Revised Fuller Warren Bridge Plans To Be Released Today

[Tacachale]

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.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

....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.

[southsider1015]

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. 

[thelakelander]

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.

[Tacachale]

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?

[cline]

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?

[southsider1015]

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.

[southsider1015]

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.

[tufsu1]

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.

[Kay]

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.

[southsider1015]

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

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.

[thelakelander]

^Shared use paths and other forms of infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation are also needed.

[tufsu1]

^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.

[southsider1015]

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.

[tufsu1]

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.