Renderings of the new Shands Bridge

[southsider1015]

First, the project is too expensive.  Now you want an expensive pretty bridge?  Which is it?

[spuwho]

First, the project is too expensive.  Now you want an expensive pretty bridge?  Which is it?

I am saying for 300m, FDOT can do way better. Asthetics do matter.  This isnt some remote bridge crossing a country creek near Wakulla.

This is Floridas signature river. Design it like it matters to us.

Not everything has to look as utilitarian as the Fuller Warren and Buckman.

[Sonic101]

First, the project is too expensive.  Now you want an expensive pretty bridge?  Which is it?

$300 million for a 4-lane bridge over a mile long is too expensive? That's a steal! Detroit's new hockey stadium is $627 million, more than double this structure.

[southsider1015]

What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?

My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge.  $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.

A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ . 

[spuwho]

What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?

My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge.  $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.

A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ .

Lower clearance wouldnt drive an exception to a cable stay approach. And the opposite, you can use pre-stressed concrete to exceptional heights.

Overall, no relationship.

[tufsu1]

First, the project is too expensive.  Now you want an expensive pretty bridge?  Which is it?

Some entities seem to want to build new roads and widen others.  If they want to spend money on roads, maybe that's ok...but they'll have to address citizen concerns.

For example, FDOT wants to expand the I-275/I-4 interchange near downtown Tampa.  That has some people living in surrounding neighborhoods pretty upset.  In response, FDOT is hosting a series of workshops to help define potential aesthetic features that can be done with the project.  None of those "pretty things" will be free, and yet they will likely be included.  Check out this website to see where they got the idea...

http://www.tampabayexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TBX-Community-Aesthetic-Options.pdf

Yep...those would be some of the ideas developed here in response to expanding the I-10/I-95 interchange.  The local FDOT district didn't want to do these things, but in the end, they agreed to many of the requests made.  In the end, FDOT here is unlikely to pay for all of the aesthetic treatments....but down in Tampa they likely will.

And where do you think that Shands Bridge multi-use path idea came from?  Yep, again the ideas presented to FDOT here regarding expanion of the Fuller Warren Bridge.

IT IS TIME THAT CITIZENS (TAXPAYERS) BEGIN TO DEMAND BETTER FROM OUR PUBLICLY-FUNDED AND PUBLICLY-OWNED FACILITIES!

[southsider1015]

What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?

My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge.  $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.

A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ .

Lower clearance wouldnt drive an exception to a cable stay approach. And the opposite, you can use pre-stressed concrete to exceptional heights.

Overall, no relationship.

Sure, you CAN structurally support anything with enough concrete and steel, but would it be cost effective?  Why not use pre stressed/ post tensioning on Dames Point or Sunshine?

It's also horizontal clearance, of course.  No need for structurally expensive bridges when standard AASHTO or FIBs work fine.

These are the most important features when estimating bridge costs; without a doubt, there's a relationship.

[southsider1015]

First, the project is too expensive.  Now you want an expensive pretty bridge?  Which is it?

Some entities seem to want to build new roads and widen others.  If they want to spend money on roads, maybe that's ok...but they'll have to address citizen concerns.

For example, FDOT wants to expand the I-275/I-4 interchange near downtown Tampa.  That has some people living in surrounding neighborhoods pretty upset.  In response, FDOT is hosting a series of workshops to help define potential aesthetic features that can be done with the project.  None of those "pretty things" will be free, and yet they will likely be included.  Check out this website to see where they got the idea...

http://www.tampabayexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TBX-Community-Aesthetic-Options.pdf

Yep...those would be some of the ideas developed here in response to expanding the I-10/I-95 interchange.  The local FDOT district didn't want to do these things, but in the end, they agreed to many of the requests made.  In the end, FDOT here is unlikely to pay for all of the aesthetic treatments....but down in Tampa they likely will.

And where do you think that Shands Bridge multi-use path idea came from?  Yep, again the ideas presented to FDOT here regarding expanion of the Fuller Warren Bridge.

IT IS TIME THAT CITIZENS (TAXPAYERS) BEGIN TO DEMAND BETTER FROM OUR PUBLICLY-FUNDED AND PUBLICLY-OWNED FACILITIES!

I was merely pointing out the irony of the variety of opinions here.  Try not to get so hot and bothered.

BTW, FDOT recently held a Public Meeting in Green Cove Springs last month.  Didn't see anything on here about it, Lake.

[southsider1015]

Does this mean they are going to raise the bridge clearance at least closer to the ICW "required" 65 feet?

Frankly, I don't care what it looks like as long as it is high enough and strong enough.

This seems to be the common opinion among many taxpayers when given the cost details for expensive infrastructure. Would you be willing to pay more in tolls or gas taxes for visual improvements?  Unfortunately, for many, the answer is no. The loud voices of a few always drown out the majority.

Look, I'm all about adding value, visual aesthetics, and investing more in our public infrastructure.  Public support just doesn't seem to be there, yet.

[thelakelander]

BTW, FDOT recently held a Public Meeting in Green Cove Springs last month.  Didn't see anything on here about it, Lake.

I must have missed it, which probably happens quite often with the amount of time I'm out of town for work.  Next time, if you come across something you deem worth posting here, please do!

[spuwho]

What's the source of the $300 million estimate for the 4 lane bridge?

My calculator says $ 166 million for the full 8-lane, ultimate bridge.  $88 million for the 4-lane bridge.

A cable-stayed bridge isn't necessary; vertical clearance will be 65', not 175+ .

Lower clearance wouldnt drive an exception to a cable stay approach. And the opposite, you can use pre-stressed concrete to exceptional heights.

Overall, no relationship.

Sure, you CAN structurally support anything with enough concrete and steel, but would it be cost effective?  Why not use pre stressed/ post tensioning on Dames Point or Sunshine?

It's also horizontal clearance, of course.  No need for structurally expensive bridges when standard AASHTO or FIBs work fine.

These are the most important features when estimating bridge costs; without a doubt, there's a relationship.

You stated that bridge clearance was a limiting factor in what bridge type to use for the Shands and I am saying it is not.

I have seen the smallest of suspension bridges in golf communities and the tallest of reinforced concrete (Confederation Bridge).  One of the largest suspended spans (Verazano Narrows) and thousands of your typical federally funded concrete and girder arrangements.

As long as the design can meet the requirements at hand and fit within its defined budget, then you are good.

I am saying that for 300 million, I think they can do better asthetically and still stay fiscally responsible.

[Tacachale]

I am saying that for 300 million, I think they can do better asthetically and still stay fiscally responsible.

I think that's the rub. The FDOT does not come across as an agency that puts any thought into things like that, and the result is what you see.

[NIMBY]

FDOT tweeted a link to this article yesterday from their official account.  If nothing else, it shows they are aware of this website/forum and the constituency it represents.

Aesthetics can be tricky.  Put yourself in a bureaucrat's shoes (and I don't use that term pejoratively).  Whatever the extra dollar amount, how could you fiscally justify the additional cost to the taxpayer?  I know this is a larger question of the value added by the aesthetic enhancements but it is, at best, wildly subjective.

[thelakelander]

Aesthetics can be tricky.  Put yourself in a bureaucrat's shoes (and I don't use that term pejoratively).  Whatever the extra dollar amount, how could you fiscally justify the additional cost to the taxpayer?  I know this is a larger question of the value added by the aesthetic enhancements but it is, at best, wildly subjective.

Good question. Whatever the answer is can be easily found from what our peer cities are accomplishing with similar projects across the state.  Here's a few random projects out there where aesthetics were included on some level:

Cross Seminole Trail Overpass over I-4 (similar to utilitarian I-95 pedestrian overpass north of State & Union)

http://www.johnweeks.com/cablestay/pages/ped01.html


I-395 bridge replacement in downtown Miami (similar in scale and context to Jax's Overland Bridge replacement)

http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/17/i395-bridge.php


I-4 overpass in Tampa's Ybor City (Similar to I-95 over Riverside and Brooklyn)

http://www.genesisgroup.com/projects/474.php



I-4 Ultimate pedestrian bridge and gateway signage (similar to utilitarian I-95 pedestrian overpass north of University)

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/2015/08/when-you-can-expect-to-see-i-4-ultimate-s-first.html


My advice is if you want better looking infrastructure projects in NE Florida, copy whatever the larger regions in the state are doing to improve their projects. This doesn't mean certain design features have to look the same. What you want to replicate is the process that led to the better designs and funding approval for them.

[spuwho]

FDOT tweeted a link to this article yesterday from their official account.  If nothing else, it shows they are aware of this website/forum and the constituency it represents.

Aesthetics can be tricky.  Put yourself in a bureaucrat's shoes (and I don't use that term pejoratively).  Whatever the extra dollar amount, how could you fiscally justify the additional cost to the taxpayer?  I know this is a larger question of the value added by the aesthetic enhancements but it is, at best, wildly subjective.

I completely get that FDOT as part of accountability have to work in a way that maximizes value to the taxpayer.  Being a taxpayer myself, I am not asking them to break the bank all in the name of good looks.

DOT's tend to work with templates for bridge design. This makes bidding and maintenance predictable and easier to plan for. Clearly the new Shands fits with that template approach. That is why it looks just like many other bridges in the FDOT footprint.

But there are other templates available from other DOT's now that can be leveraged so that bidding can remain the same, predictable.

New spans planned for I-69 @ Evansville, I-69 at the Mississippi/Arkansas river crossing and I-49 in Arkansas, are all going to use the same template as the "Stan Span" in St Louis.

I am not saying that is the template of choice for the new Shands, I am just saying that there are options nationally that can be leveraged without requiring an expensive reinvention of the wheel but yet add better aesthetics.