Stimulus leftovers could jump-start 9B construction

buckethead · September 23, 2009, 09:08:22 AM

Not so much.

CS Foltz · September 24, 2009, 06:21:16 AM

"concurrency"............thats the word, much thanks there Dog Walker! I believe that Daniel Davis had a finger in its removal.........gee I could not guess why?

Ocklawaha · September 25, 2009, 12:21:27 PM

Well, sucks to be us, because if 9B is not built at least to I-95 South, here is what we have today.

I-95 124,000 cars daily With the projects Port Traffic we'd be looking at adding 2,740 Container Trucks, which is equal to about 5 auto lengths each.

In my book, while I hate the sprawl, I live in it! In fact I always have, Portland, Los Angeles, Fresno, OKC, Lake Mary, Jax (several times). The only time I escaped, was while hanging in a commune near Yosemite, laying on a blanket while a dozen naked nymphs danced around us! (If you don't understand might I suggest the movie "Taking Woodstock!" It's a sort of "This was your life" type of film.

Back to the roads, consider each of those 2,740 trucks are going to smash the freeway into so much broken gravel. Drive I-95 under the I-295 South interchange to see this in action. One truck, passing a given point, will do the damage of 8,000 auto trips over the same slab. So if we follow the idea of "fixing" the South 95/295 interchanges how much will it cost us not only in maintenance, but also in auto repair? Taking these rigs through downtown from the port is a really bad idea, get them on 9-A/9-B and out of town. Keep them off of the already overcrowded 95. Just the bandaid on 95 is going to cost us dearly.

OCKLAWAHA

CS Foltz · September 25, 2009, 12:29:43 PM

Ock.....I agree! Band Aid's will not get it! Stupid City did not take rail into account to begin with and trying to do something about now is like letting the fox into the hen house! All of that truck traffic running 9A out onto 95 will just expedite roadway failures.........and what irritates me the most is not only do I get to pay for now but I will get to pay for it in the future also! Stupid City and lack of a plan or a vision just burns my butt! But Hay...........gonna make all that money for the Dames Point Facility! All of which I will not see one iota of!

Jason · September 25, 2009, 12:39:43 PM

Ock, what's the difference between "fixing" the I95/I295 interchange we already have versus the additional cost of building and maintaining a new section of highway and interchange further south?

The truck will already be using 9A and I95 between the terminal and I295. Why add more roadway and another interchange to the mix that will also be used by the same truck traffic?

buckethead · September 25, 2009, 12:43:13 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 25, 2009, 12:21:27 PM
Well, sucks to be us, because if 9B is not built at least to I-95 South, here is what we have today.

I-95 124,000 cars daily With the projects Port Traffic we'd be looking at adding 2,740 Container Trucks, which is equal to about 5 auto lengths each.

In my book, while I hate the sprawl, I live in it! In fact I always have, Portland, Los Angeles, Fresno, OKC, Lake Mary, Jax (several times). The only time I escaped, was while hanging in a commune near Yosemite, laying on a blanket while a dozen naked nymphs danced around us! (If you don't understand might I suggest the movie "Taking Woodstock!" It's a sort of "This was your life" type of film.

Back to the roads, consider each of those 2,740 trucks are going to smash the freeway into so much broken gravel. Drive I-95 under the I-295 South interchange to see this in action. One truck, passing a given point, will do the damage of 8,000 auto trips over the same slab. So if we follow the idea of "fixing" the South 95/295 interchanges how much will it cost us not only in maintenance, but also in auto repair? Taking these rigs through downtown from the port is a really bad idea, get them on 9-A/9-B and out of town. Keep them off of the already overcrowded 95. Just the bandaid on 95 is going to cost us dearly.

OCKLAWAHA

Shouldn't the vast majority of this container traffic be transported via rail?

reednavy · September 25, 2009, 12:49:43 PM

Tell that to CSX, who has talked about a yard out by the port.

thelakelander · September 25, 2009, 12:58:10 PM

Also, put the S-Line back and and transfer some of the truck traffic to FEC rail. You eliminate some port traffic off the highway and have the rail needed for commuter service for a fraction of the cost. Freeway construction isn't the only answer to dealing with traffic congestion.

reednavy · September 25, 2009, 12:59:04 PM

Yes, but apparently FDOT hasn't received that memo yet.

Ocklawaha · September 25, 2009, 04:35:55 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 25, 2009, 12:58:10 PM
Also, put the S-Line back and and transfer some of the truck traffic to FEC rail. You eliminate some port traffic off the highway and have the rail needed for commuter service for a fraction of the cost. Freeway construction isn't the only answer to dealing with traffic congestion.

AH! HA!

OCKLAWAHA

Ocklawaha · September 25, 2009, 04:47:45 PM

Quote from: Jason on September 25, 2009, 12:39:43 PM
Ock, what's the difference between "fixing" the I95/I295 interchange we already have versus the additional cost of building and maintaining a new section of highway and interchange further south?

The truck will already be using 9A and I95 between the terminal and I295. Why add more roadway and another interchange to the mix that will also be used by the same truck traffic?

Actually Jason, CS and others, it really wouldn't make a huge difference if the traffic joined at the current 295-95 interchange, by adding lanes and bridges. The rub would come when it's evening rush and those big trucks start backing up on 9A all the way back to Baymeadows Road. Meanwhile over on 95, it's already stopped from downtown to SR210. Nothing another 1,000 trucks or so would hurt. (smile).

My contention is 9B is the nearest thing to a TRUCK-WAY (as opposed to BRT Busways) we'll ever see. If we simply MUST use concrete for the answer to every transportation related problem, then 9B is the lesser of two evils. At least commuters wouldn't have to deal with this until they reached the 9B/210 exit/interchange.

Lakelander gets the prize for figuring out my play on this subject. RAIL IS LESS COSTLY AND WE ALREADY HAVE THE SOLUTION BUILT! Damn Jacksonville! Just Damn!

OCKLAWAHA

Ocklawaha · September 25, 2009, 04:58:53 PM

Lets call this photo, REALITY CHECK - JACKSONVILLE!

OCKLAWAHA

CS Foltz · September 26, 2009, 07:21:29 AM

Ock.........I agree to a point. Rail should have been the first choice for moving freight in and out of the Dames Point Facility not trucks! I was raising hell on the JOL Forum when that first came up. 9A was discussed as the primary moving artery for both in and out and the plan then was to widen and beef up that road. We, the taxpayers, were going to pay for that enhancement knowing full well it would have to be redone within 3 years tops again. Rail was not discussed at that time and now it is! Lack of planning, thanks to Mr Ferrin and his expertise, but road is not the answer. This is one time that rail should have been integrated from the very start rather than after the fact. Whatever route is used will have to be redone within several years just due to the weights traveling over it...........so a 9A or 9B extension is just a bandaid plus it will allow developers to do their thing in that area and once again...........we get to pay for it!