek so impact to it should be minimal.


I guess what I am saying is .... if these two changes were made and the overland bridge was completed ... would the changes to fuller warren be necessitated?

I would to like to see the traffic study to understand where these people are coming from and going to.  Lets face it buses will never move enough people to make a real dent in cars ... but if we knew the where(s) and to(s), it would make advocating mass transit that much easier.

[Dog Walker]

Looking at the designs again. It seems the Us-17 flyover will require condemnation of a few structures North of I-10. The correction of the lane issue from Stockton to just West of I-95 doesn't seem to impact Riverside Park or proposed dog park and only a portion of the commercial edge of Riverside (non-historic).

There is no way to add a lane from Stockton without closing Rosselle Street since the current lane is at the edge of the street.  There is no right-of-way left there.

There is no way to add a lane that goes past Riverside Park without taking additional right-of-way because the existing elevated lanes are right at the edge of what is left of the park after past takings for the approach to the bridge.

When asked about this, FDOT says, "Unicorns!" or the BS, engineering, political obfuscation equivalent.

[icarus]

I looked at the map Dogwalker.  What i was discussing was the correction of the stockton ramps with I-10.  It would result in potential closure of a portion or Roselle that i would not call highly traffic and more than likely the taking of the ambulance service.

This is where I proposed stopping the improvements. It seems to me the focus should be on overland bridge and US-17 interchange not fuller warren

[tufsu1]

Plus those two changes would not impact the St. Johns River and would be east of McCoy's creek so impact to it should be minimal.

I suggest looking at the flyover again...it sits right on top of the creek

[Jax Bike Coalition]

I just hope that they even consider pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure when they do follow through with this widening project. Especially since the old Fuller Warren would've made a PERFECT Pedestrian Bridge but now is a sunken man-made reef...It's the only way to shrink our vast city and to FINALLY connect San Marco with Riverside directly. I used to cycle over The Fuller daily while living in San Marco and it was truly a breeze of a commute, but nowadays with the widening project they have taken away most of the shoulder that I told myself was somewhat safe to travel over in three minutes instead of adding twenty extra minutes trekking over The Acosta...


Just figured that this point should be raised in regards to actually being useful to ALL types of transportation, not just for the automobiles...of course I am living in my hometown of Car Town USA just based upon distance(s) citizens must commute daily, but for those of use living within the urban core who will be impacted by this project most I think it's something to consider...At least it would help all sides since we all know it'll come to fruition and put pocket change ins someone's back pocket

[thelakelander]

Looking at the designs again. It seems the Us-17 flyover will require condemnation of a few structures North of I-10. The correction of the lane issue from Stockton to just West of I-95 doesn't seem to impact Riverside Park or proposed dog park and only a portion of the commercial edge of Riverside (non-historic).

There is no way to add a lane from Stockton without closing Rosselle Street since the current lane is at the edge of the street.  There is no right-of-way left there.

You can add a lane between Stockton and I-95 without closing Rosselle Street or acquiring more ROW. The question that remains to be answered is if FDOT will go this route or not. Since they've set aside millions for ROW acquisition people can't help but wonder.

[I-10east]

I actually don't have any problem coming off the current I-95 North to I-10 West flyover, and merging left to get off at Roosevelt Blvd (US-17), but I can see someone who is less gifted at the wheel than me not making that merge. 

Sometimes I pick up my boy to go to the Jags game, and the 8th Street on ramp (I-95 South) merging left to the Union St off ramp to EverBank Field is very similar.

[thelakelander]

I've never had a problem either but some additional signage on the flyover from I-95 to I-10 would help the white knuckle drivers out there. Yet FDOT is looking to sink all of that money into this particular project. No extra flyover means not all the money gets spent locally. It's a crazy way to plan buttthat's the system we've set up in this state.

[I-10east]

I've never had a problem either but some additional signage on the flyover from I-95 to I-10 would help the white knuckle drivers out there.

I agree, I even said that earlier. Uh, the DOT sometimes adds wrong signage. Like I-95 Northbound before the Fuller Warren; Three lanes all have the 'I-95' marker painted on the surface, although that right lane actually goes to I-10 West, SMH.

[GoldenEst82]

I have been trying to wrap my head around the lack of comprehensive planning- in a town that seems all about paying for consulting...

Who thought it would be a good idea to isolate the hart and acosta from 95? There are very obvious ways they could have been connected- especially during the building/planning of the interstates/extensions...
Especially since the acosta was the first bridge to cross the river.

In all the talk of DT revitalization, have the DIA or whomever, sat down and talked to DOT about further utilizing the urban bridges?

I was remarking to my SO- that the exit for union st- and subsequently the Mathews (which I cross several times daily) is very poorly marked from 95 in terms of where it actually goes. If people from elsewhere are trying to go to the beach- they are directed by signage to use JTB, when they could shave 20 minutes off the drive taking the Mathews to Atlantic...

It really is boggling, how far out of their way past leaders have gone to disenfranchise DT.

[icarus]

I think most people are not looking to put more vehicle traffic downtown. however, most people don't realize that the Martin Luther King Expressway connects I-95 to the Matthews Bridge and Hart Bridge while avoiding downtown, the Fuller Warren Bridge and overland bridge.

[ProjectMaximus]

I think most people are not looking to put more vehicle traffic downtown. however, most people don't realize that the Martin Luther King Expressway connects I-95 to the Matthews Bridge and Hart Bridge while avoiding downtown, the Fuller Warren Bridge and overland bridge.

construction notwithstanding, yeah MLK is the way to go to if you're coming South on I-95.