Roadwork early warning: Think I-95 is bad now?

[tufsu1]

The geniuses who came up with that idea didn't know at the time that JTB would become an expressway and would be extended to the beach....that all came later!

And that "simple" flyover ramp will likely cost $50 million aone...not including any other interchange modifications!

[fsujax]

We need some other alternatives besides highway. Not saying highways are bad, but let's give people choices.

[stjr]

The geniuses who came up with that idea didn't know at the time that JTB would become an expressway and would be extended to the beach....that all came later!

Not knowing JTB would go to the beach?  Or that it would be an expressway? (It never had lights east of I-95, just interchanges.)  Who didn't know that?  As I recall, the whole project was master planned all the way, it was just built in phases, with the first phase ending at St. John's bluff with a 10 cent toll booth.  Then the two lane hour glass with only one span at the Intracoastal Waterway before the second span finally was built after one too many fatal accidents.  The land owners along the way gave land in return for interchanges to their properties.  I think it even had pavement planned for being extended at the original terminus at St. Johns Bluff.  How far back would one have to go to predate the vision to go to the beach?

Regardless of all this, it has been at least 30 plus years since the current arrangement was known, plenty of time to reengineer the I-95 interchange with JTB before all those hotels were built and swallowed up all available land that might have enabled a better functioning solution.

The State's policy dictated by the Legislature (as I'm told by DOT officials) of only buying exactly that land needed for current construction, and not buying a few extra acres of expansion land at what is often little extra costs relative to their projects and especially before their completion raises the surrounding land values, has never made any sense.  Years later, when interchanges become bottlenecks due to overuse of their original designs, the State is often left with few and very expensive options given the constraints of the surrounding infill developments.  It's why we have half interchanges with traffic lights at Blanding, San Jose, St. Augustine Road, JTB, Baymeadows, University, Emerson, etc. even though many of these area could use full ones.  Had extra land been bought for only a few more dollars when these interchanges were originally being built "in the middle of nowhere", imagine what might have been.

[tufsu1]

The State's policy dictated by the Legislature (as I'm told by DOT officials) of only buying exactly that land needed for current construction, and not buying a few extra acres of expansion land at what is often little extra costs relative to their projects and especially before their completion raises the surrounding land values, has never made any sense.

That's called eminent domain law....you can only condemn the amount of land that you an "prove" is needed....and just so you know, FDOT's studies are usually at least 25 years out....right now, their PD&E sudies are for horizon years of at least 2035....but if they can't prove the need for something in the horizon year (and often the mid yearwhich would be around 2020-2025), they have a very hard time getting the land through eminent domain.

[thelakelander]

I believe they already have the ROW needed for the 95/JTB improvements.

[stjr]

The State's policy dictated by the Legislature (as I'm told by DOT officials) of only buying exactly that land needed for current construction, and not buying a few extra acres of expansion land at what is often little extra costs relative to their projects and especially before their completion raises the surrounding land values, has never made any sense.

That's called eminent domain law....you can only condemn the amount of land that you an "prove" is needed....and just so you know, FDOT's studies are usually at least 25 years out....right now, their PD&E sudies are for horizon years of at least 2035....but if they can't prove the need for something in the horizon year (and often the mid yearwhich would be around 2020-2025), they have a very hard time getting the land through eminent domain.

Well, maybe the State should negotiate better with surrounding landowners when building a new interchange.  If you want "us" to build anything here at all, voluntarily sell us at Fair Market Value the land we need for the inevitable future.  Landowners would also benefit by voluntarily cooperating because they would be ensuring smooth access to their remaining properties in lieu of having a bottleneck at their doorstep that discourages visits to their property.

Alternatively, 25 years is a long time.  Most of these interchanges seem to start needing improvements well before then.  Maybe the State needs a more aggressive traffic growth model to demonstrate "need".  There may also be some subjectivity in making the case of when the improvements are necessary providing additional wiggle room.  Whatever, I think the State needs to find better ways to meet the "need" threshold they are using so they can the appropriate land up front via eminent domain.  It's far less painful, even to the landowners, than having all that uncertainty of the future hanging over everyone and maybe going through eminent domain years later, after the land is developed.

All I know is that whatever the process is, it isn't very good or cost efficient for the taxpayers.  There has to be a better way.

[tufsu1]

What makes you think that FDOT (or any other agency) automatically goes to eminent domain?

They always start by asking landowners to voluntarily sell their property....but most folks know that going to court usually yields a higher amount than "fair market value".

And believe me, the traffic models are plenty aggressive enough....but often building what is truly "needed" according to traffic projections is not feasible...whether because of costs, impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, etc.

Perfect example...previous models here in Jax. have shown the need for every expressway to be 8-10 lanes....how much do you think it would cost to widen I-10 or I-95 in the urban core to 8-10 lanes...or the Arlington Expressway (including the part near the sports complex)?

[stjr]

What makes you think that FDOT (or any other agency) automatically goes to eminent domain?

They always start by asking landowners to voluntarily sell their property....but most folks know that going to court usually yields a higher amount than "fair market value".

I assumed eminent domain was most prevalent and thought this to be reinforced by your previous comment that the limiting factor in land acquisition was to show "need" in eminent domain cases:

That's called eminent domain law....you can only condemn the amount of land that you an "prove" is needed....and just so you know, FDOT's studies are usually at least 25 years out....

So, if owners voluntarily sell, can FDOT buy more land for future growth without showing "need" within 25 years or whatever?  It may be worthy to pay a bit of a premium for a subject property to get a voluntary sale and avoid a "needs" test that forces the State to pay up big time in later years.

[tufsu1]

if folks voluntarily sell, an agency can acquire as much land as they want...the agency can also acquire, through eminent domnain, the amount of land needed according to their traffic studies...even if they don't use all of it right away.

A recent example of this is I-4 and I-275 in Tampa...FDOT bought enough land for 6 general use lanes, 4 special use lanes, and rail....even though they only built 6 lanes on I-4 and are building 8 lanes on I-275....as a result, the median is huge!

[stjr]

if folks voluntarily sell, an agency can acquire as much land as they want...the agency can also acquire, through eminent domnain, the amount of land needed according to their traffic studies...even if they don't use all of it right away.

A recent example of this is I-4 and I-275 in Tampa...FDOT bought enough land for 6 general use lanes, 4 special use lanes, and rail....even though they only built 6 lanes on I-4 and are building 8 lanes on I-275....as a result, the median is huge!

Now that's a model that needs to be repeated in Jax!

I believe that the landowners donated the land for JTB so it would be built through their properties.  As such, it would have been nice to push for more land to support the inevitable need for bigger interchanges.  With the owners controlling hundreds or thousands of acres along JTB, a few more given for future accommodations would have been a win-win for all.  A missed opportunity, it would appear.

The upside to the coming congestion as development fills in is that more people may be inspired to support mass transit as a solution to the problem since expanded interchanges won't be as feasible.

[ChriswUfGator]

The geniuses who came up with that idea didn't know at the time that JTB would become an expressway and would be extended to the beach....that all came later!

And that "simple" flyover ramp will likely cost $50 million aone...not including any other interchange modifications!

Yeah, but what did JTB cost to build? $50 million is a drop in the bucket from that perspective.

When they decided to put JTB in as an expressway, they should have just done the I-95 flyover ramp then, as part of that construction project. Whoever thought the silly red light was OK was a real dumba$$

[JaxNole]

Does anyone have I-95-JTB master plans from when the interchange was first built?  Anyone have links to land use variances over time?

I read a study a few years ago that defined the 95 ultimate configuration at 8 lanes in most sections, excluding downtown.  That would place the breakdown/emergency lanes close to the sound barriers around University and Emerson.

[tufsu1]

If I-95 was widened to 8 lanes north of JTB, it would mean acquiring ROW....while there is room on the sides (between the shoulder and the noise wall), that land is being used for stormwater retention...which means finding pond sites....best guess is that would cost in the neighborhood of $15 million per mile....just for pond ROW!

as for adding or reconfiguriong ramps, its not as simple as it sounds...you either need an Interchange Modification Report (IMR) or an Interchange Justification Report (IJR), in addition to the environmental impact study....both the IMR and the IJR cost at least a million dollars and, like the PD&E study, require federal approval.....so its a 3+ year detailed planning process before design and permitting even begin.

[Ocklawaha]

Wash your brains out with this:

Vested Interests

Most believe that the land use plan guides the transportation planner. However, as Newman and Kenworthy point out, "one of the major reasons why freeways around the world have failed to cope with demand is that transport infrastructure has a profound feedback effect on land use, encouraging and promoting new development wherever the best facilities are provided (or are planned)...momentum develops which is very hard to stop. The obvious response to the failure of freeways to cope with traffic congestion is to suggest that still further roads are urgently needed. The new roads are then justified again on technical grounds in terms of time, fuel and other perceived savings to the community from eliminating the congestion. This sets in motion a vicious circle...of congestion, road building, sprawl, congestion and more road building. This is not only favorable to the vested interests of the road lobby and land developers but it also builds large and powerful government road bureaucracies whose professional actors see their future as contingent upon being able to justify large sums of money for road building...In this way road authorities can become de facto planning agencies directly shaping land use..." The immensity of these organizations is now such that approximately one out of every five dollars spent in the U.S. is related directly or indirectly to the auto industry (an industry that employs over 15 percent of the total U.S. workforce).

Supply and Demand

It seems, therefore, that we should be less concerned about eliminating "shortages" of traffic lanes and parking lots. As was pointed out above, reducing congestion may do more harm than good. As for shortages, U.S. cities provide about three to four times as much road per capita as in European cities, and 80 percent more central city parking, according to Newman and Kenworthy.
Not only do these researchers find a relative excess of space for cars, but they also argue that traffic congestion has several positive effects on a community: It reduces the number of vehicle miles traveled and therefore the amount of gasoline consumed. It also increases the viability of transit. As early as the 1960s, European cities (and more recently, certain U.S. and Canadian cities), started to acknowledge that attacking congestion was an exercise in futility. It was found that building and widening roads "was destroying cities and not helping the congestion situation either." In fact, by increasing road capacity, we are merely putting off the day of reckoning when a more rational, less auto-dependent society is forced upon us by the high cost of such dependence.
Robert Best, writing in the July 1992 issue of Land Lines (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy) also looks with disdain upon the traditional "supply-side" approach of transportation policy-makers. By investing heavily in new highways to accommodate traffic increases, Best points out that motorists are able to travel at will -- with little or no penalties (in terms of congestion delays or travel fees) to constrain their driving. Partly as a result, congestion levels have skyrocketed.
Increasing the supply by building and widening roads is akin to solving energy problems by increasing the rate of off-shore oil drilling. In other words, increasing the amount of pavement is a short-term "quick fix" which encourages further dependence on socially and environmentally destructive behavior.
Fortunately, there is a rational alternative. Today, more progressive transportation planners are using "demand management" strategies to solve traffic problems. Instead of pouring millions of dollars into neighborhood-destroying road widenings, these planners strive to reduce the amount of driving -- which is akin to the low-cost and environmentally sustainable strategy of using conservation as a solution to energy shortages. Demand management is now being employed in cities such as Boston and Los Angeles, where massive supply-side efforts in the past have led to spectacular and costly failures to eliminate traffic problems

OCKLAWAHA