Follow Us

Saturday, April 19, 2014
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 

I-95 Overland Bridge Project Expands

Predicted to snarl urban Jacksonville traffic until 2017, an expansion of the I-95 Overland Bridge project to include an interchange at Atlantic Blvd. & Philips Highway is now being considered.

Published November 2, 2010 in Urban Issues      73 Comments    Open printer friendly version of this article Print Article

Original Proposed Plan (click on images to enlarge)




Revised Proposed Plan


Revised plans indicate the addition of a Northbound C/D system with an interchange at Atlantic Boulevard.


About The Project

The Overland Bridge replacement project will involve the expansion and rebuilding of I-95, between the Fuller Warren Bridge and San Diego Road.



Estimated Project Cost: $195,242,449

Project Length: 0.267 miles

Projected Start Construction Date: 11/22/2012


Public Hearing Notice

Quote
I-95 Overland Bridge Replacement

District: Two

Meeting Type: Workshop

Date: Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Time: 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm

Location Name: Duval County School Board

Street Address: 1701 Prudential Drive

City: Jacksonville, FL 32207

Purpose:
 
You are invited to a public workshop to discuss the I-95 Overland Bridge Replacement project.  The project begins south of San Diego Road and ends north of Palm Avenue. The workshop will be held Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at the Duval County School Board, 1701 Prudential Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32207.  
 
Doors will open at 4:30 p.m., with a public comment period at 6:30 p.m.  There will be no formal presentation.  You are invited to come anytime during the workshop to meet one-on-one with project staff and discuss any questions you may have about the project.
 
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the Overland Bridge, which carries both northbound and southbound traffic on I-95 and spans Hendricks Avenue, Kings Avenue, and Montana Avenue in downtown Jacksonville.  The bridge is being replaced due to structural deterioration which is causing the need for frequent repairs.  Previous public meetings have been held to discuss this project and receive input.  Based on the input received, changes are being proposed to the project.  These changes will require additional right of way and may affect your property.  This public workshop is being held to present and discuss the Department’s proposed changes and to receive your input.  
 
All residents, property owners and interested persons or groups are encouraged to come and participate. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or family status.  
Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Mrs. Brandi Vittur at the number below at least seven (7) days prior to the workshop.
 
It is the policy of the Florida Department of Transportation's District Two to prohibit materials and/or exhibits in our public workshops, meetings or hearings that are not the property of the Department.  Therefore, no outside party will be allowed to display or hand out materials in any of these events.
 
All interested persons are invited to attend this public workshop to review and discuss this important transportation improvement project. If you need project information or if you have any questions please contact:

Brandi Vittur, P.E., Project Manager
Florida Department of Transportation
1109 S. Marion Avenue, MS 2007
Lake City, FL 32025-5874
1-800-749-2967 or (386) 961-7468
E-mail: brandi.vittur@dot.state.fl.us

Project Update by Ennis Davis







Share this article   digg   delicious   reddit   myspace   technorati   google   newsvine  

73 Comments

simms3

November 02, 2010, 04:35:51 AM
It is certainly no secret that the Atlantic Blvd interchange needs to have something happen, and if they do it at the same time as the overall project it seems efficient to me.  Here's to hoping I won't be in Jax during this particular construction.

Noone

November 02, 2010, 05:49:46 AM
Appreciate the update.

Hurricane

November 02, 2010, 06:52:31 AM
How does this almost $200M project not get heavily scrutinized?  I can think of a LOT of other good uses with this $200M in the urban core to bring life back to downtown.  This road construction project is all about getting people out of downtown with less traffic.  Let's concentrate on downtown itself, please?

Coolyfett

November 02, 2010, 06:58:59 AM
People live where the roads take them. Whos tax money is paying for this?

CS Foltz

November 02, 2010, 07:01:51 AM
Is this really needed? I mean we are talking about $195 Million plus, not to mention that north bound traffic is going to be a whole lot of fun................I can see the back up now, clear down to the 295 Interchange! FDOT Project should mean.........this is state funded, I think, but don't know for sure!

dougskiles

November 02, 2010, 07:04:57 AM
I sat in on a meeting with FDOT recently about this project.  They plan to construct collector/distributor lanes on the outside of the I-95 thru lanes first which will have very little impact on traffic (other than people slowing down to look at it).  Once the c/d lanes are complete, they will move I-95 traffic to them and begin the bridge reconstruction.  After the bridge reconstruction is complete, the c/d lanes will remain (an earlier plan had them as 'temporary') and serve to improve access to Atlantic Boulevard.  I see this as a particular benefit to the southbank area, San Marco businesses and the grossly underutilized Kings Avenue parking garage.

A much better use of transportation dollars than 9B in my opinion.

I look forward to attending the workshop to find out the latest and hope that many of you will also.

ChriswUfGator

November 02, 2010, 07:19:26 AM
Hopefully the execution of this winds up being better than the I-10/I-95 interchange, which is a deathtrap.

JeffreyS

November 02, 2010, 07:56:20 AM
are there any funds available to fast track commuter rail that would mitigate  the traffic caused by this project .

tufsu1

November 02, 2010, 08:30:17 AM
This had been considered a maintenance project (the struture is almost 50 years old) using Bridge Replacement funds.  As such, it was not considered a capacity project.  Not sure how the new plans might affect that determination.

I also think that this project could still be done in phases.  One can seek environmental approvals for a "total" improvement through the PD&E process and then build "interim" stages.  So I guess if the money isn't there for the interchange or C/D roads, they don't get built at first.

Next week's workshop should be very interesting.

thelakelander

November 02, 2010, 08:59:23 AM
From an urban design standpoint, I wonder what type of improvements could be make to strengthen the pedestrian and bicycle movement on both sides of this interchange?




For example, is it possible to make ponds E, F and G public amenities, such as the proposal for the park next to 200 Riverside?  Could plans include pedestrian enhancements along Atlantic Boulevard, similar to those under I-4 in Ybor City?



Anyway, at this point it looks like everything thing is being designed from an automobile oriented standpoint.  However, incorporating some complete streets strategies could enhance the gateway to both San Marco and St. Nicholas.

thelakelander

November 02, 2010, 09:15:36 AM
Also, does Atlantic Boulevard (east of Kings) really need to be widened to seven lanes?  Imo, it would be better to keep the parallel parking, reduce traffic lanes to two or three, and use the extra existing ROW for wider sidewalks and bike lanes.

tufsu1

November 02, 2010, 09:34:57 AM
Also, does Atlantic Boulevard (east of Kings) really need to be widened to seven lanes?  Imo, it would be better to keep the parallel parking, reduce traffic lanes to two or three, and use the extra existing ROW for wider sidewalks and bike lanes.

wait...I didn't see that in the plan....of course Atlantic is already 8 lanes wide from I-95 to the split w/ beach...did I miss something?

thelakelander

November 02, 2010, 09:46:35 AM
Sorry, I meant west.  At the intersection of Atlantic and Kings, the road is being widened to seven lanes.  The building currently being renovated into a doctor's office would be demolished to fit in the extra lanes.  Parallel parking is also being removed to accommodate more traffic lanes between Kings and the FEC tracks.  I believe this is overkill.

Jason

November 02, 2010, 09:47:23 AM
The overland bridge DOES need to be rebuilt.  If anyone has seen the size of some of the potholes that have opened up, you would agree.  It is close to falling apart completely.  Now is our chance to do it right and incorporate a fully comprehensive mobility plan into its design, as Lake mentioned.

fsujax

November 02, 2010, 09:48:57 AM
Lake you aware that we are dealing with FDOT District 2, right? Maybe someone should show up at the public meeting and ask about the Commuter Rail Demo project. Would be nice to get an official response.

Ocklawaha

November 02, 2010, 10:43:34 AM
Great idea fsujax, this WOULD be a great time to install a commuter rail demonstration. Our biggest obstacle may be stations or the lack thereof, yet after the earthquakes in LA we got Metrolink up and running in days, stopping a crossings. A downtown platform and bus pick up area would be about the only "construction" that would need to be done. As they are standard to the industry, one of our local railroads such as the FEC, might be willing to put a couple of RDC cars to bed each night...

Bravo on the interchange boys and girls, we have NEEDED a Southbound connection to and from Atlantic since about 1961... Go for it...


OCKLAWAHA

tufsu1

November 02, 2010, 10:44:30 AM
Sorry, I meant west.  At the intersection of Atlantic and Kings, the road is being widened to seven lanes.  The building currently being renovated into a doctor's office would be demolished to fit in the extra lanes.  Parallel parking is also being removed to accommodate more traffic lanes between Kings and the FEC tracks.  I believe this is overkill.

Looks like they want to make that part of Kings 2-way...currently it just serves as a 1-way ramp to Philips.

Eastbound they are proposing 1 left turn lane, 2 throughs, and a dedicated right turn lane....they could probably lose the dedicated right and just have a shared thru/right lane...westbound lanes are as is.

tufsu1

November 02, 2010, 10:46:51 AM
Bravo on the interchange boys and girls, we have NEEDED a Southbound connection to and from Atlantic since about 1961... Go for it...[/b]
OCKLAWAHA

you mean northbound?

acme54321

November 02, 2010, 10:56:06 AM
I think he means a northbound exit from 95 and a southbound onramp to 95.

simms3

November 02, 2010, 10:58:16 AM
Wow didn't know about the 7 lanes for Atlantic.  That does sound like overkill.  I agree Lake, let's quit building in the core for suburban arterial traffic and start setting precedence for bike lanes and wider sidewalks.  There does not need to be a dedicated right turn lane (that only gets really backed up with people turning right when there is a train).

Also to those who think this is yet again a waste of money, I urge you to do a little research on the structural integrity of the bridge that is currently there.  I think it has a C or D rating from the engineers, and once it gets down to F (which would not be in too long) it runs the risk of collapsing at any point.  This is a perfect example of our nation's "crumbling" infrastructure and why the government (feds definitely included) need to spend a lot of money on infrastructure in the next decade.  Infrastructure planning and construction was one of the federal government's only three original jobs in the first place outside of foreign diplomacy and national defense, so even the Founding Fathers realized it was a role for the central government.  Trust me, the City of Jacksonville is not forking over $195M, and probably not forking over a dime actually for this project.  It's all FDOT, who's purse is controlled in part by the gas tax and in part by federal dollars.

reednavy

November 02, 2010, 11:07:01 AM
Earlier this year, I clearly remember near disaster when a HOLE, not pothole, an actual HOLE opened up in the far left lane on the SB side of the bridge near Hendricks.

Is this needed, you bet, should it be done in phases to ease overall craziness, yes.

thelakelander

November 02, 2010, 11:11:43 AM
Looks like they want to make that part of Kings 2-way...currently it just serves as a 1-way ramp to Philips.

Are duel left turn lanes from Atlantic westbound to Kings southbound really needed?  If not, according to the aerial, a two way can be accommodated with a single southbound lane instead of two.

Quote
Eastbound they are proposing 1 left turn lane, 2 throughs, and a dedicated right turn lane....they could probably lose the dedicated right and just have a shared thru/right lane...westbound lanes are as is.

Considering the context, I wonder what's wrong with having one eastbound left turn lane and a shared thru/right turn lane.  Westbound, only one lane should do and a lane diet to Hendricks/San Marco Square should be considered.  Revised plans also indicate a paved median, which will result in the elimination of existing parallel parking.  It also doesn't appear that bike lanes are even being considered.  

What would be so wrong in designing Atlantic Boulevard with a higher pedestrian oriented focus over the automobile.  It's not like traffic backs up now and San Marco is already pretty much built out.  If there is any area in the Southside where complete streets considerations should be given and attempted, it's got to be San Marco.

Ocklawaha

November 02, 2010, 11:27:23 AM
Bravo on the interchange boys and girls, we have NEEDED a Southbound connection to and from Atlantic since about 1961... Go for it...
OCKLAWAHA

you mean northbound?

A direct connection (ramps) to and from south I-95 from Atlantic, currently there is no way to access the FREEway heading south from Atlantic, nor an exit onto Atlantic from the northbound lanes. The distributor lanes are also desperately needed by such investments as the parking garage, Hilton, etc.. These lanes if they carry to a connection with Gary Street might also offer a hospital connection for JTA's brt. I am not too concerned about the number of lanes in this area as it IS and probably always will be a choke point, whatever they build-we'll fill it.


OCKLAWAHA

tufsu1

November 02, 2010, 11:28:33 AM
Are duel left turn lanes from Atlantic westbound to Kings southbound really needed?  If not, according to the aerial, a two way can be accommodated with a single southbound lane instead of two.

don't know what the traffic forecasts are, but it is possible they are needed...reason being that the stacking distance is quite short, meaning that 2 short LT lanes is like the same as 1 long LT lane....plus the one lane leads to I-95 SB, while the other becomes the "ramp" to Philips.

David

November 02, 2010, 12:31:55 PM
Once construciton is complete, will there be any access to 95 NB if you're coming from the west side of Atlantic?

thelakelander

November 02, 2010, 12:36:37 PM
Yes.  You'll have to make a right on Kings and make a left at the stop light immediately south of that intersection.

fieldafm

November 02, 2010, 02:26:32 PM
This is interesting(especially b/c eminent domain may be needed for additional ROW access).  I am planning on attending the meeting Tuesday.  Anybody want to head down to the location before the meeting and do some workshopping with these proposed plans in hand to get a more visual idea of the plan's implications and possible enhancements visa vis Lake's ideas about improved pedestrian/bike access?

tufsu1

November 02, 2010, 02:45:41 PM
Yes.  You'll have to make a right on Kings and make a left at the stop light immediately south of that intersection.

correct....the existing NB on-ramp will take you onto the proposed C/D road which will lead to downtown.

spuwho

November 02, 2010, 11:54:56 PM
Will any accommodation be made for the Skyway to continue on in the future?  Can't go under the bridge today and even if they raise it, there is a hotel & parking garage in the way.  That means they would have to put a riser gap in the rebuilt section for it to slip through and continue. What say the planners?

thelakelander

November 03, 2010, 12:31:55 AM
It can be extended under I-95 today and there is still ROW between the hotel and garage. If the garage is still supposed to be connected to Kings Ave Station, the new bridge should still leave room for a potential skyway extension.

Ralph W

November 03, 2010, 12:44:11 AM
You would think they would consider moving the station or adding a station to the space between the garage and the hotel, with access from both, under cover. Why make the customer walk the ramp? Probably would ramp up the ridership if there was at least one convenient usable destination on the system.

dougskiles

November 03, 2010, 06:26:45 AM
My understanding is that DOT is going to make the bridge across Montana Avenue wide enough for JTA to extend the skyway to the garage (someday).  It would come in on the east side of the garage.  Apparently there is not enough room between the hotel and the garage for the skyway - or at least that is what I was told.

Kings Avenue is a prime spot for TOD.  I would like to see JTA move the large stormwater ponds to a parcel they own north of I-95 and make that area developable for restaurants/grocery store/apartments.

fieldafm - you mentioned getting together before the workshop - I am up for that - please let me know where & when.

mvp

January 04, 2011, 01:57:02 PM
Subject:           SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION

                                    I-95 Overland Bridge Replacement
                                    From 1200’ South of San Diego Rd. and ends 200’ North of Palm Ave.
                                    Financial Project ID:  213304-3                                 
                                    Duval County, Florida

 You are invited to a subsequent public hearing to discuss the I-95 Overland Bridge Replacement project.  The project begins 1200 feet south of San Diego Road and ends 200 feet north of Palm Avenue. The hearing will be held Thursday, January 27, 2011, at the Aetna Building 841 Prudential Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. 

Doors will open at 4:30 p.m. to allow you time to review and discuss the exhibits and have your questions answered by one of our staff. The formal portion of the public hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m., with an audio/visual presentation followed by an opportunity for public comment.

It is the policy of the Florida Department of Transportation's District Two to prohibit materials and/or exhibits in our public workshops, meetings or hearings that are not the property of the Department.  Therefore, no outside party will be allowed to display or hand out materials in any of these events.

The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the Overland Bridge, which carries both northbound and southbound traffic on I-95 and spans Hendricks Avenue, Kings Avenue, and Montana Avenue in downtown Jacksonville.  The bridge is being replaced due to structural deterioration which is causing the need for frequent repairs.  A previous public hearing was held on this project in April 2009.  Due to public involvement feedback and further analysis, the Department is proposing additional modifications and would like to receive your input.

As of January 5, 2011, project material will be available for your review during normal business hours at the San Marco Library, 1513 LaSalle St., Jacksonville, Florida 32207 and the Florida Department of Transportation’s Urban Office, 2198 Edison Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204.

This hearing is being conducted to inform the public of the project and afford the public the opportunity to express views concerning the location, conceptual design and social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed improvements. The Department is required by Florida Statutes to give notice to those persons who properties lies in whole or in part within 300 feet of either side of the centerline of any alternative considered (even though they may not be directly affected).

Those who wish to submit written statements may do so at the hearing or mail them to the address below no later than February 7, 2011. All comments received by this date will become part of the public hearing record. All residents, property owners and interested persons or groups are encouraged to come and participate. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or family status. 

Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Mrs. Brandi Vittur at the number below at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.

All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing to review and discuss this important transportation improvement project. If you need project information or if you have any questions please visit the project website, WWW.i95overlandbridge.com or contact:

Brandi Vittur, P.E., Project Manager
Florida Department of Transportation
Mail Station 2007
1109 S. Marion Avenue
Lake City, FL 32025-5874
1-800-749-2967 or (386) 961-7468
E-mail: brandi.vittur@dot.state.fl.us

Jumpinjack

January 04, 2011, 02:54:43 PM
I've heard two presentations on the Overland bridge construction so far and I have these concerns:
  • The incredible cost of redoing this section of interstate which seems to be growing with every new design idea that is added to the package
  • The proposed additions to I-95 as a local use highway which will add to congestion in our metro area, impede interstate travel through Jacksonville, and remove the incentive for intercity passenger rail which could reduce demand on the interstate.
  • The increased pedestrian-automobile interactions which will result from the bridge ramp redesign, I think Main Street, when traffic exiting town moves onto Prudential Drive and onto Riverplace Drive.
We used to live off of Atlantic in the St. Nicholas area, and yeah, getting there from I-95 northbound was difficult. We had to exit at Emerson and drive up US 1 or use Spring Park. But ask me if I think it was worth a $220 mil fix. Nope.


dougskiles

January 04, 2011, 05:05:36 PM
The main point that FDOT keeps making is that this is a bridge replacement project.  The portions of the overland bridge in question have experienced several pavement failures recently, so the project is not optional.

I haven't seen the latest drawings.  The plans presented last fall indicated collector/distributor lanes on the north and southbound sides that would allow better access to Atlantic Boulevard (serving San Marco and St Nicholas) from both directions.  The primary purpose of these extra lanes, however, is to reduce the construction schedule.  Once the collector/distributor lanes are completed they will take the I-95 traffic while they re-build the overland portion.  Instead of removing the lanes upon completion, they found a way to keep them and improve neighborhood access.

The latest drawings will be available for review at the San Marco Library starting January 5th.

middleman

January 04, 2011, 09:32:37 PM
The current project plans can be found at http://www.i95overlandbridge.com/i95overland/, although these might be superseded at the upcoming meeting. Besides replacing the deteriorating structure, the new design provides northbound access to Atlantic and Philips, and eliminates the lane weaving mess that currently exist between Atlantic/Philips and the Acosta/MainSt bridge exit. That section of I-95 is going to be replaced anyway, might as well do it right.

thelakelander

January 04, 2011, 11:44:53 PM
You can also find renderings and comments from the article we did on this project a couple of months ago:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-nov-i-95-overland-bridge-project-expands

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-apr-the-i-95-overland-bridge-project

thelakelander

January 27, 2011, 08:01:40 PM
Just getting in from the Overland Bridge meeting.  I stayed around to listen to public comments after the presentation and this is what was basically stated by local residents.

1. Great project.  Everyone seemed excited about having a new interchange at Atlantic and Philips.  No one mentioned the price tag of $213 million as being a problem.  I wonder what the outroar would be if someone wanted $10 million for mass transit?

2. Several property owners along Philips Highway are concerned about drainage ponds along their corridor.  They believe they could hurt that area's redevelopment potential.

3. SMPS thanked FDOT for working with and listening to their concerns.  FDOT plans to keep the parking lot under I-95, along Hendricks, and make it available as free parking when the project is complete.

4. A representative from SMPS asked if the project comes under budget, they'd like FDOT to take some of the remaining money and develop the area under I-95, between San Marco Blvd and the river, in a fashion similar to the RAM area in Riverside.  They also asked for FDOT to make sure their drainage ponds are designed to look natural and good looking, instead of a hole surrounded by a black fence.

5. A South Shores Road resident also asked FDOT to consider not completely blocking off their neighborhood's access to the I-95 northbound ramp on Atlantic Blvd.

dougskiles

January 27, 2011, 08:16:37 PM
1. Great project.  Everyone seemed excited about having a new interchange at Atlantic and Philips.  No one mentioned the price tag of $213 million as being a problem.  I wonder what the outroar would be if someone wanted $10 million for mass transit?

There is always going to be some outroar with any public expense - but having followed this project for quite some time, I think that James Bennett has shown everyone how you can get public support for a project.  They have listened to public comment and reacted to it by incorporating as many public concerns into the project as possible.  The approach has been very professional and non-threatening.  He is an excellent consensus builder.  When the time comes for selling a $10 million dollar transit project to the public, the proponents of the plan would be wise to learn from James and perhaps wouldn't get as much outroar as we think.

Non-RedNeck Westsider

January 27, 2011, 08:53:09 PM
This is the part that I don't understand...

Quote
They have listened to public comment and reacted to it by incorporating as many public concerns into the project as possible.

Whenever you do a project that affects people in the way this does, the statement above should be the standard and not atypical.  The majority of the people who have something to say about a matter (that count) will be the most vocal about in the beginning.  It isnt' hard to try to oil the squeaky wheel before it starts sounding like it's about to fall off.

I guess the main difference between this project and a mass transit project, is that even people living near the beach can relate to this - they have to drive it everyday.  Selling those people on a MT project, if even only 200k, would be quite a sell I think - they don't ever see themselves using it so it becomes a waste of money.  In their eyes, the people using it should have to pay for it.

I guess that I'm still new enough from being anti-MT to now being completely pro-MT, in whatever form, that I can still see it from both sides of the fence.  I still wouldn't give up my car, but now I don't have a problem leaving it in the driveway 2-3 times a week.  I can make it a week with a 40 mile daily commute on a 1/2 tank of gas with no hybrid.  ;D

acme54321

January 27, 2011, 09:13:16 PM
4. A representative from SMPS asked if the project comes under budget, they'd like FDOT to take some of the remaining money and develop the area under I-95, between San Marco Blvd and the river, in a fashion similar to the RAM area in Riverside.  They also asked for FDOT to make sure their drainage ponds are designed to look natural and good looking, instead of a hole surrounded by a black fence.

5. A South Shores Road resident also asked FDOT to consider not completely blocking off their neighborhood's access to the I-95 northbound ramp on Atlantic Blvd.

These are my main concerns, especially the last one as I live in the South Shores neighborhood. 

dougskiles

January 28, 2011, 06:39:33 AM
Whenever you do a project that affects people in the way this does, the statement above should be the standard and not atypical.  The majority of the people who have something to say about a matter (that count) will be the most vocal about in the beginning.  It isnt' hard to try to oil the squeaky wheel before it starts sounding like it's about to fall off.

Does anyone remember how much opportunity for public input there was about the design of the courthouse?  I remember quite a bit of controversy in the news about it, but I wonder how much of the current design was a result of consensus in the community as opposed to the forced will of a select few. 

Quote
I guess the main difference between this project and a mass transit project, is that even people living near the beach can relate to this - they have to drive it everyday.  Selling those people on a MT project, if even only 200k, would be quite a sell I think - they don't ever see themselves using it so it becomes a waste of money.  In their eyes, the people using it should have to pay for it.

A couple of other factors at play, too.  People know that the funds are coming from state and federal sources (which apparently grows on trees...) and don't see the potential for a local tax increase.  And people are numb to the mind-boggling expense of these projects.

Directly to the point of why would a beaches resident support it?  They won't unless it is part of a larger mobility plan that effects everyone.  I don't believe that the Better Jax Plan ever would have passed had it not contained a carrot for everyone.  I know that I would not have voted for a tax increase to fund only a courthouse.  I got excited about the sports complex projects.

Which brings up a concern about the publicity from the TU regarding the mobility plan.  So far it has only been about the fee side of it.  I don't know if that will win over the public.  The proponents need to start selling the positive side soon - which are the increased options for alternative transportation, better connectivity by rail.  I believe people are ready for this, but there will need to be a pretty strong advertising campaign.  "Sell the sizzle - not the steak" - is what I have always been told.

thelakelander

January 28, 2011, 06:57:30 AM
One of the best ways to be forced to pay more local taxes is to kill the mobility fee, eliminate traffic concurrency and still encourage sprawl development (which is what some in the development community really want).  

I think the difference between the mobility fee and a sales tax increase is that the mobility fee is not a tax.  Its a user fee replacing the user fee already in operation to help keep the public from having to pay more taxes to fund our infrastructure issues.  Because it isn't a tax that impacts the average individual, it appears to flying under most of the public's (and mayoral candidate's) radar.

It appears that its going to go through, like the land use portion did last year.  Not much, if any, public opposition was expressed during the past year of public meetings on it.  At that point, we'll have to see if any who were in opposition but didn't speak up, have the ability to convince council to reverse their strong support and approval, with the knowledge that such a decision will result in a tax increase for the general public without it.

floridaal

March 09, 2012, 09:50:22 AM
What is the latest with this project?

cline

March 09, 2012, 09:58:03 AM
Construction to begin this year.

acme54321

March 09, 2012, 10:04:43 AM
Many of the properties that will be impacted are already vacant.  So they are making moves.

JeffreyS

March 09, 2012, 10:07:54 AM
Are we missing a big opportunity to have the state pay for commuter rail to mitigate traffic problems caused by this project? Any chance we can get movement on that idea?

mtraininjax

March 09, 2012, 10:15:29 AM
Some of the residents are still fighting with the State over the allowed amounts. Here's one for you, renters of properties are being paid $30,000 for their hardship of having to move. Think about that one!

acme54321

March 09, 2012, 10:17:13 AM
Some of the residents are still fighting with the State over the allowed amounts. Here's one for you, renters of properties are being paid $30,000 for their hardship of having to move. Think about that one!

I heard the same thing.  They are getting 3 years of rent for their "trouble."  I live 100yard from the damn thing.  They need to give me $30k for the trouble I am about to endure for 3 years!!!

cline

March 09, 2012, 10:26:12 AM
Yes, they are still in the process of acquiring ROW (they're spending like 57MM on ROW alone).

Are we missing a big opportunity to have the state pay for commuter rail to mitigate traffic problems caused by this project? Any chance we can get movement on that idea?

That won't happen.  This is merely a bridge replacement project (at least in the eyes of FDOT, although it will add some capacity).

coredumped

April 30, 2012, 11:11:32 PM
Bids start in May. People have until May 9th to leave their homes:
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Residents-affected-by-I-95-Overland-Bridge-project/-/475880/12224246/-/c9wwkr/-/index.html


Site with info (may be no longer updated?) http://www.i95overlandbridge.com/i95overland/Home/Details

Anti redneck

April 30, 2012, 11:50:43 PM
So what's the purpose of this? What is it supposed to do? Looks like to me it will just dump traffic off somewhere.

acme54321

May 01, 2012, 06:46:32 AM
They have already started demolition along Southampton.

Bativac

May 01, 2012, 07:53:12 AM
I know this project needs to happen, but I grew up on Chatford Road, and it makes me sad that the neighborhood is going to change irrevocably for the worse.

Overstreet

May 01, 2012, 08:00:55 AM
We have been told it actually starts December 31st.  Our trailer sits on the site of one of the new bridge piers.

It is interesting how the discussion seems to flow away from the original objective of the project. They needed to replace sections of the north bound I-95 over land bridge because it was costing more to maintain it than replace it with soil supported elevated highway............over long term I suppose. 

All the extra lanes, off ramps and on ramps, settlement ponds etc were originally added just to support the replacement of those lanes. Now they become the sole topic. From secondary to primary.

Ocklawaha

May 01, 2012, 08:33:36 AM
The full interchange at Atlantic needed to happen about 50 years ago. I'm not a big fan of roads, but by allowing people to exit without having to get off at San Marco Bl, and picking your way around, this should become something of an economic driver in that area. The interchange bodes well for the retail districts at San Marco and St. Nicholas.

As for adding lanes, again, not a fan, but in the core where traffic primarily squeezes into a single road, they should have seen this coming 50 years ago... I think FDOT finally figured this out. The South Jacksonville merchants should be thrilled.

Good point about commuter rail. If JTA wasn't so determined to 'prove' to us that BRT is the way to go, we could have already had commuter rail to the Avenues or beyond. With the grants for BRT on Philip's I'm afraid we are screwed again by little small minded people. Any claim for 'need' for BRT on Philips, a route that currently sees service at no more then hourly headways, is patently false. How they could pick one of their lightest routes and add BRT, not to mention duplicating the Skyway, I see another impending JTA failure.

thelakelander

May 01, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
Ock, do you remember the name of the retail district that was lost at the intersection of Kings and Atlantic when I-95 was built?  I believe this is where the streetcar line to Fletcher Park once terminated.  I'd like to do some research and put together a story on it.

fsujax

May 01, 2012, 08:54:42 AM
It is my understanding JTA did approach FDOT about running a commuter rail demonstration project along the FEC during the construction of the Overland Bridge.

exnewsman

May 01, 2012, 09:22:08 AM
It is my understanding JTA did approach FDOT about running a commuter rail demonstration project along the FEC during the construction of the Overland Bridge.


And what happened with that conversation?

cline

May 01, 2012, 09:28:24 AM
Quote
Good point about commuter rail. If JTA wasn't so determined to 'prove' to us that BRT is the way to go, we could have already had commuter rail to the Avenues or beyond. With the grants for BRT on Philip's I'm afraid we are screwed again by little small minded people.

+100

acme54321

May 01, 2012, 12:19:59 PM
I live right next to this interchange in the South Shores neighborhood.  While the construction phase is most likely going to suck a big one I think the added access to our neighborhood is a good thing.   Only 6 houses in our neighborhood are getting demolished.  Only one or two were nice and well kept, the others weren't exactly jewels.

Anti redneck

May 01, 2012, 11:14:25 PM
Why is this going to take 5 freakin' years? I don't remember 9A/295 taking that long. Is there any way to get this construction done sooner? I mean, come on! Construction projects in Jacksonville are a joke!

Charles Hunter

May 01, 2012, 11:22:47 PM
Was the commercial area "Times Square"?

tufsu1

May 01, 2012, 11:50:11 PM
Why is this going to take 5 freakin' years? I don't remember 9A/295 taking that long. Is there any way to get this construction done sooner? I mean, come on! Construction projects in Jacksonville are a joke!

I'm sure it can be done in far less time.....IF folks would be willing to just shut down I-95.....maintenance of traffic adds a ton of time and cost to highway projects.

Anti redneck

May 02, 2012, 01:15:36 AM
^ That's what I would do. Shut it down during off peak hours (like around 11 pm-6 am) or completely if you necessarily have to. There's other ways around. If anyone bitched, let them know that it could be done this way for shorter time or it can be left open where we waste more of your taxes and time. In other words, tell them to shut up! Either FDOT or COJ does not comprehend that. My bets are on COJ.

dougskiles

May 02, 2012, 05:27:36 AM
The 5 year construction period includes the remainder of the design.  The impact to traffic won't be as bad as it sounds because they are going to build the collector/distributor lanes on the sides in the first phase and then move all the traffic to those lanes while they rebuild the middle sections.

acme54321

May 02, 2012, 06:41:44 AM
Actual construction is supposed to take 3 years.  When this article was written the plan was different with only the southbound connector road, with the addition of the northbound connector they can shut down the mainline completely and get the job done faster.... supposedly.

Jason

May 02, 2012, 09:18:38 AM
^ That was my understanding as well.

tufsu1

May 02, 2012, 09:26:06 AM
^ That's what I would do. Shut it down during off peak hours (like around 11 pm-6 am)

so do the work at night? FDOT does this quite often, but it usually costs more.

 And what about the effect of construction noise on nearby neighborhoods?

btw, the info. about the C/D roads is correct...they will be built firast, traffic switched over, then the mainline rebuilt....which has reduced construction time considerably (which is exacvtly my point on maintenance of traffic)

acme54321

May 02, 2012, 09:50:42 AM
I really hope with these distributor roads they do not work around the clock.  I really don't want to listen to jackhammers and the like all night for 3 years.

Anti redneck

May 02, 2012, 06:34:47 PM
^ That's what I would do. Shut it down during off peak hours (like around 11 pm-6 am)

so do the work at night? FDOT does this quite often, but it usually costs more.

 And what about the effect of construction noise on nearby neighborhoods?

btw, the info. about the C/D roads is correct...they will be built firast, traffic switched over, then the mainline rebuilt....which has reduced construction time considerably (which is exacvtly my point on maintenance of traffic)

OK, I didn't think about the noise at night. Sorry. But how much quicker would it get done if shut down completely, do you think?

acme54321

October 30, 2012, 03:00:27 PM
Meeting on this tonight at 6:30, doors open at 4.  It's at the FDOT building off I-10 on Edison St. 

The contractor has proposed some changes to the bridge and Atlantic interchange.

Spence

November 02, 2012, 02:15:22 AM
While I am finally satisfied that there are no TEMPORARY lanes as per original (wasteful renderings), I remain disgusted with the lack of redundancybuilt into this redesign which blows a unique opportunity to better connect Springfield to SanMarco.

Eliminating direct access to Hendricks Ave., and intentionally not aligning the new southbound I 95 offramp onto Philips with a full intersection at Mitchell St., (think:New Forest St. exit nicely dumping straight ahead onto Myrtle Ave.) paired with forcing right turns, and narrowing nearby roads to serve only oneway traffic seems shortsighted and counterintuitive given the stated purpose for this expenditure at the recent meeting.

If revitalizing our core is "key", then Southhampton, Broadcast Place, Ramp Q, and limiting access to Hendricks all deserve reconsideration, and this project needs more intense vetting, especially if SanMarco wants a Publix and fewer hourlyrate motels.
View forum thread
Welcome Guest. You must be logged in to comment on this story.

What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
  • Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
  • Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
Register now
Already have an account? Login now to comment.