Fuller Warren Bridge Replacement - Major Missed Opportunity for Jacksonville

[stjr]

If you think about it, there is no bigger tourist attraction than the Fuller Warren (I-95) Bridge downtown.  No location or structure in Jacksonville gets more "visits" by our city's visitors than this bridge when you consider that over 100,000 vehicles (lots more people when you add the passengers) cross it everyday and hundreds of thousands more view it from the river's banks, downtown, other bridges, by boat, or from the air.  We won't even consider its countless appearances in photos shared 'round the world.  Our 2005 Super Bowl was a mere pittance compared to the cumulative impact on our community of this bridge.

The Fuller Warren bridge is a large, imposing structure that dominates its part of the landscape.  Particularly important, is that this bridge sits at the approximate point of where the St. Johns majestically expands from its relative narrowness downtown to its grand vista width southward making it a visual focal point extraordinaire.

So, architecturally, what does this strategically placed bridge contribute to our fair city?  I say that due to its strictly functional design, the answer is a big nothing - and, in fact, it's more likely a giant detraction!

For starters, the bridge's profile shows it to have the look of little more than an oversized interstate overpass as it flies (mostly lurches) over the St. Johns.  There is nothing to behold but utilitarian supports that only a structural engineer could love (well, maybe a concrete contractor also   ).  The heavy handed and low slung design manages to sufficiently preclude most views of the often naturally gorgeous setting sun over miles of water from being seen anywhere near ground level downtown.  At a minimum, it is a substantial and unavoidable elephantine divider between the sky above and the water and horizon below.

Passing over the bridge's roadway, one finds its aesthetics even more offensive.   From here, one can hardly tell that they over water as the dull continuum of the interstate's standard design moves uninterrupted over the bridge. There is no demarcation to indicate the arrival of a distinctive visual experience or the opportunity to savor it once on the bridge.

Due to the banking of the pavement and the solid Jersey barriers, the average motorist has, for the most part, no westward view of the dramatic expanse looking south leaving one to wonder what lies beyond that remains unseen.  The eastward view toward town is admittedly much more generous and serves Jacksonville well, giving one just a taste at what might have been.  But, less one get too absorbed by the view, count on a jarring distraction by the giant overhead  green "interstate signs" and the crammed in exit ramps to Park Street and San Marco Blvd that awkwardly start in the middle of the bridge.

Having a pedestrian/bicycle pathway or a pullover vista lane to take in one of the best views found in the city would be too much to ask as well, I suppose. Just think if one could rise from the river walks below to cross from one bank to the other at sunset! (Remember, the Golden Gate is an interstate, but it still allows for these pleasures, so it can be done!)

At night, the road lighting is, again, pedestrian interstate harshness.  The profile lights installed along the bridge's sides fail to put much lipstick on this architectural pig.

So, what are we missing?  Well, if we had a more inspirational, graceful, and thoughtful design, maybe people would have something indelible to remember Jacksonville by.  Jacksonville might have acquired a symbol reflective of its natural beauty and the thoughtful appreciation of same (see Golden Gate Bridge).  People might even think that Jacksonville has the ability to think on the level of a world class city by demonstrating in the most public of places its ability to create a great monument recognized throughout the world (see St. Louis Gateway Arch, Seattle Space Needle, Washington Monument, Eiffel Tower, etc.).

Alas, the bridge we have reflects the true nature of so much of our city - boring, blah, cold, uninspired, unimaginative, forgetful, economizing (i.e. cheap!), just a place on the map on the way to somewhere else in a hurry!  Yet, it is hard to argue how truly representative it is.  How very sad for all of us who love this place     When will we ever learn?

[reednavy]

Problem is that it is a Federal Interstate, not a U.S. Highway or State Route. It is CLEARLY marked at almost, if not every onramp to an interstate that bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law. Also, just a wild guess, I think the speeds may have another thing to do with this, not like the above part didn't already cover that part.

Also, asthetics were the last thing they were concerned with, they needed to quickly replace to much overused and crumbling old F.W. Bridge. It was also the only interstate toll bridge in the U.S., which really made no sense at all once the Jacksonville Expressway Authority was done away with in the 80's. As well, space restrictions didn't really allow for anything major or catchy, and they had to build it in such a way to flow into the new interchange with 10 and 95.

[thelakelander]

Charleston's Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge (US 17)

I agree that it would be cool if the bridge were more aesthetically pleasing or could accomodate cyclist and pedestrians.  However, I don't know if its possible by law, considering its an interstate.  The Golden Gate Bridge is not an interstate.  Are there any new interstate bridges connected with pedestrian walks? 

I'm still hurt the old Fuller Warren and Acosta Bridges were not kept for pedestrian use.  Nevertheless, something like this would also be nice for the Matthews Bridge once its replacement is built.  Unfortunately, I think it will come down like the two other older downtown river crossings.

[stjr]

Problem is that it is a Federal Interstate, not a U.S. Highway or State Route. It is CLEARLY marked at almost, if not every onramp to an interstate that bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law. Also, just a wild guess, I think the speeds may have another thing to do with this, not like the above part didn't already cover that part.

Also, aesthetics were the last thing they were concerned with, they needed to quickly replace to much overused and crumbling old F.W. Bridge. It was also the only interstate toll bridge in the U.S., which really made no sense at all once the Jacksonville Expressway Authority was done away with in the 80's. As well, space restrictions didn't really allow for anything major or catchy, and they had to build it in such a way to flow into the new interchange with 10 and 95.

Yes, I have heard from FDOT many times about the federal interstate standards.  Yet, as I travel this country, I find countless concessions and exceptions where the local citizenry has raised their collective voices in protest or circumstances just could not accommodate the standards.  So, I don't agree that there wasn't much more flexibility available for the design.

Nowhere is this more obvious, than in California.  Where interstates cut across rocky hills and mountains, they often sacrifice emergency lanes.  So too, in highly developed areas lacking sufficient rights of ways.  When urban interstates pass through natural preserves, I have found miles of interstate lighting removed to maintain the darkness of the natural areas.  One such spot is around the green space surrounding the reservoirs just south of downtown San Francisco.  As to speeds, the interstate speed crossing the Golden Gate is reduced, as I recall, to either 40 or 45 mph in deference to the gawkers with no major impact on the flow of traffic (think of it as a speed akin to an exit ramp in an interchange).

Pedestrian's/bikers could be accommodated in several ways.  One is an appropriately protective divider as on the Golden Gate.  Another, would have been to put such a path above or below the roadway as it is on the Brooklyn Bridge (so that idea goes back to the 1800's!).

You are just making my point that no real thought went into this bridge.  It was just a knee jerk reaction to a problem that existed for DECADES.  We had plenty of time to prepare for it because it took forever to get it prioritized and funded for construction.  The tolls were gone for 10 to 20 years before the bridge was replaced so I don't see where this was a factor.  FYI, the Dames Point bridge was built with the intention of being a toll bridge until the voters eliminated tolls before its completion.

I-95 still has tolls in Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York as I recall unless they have been removed since my last travels in these areas.  More tolls are on interstates in urban areas such as Boston.  For that matter, the Golden Gate Bridge is a toll bridge!

Also, aesthetics were the last thing they were concerned with ....

Thanks for ultimately supporting my point!

[stjr]

I will correct myself that the Golden Gate is not technically an interstate.  It is US 101, a federal highway.  In fact, it operates as an expressway system that is constructed in an interstate highway manner.  Functionally, I still think that it demonstrates the fact that where there is a will, there is a way, to build a distinctive, pleasing, and community friendly interstate-style bridge without compromising significant interstate standards.

[Charles Hunter]

I think it was the only Interstate draw bridge remaining, at least on the east coast.  As stjr pointed out, there are other interstates with tolls.   Which were removed in 1989, and I think the bridge construction started in the late 1990s and continued until just a few years ago.  And it was one of the first projects (or at least one of the biggest) on which "Corrine Delivers" - she managed to get a huge pot of money set aside for the new FW (in the neighborhood of $100 million if I remember correctly).  I think reednavy is right, it had to fit into the existing space between Baptist Hospital and the I-10 interchange on the other side.  

Knowing people, had they made it taller, there would people complaining that the height was blocking the view from downtown ... or something.

And the Golden Gate was built before the Interstate system, and it's standards - 1930s vs. 1950s.

Another, 'if I remember correctly' - the state offered the southern piece of the old bridge to the city, but the city turned it down - speculation (on this site, I believe) was this was due, in part, to pressure from Baptist Hospital, who didn't want "those people" (whoever they are) so close.

[reednavy]

I meant draw bridge, my bad.

Existing laws and regulations prevent Federal Highway System roadways and bridges from supporting pedestrian related activies due to higher speeds and design constraints. So basically, safety concerns because guardrails and barriers can only take so much pressure.

Making the FW taller would've interfered with clearance issues below the Wolfson's pedestrian walkover for higher than usual loads. It also would've made making a new Park Street exit ramp impossible due to the proximity to the onramp beside Baptist and the steepness of the offramp approach. Same can be said for the San Marco and Main/Riverside/etc. offramps, and the Hendricks and Acosta onramps.

The bridge's width was only able to be so much as to fit into the right-of-way they had, while not significantly interfering with the old FW's traffic pattern.

[tufsu1]

Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple!

Now maybe there could have been a separate pedestrian bridge connecting the two sides of the river....and this might make sense if/when there are riverwalks on both sides....but the state/fed won't pay fo this...it will have to be the City and/or privately funded. 

[stjr]

I think we are digressing from my original point which was primarily that the Fuller Warren Bridge lacks any element of real design or aesthetics and that Jacksonville missed the boat in not requiring it to do so.  Regardless of the constraints, physical or Federal, I believe a much more elegant solution could have been conceived and built.

P.S.  The Baptist-Nemours overwalk followed the design of the bridge, not the other way around.  It may be that FDOT factored it in, but they would have been under no obligation to do so as it was not pre-existing to their designs.

A pedestrian access would have been icing on the cake, had there been a cake.  I didn't intend this to be an essential element.  [By the way, the idea that interstates run underground or underneath other highways and roads, with sidewalks, in urban areas (e.g. I-76 along the Schuylkill River near 30th Street Station in Philadelphia), is another example that led me to believe that if sidewalks were above or below, they would be deemed acceptable to the most calculating Federal engineer!]

[tufsu1]

fine...if you're looking for a signature bridge, look no further than the Dames Point Bridge....that waqs done by FDOT and will be an interstate by the end of 2009

[reednavy]

No, these particular issues can and did affect the design of the bridge. Many things that seemed to be overlooked or appear not to be a real issue, can turn out to be as such.

Don't forget, I doubt the Navy would've allowed for suspension towers or a high, end to end steel arch.

We may not know, but it serves it's purpose just fine, moving people to where they need to go. Pedestrians and viewing spots have absolutely no reason to be on a major interstate bridge. It is a safety issue, plain and simple.

[Charles Hunter]

(psst ... tufsu ... JTA built the Dames Point Bridge)

Given the constraints cited by several above - how much more would a more elegant bridge have cost?  Perhaps they could have sacrificed PS #4.

[stjr]

I don't argue that there were constraints for this bridge.  But what structure isn't built with constraints.  I don't automatically concede that the design must be totally sacrificed for constraints or that some of the constraints couldn't have been compromised or addressed with a bit more effort.  Sometimes, constraints inspire the most creative designs.  If we set our sites this low, we are doomed by our own expectations.

P.S. I don't quite follow the comment about the height and the Navy.  This bridge is essentially downtown. I don't see it being any higher than nearby towers such as the Blue Cross or Aetna buildings.  Heck, if the St. John condo building had been built just a few hundred feet from the southern end of the bridge, you would be near a 50 story building!

[ProjectMaximus]

P.S. I don't quite follow the comment about the height and the Navy. 

Don't forget, I doubt the Navy would've allowed for suspension towers or a high, end to end steel arch.

Was this a reference to stjr's comparison to the St Louis Arch and space needle?

[BridgeTroll]

I don't automatically concede that the design must be totally sacrificed for constraints or that some of the constraints couldn't have been compromised or addressed with a bit more effort.  Sometimes, constraints inspire the most creative designs.  If we set our sites this low, we are doomed by our own expectations.

I believe this is the main point... and I agree.  I have always hated the "Thats the way it has always been done" argument.