The Jaxson

Community => Transportation, Mass Transit & Infrastructure => Topic started by: Metro Jacksonville on August 06, 2014, 03:00:02 AM

Title: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Metro Jacksonville on August 06, 2014, 03:00:02 AM
Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/505198657_RhDvg-M.jpg)

In December 2013, Metro Jacksonville was the first to publicly raise questions about the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) plans to widen the Fuller Warren Bridge without including provisions for a pedestrian/cycling crossing between Riverside and San Marco. Well, the extra eye of scrutiny worked and Jacksonville will be a better place for it. Today, City Councilman Robin Lumb unveils revised plans for Fuller Warren Bridge & I-95/I-10 interchange.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-aug-revised-fuller-warren-bridge-plans-to-be-released-today
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: DavidFletcher on August 06, 2014, 06:28:22 AM
Is there anyone who will be providing a webcast of this press conference?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Dog Walker on August 06, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
Councilman Lumb has done a lot of heavy lifting and has taken input from a lot of people to get FDOT to change their plans.  The project is still a boondoggle, but now includes some positive aspects and eliminates a lot of the negative that resulted from the interchange that was finished a few years ago.

We all owe him a big vote of thanks for his hard work.

The best plan would still be to improve the East Beltway, turn it into I-95 and re-designate the bridge and in-town expressway as I-295; route all the thru traffic around downtown.  Other cities have done this successfully.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 06, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
I doubt it but the plans are up at www.10and95.com. Features include a $20 million multi use path on the south side of the Fuller Warren between Riverside Ave and Palm Ave, 14' noise walls between McDuff and College, $200k to redo College Street, and removal of the ponds under the bridge. The old flyover is gone too. They are going to widen the existing flyover to 3 lanes instead.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on August 06, 2014, 12:39:29 PM
This plan is head and shoulders better than the original - which was completely unacceptable.  I like that the I-10 EB to I-95 SB ramp is now changing from 1 lane to 2 lanes.  That should have never been 1 lane to begin with.  Project traffic was clearly botched on that original design.  I also like the reconfigured merge were between College and Park.  I still think that way too much is going into I-10 WB.  While that movement does back up in the PM peak I don't think it is on the same level as the I-10 EB to I-95 SB backup in the AM peak.  The shared use path is the bees knees though.  Really glad that's been added.  I know it wouldn't be popular I really think that the Stockton on-ramp should have been closed in the original project and should still be closed- it creates a crazy weave which adds to the back up.  Just my .02.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Josh on August 06, 2014, 01:40:01 PM
This plan is head and shoulders better than the original - which was completely unacceptable.  I like that the I-10 EB to I-95 SB ramp is now changing from 1 lane to 2 lanes.  That should have never been 1 lane to begin with.  Project traffic was clearly botched on that original design.  I also like the reconfigured merge were between College and Park.  I still think that way too much is going into I-10 WB.  While that movement does back up in the PM peak I don't think it is on the same level as the I-10 EB to I-95 SB backup in the AM peak.  The shared use path is the bees knees though.  Really glad that's been added.  I know it wouldn't be popular I really think that the Stockton on-ramp should have been closed in the original project and should still be closed- it creates a crazy weave which adds to the back up.  Just my .02.

Oh God, now there's going to be even more traffic on I-10 EB trying to get into the right lanes to go South on 95 instead of staying in the left (correct) lanes. I really wish they would just isolate that ramp somehow to only those getting on 10 at Stockton.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Lunican on August 06, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
The plans have been added to the article.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3440723123_7p4zztx-M.jpg)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-aug-revised-fuller-warren-bridge-plans-to-be-released-today
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on August 06, 2014, 02:29:06 PM
from what I understand, there are 3 alternatives....all are the same except in how they handle I-95 to US 17

Alt. 1A includes the US 17 flyover announced previously
Alt. 1B includes a US 17 flyunder, requiring no right of way
Alt. 2 includes a reconfiguration of existing lanes with a new ramp to Stockton St coming from I-95 south

I think FDOT prefers Alt. 2 now
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on August 06, 2014, 02:30:45 PM
This plan is head and shoulders better than the original - which was completely unacceptable.  I like that the I-10 EB to I-95 SB ramp is now changing from 1 lane to 2 lanes.  That should have never been 1 lane to begin with.  Project traffic was clearly botched on that original design.  I also like the reconfigured merge were between College and Park.  I still think that way too much is going into I-10 WB.  While that movement does back up in the PM peak I don't think it is on the same level as the I-10 EB to I-95 SB backup in the AM peak.  The shared use path is the bees knees though.  Really glad that's been added.  I know it wouldn't be popular I really think that the Stockton on-ramp should have been closed in the original project and should still be closed- it creates a crazy weave which adds to the back up.  Just my .02.

Oh God, now there's going to be even more traffic on I-10 EB trying to get into the right lanes to go South on 95 instead of staying in the left (correct) lanes. I really wish they would just isolate that ramp somehow to only those getting on 10 at Stockton.

I think the major mistake in that idea was that traffic utilizing that ramp was severely underestimated.  I think the designers probably thought that ramp would be rarely used and the majority of traffic would utilize the other I-95 SB ramps.  However the opposite occurred.  Reason being is that there is a huge amount of traffic coming off of the Roosevelt ramp onto I-10.  In the AM peak it is nearly impossible to merge across the necessary lanes to utilize the other ramps within that short distance so the majority of those people coming off Roosevelt stay in the right lanes and take the single lane ramp.  Add that to those merging on at the Stockton ramp, the woefully inadequate signage, and those people who don't pay attention and then realize they are not in the correct lane until the last minute to go south and you have cluster that we have now.  Ta-da.

I still cannot believe that original design was deemed acceptable when it doesn't take an engineer to tell you that you are going to have tons and tons of traffic coming off of Roosevelt.  It is a major artery serving numerous highly dense neighborhoods.  The problems we have now are the logical result of this design.

Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 06, 2014, 02:34:23 PM
from what I understand, Alt. 1A includes the US 17 flyover, Alt. 1B includes a US 17 flyunder, and Alt. 2 includes a reconfiguration if existing lanes....I think FDOT prefers Alt. 2 now

Yes, just got back from spending most of the day at the TPO. FDOT is recommending Alt. 2.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on August 06, 2014, 02:39:32 PM
from what I understand, Alt. 1A includes the US 17 flyover, Alt. 1B includes a US 17 flyunder, and Alt. 2 includes a reconfiguration if existing lanes....I think FDOT prefers Alt. 2 now

Yes, just got back from spending most of the day at the TPO. FDOT is recommending Alt. 2.

I would hope so since their own website states it is the Preferred alternative.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Josh on August 06, 2014, 02:45:13 PM
This plan is head and shoulders better than the original - which was completely unacceptable.  I like that the I-10 EB to I-95 SB ramp is now changing from 1 lane to 2 lanes.  That should have never been 1 lane to begin with.  Project traffic was clearly botched on that original design.  I also like the reconfigured merge were between College and Park.  I still think that way too much is going into I-10 WB.  While that movement does back up in the PM peak I don't think it is on the same level as the I-10 EB to I-95 SB backup in the AM peak.  The shared use path is the bees knees though.  Really glad that's been added.  I know it wouldn't be popular I really think that the Stockton on-ramp should have been closed in the original project and should still be closed- it creates a crazy weave which adds to the back up.  Just my .02.

Oh God, now there's going to be even more traffic on I-10 EB trying to get into the right lanes to go South on 95 instead of staying in the left (correct) lanes. I really wish they would just isolate that ramp somehow to only those getting on 10 at Stockton.

I think the major mistake in that idea was that traffic utilizing that ramp was severely underestimated.  I think the designers probably thought that ramp would be rarely used and the majority of traffic would utilize the other I-95 SB ramps.  However the opposite occurred.  Reason being is that there is a huge amount of traffic coming off of the Roosevelt ramp onto I-10.  In the AM peak it is nearly impossible to merge across the necessary lanes to utilize the other ramps within that short distance so the majority of those people coming off Roosevelt stay in the right lanes and take the single lane ramp.  Add that to those merging on at the Stockton ramp, the woefully inadequate signage, and those people who don't pay attention and then realize they are not in the correct lane until the last minute to go south and you have cluster that we have now.  Ta-da.

I still cannot believe that original design was deemed acceptable when it doesn't take an engineer to tell you that you are going to have tons and tons of traffic coming off of Roosevelt.  It is a major artery serving numerous highly dense neighborhoods.  The problems we have now are the logical result of this design.

Adding to the issues you mentioned, there are also a ton of drivers heading East (prior to Roosevelt dumping onto I-10) that move into the right-most lanes at either the first sign of a backup on the left lanes heading to I-95 South, or because they think it's somehow faster all other factors being equal. They end up causing a lot of the traffic from Roosevelt to get stuck in the rightmost lanes before they can merge left.

I would really like to see how traffic would flow for a week if traffic on that ramp was limited to just those getting on at Stockton. FWIW, it looks like the FDOT is going to double-stripe I-10E to separate 95 North and South like they should. I would prefer something with a little more texture/feedback than paint.......
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on August 06, 2014, 02:54:06 PM
Quote
Adding to the issues you mentioned, there are also a ton of drivers heading East (prior to Roosevelt dumping onto I-10) that move into the right-most lanes at either the first sign of a backup on the left lanes heading to I-95 South, or because they think it's somehow faster all other factors being equal. They end up causing a lot of the traffic from Roosevelt to get stuck in the rightmost lanes before they can merge left.

I agree.  If you're traveling on I-10 (not coming from Roosevelt) there's no reason why you should try and use that ramp- unless you want to make your life harder than it needs to be.  I do think improved signage could help that.  I also don't know what they haven't painted the interstate shields on the pavement showing drivers where the lane they are in will take them- they did that on 95 WB on the overland bridge.

Quote
I would really like to see how traffic would flow for a week if traffic on that ramp was limited to just those getting on at Stockton. FWIW, it looks like the FDOT is going to double-stripe I-10E to separate 95 North and South like they should. I would prefer something with a little more texture/feedback than paint.......

It would be a cluster of epic proportions if this happened.  During the AM peak that would force drivers coming off Roosevelt to merge across 2-3 lanes in heavy congestion in a short distance to access those ramps.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Dog Walker on August 06, 2014, 03:08:02 PM
From inside the TPO:

It seems there is a reason the FDOT has been so agreeable to makeing changes in their plan.  Councilman Bishop, who is Duval's representative on the TPO and its chair, flatly told the FDOT secretary that he would block TPO approval of the project which would have killed it completely.  The law requires TPO approval of this sort of project.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on August 06, 2014, 07:10:37 PM
Pretty much every FDOT project in the Jacksonville area requires TPO approval.

Also, Bishop is one of Duval County's representatives on the board...there are 4.  And I believe he is a past-chair...but he does chair the Regional Transportation Commission.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: fsujax on August 06, 2014, 07:34:45 PM
I agree with the Stockton on ramp movement. It seems they could have just extended the lane to create a longer merge lane. Glad to see the path added. Pretty neat.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans Revealed
Post by: tufsu1 on August 06, 2014, 09:05:06 PM
The only things not shown on the map are the replacement of the stormwater ponds under I-95 and the aesthetic treatments on some of the major overpasses (Park & Stockton St for example).  Am curious to hear more about these elements at the public meeting
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 06, 2014, 09:13:51 PM
Ponds: They aren't going to construct new ponds. They're going to retrofit some other existing ponds to accommodate the needed capacity.

Aesthetic Treatments: FDOT stated they aren't using SIS funds to spend on aesthetics. However, they won't stand in the way of local funds being used for this.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans Revealed
Post by: tufsu1 on August 06, 2014, 09:46:23 PM
^ this is something the community needs to stand up against.  Nobody said they have to use SIS funds (or even Federal $), but if they want to put a massive road project through historic urban neighborhoods, some context-sensitive solutions should be a must.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans Revealed
Post by: Ocklawaha on August 06, 2014, 11:50:15 PM
In defense of FDOT and the Jacksonville Expressway Authority, that Roosevelt connector wasn't engineered as some afterthought of a ramp. When the Expressway system was launched in Jacksonville it ran from the end of Roosevelt, along the 95 corridor past the west side of downtown, then crossed the Trout and hooked into North Main Street at the Imeson Airport. The Fuller Warren was a 4 lane lift span (yeah, I know... ON A EXPRESSWAY) and that dumped the traffic onto Atlantic and Philips. Southside Blvd was considered as a future I-95 corridor, and the Arlington Expressway, Haines Street Expressway and 20Th Street Expressway, all completed the system. Most large interchanges were cloverleafs with 20 mph, hairpin turns...bordering on corners. You can still experience one or two of those around town but most notable is the Airport exit which is ugly and horribly outdated as a door to our city. In the 50's and very early 60's, we actually were a national leader in FREEway development, it was the Interstate system that finally reached our system and taxed the hell out of it's capacity, not the other way around. 'Who's on first?' WE WERE!
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Ocklawaha on August 06, 2014, 11:57:05 PM
Just two words to improve on this Councilman Lumb:

1. ICONIC

2. SIGNATURE

Since we are apparently getting a newer-new bridge, why not push the issue to make it another of our iconic bridges. Pillars of light? Blue neon pointed skyward? How about green, the original Fuller Warren color? Frigging amazing columns with banners? Signature streetlight fixtures? Decorative metal panels attached to the side walls? Leave every damn tourist that zooms past us to feed the mouse talking about what a STUNNING beautiful bridge, view and city we have. Some of those ooh's and ah's will come home to roost in the form of money, investment and new residents.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Ocklawaha on August 07, 2014, 12:23:14 AM
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-Colorado-Bridge-Rail3-640X640_zpsdc9913a5.jpg)

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-Sun-Fence-in-Arizona1-640X640_zpsf4bbafb9.jpg)

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-Painted-Ornamental-Rail1-640X640_zps5bfa395e.jpg)

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-WY-Ornamental-Railing-640X640_zps29082c0f.jpg)

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-911LAX1_zps0e033106.jpg)

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-400px-Stainless_Steel_Columns_Princess_Way_Swansea_zpsc33350e1.jpg)
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 05:38:08 AM
I agree. However, that's the stuff FDOT believes local money should pay for.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: IrvAdams on August 07, 2014, 08:48:55 AM
Just two words to improve on this Councilman Lumb:

1. ICONIC

2. SIGNATURE

Since we are apparently getting a newer-new bridge, why not push the issue to make it another of our iconic bridges. Pillars of light? Blue neon pointed skyward? How about green, the original Fuller Warren color? Frigging amazing columns with banners? Signature streetlight fixtures? Decorative metal panels attached to the side walls? Leave every damn tourist that zooms past us to feed the mouse talking about what a STUNNING beautiful bridge, view and city we have. Some of those ooh's and ah's will come home to roost in the form of money, investment and new residents.

Well stated. Excellent. Let's make it unique. Let's turn some heads.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 09:25:22 AM
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-911LAX1_zps0e033106.jpg)

Ock, where is this?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: fsquid on August 07, 2014, 09:29:11 AM
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/HIGHWAY-911LAX1_zps0e033106.jpg)

Ock, where is this?

looks like LAX
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans Revealed
Post by: coredumped on August 07, 2014, 10:18:34 AM
I agree. However, that's the stuff FDOT believes local money should pay for.

Who pays for these this type of signage in the Tampa area:
(https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2388/2073160851_9742f6810c.jpg)

those poles differ from the rest of the state and they're all over Tampa. I think it adds a "feel" to the area.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 10:48:14 AM
FDOT money paid for this under I-4 but the maintenance costs are $3-$5k per month. Here's an article from 2007. Maybe  someone familiar with the Tampa Bay area can elaborate on what's taken place since then?

(http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/04/images/tb_fountain_450.jpg)

Quote
TAMPA - State transportation officials will soon put the final touches on a $1.3-million water fountain and pond that the city of Tampa agreed to take several years ago.

The problem: City officials are no longer sure they can afford its upkeep, and watering restrictions may prohibit its operation.

Plans made years ago for expanding Interstate 4 called for the state Department of Transportation to foot the $1.3.-million bill to install the fountain, then turn over ownership and maintenance to the city.

The cost for upkeep could range between $3,000 and $5,000 a month, or as much as $60,000 a year, according to recent Tampa Water Department estimates.

In these days of layoffs and budget cuts, that may be more than city officials want to spend.

Full article: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/05/Hillsborough/A_fountain_of_water__.shtml
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on August 07, 2014, 11:39:58 AM
Quote
In defense of FDOT and the Jacksonville Expressway Authority, that Roosevelt connector wasn't engineered as some afterthought of a ramp.

I wasn't referring to the Roosevelt ramp- obviously it has been there for a long time.  I'm talking about the fact that when they completed the new interchange a few years ago, the design (which is the present design) basically created a scenario which funneled all the traffic entering I-10 EB from the Roosevelt Expy onto a one-lane ramp to get onto I-95.  In the AM peak hour, it creates a nightmare.  More thought/analysis should have gone into how to handle that traffic- a one-lane ramp was clearly not the solution.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 07, 2014, 11:50:24 AM
I don't really feel like digging back through the old posts when the first evolution of this interchange was proposed, debated and has now been implemented.
But....

I'm fairly certain that 'the plan' was to have dedicated lanes for vehicles travelling from W I-10 to be forced into the 2 far left lanes with plans for a soft separartion of lanes and plenty of signage.

The left lanes were supposed to be for thru-traffic.  The right lanes were supposed to be for traffic entering from US17.  Where/when they decided to change those plans is unknown to me, but I remember the plan as it was first proposed.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on August 07, 2014, 12:01:10 PM
Quote
I'm fairly certain that 'the plan' was to have dedicated lanes for vehicles travelling from W I-10 to be forced into the 2 far left lanes with plans for a soft separartion of lanes and plenty of signage.

The left lanes were supposed to be for thru-traffic.  The right lanes were supposed to be for traffic entering from US17.  Where/when they decided to change those plans is unknown to me, but I remember the plan as it was first proposed.

In theory that is how it was supposed to work.  In practice though it has not been the case and created a serious weave issue.  I guess if they wanted to force that to happen you could extend the concrete barrier from where at starts now around Stockton further back towards Roosevelt but I'm not really sure how they could make that work with all the lane drops/adds that occur.  Might make it worse.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 07, 2014, 12:13:56 PM
Quote
I'm fairly certain that 'the plan' was to have dedicated lanes for vehicles travelling from W I-10 to be forced into the 2 far left lanes with plans for a soft separartion of lanes and plenty of signage.

The left lanes were supposed to be for thru-traffic.  The right lanes were supposed to be for traffic entering from US17.  Where/when they decided to change those plans is unknown to me, but I remember the plan as it was first proposed.

In theory that is how it was supposed to work.  In practice though it has not been the case and created a serious weave issue.  I guess if they wanted to force that to happen you could extend the concrete barrier from where at starts now around Stockton further back towards Roosevelt but I'm not really sure how they could make that work with all the lane drops/adds that occur.  Might make it worse.

That was supposed to be accomplished with some sort of semi-passive barrier.  The fold up, plastic reflectors come to mind, but I'm not totally sure.  I know that it wasn't supposed to be a hard barrier.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 01:12:40 PM
There's finally updates in the local media on this project now.

The FTU's is behind a paywall but it doesn't expose anything that wasn't added in this thread yesterday morning:

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/2014-08-06/story/bike-pedestrian-path-temporary-site-riverside-arts-market-are-part-new-plan

Here's the Jax Daily Record's: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543602

Still waiting for the JBJ's version of this. Below is a recap of CM Lumb's meeting:

Quote
For Immediate Release

For additional information contact Robin Lumb @ (904) 610-8811

Councilman Robin Lumb confirms revised FDOT plans for first ever bike-pedestrian path across the St. Johns River

Jacksonville, FL – Today Jacksonville City Council member Robin Lumb was able to confirm key details of the Florida Department of Transportation’s revised plans for widening the Fuller Warren Bridge and for re-working portions of the I-10 / I-95 interchange; a project that will be funded entirely with a combination of state and federal transportation dollars and requires absolutely no contribution from local Jacksonville taxpayers.

Although the FDOT has agreed to a number of modifications that will reduce or mitigate project impacts, the “game changer” according to Lumb will be the addition of a 12-foot wide mixed use bike-pedestrian path across the St. Johns River linking the Riverside and Brooklyn neighborhoods with San Marco and the Southbank.

“The plan is to create a bike-pedestrian path that’s physically separate from, but supported by, the structure of the Fuller Warren Bridge,” said Lumb. “As I understand it, it’s a cantilevered design that would be protected from the travel lanes by a concrete safety barrier.”

 

Lumb believes the bike-pedestrian path will stimulate efforts to revitalize downtown in a way that will minimize the demand for public investment other than for basic infrastructure. “Whenever the subject comes up I’m the first to advocate for allowing market forces to direct downtown redevelopment. The only thing government should be doing is to provide the appropriate infrastructure.” Lumb said. “The bike-pedestrian path – along with other changes to the FDOT’s plan – represents that kind of infrastructure.”

Lumb expects the bike-pedestrian path to be the impetus for a substantial amount of private development in and around downtown over the next few years; development that will significantly expand the tax base and benefit all of Jacksonville. “Projects like this make downtown and its close-in neighborhoods significantly more attractive to private in-fill development,” Lumb observed. “That’s precisely the kind of development that will revitalize neighborhoods and where providing public services is significantly less costly than in suburban areas.”

Other changes to the FDOT plans – which were originally announced in December of 2013 but received significant push back from area residents and business owners – include the elimination of a proposed flyover from I-10 west to US 17 South (Roosevelt Blvd.), the construction of sound walls along portions of I-10 between McDuff Ave. and College St., installing shaded L.E.D. lighting to reduce the effects of the high-intensity lamps that wash over into surrounding residential areas and the elimination of the two large retention ponds under the Fuller Warren Bridge between Riverside Ave. and College St.

Lumb, who’s been working with the Florida Department of Transportation on plan revisions for several months, praised the FDOT for its cooperation. “I genuinely appreciate what the FDOT and District Secretary Greg Evans have done to make this a better project,” Lumb said. “They’ve listened to what community groups and my City Council colleagues have had to say and they’ve responded with appropriate changes that will significantly reduce the project’s impacts on Riverside, Avondale, North Riverside and Brooklyn.”

Lumb also credited Riverside Avondale Preservation for its work in helping him navigate the regulations that govern interstate highway projects and for providing the subject matter experts that advised him throughout the process. “Riverside Avondale Preservation is a tremendous resource for our community,” said Lumb. “They’ve really helped to bring all the pieces together.”

The next public meeting planned by the FDOT to present project plans in detail will be on Thursday, August 28th at the Cummer Museum of Art. For additional details on this meeting please email Councilman Robin Lumb at: rlumb@coj.net
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: fieldafm on August 07, 2014, 01:17:04 PM
Quote
More thought/analysis should have gone into how to handle that traffic- a one-lane ramp was clearly not the solution.

The cynic in me (and FDOT deserves its cynics) that has used this route for commuting daily since I was in high school, knew in his heart of hearts that FDOT designed all of this on purpose to make it more palpable to the car driving public to put up with yet another neighborhood disrupting/destroying expansion in the near-term future withouth throwing much of a fuss about it... like what happened in the last 8 months, for instance.

Didn't take a genious to see all that extra space and ROW and not think there was a sinister end goal in mind... and viola, it's happening now.

Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 01:21:07 PM
^Yeah. The thing, from the first FWB replacement, to the I-10/95 interchange redo, and the Overland Bridge thing, feels like one massive project that's been broken into decades long phases.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: mtraininjax on August 07, 2014, 10:06:03 PM
Quote
the “game changer” according to Lumb will be the addition of a 12-foot wide mixed use bike-pedestrian path

Lumb has been drinking the Kool-aid from the 4th floor at 117 West Duval Street.  Using the Mayor's own lingo. Nice.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Ocklawaha on August 07, 2014, 10:41:51 PM
Maybe we could all pitch in and put up a nice message sign somewhere... 'Welcome to the downtown Jacksonville Interstate Money Pit... Just keep telling yourselves Mass Transit won't make money!'

As someone who has used the Roosevelt connector since the day it opened, (yeah, I know, how old is dirt?) I've always marveled at how they widened US-17 years ago from the little four lane bucking concrete drive, and added a overpass at Edgewood, but then missed McDuff! WTH? I actually like the method they used with Edgewood, sheer vertical walls, (also on Beach x 2) it just seems like they ran out of concrete...  ;)
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Ocklawaha on August 07, 2014, 10:53:06 PM
Yes Lake, the pillars of light are at LAX. I'd personally love to see us take a page from Medellin's 'Parque de Luz.' Imagine this photo with the pillars lining the bridge at close intervals for artistic purposes. You can get a idea of the scale of these pillars from the tiny picnic tables below them. Tubes of light run up the columns and can change colors. STUNNING! It really does give one the effect of being in the great hall of the Emerald City... or maybe its just because I had to duck into a Holiday Inn in Alliance NE with severe hail storms all around, maybe I'm off to see the wizard!

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/PARQUEDELUZ_zpsf0fe182d.jpg)
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: PeeJayEss on August 12, 2014, 03:37:33 PM
Quote
More thought/analysis should have gone into how to handle that traffic- a one-lane ramp was clearly not the solution.

The cynic in me (and FDOT deserves its cynics) that has used this route for commuting daily since I was in high school, knew in his heart of hearts that FDOT designed all of this on purpose to make it more palpable to the car driving public to put up with yet another neighborhood disrupting/destroying expansion in the near-term future withouth throwing much of a fuss about it... like what happened in the last 8 months, for instance.

Didn't take a genious to see all that extra space and ROW and not think there was a sinister end goal in mind... and viola, it's happening now.

Didn't look to me like they are expanding the footprint of the ROW in any areas where there is development (aside from the aerial easement at the bridge). Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: I-10east on February 27, 2015, 10:18:11 AM
Revised Fuller Warren construction plan with bike and pedestrian access praised.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-02-26/story/fuller-warren-construction-plan-praised
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on February 27, 2015, 10:56:04 AM
I attended this meeting last night. FDOT has added noise walls along I-10 and US 17 through Riverside. CM Boyer also discussed some changes to the San Marco side of the multi-use path. Instead of it being extended to Palm Avenue, it's going to end at the riverfront. From there, they've secured an easement from Nemours and FDOT will construct a new segment of the Southbank Riverwalk that will stretch from I-95 to Childrens Way/Nira Street. Eventually, it will be a part of a Southbank Riverwalk loop that will utilize Nira Street as the southern connection. They're also planning for a park to be constructed under I-95 between Baptist and Nemours.

Also, FDOT plans to start construction in a year. This thing has moved pretty quick since those articles I ran last December about this project not having a bike/ped component. Exciting stuff.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on February 27, 2015, 11:01:14 AM
CM Boyer also discussed some changes to the San Marco side of the multi-use path. Instead of it being extended to Palm Avenue, it's going to end at the riverfront. From there, they've secured an easement from Nemours and FDOT will construct a new segment of the Southbank Riverwalk that will stretch from I-95 to Childrens Way/Nira Street.

Just to be clear....I don't believe this has been entirely worked out yet....but it seems promising and would be generally revenue neutral to FDOT as compared to the proposal as currently shown.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: InnerCityPressure on February 27, 2015, 11:31:32 AM
I really hate the noise barrier walls and I would have to look at these daily.  They box you in.  I love riding around Riverside and seeing/hearing the highway.  It makes me feel like I'm in a city. 

If they have to construct the walls, (I know this is dreaming) can we at least advocate for something that enhances our beautiful, historic, artsy neighborhood?

(http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/Symbiotic-Green-Wall-1.jpg)

(http://www.gotransit.com/gts/en/CACs/Images/Sample%20Noise%20Wall%20Images/Sample_noise_wall_6-800x600.jpg)
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on February 27, 2015, 11:40:17 AM
^Originally, they were not going to have them. Your neighbors asked for them and FDOT eventually decided to address their concerns. Btw, I don't FDOT is going to pay for what's shown in the images. However, if money was found from another funding source, I'm sure they'd be open to additional aesthetic treatments, such as what's shown in the images.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: PeeJayEss on February 27, 2015, 01:54:46 PM
From there, they've secured an easement from Nemours and FDOT will construct a new segment of the Southbank Riverwalk that will stretch from I-95 to Childrens Way/Nira Street. Eventually, it will be a part of a Southbank Riverwalk loop that will utilize Nira Street as the southern connection. They're also planning for a park to be constructed under I-95 between Baptist and Nemours.

Well that is a whole bunch of awesome.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: InnerCityPressure on February 27, 2015, 04:08:43 PM
^Originally, they were not going to have them. Your neighbors asked for them and FDOT eventually decided to address their concerns. Btw, I don't FDOT is going to pay for what's shown in the images. However, if money was found from another funding source, I'm sure they'd be open to additional aesthetic treatments, such as what's shown in the images.

That's funny.  I didn't attend any meetings, because I knew that the bike path would get done and I was fine with the rest of the plan.  I didn't know that I needed to attend to fight changes that hadn't yet been made.  Was there a neighborhood survey done for such a drastic alteration or were there 3 loudmouths at the meeting that made this happen?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on February 27, 2015, 04:59:10 PM
Part of the purpose of the meetings is for coordination between FDOT and the public in an attempt to relieve conflict and concerns. There have been several meetings over the last year between FDOT and various Riverside residents and community groups. My guess is that the bike path was one of many concerns expressed over the last few months. The plan last night had noise walls on just about every west of the Fuller Warren Bridge. It was also mentioned that FDOT plans to fill in the ponds under the Fuller Warren and build a parking lot on the other side of Riverside Avenue, for the eventual expansion of RAM.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Charles Hunter on February 28, 2015, 03:08:48 PM
Aren't whether or not there are sound walls based on calculations of cost of the wall vs. number of residents/degree of benefit, not neighborhood requests?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Jumpinjack on February 28, 2015, 04:20:16 PM
I live within 200 feet of I-10 close to the I-95 merge. The original design of the roadway did not include sound walls. It was not considered by FDOT until many (not three loudmouths) who live as close or even closer on the three closest streets asked FDOT to consider sound walls. The nursing home, realtor's office, small businesses, and kindergarten who are also my neighbors wanted something to protect them from increased highway noise. These decisions were made after the first round of public meetings many months ago.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: InnerCityPressure on February 28, 2015, 11:42:11 PM
I live within 200 feet of I-10 close to the I-95 merge. The original design of the roadway did not include sound walls. It was not considered by FDOT until many (not three loudmouths) who live as close or even closer on the three closest streets asked FDOT to consider sound walls. The nursing home, realtor's office, small businesses, and kindergarten who are also my neighbors wanted something to protect them from increased highway noise. These decisions were made after the first round of public meetings many months ago.

Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.

This is going to look horrible from the highway and it's going to look even worse from the neighborhood.  I love that people can see our historic houses from the highway.  I love staring up at one of the busiest interchanges in the country. 

I hope you enjoy your new view...

(http://seeclickfix.com/files/issue_images/0019/4462/wall.jpg)
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Gamblor on February 28, 2015, 11:44:51 PM
Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.
^^Ditto
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 01, 2015, 01:32:36 PM
I live within 200 feet of I-10 close to the I-95 merge. The original design of the roadway did not include sound walls. It was not considered by FDOT until many (not three loudmouths) who live as close or even closer on the three closest streets asked FDOT to consider sound walls. The nursing home, realtor's office, small businesses, and kindergarten who are also my neighbors wanted something to protect them from increased highway noise. These decisions were made after the first round of public meetings many months ago.

Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.

This is going to look horrible from the highway and it's going to look even worse from the neighborhood.  I love that people can see our historic houses from the highway.  I love staring up at one of the busiest interchanges in the country. 

I hope you enjoy your new view...

(http://seeclickfix.com/files/issue_images/0019/4462/wall.jpg)

Unfortunately,  you aren't the norm. Sound levels have become quite the issue with roadway projects in the last decade. 

Don't like graffiti?  Don't paint the wall.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 01, 2015, 01:35:29 PM
Aren't whether or not there are sound walls based on calculations of cost of the wall vs. number of residents/degree of benefit, not neighborhood requests?

Sound walls are located based on increases in decibel levels.  There are a few experts around the state that provide a sound analysis to determine wall locations.  It's not typically based on cost or resident request.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 01, 2015, 01:48:46 PM
Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.
^^Ditto

What about the folks near the I95-SR 9B interchange currently under construction?   Or I-295 in Mandarin?  Sound walls are crucial to reduce noise levels that were originally reduced by the tree buffer.  What should we tell them?  Move to Nocatee too?

You can't please everyone all the time.  It fact, you never can. 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Charles Hunter on March 01, 2015, 02:54:39 PM
Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.
^^Ditto

What about the folks near the I95-SR 9B interchange currently under construction?   Or I-295 in Mandarin?  Sound walls are crucial to reduce noise levels that were originally reduced by the tree buffer.  What should we tell them?  Move to Nocatee too?

You can't please everyone all the time.  It fact, you never can. 

Both of the I-295 toll lane projects will have sound walls.
Current one: http://www.nflroads.com/_layouts/FDOT%20D2%20Northeast%20Florida%20Road%20Construction/ProjectDetails.aspx?pid=264&sid=All
Next one (JTB to 9B) http://www.nflroads.com/_layouts/FDOT%20D2%20Northeast%20Florida%20Road%20Construction/ProjectDetails.aspx?pid=261&sid=All

As will the new I-95 / SR 9B interchange: http://www.nflroads.com/_layouts/FDOT%20D2%20Northeast%20Florida%20Road%20Construction/ProjectDetails.aspx?pid=10&sid=All
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: InnerCityPressure on March 01, 2015, 04:05:45 PM
I live within 200 feet of I-10 close to the I-95 merge. The original design of the roadway did not include sound walls. It was not considered by FDOT until many (not three loudmouths) who live as close or even closer on the three closest streets asked FDOT to consider sound walls. The nursing home, realtor's office, small businesses, and kindergarten who are also my neighbors wanted something to protect them from increased highway noise. These decisions were made after the first round of public meetings many months ago.

Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.

This is going to look horrible from the highway and it's going to look even worse from the neighborhood.  I love that people can see our historic houses from the highway.  I love staring up at one of the busiest interchanges in the country. 

I hope you enjoy your new view...

(http://seeclickfix.com/files/issue_images/0019/4462/wall.jpg)

Unfortunately,  you aren't the norm. Sound levels have become quite the issue with roadway projects in the last decade. 

Don't like graffiti?  Don't paint the wall.

WTF?  Did you think I was planning on tagging the wall myself? 

That wall WILL get tagged and the first people to bitch about it will be the old codgers that had it added to the plans in the first place.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: InnerCityPressure on March 01, 2015, 04:09:31 PM
Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.
^^Ditto

What about the folks near the I95-SR 9B interchange currently under construction?   Or I-295 in Mandarin?  Sound walls are crucial to reduce noise levels that were originally reduced by the tree buffer.  What should we tell them?  Move to Nocatee too?

You can't please everyone all the time.  It fact, you never can.

I'm not concerned with any of those suburban locations.  Give them an awesome super high wall so they don't have to see any poor people.  I don't give a shit.  Just don't come into the historic urban hoods with the walls...
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Timkin on March 01, 2015, 08:54:01 PM
Leave School Four alone as well !!
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 01, 2015, 10:43:47 PM
Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.
^^Ditto

What about the folks near the I95-SR 9B interchange currently under construction?   Or I-295 in Mandarin?  Sound walls are crucial to reduce noise levels that were originally reduced by the tree buffer.  What should we tell them?  Move to Nocatee too?

You can't please everyone all the time.  It fact, you never can.

I'm not concerned with any of those suburban locations.  Give them an awesome super high wall so they don't have to see any poor people.  I don't give a shit.  Just don't come into the historic urban hoods with the walls...

Uh, well, ok.  Can't really discuss/explain/reason with that.

Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: edjax on March 01, 2015, 10:49:15 PM
Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.
^^Ditto

What about the folks near the I95-SR 9B interchange currently under construction?   Or I-295 in Mandarin?  Sound walls are crucial to reduce noise levels that were originally reduced by the tree buffer.  What should we tell them?  Move to Nocatee too?

You can't please everyone all the time.  It fact, you never can.

I'm not concerned with any of those suburban locations.  Give them an awesome super high wall so they don't have to see any poor people.  I don't give a shit.  Just don't come into the historic urban hoods with the walls...

Well the walls are coming so get use to them.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 01, 2015, 10:50:49 PM
I live within 200 feet of I-10 close to the I-95 merge. The original design of the roadway did not include sound walls. It was not considered by FDOT until many (not three loudmouths) who live as close or even closer on the three closest streets asked FDOT to consider sound walls. The nursing home, realtor's office, small businesses, and kindergarten who are also my neighbors wanted something to protect them from increased highway noise. These decisions were made after the first round of public meetings many months ago.

Well, I wish you would move to Nocatee.  Don't buy a house 200 ft from the highway in the middle of the city and expect peace and quiet.

This is going to look horrible from the highway and it's going to look even worse from the neighborhood.  I love that people can see our historic houses from the highway.  I love staring up at one of the busiest interchanges in the country. 

I hope you enjoy your new view...

(http://seeclickfix.com/files/issue_images/0019/4462/wall.jpg)

Unfortunately,  you aren't the norm. Sound levels have become quite the issue with roadway projects in the last decade. 

Don't like graffiti?  Don't paint the wall.

WTF?  Did you think I was planning on tagging the wall myself? 

That wall WILL get tagged and the first people to bitch about it will be the old codgers that had it added to the plans in the first place.

Where's that pic from?  Doubt its Jacksonville.  Doesn't appear to Florida based on the guardrail.

I haven't seen one sound wall in Jacksonville that has spray paint on it, at least from the roadside.  There typically isn't good access from the road.   If graffiti was an issue, I think we'd hear about it more.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: PeeJayEss on March 02, 2015, 09:10:52 AM
This is going to look horrible from the highway and it's going to look even worse from the neighborhood.  I love that people can see our historic houses from the highway.  I love staring up at one of the busiest interchanges in the country. 

You are certainly in the minority on this. Who wants a view (or the sound) of an interstate highway from their house? You act like that is an issue of historical character, as if the most authentic of historic communities have highways going by every single house. What are you talking about? The walls don't harm the community, it is the highways tearing through poor neighborhoods that harm the community. The big issue is in the past, the best we can do now is mitigate the presence of the highway as best we can.

Also, that is not even close to one of the busiest interchanges in the country. Probably doesn't even make the list for Florida. Might not even be the busiest interchange in Jacksonville.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: InnerCityPressure on March 02, 2015, 11:26:52 AM
This is going to look horrible from the highway and it's going to look even worse from the neighborhood.  I love that people can see our historic houses from the highway.  I love staring up at one of the busiest interchanges in the country. 

You are certainly in the minority on this. Who wants a view (or the sound) of an interstate highway from their house? You act like that is an issue of historical character, as if the most authentic of historic communities have highways going by every single house. What are you talking about? The walls don't harm the community, it is the highways tearing through poor neighborhoods that harm the community. The big issue is in the past, the best we can do now is mitigate the presence of the highway as best we can.

Also, that is not even close to one of the busiest interchanges in the country. Probably doesn't even make the list for Florida. Might not even be the busiest interchange in Jacksonville.

I agree that the problems lie in the past.  However, I think part of the *new* charm of Riverside is the highway buzzing overhead.  It adds to a vibe that I've grown to love.  I don't care if I'm in the minority.  I don't really care if I am the only one (though I'm not).  I like my chain link fence that looks across the three yards to each side.  I don't like privacy fencing.  I like seeing/hearing the highway.  I don't like the backside of a wall.

Anyhow, the decision has been made and I can't imagine a situation in which the change is reversed.  Let's make a move to productivity.  What would it take to get FDOT to give us an attractive wall?  We need something that matches the character of the neighborhood.  Ennis mentioned that they would probably need outside funds.  Does that mean some sort of private donation or fundraising?  I would be interested in setting up a petition/crowdsourcing account for this cause. 

Does anyone have details on where exactly they would add sound barriers?  Is that information public yet? 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 02, 2015, 11:44:22 AM
Here you go! Graphics from last week's public meeting:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/i-kkCk5Kf/0/L/FWB%20-%20Noise%20Walls-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/i-xRWnB42/0/L/FWB%20-%20RAM-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Fuller-Warren-Bridge-Expansion/i-sJFNgbc/0/L/FWB%20-%20Shared%20Use%20Path-L.jpg)

http://www.10and95.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/1120150226PublicInformationMeetingHandout11x17.pdf
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: acme54321 on March 02, 2015, 11:56:24 AM
I can't wait for people to flip out when they mow down all of the oaks along 17 for that noise wall.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: InnerCityPressure on March 02, 2015, 12:02:50 PM
Incredible.  Thanks, Ennis!
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 02, 2015, 12:03:06 PM
I can't wait for people to flip out when they mow down all of the oaks along 17 for that noise wall.
^Yes, anything within FDOT ROW (it appears that most of those oaks are) will most likely be cut down I-295 Mandarin & I-95/JTB style.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: acme54321 on March 02, 2015, 12:50:54 PM
I can't wait for people to flip out when they mow down all of the oaks along 17 for that noise wall.
^Yes, anything within FDOT ROW (it appears that most of those oaks are) will most likely be cut down I-295 Mandarin & I-95/JTB style.

YEP.  I bet those trees act as a pretty good noise wall on their own.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Josh on March 02, 2015, 12:52:54 PM
Yeah I'm not liking the sound of the noise walls along the 17 stretch. Removing mature natural sound barriers and replacing them with walls? How far off the travel lanes will the walls be?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Dog Walker on March 02, 2015, 12:55:36 PM
Yeah I'm not liking the sound of the noise walls along the 17 stretch. Removing mature natural sound barriers and replacing them with walls? How far off the travel lanes will the walls be?

There is a formula for the height of the walls depending on how far from the walls are from the travel lanes.  The farther away the travel lanes the higher the walls need to be.  See "The Handbook of Environmental Acoustics."
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: acme54321 on March 02, 2015, 01:17:30 PM
8' seems pretty low
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 02, 2015, 02:26:08 PM
keep in mind that is 8' from the level of the highway.  In many cases, the road is higher up than the adjacent neighborhoods, so the wall will be taller
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 02, 2015, 03:32:13 PM
Just curious, but are they changing anything regarding the 17/10 interchange, or are they ONLY adding the soundwalls?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: acme54321 on March 02, 2015, 03:51:32 PM
keep in mind that is 8' from the level of the highway.  In many cases, the road is higher up than the adjacent neighborhoods, so the wall will be taller

Well yeah, I would imagine all of that road is over8' above natural grade.  The section of 17 is question is like 15' above grade.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: RattlerGator on March 03, 2015, 07:13:21 AM
I attended this meeting last night. FDOT has added noise walls along I-10 and US 17 through Riverside. CM Boyer also discussed some changes to the San Marco side of the multi-use path. Instead of it being extended to Palm Avenue, it's going to end at the riverfront. From there, they've secured an easement from Nemours and FDOT will construct a new segment of the Southbank Riverwalk that will stretch from I-95 to Childrens Way/Nira Street. Eventually, it will be a part of a Southbank Riverwalk loop that will utilize Nira Street as the southern connection. They're also planning for a park to be constructed under I-95 between Baptist and Nemours.

Also, FDOT plans to start construction in a year. This thing has moved pretty quick since those articles I ran last December about this project not having a bike/ped component. Exciting stuff.
*This* is how the process is supposed to work, instead of incessant bitching and moaning and belittling. Follow the process, give strong input as they plan and have their mandatory community meetings, insist FDOT work with you to shape the project to meet local needs and tastes wherever possible.

Good job, lakelander.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 03, 2015, 07:48:26 AM
I'm only one of many people and concerned residents that have worked behind the scene to help create a better project. Nevertheless, the process does show what is possible when the community gets involved early in the process. Hopefully, we'll see more community involvement on future projects.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 03, 2015, 08:03:15 AM
Yeah I'm not liking the sound of the noise walls along the 17 stretch. Removing mature natural sound barriers and replacing them with walls? How far off the travel lanes will the walls be?

the original plans from FDOT had most of the trees being cut down for a flyover....that was fought and thus the design changed.

From what was shown at the meeting last week (graphics on previous page), the walls appear to be up against the road....in fact, many 8' noise walls around the state are poured in concrete attached to a "jersey" barrier.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: PeeJayEss on March 03, 2015, 10:48:20 AM
Good to see FDOT is better at designing a shared-use path than COJ, DDRB, Haskell, CH2MHill, and Flagg Design put together.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: SightseerLounge on March 05, 2015, 03:30:59 AM
Why can't they just get these things right the first few times?

Its amazing that about 25 years ago, they actually got the Acosta Bridge right!

Use some of those same elements with the Fuller Warren Bridge!

I've said this before: They should build a pedestrian bridge somewhere from Riverside/San Marco up to the Main St. Bridge!
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: acme54321 on March 05, 2015, 06:58:26 AM
I've said this before: They should build a pedestrian bridge somewhere from Riverside/San Marco up to the Main St. Bridge!

Huh?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: PeeJayEss on March 05, 2015, 08:42:26 AM
I've said this before: They should build a pedestrian bridge somewhere from Riverside/San Marco up to the Main St. Bridge!

Huh?

A bridge that connects either Riverside or San Marco to the Main Street Bridge.
I think there should be a bridge that connects the Acosta to the Fuller Warren. That's what this town needs.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 05, 2015, 08:33:42 PM
Good to see FDOT is better at designing a shared-use path than COJ, DDRB, Haskell, CH2MHill, and Flagg Design put together.

LOL.  Too funny. Leave it to a bunch of roadway engineers to do something right for pedestrians.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 05, 2015, 08:36:14 PM
I'm only one of many people and concerned residents that have worked behind the scene to help create a better project. Nevertheless, the process does show what is possible when the community gets involved early in the process. Hopefully, we'll see more community involvement on future projects.

Again, great job.  I just hope it gets used as so many have promised that it will.  I've seen the special interest groups get involved early in the process, and add costs to projects, only.to watch the improvements go unused.

Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 05, 2015, 08:47:08 PM
I don't know if I'd call the community being impacted a "special interest group". However, if it is, FDOT ought to work with them more. Getting involved actually saved FDOT $16 million. The original...without the shared use path... was $136 million. The revised plan is $120 million. The was partially due to the community also working with FDOT to modify the flyover to Roosevelt.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 05, 2015, 08:55:46 PM
I don't know if I'd call the community being impacted a "special interest group". However, if it is, FDOT ought to work with them more. Getting involved actually saved FDOT $16 million. The original...without the shared use path... was $136 million. The revised plan is $120 million. The was partially due to the community also working with FDOT to modify the flyover to Roosevelt.

It can be really hard to get valuable opinions from the public.  The informed and wealthy can afford lawyers, engineers, and other professionals to force FDOTs hand in many cases.  To flip the example back on you, what about the landowners along the FCE corridor, or any other future corridor?   I refer to them as special interests, yet they actually own the land and are affected by the project. 

Also, the cost didn't get cheaper because of the shared use path.  Come on, lake.  It was the flyover at Roosevelt. 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 05, 2015, 09:09:24 PM
It can be really hard to get valuable opinions from the public.

I've been a part of the process on both sides of the fence. From my experience, it's only hard when an entity attempts to ram a project down the public's throat. On the other hand, getting good feedback is a pretty easy and rewarding process when you work within the community's long term vision and goals.

Quote
The informed and wealthy can afford lawyers, engineers, and other professionals to force FDOTs hand in many cases.

In the Fuller Warren's case, the informed only exposed precedence and enforcement of policies already in their books. In other words, the community demanded better. In return, FDOT responded and did just that.

Quote
To flip the example back on you, what about the landowners along the FCE corridor, or any other future corridor?   I refer to them as special interests, yet they actually own the land and are affected by the project.

Haha. One huge difference. The community didn't ask for the Fuller Warren Bridge expansion or an additional flyover. It was forced upon them. In the case of the FCE, that was all about special interest and major land owners looking to profit from worthless dirt increasing in value with the construction, accessibility and visibility provided by an expressway.

Quote
Also, the cost didn't get cheaper because of the shared use path.  Come on, lake.  It was the flyover at Roosevelt.

Being involved in the process, the shared use path wasn't an isolated thing. Modifying the flyover to eliminate its negative impacts was another major issue tackled simultaneously. The result is a product that achieves FDOT's original goals that also fits into the surrounding context.....for $16 million less than the original.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 05, 2015, 09:31:33 PM
Good to see FDOT is better at designing a shared-use path than COJ, DDRB, Haskell, CH2MHill, and Flagg Design put together.

LOL.  Too funny. Leave it to a bunch of roadway engineers to do something right for pedestrians.

laughable....and hardly.  FDOT was dragged kicking and screaming to the bike path....and there are discussions occurring right now about how 12' is not wide enough to strip separate bike and ped areas.

as for how the project got cheaper, losing the US 17 flyover was a major part of that....as is the decision to work within the existing foorptint and shrink shoulders instead of widening the area through Riverside...and guess what, folks on this website lobbying for different concepts are a large part of why the project was changed.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 05, 2015, 10:16:17 PM
....and there are discussions occurring right now about how 12' is not wide enough to strip separate bike and ped areas.

[Off topic] But 20' is wide enough for 2-way traffic (See Post and King St.)  ;) [/Back on Topic]
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 05, 2015, 11:05:41 PM
Meh. Getting rid of the flyover was a loss, IMHO.  The massive weave and lane shifts for SB I-95 to WB I-10 to SB Roosevelt isn't fixed.    Capacity is added with the restripping and widening, but it doesn't solve a key issue with the interchange.

BTW, a lot of what goes into these projects is what can approved and funded by FHWA.  Part of the game is to gather funding from a different pots of money (federal and state) while meeting project objectives.  It's not like FDOT has blank checks for all of these projects.  It might seem like that, but the big decision makers have their work cut out for them trying to put as much effective and efficient product into each project. 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 05, 2015, 11:09:38 PM
....and there are discussions occurring right now about how 12' is not wide enough to strip separate bike and ped areas.

[Off topic] But 20' is wide enough for 2-way traffic (See Post and King St.)  ;) [/Back on Topic]

Road diet, anyone?  :)

Talk to COJ about that one.  Not FDOT.  Different folks.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Tacachale on March 06, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
So FDOT, in their vast and humble wisdom, boldly recognized the need to bestow upon the citizens a massive bridge project said citizens, in their ignorance of their own best interests, neither requested nor wanted. But lo, a special interest group, who truth be told had no stake in the matter, except for the small consequence of being the taxpayers who used, paid for, and would be affected by the project, made selfish and ill-considered requests that the bridge include a worthless bike/pedestrian improvement and, even more shockingly, that FDOT try to reduce cost and minimize impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Bravely, FDOT fought these foes, armed with myriad examples of the positive impact huge flyovers and endless construction have on cities' urban cores, and equally compelling evidence for the fact that bike/pedestrian bridges are impossible, and ridiculous, and everyone should just pipe down about them already. But the special interest group proved relentless, with their incorrigible demands that FDOT do the things they should have done from the beginning.

And So FDOT reevaluated and developed a winning strategy: doing the things they should have done from the beginning! And thusly FDOT were praised by all for doing things right, and the special interest group was decried for insisting upon the bike/ped bridge that would probably never be used, surely a more wasteful expense than the poor lost flyover and additional road widening.

So ends the tale of the wise and brave FDOT.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 06, 2015, 11:07:12 AM
....and there are discussions occurring right now about how 12' is not wide enough to strip separate bike and ped areas.

[Off topic] But 20' is wide enough for 2-way traffic (See Post and King St.)  ;) [/Back on Topic]

Road diet, anyone?  :)

Talk to COJ about that one.  Not FDOT.  Different folks.

I'm aware of that (COJ v/s FDOT) and have been telling anyone who will listen since last year about returning both of those streets back to one way and adding bike lanes.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 06, 2015, 12:55:36 PM
So FDOT, in their vast and humble wisdom, boldly recognized the need to bestow upon the citizens a massive bridge project said citizens, in their ignorance of their own best interests, neither requested nor wanted. But lo, a special interest group, who truth be told had no stake in the matter, except for the small consequence of being the taxpayers who used, paid for, and would be affected by the project, made selfish and ill-considered requests that the bridge include a worthless bike/pedestrian improvement and, even more shockingly, that FDOT try to reduce cost and minimize impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Bravely, FDOT fought these foes, armed with myriad examples of the positive impact huge flyovers and endless construction have on cities' urban cores, and equally compelling evidence for the fact that bike/pedestrian bridges are impossible, and ridiculous, and everyone should just pipe down about them already. But the special interest group proved relentless, with their incorrigible demands that FDOT do the things they should have done from the beginning.

And So FDOT reevaluated and developed a winning strategy: doing the things they should have done from the beginning! And thusly FDOT were praised by all for doing things right, and the special interest group was decried for insisting upon the bike/ped bridge that would probably never be used, surely a more wasteful expense than the poor lost flyover and additional road widening.

So ends the tale of the wise and brave FDOT.

Hardly entertaining.

Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it. 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 06, 2015, 01:03:40 PM
Hardly entertaining.

Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it.

This type of thinking is why public agencies and their hired engineers/consultant get tar & feathered during public meetings. In most cases, the public/community is more well rounded and informed than anyone else. A couple of months ago, you mentioned FDOT deserved to have a better image with the public. Losing the beginning mindset of the public not being informed will go a long way for enhancing any public agency's image.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Tacachale on March 06, 2015, 02:46:04 PM

Hardly entertaining.


I don't know, writing it definitely made my lunch break more enjoyable.

Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it.

Yes, we always need improvements to keep up infrastructure up to date. But they don't have to unduly impact the surrounding area, cost far too much money, or totally neglect perfectly reasonable pedestrian elements. And either way, if maintaining level of service is a goal, perpetual construction doesn't really help.


This type of thinking is why public agencies and their hired engineers/consultant get tar & feathered during public meetings. In most cases, the public/community is more well rounded and informed than anyone else. A couple of months ago, you mentioned FDOT deserved to have a better image with the public. Losing the beginning mindset of the public not being informed will go a long way for enhancing any public agency's image.

What, you mean that telling the people affected by your unsolicited projects that they don't know what they're talking about isn't the best way to improve your public image?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on March 06, 2015, 03:18:44 PM
So FDOT, in their vast and humble wisdom, boldly recognized the need to bestow upon the citizens a massive bridge project said citizens, in their ignorance of their own best interests, neither requested nor wanted. But lo, a special interest group, who truth be told had no stake in the matter, except for the small consequence of being the taxpayers who used, paid for, and would be affected by the project, made selfish and ill-considered requests that the bridge include a worthless bike/pedestrian improvement and, even more shockingly, that FDOT try to reduce cost and minimize impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Bravely, FDOT fought these foes, armed with myriad examples of the positive impact huge flyovers and endless construction have on cities' urban cores, and equally compelling evidence for the fact that bike/pedestrian bridges are impossible, and ridiculous, and everyone should just pipe down about them already. But the special interest group proved relentless, with their incorrigible demands that FDOT do the things they should have done from the beginning.

And So FDOT reevaluated and developed a winning strategy: doing the things they should have done from the beginning! And thusly FDOT were praised by all for doing things right, and the special interest group was decried for insisting upon the bike/ped bridge that would probably never be used, surely a more wasteful expense than the poor lost flyover and additional road widening.

So ends the tale of the wise and brave FDOT.

Hardly entertaining.

Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it. 

The same way the FCX is needed for the region?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 06, 2015, 09:30:49 PM
Hardly entertaining.

Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it.

This type of thinking is why public agencies and their hired engineers/consultant get tar & feathered during public meetings. In most cases, the public/community is more well rounded and informed than anyone else. A couple of months ago, you mentioned FDOT deserved to have a better image with the public. Losing the beginning mindset of the public not being informed will go a long way for enhancing any public agency's image.

Tarred and feathering comes with the job, as does most public service jobs.  It's pretty difficult to get valuable input from the public because the only time people show up or provide comments is to complain.  We're too busy with our lives to get involved; too disinterested to care about our commutes.  So the only input received is a wishlist added on to project scopes, and rarely is it valuable or helpful.  Just my experience; my $0.02. 

Believe me when I say that the mindset of FDOT and the supporting industry really is trying to help.  It may not always come across as that, but it's there. 

But really, let's see the pedestrian/bicycle traffic the path gets after its built.  If it's heavy, then kudos, lake, and kudos, Riverside.  Call me negative, but I don't see it happening.

Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 06, 2015, 09:34:01 PM
So FDOT, in their vast and humble wisdom, boldly recognized the need to bestow upon the citizens a massive bridge project said citizens, in their ignorance of their own best interests, neither requested nor wanted. But lo, a special interest group, who truth be told had no stake in the matter, except for the small consequence of being the taxpayers who used, paid for, and would be affected by the project, made selfish and ill-considered requests that the bridge include a worthless bike/pedestrian improvement and, even more shockingly, that FDOT try to reduce cost and minimize impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Bravely, FDOT fought these foes, armed with myriad examples of the positive impact huge flyovers and endless construction have on cities' urban cores, and equally compelling evidence for the fact that bike/pedestrian bridges are impossible, and ridiculous, and everyone should just pipe down about them already. But the special interest group proved relentless, with their incorrigible demands that FDOT do the things they should have done from the beginning.

And So FDOT reevaluated and developed a winning strategy: doing the things they should have done from the beginning! And thusly FDOT were praised by all for doing things right, and the special interest group was decried for insisting upon the bike/ped bridge that would probably never be used, surely a more wasteful expense than the poor lost flyover and additional road widening.

So ends the tale of the wise and brave FDOT.

Hardly entertaining.

Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it. 

The same way the FCX is needed for the region?

Nothing I can say at this point about FCX to you will convince you otherwise, so why bother.

Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 07, 2015, 02:38:50 PM
Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it. 

may want to look up the myriad of research on the concept of triple convergence...in short, we won't solve congestion and level of service long-term by continually widening and building roads....and yet, folks like FDOT keep trying.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Kay on March 07, 2015, 02:46:54 PM
We need to get FDOT to understand mobility is much more than road and highway expansion.  FDOT has a continual source of funding
which means roads and highways will keep expanding unless we change their paradigm.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 09, 2015, 08:51:23 PM
Public doesn't know what it wants because the public isn't informed.  The interchange level of service fails in the next 10 years or so without the improvements. So sure, Riverside may not want the project, but the region needs it. 

may want to look up the myriad of research on the concept of triple convergence...in short, we won't solve congestion and level of service long-term by continually widening and building roads....and yet, folks like FDOT keep trying.

Triple convergence is a decent topic of discussion in the industry.  But its really only theory, and isn't often believed to be such a negative phenomenon.  More lanes =more vehicles, not less congestion. 

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2004/01/01transportation-downs (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2004/01/01transportation-downs)

There isn't one easy solution to the problem.  Could transit spending levels be increased?  Without a doubt.  Othet solutions are being implemented now. Managed lanes with dynamic pricing is now the standard for all interstate capacity projects.  Staggered work hours should become a standard practice in businesses that can sustain it.   Updating development codes and practices would help curb sprawl.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 09, 2015, 09:02:06 PM
^Shared use paths ;) and other forms of infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation are also needed.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 09, 2015, 10:35:29 PM
^Shared use paths ;) and other forms of infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation are also needed.

let's stop calling them alternative modes....it is about choice.  Of course almost everyone drives now, because the other options aren't very good.  But people have been telling leaders for more than a decade that they want more funding for transit and bike/ped projects.  Let's see what happens if FDOT and other transportation agencies actually acted on these requests.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 21, 2016, 10:02:33 PM
I had to dig wayyyy deep to bring this thread back to life. 

I'll leave this here:
From FDOT's Design-Build Results website:
ALL BIDS REJECTED-WILL READVERTISE                               0     
     Selection Notice  Posted:  14MAR2016 Time:  11:45 AM
     Posting Notice
     E2T91, 433036-1-52-01 & 433036-1-56-01, I-95 @ I-10
     Operational Improvements
     The Department Rejects All Bids with the intent to
     re-advertise the project at a later date.

So, with the enormous scope creep that this project saw, the project is being delayed because of costs.  No shared use path on the Fuller Warren.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 21, 2016, 10:05:12 PM
So, with the enormous scope creep that this project saw, the project is being delayed because of costs.  No shared use path on the Fuller Warren.

sorry, but no....the shared-use path will not be cut from the plan.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 21, 2016, 10:30:12 PM
So, with the enormous scope creep that this project saw, the project is being delayed because of costs.  No shared use path on the Fuller Warren.

sorry, but no....the shared-use path will not be cut from the plan.

Source?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 22, 2016, 02:47:00 AM
Or chop one of those several extra 12' wide lanes out proposed instead of taking out the one 12'shared use path....

Seriously though, I doubt FDOT would want to light its good will with the community on fire by getting rid of one of the project's top community supported assets.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Kay on March 22, 2016, 06:35:45 AM
So, with the enormous scope creep that this project saw, the project is being delayed because of costs.  No shared use path on the Fuller Warren.

sorry, but no....the shared-use path will not be cut from the plan.

Source?

My source is the FDOT, and I was told that nothing the community has asked for will be cut from the project. 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 22, 2016, 06:41:11 AM
Scope cutting will need to occur.  I think that every part of the project could be on the chopping block.

And I didn't mean that it's never going to happen...just not for another 4-5 years or so.  2 years to readvertise, 2-3 years to construct.  Who knows what could happen between now and then.  I agree that it would be a pretty insane act to cut it from the project after everything that happened.

Who knows.  Maybe the project heads back on the shelf, and next time it rears its head, we'll be seeing Express Lanes across the Fuller Warren.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 22, 2016, 06:45:08 AM
So, with the enormous scope creep that this project saw, the project is being delayed because of costs.  No shared use path on the Fuller Warren.

sorry, but no....the shared-use path will not be cut from the plan.

Source?

My source is the FDOT, and I was told that nothing the community has asked for will be cut from the project.

There's about 3 people at the top of the food chain that would be qualified to make statements like that at FDOT D2.  I doubt those 3 have made any decisions about how they are proceeding at this point.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on March 22, 2016, 07:25:06 AM
Who would be the three? For all we know, one or more of them may have been in contact with some of the people posting in this thread.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Captain Zissou on March 22, 2016, 08:41:07 AM
Scope cutting will need to occur.  I think that every part of the project could be on the chopping block.

And I didn't mean that it's never going to happen...just not for another 4-5 years or so.  2 years to readvertise, 2-3 years to construct.  Who knows what could happen between now and then.  I agree that it would be a pretty insane act to cut it from the project after everything that happened.

Who knows.  Maybe the project heads back on the shelf, and next time it rears its head, we'll be seeing Express Lanes across the Fuller Warren.

So you're just speculating?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Tacachale on March 22, 2016, 09:07:09 AM
If this is true, they may as well just drop the project until they can add the pedestrian bridge back in. The communities this effects made it pretty clear they don't want the project or think it's necessary, and were willing to fight against it. The bike/ped element and the concession not to further encroach on the surrounding area are what allowed this to pass to begin with. And it's not like there's some outpouring of support from the rest of the city for yet more I-95 construction.

As Lake said, it would be politically a lot easier for them to just remove a lane than to cut the things the community requested.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: acme54321 on March 22, 2016, 09:27:50 AM
Or they could find more money and leave the project as-is?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Steve on March 22, 2016, 09:37:37 AM
Of all of the projects that I just don't get, this is one (outside of the benefit for the shared use path). Especially going north, there's a ton of extra ROW. The part that is crazy for me is where it goes from four lanes, then back to three (Park St. Exit Only), then immediately back to four. There's more than enough room to shrink to adjust the Park Street Exit so all four lanes can exist.

That entire interchange uses so much ROW unnecessarily it's crazy. I bet if you told them to work with existing ROW and add no ramps, they'd get 80% of the improvement.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 22, 2016, 09:43:17 AM
Scope cutting will need to occur.  I think that every part of the project could be on the chopping block.

And I didn't mean that it's never going to happen...just not for another 4-5 years or so.  2 years to readvertise, 2-3 years to construct.  Who knows what could happen between now and then.  I agree that it would be a pretty insane act to cut it from the project after everything that happened.

I'm willing to bet you're wrong again.  best guess is FDOT just allocates more money in next year's budget...and the project is delayed for no more than 1 year
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 22, 2016, 09:45:03 AM
That entire interchange uses so much ROW unnecessarily it's crazy. I bet if you told them to work with existing ROW and add no ramps, they'd get 80% of the improvement.

that's pretty much what will be happening.  The work done to modify the original plans ensured that virtually no additional ROW would be taken
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Josh on March 22, 2016, 10:04:28 AM
Of all of the projects that I just don't get, this is one (outside of the benefit for the shared use path).

Just them acknowledging that they completely botched the interchange on the last construction project, and would love to have the opportunity to spend a few hundred million more to fix it for real this time.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Ocklawaha on March 22, 2016, 10:28:56 AM
Darn shame in our day late and dollar short city that a fully framed, prebuilt bridge structure couldn't be tucked in, under, over or around this for use by future fixed transit - be it BRT, LRT or Streetcar, perhaps sharing space near the pedestrian lanes.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Tacachale on March 22, 2016, 10:32:35 AM
^Yeah, it's also a shame that I didn't discover a chest of fabulous pirate treasure behind my tool shed, but what are you gonna do?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Dog Walker on March 22, 2016, 03:01:19 PM
It's not being delayed because of the costs.  The cost now is still less than the original plan which was designed to use up money allocated for the Lexus lanes on 295 NE quadrant.

Maybe the bids came in ridiculously high or had bad schedules or unacceptable conditions.  More info please.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 22, 2016, 03:47:20 PM
Cost is the reason.  Both bids came in $40 million over the estimate.  They came in high because of the scope creep, and because of the complexity of the project.  Bad schedules?  Both contractors are highly qualified, but the project is extremely difficult due to the proposed work and available space.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 22, 2016, 03:48:21 PM
Scope cutting will need to occur.  I think that every part of the project could be on the chopping block.

And I didn't mean that it's never going to happen...just not for another 4-5 years or so.  2 years to readvertise, 2-3 years to construct.  Who knows what could happen between now and then.  I agree that it would be a pretty insane act to cut it from the project after everything that happened.

Who knows.  Maybe the project heads back on the shelf, and next time it rears its head, we'll be seeing Express Lanes across the Fuller Warren.

So you're just speculating?

Yep.  Everyone is.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 22, 2016, 03:53:26 PM
Scope cutting will need to occur.  I think that every part of the project could be on the chopping block.

And I didn't mean that it's never going to happen...just not for another 4-5 years or so.  2 years to readvertise, 2-3 years to construct.  Who knows what could happen between now and then.  I agree that it would be a pretty insane act to cut it from the project after everything that happened.

I'm willing to bet you're wrong again.  best guess is FDOT just allocates more money in next year's budget...and the project is delayed for no more than 1 year

Glad you think I'm wrong.  My guess is that they split it into two projects...one for Fuller Warren, one for the I-10 work.  The procurement process is probably a minimum of 6 months.  That's from advertisement to bid submittal.  And that assumes they start now.  Best case, they start in FDOTs next fiscal in July.  So probably at least a year from now.  My guess is longer, but again, just a guess.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 22, 2016, 03:56:39 PM
Who would be the three? For all we know, one or more of them may have been in contact with some of the people posting in this thread.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/District2MapContacts.shtm (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/District2MapContacts.shtm)


Start at the top.  Add the PM and the DDE.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 22, 2016, 11:03:31 PM
Who would be the three? For all we know, one or more of them may have been in contact with some of the people posting in this thread.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/District2MapContacts.shtm (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/District2MapContacts.shtm)


Start at the top.  Add the PM and the DDE.

Thanks for the ancient D2 contact list...Will Watts (listed in Lake City) has been in the private sector for nearly two years...and Chris LeDew (listed in the Jax office) hasn't worked at FDOT for more than 2 years.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 23, 2016, 06:34:47 AM
Who would be the three? For all we know, one or more of them may have been in contact with some of the people posting in this thread.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/District2MapContacts.shtm (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/District2MapContacts.shtm)


Start at the top.  Add the PM and the DDE.

Thanks for the ancient D2 contact list...Will Watts (listed in Lake City) has been in the private sector for nearly two years...and Chris LeDew (listed in the Jax office) hasn't worked at FDOT for more than 2 years.

And of course you know I don't mean Will.

Greg, Larry, Jim, and Kathy.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on March 23, 2016, 09:14:37 AM
southsider, I get that roadways are obviously where your bread is buttered but you have a odd obsession with railroading through these highway projects all over the place. I'm sick of this whole notion of "the region needs it" and f@ck the communities that are going to be affected. That's the mentality that destroyed communities when they built the highway system originally. Hell, they planned it that way in the name of slum and blight removal.

And of course we all know this is just going to be another "fix" until the next "fix" another few years down the road. We just completed the thing and now we have to spend more millions to accommodate future growth and imaginary level of service standards. Of course, there's money to be made in all of this.

I'm not buying the "for the region" bullshit. The communities that are affected have faces and voices, the "region" does not. Jacksonville isn't just here for regional infrastructure support. We are an actual city with actual communities and people.

Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2016, 09:45:34 AM
My frustration is that the folks that design these solutions aren't held accountable. With this project, the changes they're talking about would have likely been cost-neutral had they been done the first time, save for the Shared Use Path which has no effect on auto traffic.

Does any state have some sort of rule that contractors who complete design-build projects that meet or exceed LOS goals will be preferred in future bids? I just feel like a lot of the issues that the interchange has should have been obvious, like the weave created after US17 merges to I-10. They even built two sets of ramps, yet didn't segregate traffic well at all. Likewise, traffic from I-95 North to I-10 to US17 was obviously going to create a mess with those cars changing a minimum of 3 lanes in a mile.

My understanding was that the project started in 2005 was a design build done by Archer Western. I think AW is doing the Overland Bridge as well, but that project (while it has some capacity improvements) is largely an operational project necessitated by the End of Life of the existing structure.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 23, 2016, 10:04:45 AM
southsider, I get that roadways are obviously where your bread is buttered but you have a odd obsession with railroading through these highway projects all over the place. I'm sick of this whole notion of "the region needs it" and f@ck the communities that are going to be affected. That's the mentality that destroyed communities when they built the highway system originally. Hell, they planned it that way in the name of slum and blight removal.

And of course we all know this is just going to be another "fix" until the next "fix" another few years down the road. We just completed the thing and now we have to spend more millions to accommodate future growth and imaginary level of service standards. Of course, there's money to be made in all of this.

I'm not buying the "for the region" bullshit. The communities that are affected have faces and voices, the "region" does not. Jacksonville isn't just here for regional infrastructure support. We are an actual city with actual communities and people.

OK.  Great.  Obsessed though? 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 23, 2016, 10:11:50 AM
My frustration is that the folks that design these solutions aren't held accountable. With this project, the changes they're talking about would have likely been cost-neutral had they been done the first time, save for the Shared Use Path which has no effect on auto traffic.

Does any state have some sort of rule that contractors who complete design-build projects that meet or exceed LOS goals will be preferred in future bids? I just feel like a lot of the issues that the interchange has should have been obvious, like the weave created after US17 merges to I-10. They even built two sets of ramps, yet didn't segregate traffic well at all. Likewise, traffic from I-95 North to I-10 to US17 was obviously going to create a mess with those cars changing a minimum of 3 lanes in a mile.

My understanding was that the project started in 2005 was a design build done by Archer Western. I think AW is doing the Overland Bridge as well, but that project (while it has some capacity improvements) is largely an operational project necessitated by the End of Life of the existing structure.

Held accountable how?  FDOTs current Design-Build  process has minimum requirements with opportunities to add value to the project.  Of course, the best improvements are the ideas that cut cost and add value.  FDOT scores the proposals, and in combination with the price (and construction days), an overall score is developed. Best score wins.

So it's up to FDOT to score up or down the proposals as they see fit.  So your misdirected blame needs to be put on FDOT, not the contactors or designers.  There's a shortlisting that occurs, and of course the successful teams will be scored positively.  That's includes both AW and Superior on this project. 

The last big I project was not Design-Build.  Overland was
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2016, 11:27:17 AM
^Held accountable for blowing this thing the first time. I don't know the exact way to do it. This isn't my professional field, but it's crazy that we spent $152m on this just four years ago, and we have to go back to the drawing board to fix it, when most of what they are recommending could have been done initially, at cost-neutral.

I'm not trying to "blame" anyone - what's done is done; you can't unspend the money. If the project wasn't design-build then you're right, this probably is FDOT's responsibility. The bottom line is that with FDOT (and true of other areas of government), if something doesn't turn out right, then more money is spent.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: cline on March 23, 2016, 11:43:04 AM
My frustration is that the folks that design these solutions aren't held accountable. With this project, the changes they're talking about would have likely been cost-neutral had they been done the first time, save for the Shared Use Path which has no effect on auto traffic.

Does any state have some sort of rule that contractors who complete design-build projects that meet or exceed LOS goals will be preferred in future bids? I just feel like a lot of the issues that the interchange has should have been obvious, like the weave created after US17 merges to I-10. They even built two sets of ramps, yet didn't segregate traffic well at all. Likewise, traffic from I-95 North to I-10 to US17 was obviously going to create a mess with those cars changing a minimum of 3 lanes in a mile.

My understanding was that the project started in 2005 was a design build done by Archer Western. I think AW is doing the Overland Bridge as well, but that project (while it has some capacity improvements) is largely an operational project necessitated by the End of Life of the existing structure.

Held accountable how?  FDOTs current Design-Build  process has minimum requirements with opportunities to add value to the project.  Of course, the best improvements are the ideas that cut cost and add value.  FDOT scores the proposals, and in combination with the price (and construction days), an overall score is developed. Best score wins.

So it's up to FDOT to score up or down the proposals as they see fit.  So your misdirected blame needs to be put on FDOT, not the contactors or designers.  There's a shortlisting that occurs, and of course the successful teams will be scored positively.  That's includes both AW and Superior on this project. 

The last big I project was not Design-Build.  Overland was

The design traffic was clearly f@cked up the first time by whoever did that. And now we're having to literally pay the price to fix it. So who's fault is that?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: RattlerGator on March 23, 2016, 12:04:00 PM
I'm not trying to "blame" anyone - what's done is done; you can't unspend the money.

Well . . . I think you definitely are trying to blame someone:
Quote
My frustration is that the folks that design these solutions aren't held accountable.

And, maybe you're right to do so. More often than not, though, reasonable (albeit frustrating from a distance) decisions were made based on the money constraint (or some other real constraint) that was pressing at the time.

I would like to see more transparency with these projects if for no other reason to calm down the bitch-and-moan crowd. Maybe FDOT should be required to publish on projects of this scale an After-Action-Report (due no later than 2 years after work has begun, whether or not the project has been completed) itemizing crucial departmental decisions affecting scope of initial project, solicitation of community input, scope of revised project & revisions based on community input, solicitation of bids, and award of bid.

It would allow the public to have a better insight into what FDOT does, how it is constrained by federal/state/local mandates, and how available dollars play into all of this.

Anyone know if such a process and resulting document already exists?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2016, 12:29:53 PM
^That's exactly what I'm talking about. I don't view this as blame but improving the process so we don't keep making the same mistake.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 23, 2016, 12:37:21 PM
I'm not trying to "blame" anyone - what's done is done; you can't unspend the money.

Well . . . I think you definitely are trying to blame someone:
Quote
My frustration is that the folks that design these solutions aren't held accountable.

And, maybe you're right to do so. More often than not, though, reasonable (albeit frustrating from a distance) decisions were made based on the money constraint (or some other real constraint) that was pressing at the time.

I would like to see more transparency with these projects if for no other reason to calm down the bitch-and-moan crowd. Maybe FDOT should be required to publish on projects of this scale an After-Action-Report (due no later than 2 years after work has begun, whether or not the project has been completed) itemizing crucial departmental decisions affecting scope of initial project, solicitation of community input, scope of revised project & revisions based on community input, solicitation of bids, and award of bid.

It would allow the public to have a better insight into what FDOT does, how it is constrained by federal/state/local mandates, and how available dollars play into all of this.

Anyone know if such a process and resulting document already exists?

That's a great idea, and I know others, especially the traffic folks, have had the same idea.  I don't the answer to that one; maybe one of the experts here can share.

I will say this, when you add capacty, as we've talked about triple convergence before, unpredictable things change.  Drivers change their commutes, taking the path of least resistance to get to their destinations.

Traffic models are just exactly that.  Models.  It's provides suggestive data on how many cars are where and when, but it's not an exact science.  We're talking about people here.  The human element is not always predictable.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2016, 12:45:09 PM
Drivers change their commutes, taking the path of least resistance to get to their destinations.

Traffic models are just exactly that.  Models.  It's provides suggestive data on how many cars are where and when, but it's not an exact science.  We're talking about people here.  The human element is not always predictable.

I'd buy that in some cases. However, the need for drivers that care come from US17 as well as from I-10 on the westside toneed to get to I-95 North and I-95 South isn't new and hasn't changed since they built this in the 1960's. Likewise, people coming from I-95 North and South to I-10 and then some to US17 hasn't changed either. That's my frustration - this isn't a project on JTB that has a ton of moving parts because of all of the new development around that corridor - these are established traffic patterns that have just grown over the years with Jacksonville's population.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 23, 2016, 05:01:25 PM

Traffic models are just exactly that.  Models.  It's provides suggestive data on how many cars are where and when, but it's not an exact science.  We're talking about people here.  The human element is not always predictable.

Fair enough. 

Is the 'model' that determined we needed this remodel, which was essentially a direct flyover from Riverside to San Marco, available to the General Public?
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 23, 2016, 08:02:55 PM

Traffic models are just exactly that.  Models.  It's provides suggestive data on how many cars are where and when, but it's not an exact science.  We're talking about people here.  The human element is not always predictable.

Fair enough. 

Is the 'model' that determined we needed this remodel, which was essentially a direct flyover from Riverside to San Marco, available to the General Public?

We're a Sunshine state.  You just gotta know what, who, where, and how to ask.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: fieldafm on March 23, 2016, 08:59:31 PM
This thread is funny. You have a person with a fiduciary interest trying to stir up speculation.

The reality is, bids were rejected (not uncommon, btw). There will be a delay due to a new advertisement/solicitation process. The multi-use path will not go away.

Carry on
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: jaxjags on March 23, 2016, 10:39:07 PM
I would like to reply to this thread with a technical response (not seen much lately). Resigning would help a lot. They designed it(maybe unintentionally)  to have "thru lanes" and "local lanes". Resigning 10 EB and 95 SB this way would prevent a lot of weaving. Also the 95 SB thru lanes could have a sign for exit onto US 17. You are actually in the correct lane if you go that way for US 17. I guess I'm too much of an engineer, but resigning would do much to stop the blame game going on at a lot less costs.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on March 23, 2016, 10:41:00 PM
This thread is funny. You have a person with a fiduciary interest trying to stir up speculation.

The reality is, bids were rejected (not uncommon, btw). There will be a delay due to a new advertisement/solicitation process. The multi-use path will not go away.

Carry on

I brought the conversation back from the dead because there obviously had been a ton of interest here.  Fiduciary only in that I'm a taxpayer and driver just like you.

Because decisions have not been publicly announced, the speculation was meant to stir the pot enough to get people talking about it. 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: mtraininjax on March 24, 2016, 04:40:13 AM
Quote
but resigning would do much to stop the blame game going on at a lot less costs.

Resigning is a huge waste of money. No one really pays attention to the signs, people have SIRI or the new Microsoft chick on their phones and devices to tell them which way to go. The Signs are worthless hunks of steel. Besides idiot drivers are out there texting and driving and have no need for a sign.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: tufsu1 on March 24, 2016, 08:27:01 AM

Traffic models are just exactly that.  Models.  It's provides suggestive data on how many cars are where and when, but it's not an exact science.  We're talking about people here.  The human element is not always predictable.

Fair enough. 

Is the 'model' that determined we needed this remodel, which was essentially a direct flyover from Riverside to San Marco, available to the General Public?

sadly, the plans for the original interchange project were drawn up in the early to mid 1990s.  I'm willing to bet the future year traffic models at that time didn't foresee the massive growth of commercial and office development along JTB and Gate Parkway.  Best guess is they also didn't account for the explosion of residential development in northern St. Johns County.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 24, 2016, 10:38:07 AM

Traffic models are just exactly that.  Models.  It's provides suggestive data on how many cars are where and when, but it's not an exact science.  We're talking about people here.  The human element is not always predictable.

Fair enough. 

Is the 'model' that determined we needed this remodel, which was essentially a direct flyover from Riverside to San Marco, available to the General Public?

sadly, the plans for the original interchange project were drawn up in the early to mid 1990s.  I'm willing to bet the future year traffic models at that time didn't foresee the massive growth of commercial and office development along JTB and Gate Parkway.  Best guess is they also didn't account for the explosion of residential development in northern St. Johns County.

That's kind of my point. 

I can engineer the perfect job using today's methods and materials.  If that job doesn't go into production for a few years, I sure as hell better look at how I originally had planned it to ensure that my design is still relevant.  I assumed it was a common practice.

And I'm thinking out loud here, but wasn't this project due to 'available' funds in this sector that had to be spent?  In my understanding, this project was being used to clear a budget of remaining funds and not necessarily a priority project.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Jumpinjack on March 24, 2016, 04:19:39 PM
You are right, Westsider. The way I heard it, the FDOT had money left unused from another Duval project and rather than let it go to any other county, they announced this redesign at the TPO meeting. It didn't go down well  leading eventually to community meetings and redesigned plans. 
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: Kerry on March 28, 2016, 04:08:49 PM
southsider, I get that roadways are obviously where your bread is buttered but you have a odd obsession with railroading through these highway projects all over the place. I'm sick of this whole notion of "the region needs it" and f@ck the communities that are going to be affected. That's the mentality that destroyed communities when they built the highway system originally. Hell, they planned it that way in the name of slum and blight removal.

And of course we all know this is just going to be another "fix" until the next "fix" another few years down the road. We just completed the thing and now we have to spend more millions to accommodate future growth and imaginary level of service standards. Of course, there's money to be made in all of this.

I'm not buying the "for the region" bullshit. The communities that are affected have faces and voices, the "region" does not. Jacksonville isn't just here for regional infrastructure support. We are an actual city with actual communities and people.

Where is the Like button?  Now that I have lived long enough to see the "highway expansion process" repeat it self multiple times only to end up right back where we started every single time, I am ready to try Plan B.
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: thelakelander on May 08, 2016, 07:04:50 AM
Scope cutting will need to occur.  I think that every part of the project could be on the chopping block.

And I didn't mean that it's never going to happen...just not for another 4-5 years or so.  2 years to readvertise, 2-3 years to construct.  Who knows what could happen between now and then.  I agree that it would be a pretty insane act to cut it from the project after everything that happened.

I'm willing to bet you're wrong again.  best guess is FDOT just allocates more money in next year's budget...and the project is delayed for no more than 1 year

Tufsu1 wins....We're looking at a 9 to 10 month delay...

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-05-07/story/contractor-search-fuller-warren-interstate-changes-start-over-after-high
Title: Re: Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today
Post by: southsider1015 on May 11, 2016, 08:42:00 PM
Sure.  I guess we'll see right?  :)

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.