As if the article from 2 weeks ago wasn't enough, there's been a spate of new articles lately reflecting on MDOT's funding woes, including this SunHerald article, also published today by the ClarionLedger), and even picked up by Forbes. There's also this article from a week ago (originally published by the ClarionLedger). Then there's a letter from Wayne Brown, the Southern District Commissioner.
Two items I found of interest. First is that MDOT's annual construction budget has stayed relatively even for the past several years. And we all know what inflation has done over that timeframe.
Second is that this is just now hitting the mainstream media in Mississippi, when it has long been noted as a problem in other states. I'm thinking, as I noted in my previous blog entry, that this is a result of MDOT's "Katrina money" running out...most of the post-Katrina reconstruction having run its course...and now they're feeling the pinch.
And solving the problem won't be easy. This is a state that has long had an aversion to high taxes. Plus you have a population that is very rural and drives a lot as a result who would be hit even worse by higher gas prices, and so is well opposed to a gas tax increase, even though that gas tax money would go back to the roads and is thus far the fairest way to pay for them. Then to top it off, you have a lot of people mad at MDOT for the way they run business...and their "elected transportation commission" in particular, as exemplified in this ClarionLedger editorial from last week. So you'd have opposition to increased funding for MDOT on the simple basis of the people running the MDOT show.
Bottom line: it's going to be a rough ride for awhile (pun intended).
Showing posts with label MDOT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MDOT. Show all posts
July 01, 2008
June 20, 2008
Road-building hitting a dead-end in Mississippi?
I'd skimmed over this article from the SunHerald earlier this week, but it wasn't until I A) discovered Taralyn's blog (she goes by Darkangel on MTR), and B) that she'd commented about it that I decided to pipe up.
So, for the first time in what seems like ages, MDOT has cancelled or delayed road projects. The reason? It's not community opposition (which they usually plow through anyway), or the Mississippi Legislature finally getting a clue and reigning MDOT in (which will never happen, no matter how much it needs to).
Nope. As some would put it, it's the economy, stupid. Other DOTs across the country have long been feeling the pinch from the run-up in oil, steel, and cement prices. And now that Katrina money has mostly run its course, MDOT is starting to feel the same.
Which is unfortunate, because there's a lot of projects out there that will be left wallowing in the wind now that inflation has hit the roof in addition to already being left out because MDOT likes doing the "big projects". Like the first phase of what some call MS 601, some call "I-310", and yet others call the "Gulfport Port Connector". Of course, that one survived, because it's "already funded". So did the planned MS 57 bypass of Vancleve.
But several projects ready to go weren't so lucky. Among them: a Kiln bypass, which has been needed since God-knows-when. The article also mentioned improvements to US 11 and MS 43 in Picayune that were put on hold. It's funny in a way...because MDOT has been talking about widening US 11 through Picayune for ages now, and all we've seen from them is a center left-turn-lane for about a mile north of MS 43...and it took Katrina money and traffic just to get that done. And MS 43 has been screaming 4 lanes! and left turn lanes! for awhile now too...but that isn't happening either.
So much for a better route for me over to Gulfport.
So, for the first time in what seems like ages, MDOT has cancelled or delayed road projects. The reason? It's not community opposition (which they usually plow through anyway), or the Mississippi Legislature finally getting a clue and reigning MDOT in (which will never happen, no matter how much it needs to).
Nope. As some would put it, it's the economy, stupid. Other DOTs across the country have long been feeling the pinch from the run-up in oil, steel, and cement prices. And now that Katrina money has mostly run its course, MDOT is starting to feel the same.
Which is unfortunate, because there's a lot of projects out there that will be left wallowing in the wind now that inflation has hit the roof in addition to already being left out because MDOT likes doing the "big projects". Like the first phase of what some call MS 601, some call "I-310", and yet others call the "Gulfport Port Connector". Of course, that one survived, because it's "already funded". So did the planned MS 57 bypass of Vancleve.
But several projects ready to go weren't so lucky. Among them: a Kiln bypass, which has been needed since God-knows-when. The article also mentioned improvements to US 11 and MS 43 in Picayune that were put on hold. It's funny in a way...because MDOT has been talking about widening US 11 through Picayune for ages now, and all we've seen from them is a center left-turn-lane for about a mile north of MS 43...and it took Katrina money and traffic just to get that done. And MS 43 has been screaming 4 lanes! and left turn lanes! for awhile now too...but that isn't happening either.
So much for a better route for me over to Gulfport.
November 18, 2007
Saucier intersection back in the news
So while I was gone (out to sea for a month), looks like yet another fatal accident at the US 49/MS 67 intersection in Saucier, MS. With the resultant calls, please, cries, and screams for MDOT to install a traffic signal there.
So I decided to write the following letter to the SunHerald. Will be interesting to see if they publish it:
Give and take
Another fatal accident at Hwy 49 and Hwy 67 in Saucier. Another screaming call for a traffic light at that intersection.
But, as tragic as ANY fatality or injury at that location is, this isn't the time for emotional decisions. A full-fledged solution, coordinated between MDOT, the residents of Saucier, and the drivers who use the road every day, is what it's time for.
The location is a tricky one, to be sure. There's school traffic, local traffic, commuter traffic, and long-distance traffic all rolled into one location, each with different needs. Long-distance traffic (as you have on Hwy 49 as it's THE 4-lane connector to Hattiesburg and Jackson) does not mesh well with local and school traffic. Throw in commuter traffic going to Gulfport and the result is the mess we have.
There are, in effect, four possible solutions to the situation. But each one has its own give and take.
The first is lowering the speed limit on Hwy 49. But without consistent and continuing speed limit enforcement (unlikely unless we increase the number of state troopers), this will do little to change the problem. This also does little to change the situation for those crossing Hwy 49, especially if those crossing drivers are not paying attention, which has been the cause of some of the accidents.
The second solution is adding a traffic signal, which is where you have your biggest give-and-take. On the one side, adding a traffic signal tends to reduce the severity of accidents, and makes it easier for local traffic to cross Hwy 49. On the flip side, studies show that adding a traffic signal on rural highways (as Hwy 49 is) tends to increase the overall number of accidents, plus increases travel delay on the main highway. There is also the driver expectation that rural highway do not have traffic signals, and introducing one will cause confusion for some or lead to potential accidents. A contributing problem in this case is the same southbound curve that already restricts visibility of the intersection from Hwy 49. A traffic signal also does not eliminate the possibility of nasty accidents. Instead of cases where one driver is going too fast or cuts in front of traffic as we have now, a traffic signal introduces the potential for nasty accidents from drivers running red lights, especially along a busy highway like Hwy 49.
The third solution is to close the median crossing at Hwy 67 and install U-turns on either end. This reduces the problem of crossing traffic, as crossing traffic will only need to deal with one side of Hwy 49 at a time and does not penalize Hwy 49 traffic as a traffic signal would. The downside is that it's more inconvenient for crossing traffic or left-turning traffic. Though this requires some right-of-way, and a large enough pull-out for trucks and buses to make a U-turn, it's less expensive than the last solution.
The last solution to the Hwy 49/Hwy 67 problem is the safest solution, but also the most expensive and the one that takes the most time to implement: a diamond interchange. This solution would allow local traffic to freely cross Hwy 49, as well as allow Hwy 49 traffic to travel unimpeded by cross-traffic. Unfortunately, diamond interchanges require some right-of-way, several million dollars, and at least a year or two to implement. And in this case, any interchange decision would be impacted by the ongoing Hwy 601 study and the decision on where to put the new Hwy 601.
So it all boils down to give-and-take. How much do MDOT and the residents of Saucier want to give up to get what they want. And how much will both Hwy 49 and local travelers have to suffer in the process. The answer won't be easy.
So I decided to write the following letter to the SunHerald. Will be interesting to see if they publish it:
Give and take
Another fatal accident at Hwy 49 and Hwy 67 in Saucier. Another screaming call for a traffic light at that intersection.
But, as tragic as ANY fatality or injury at that location is, this isn't the time for emotional decisions. A full-fledged solution, coordinated between MDOT, the residents of Saucier, and the drivers who use the road every day, is what it's time for.
The location is a tricky one, to be sure. There's school traffic, local traffic, commuter traffic, and long-distance traffic all rolled into one location, each with different needs. Long-distance traffic (as you have on Hwy 49 as it's THE 4-lane connector to Hattiesburg and Jackson) does not mesh well with local and school traffic. Throw in commuter traffic going to Gulfport and the result is the mess we have.
There are, in effect, four possible solutions to the situation. But each one has its own give and take.
The first is lowering the speed limit on Hwy 49. But without consistent and continuing speed limit enforcement (unlikely unless we increase the number of state troopers), this will do little to change the problem. This also does little to change the situation for those crossing Hwy 49, especially if those crossing drivers are not paying attention, which has been the cause of some of the accidents.
The second solution is adding a traffic signal, which is where you have your biggest give-and-take. On the one side, adding a traffic signal tends to reduce the severity of accidents, and makes it easier for local traffic to cross Hwy 49. On the flip side, studies show that adding a traffic signal on rural highways (as Hwy 49 is) tends to increase the overall number of accidents, plus increases travel delay on the main highway. There is also the driver expectation that rural highway do not have traffic signals, and introducing one will cause confusion for some or lead to potential accidents. A contributing problem in this case is the same southbound curve that already restricts visibility of the intersection from Hwy 49. A traffic signal also does not eliminate the possibility of nasty accidents. Instead of cases where one driver is going too fast or cuts in front of traffic as we have now, a traffic signal introduces the potential for nasty accidents from drivers running red lights, especially along a busy highway like Hwy 49.
The third solution is to close the median crossing at Hwy 67 and install U-turns on either end. This reduces the problem of crossing traffic, as crossing traffic will only need to deal with one side of Hwy 49 at a time and does not penalize Hwy 49 traffic as a traffic signal would. The downside is that it's more inconvenient for crossing traffic or left-turning traffic. Though this requires some right-of-way, and a large enough pull-out for trucks and buses to make a U-turn, it's less expensive than the last solution.
The last solution to the Hwy 49/Hwy 67 problem is the safest solution, but also the most expensive and the one that takes the most time to implement: a diamond interchange. This solution would allow local traffic to freely cross Hwy 49, as well as allow Hwy 49 traffic to travel unimpeded by cross-traffic. Unfortunately, diamond interchanges require some right-of-way, several million dollars, and at least a year or two to implement. And in this case, any interchange decision would be impacted by the ongoing Hwy 601 study and the decision on where to put the new Hwy 601.
So it all boils down to give-and-take. How much do MDOT and the residents of Saucier want to give up to get what they want. And how much will both Hwy 49 and local travelers have to suffer in the process. The answer won't be easy.
January 31, 2006
Highway project information online...or lack thereof...
The latter being mostly the case down here in Mississippi. Lately, it seems MDOT has been more interested in pushing its projects through rather than let the public know what's going on with them. Just today, the SunHerald ran an article about proposed improvements to MS 57 between I-10 and Vancleve that are a few years off, including mentioning that the Feds have signed off on the environmental assessment and that there's a preferred alternative. And this is one of the better cases, in that at least there was a section about the project on the MDOT website, even though the announcement about the public meetings that were held this summer wasn't posted on their website until well after the meetings were held.
And that's to say nothing about there being no MDOT news releases posted since New Year's, and getting to the news releases from last year is impossible due to some website glitches.
They could do a lot to learn how posting project information online can help the public input process...something MDOT has been sorely lacking in for a long time, not just with recent events.
And that's to say nothing about there being no MDOT news releases posted since New Year's, and getting to the news releases from last year is impossible due to some website glitches.
They could do a lot to learn how posting project information online can help the public input process...something MDOT has been sorely lacking in for a long time, not just with recent events.
January 30, 2006
Bridge debate, part X
A Letter to the Editor over the weekend, written by two people who were involved with the Renewal Forum held after the hurricane, basically blasted MDOT for their continued insistence on their proposed bridge design for the Biloxi-Ocean Springs span. They demand that MDOT scrap "Bridgezilla" and get on with building a temporary span along the path of the destroyed bridge (using the remaining pillars if possible), while everyone sits down and plans a new permanent bridge that everyone can agree with (or at least agree enough to get it built).
The two letter writers, and others of their peers, appear to have created two new websites to further their causes: www.msrenewalcoalition.org and www.bridgenow.org . The former looks to be a support page for the policies recommended by the Renewal Forum, while the latter is plainly a call for MDOT to scrap their design, build a temporary bridge, then plan and build a permanent bridge along the lines of that proposed in the Renewal Forum.
I took a look through the latter site this evening, in particular their FAQ. One particular entry in their FAQ perpetuates the theory, held by many of the Renewal forumers and those in Ocean Springs and the subject of several letters over the last month, that MDOT's 6-lane bridge proposal is really a "10-lane bridge".
I immediately sent an E-mail to the bridgenow.org people explaining the fallacy of this misinformation (I called it misinformation, anyway). Some of the particulars of MDOT's bridge proposal are available on their website if you know where to look (trust me, it took some digging). Their proposal is for, in each direction, 3 12-ft driving lanes, an 8-ft inside shoulder, and a 10-ft outside shoulder. For them to squeeze 5 lanes out of that, they would have to eliminate both shoulders and make the driving lanes about 10.5 feet wide, neither of which would be likely to pass muster with FHWA (the Feds), who would have a vote in the matter. Although it would result in only 6 feet of combined shoulder, having 4 lanes each way would be a future possibility, but 5 lanes each way is a bit of a stretch.
To my surprise (and impressment), I received a reply from a Dr. Jeffrey Bounds, who agreed that 10 lanes would be a stretch and said they would revise the FAQ to reflect such.
Goes to show that, even amidst disagreement (I disagree with the coalition on how many lanes the bridge needs, though I generally agree with their other positions on the bridge), there can still be civility. MDOT would do well to take a lesson on that...
The two letter writers, and others of their peers, appear to have created two new websites to further their causes: www.msrenewalcoalition.org and www.bridgenow.org . The former looks to be a support page for the policies recommended by the Renewal Forum, while the latter is plainly a call for MDOT to scrap their design, build a temporary bridge, then plan and build a permanent bridge along the lines of that proposed in the Renewal Forum.
I took a look through the latter site this evening, in particular their FAQ. One particular entry in their FAQ perpetuates the theory, held by many of the Renewal forumers and those in Ocean Springs and the subject of several letters over the last month, that MDOT's 6-lane bridge proposal is really a "10-lane bridge".
I immediately sent an E-mail to the bridgenow.org people explaining the fallacy of this misinformation (I called it misinformation, anyway). Some of the particulars of MDOT's bridge proposal are available on their website if you know where to look (trust me, it took some digging). Their proposal is for, in each direction, 3 12-ft driving lanes, an 8-ft inside shoulder, and a 10-ft outside shoulder. For them to squeeze 5 lanes out of that, they would have to eliminate both shoulders and make the driving lanes about 10.5 feet wide, neither of which would be likely to pass muster with FHWA (the Feds), who would have a vote in the matter. Although it would result in only 6 feet of combined shoulder, having 4 lanes each way would be a future possibility, but 5 lanes each way is a bit of a stretch.
To my surprise (and impressment), I received a reply from a Dr. Jeffrey Bounds, who agreed that 10 lanes would be a stretch and said they would revise the FAQ to reflect such.
Goes to show that, even amidst disagreement (I disagree with the coalition on how many lanes the bridge needs, though I generally agree with their other positions on the bridge), there can still be civility. MDOT would do well to take a lesson on that...
January 26, 2006
More bridge blues for MDOT
What little of MDOT's public image remains continues to take a downward slide, with two more recent events. First, they only received one bid for the Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge replacement, which came in significantly higher than estimated. And the company that made that bid also bid on the Bay St. Louis bridge and preferred the latter if they had to choose between the two. So while MDOT now has a contract out for replacing the Bay St. Louis bridge (albeit $66 million higher than estimated), they're still without a contract for their Biloxi-Ocean Springs plan.
And as if that wasn't enough, the Coast Guard has now weighed in on the Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge issues (now centered over the need of a drawbridge vs. a fixed-span), saying that MDOT needs to resolve those issues before they'll grant approval. Not only has Trinity Yachts said they need a drawbridge, but Northrup Grumman has piped in with the same concern, as has Harrison County's economic development coordinator.
It got back enough the past few days to where your's truly weighed in with a Letter to the Editor in the SunHerald. I basically lambasted both sides for ignorance when it came to the fight over adding a drawspan to MDOT's bridge proposal. And lo and behold, this morning in my E-mail box was an E-mail from the vice president of Trinity Yachts explaining his position and basically taking issue with my calling them ignorant.
Will be interesting to see how this all pans out, with there now being 4 major issues surrounding the bridge replacement (drawspan, number of lanes, location, and lack of bidders). Unfortunately, I don't think the final product will wind up serving the best interests of the Coast.
And as if that wasn't enough, the Coast Guard has now weighed in on the Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge issues (now centered over the need of a drawbridge vs. a fixed-span), saying that MDOT needs to resolve those issues before they'll grant approval. Not only has Trinity Yachts said they need a drawbridge, but Northrup Grumman has piped in with the same concern, as has Harrison County's economic development coordinator.
It got back enough the past few days to where your's truly weighed in with a Letter to the Editor in the SunHerald. I basically lambasted both sides for ignorance when it came to the fight over adding a drawspan to MDOT's bridge proposal. And lo and behold, this morning in my E-mail box was an E-mail from the vice president of Trinity Yachts explaining his position and basically taking issue with my calling them ignorant.
Will be interesting to see how this all pans out, with there now being 4 major issues surrounding the bridge replacement (drawspan, number of lanes, location, and lack of bidders). Unfortunately, I don't think the final product will wind up serving the best interests of the Coast.
January 14, 2006
6-lanes for Biloxi-Ocean Springs Bridge
The handwriting is on the wall, so to speak. After hearing concerns from Ocean Springs Mayor Moran (who is against a 6-lane replacement for the Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge) and reviewing traffic studies for the bridge done by both MDOT and the city, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has endorsed MDOT's proposal for a 6-lane span. Short of a lawsuit, which would only delay the bridge that much further (something NEITHER side wants), MDOT's bridge proposal will proceed.
Somewhat unrelated, but possibly affecting the bridge proposal even further, is a letter sent by Harrison County Development Commission Executive Director Leland Speed to MDOT requesting a drawspan anyway, in order to promote additional industry along the county's Industrial Seaway. The driving force behind the letter is Trinity Yachts, who moved onto land along the seaway after Katrina and is a builder of large yachts. One yacht proposal they are bidding on would require a vertical clearance of up to 120 feet, significantly higher than the 85-foot clearance that MDOT's bridge proposal allows. The concern is that building a fixed-span either that low or without a drawspan will hamper industrial recruitment efforts, not to mention Trinity Yachts' hopes of winning the "mega-yacht" contract.
My thoughts: though I don't like the additional mainenance/operational costs of keeping a drawbridge at Biloxi-Ocean Springs (and neither does MDOT), there may be significant merit in keeping a drawbridge there, in that industrial development along the Seaway would help to diversify the Coast's economy plus give it a springboard to bounce back from the hurricane's destruction. Using the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge along the D.C. Beltway as an example, a well-designed drawbridge will reduce the number of drawbridge openings required, yet still have the flexibility that industry along the Seaway requires. My suggestion would be for a drawbridge with a 65 to 70 foot clearance, with drawspan openings by appointment and prohibited (except for emergencies) during peak traffic hours.
Somewhat unrelated, but possibly affecting the bridge proposal even further, is a letter sent by Harrison County Development Commission Executive Director Leland Speed to MDOT requesting a drawspan anyway, in order to promote additional industry along the county's Industrial Seaway. The driving force behind the letter is Trinity Yachts, who moved onto land along the seaway after Katrina and is a builder of large yachts. One yacht proposal they are bidding on would require a vertical clearance of up to 120 feet, significantly higher than the 85-foot clearance that MDOT's bridge proposal allows. The concern is that building a fixed-span either that low or without a drawspan will hamper industrial recruitment efforts, not to mention Trinity Yachts' hopes of winning the "mega-yacht" contract.
My thoughts: though I don't like the additional mainenance/operational costs of keeping a drawbridge at Biloxi-Ocean Springs (and neither does MDOT), there may be significant merit in keeping a drawbridge there, in that industrial development along the Seaway would help to diversify the Coast's economy plus give it a springboard to bounce back from the hurricane's destruction. Using the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge along the D.C. Beltway as an example, a well-designed drawbridge will reduce the number of drawbridge openings required, yet still have the flexibility that industry along the Seaway requires. My suggestion would be for a drawbridge with a 65 to 70 foot clearance, with drawspan openings by appointment and prohibited (except for emergencies) during peak traffic hours.
December 02, 2005
Building a new Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge
A lot of discussion and debate from all over has gone into the proposal to replace US 90's bridge over Biloxi Bay (locally known as the Biloxi-Ocean Springs Bridge) in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Many are at odds with MDOT because the feel MDOT is forcing their plan for the bridge down on them...especially those in Ocean Springs. Complaints up the wazoo have been made against MDOT for the way they're handling the situation. The SunHerald seems to have an article, letter, or sound byte every day about the bridge. From my unscientific poll, it seems comments in the SunHerald are 40/60 for/against MDOT's bridge plan.
Here's MDOT's plan: their plan is for a 93-ft high-rise bridge (high enough to eliminate the need for a draw span) at the same location as the bridge destroyed by Katrina. The bridge would be 6 lanes wide plus full shoulders and a bike/ped path...the cited width of the bridge is 120-ft.
The New Urbanists and Renewal Forumers, not surprisingly, are solidly against MDOT's plan. They feel A) that the bridge should be built along the CSX RR corridor, to tie into their vision of a relocated US 90 along the CSX corridor through Biloxi and Gulfport, and B) that the bridge should be no more than 4 lanes wide.
MDOT originally wanted the bridge contact let by the end of November. That's been put on hold due to a holdup in federal relief/recovery dollars...MDOT claims they've already spent $100 million on hurricane recovery, and until yesterday had only received $5 million in reimbursement from the Feds. Yesterday they got $20 million more, but that still leaves a $75 million backlog...significant when one considers a new Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge will easily top $200 million, regardless of the design/location chosen.
My take on the bridge: I've borrowed elements from both sides in crafting my proposal. First up: MDOT should build a 2-lane "temporary" span at the existing location to get US 90 traffic at least moving and avoid an up-to-10-mile detour via I-10. The New Urbanists feel that this is the right way to go until a permanent bridge can be agreed upon and built, and I tend to agree.
My "permanent" solution, which is hingent on the CSX tracks being relocated north of I-10 as many propose, is to build a signature span generally at the location of the CSX RR crossing of Biloxi Bay. This span should be aesthetic in design, a high-bridge to eliminate need for a drawbridge span, and have 6 traffic lanes. The New Urbanists disagree, but I feel existing traffic is borderline enough to justify 6 lanes, and future traffic volumes will certainly warrant a wider span. Rather than full shoulders on both sides of each roadway, I would carry a 2-ft left shoulder and a 10-ft right shoulder on each side. My signature span would also carry a dual-track LRT line across the Bay. Although my span is wider than MDOT's proposal (132-ft vs 120-ft), my span carries both vehicle lanes and rail transit.
With a "permanent" span, the 2-lane "temporary" span could then be converted into a bicycle/pedestrian crossing, providing non-vehicular traffic a means to get across Biloxi Bay.
This and my other ideas for my transportation vision for the Gulf Coast can be found on my website here: http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/gulfcoast/
Here's MDOT's plan: their plan is for a 93-ft high-rise bridge (high enough to eliminate the need for a draw span) at the same location as the bridge destroyed by Katrina. The bridge would be 6 lanes wide plus full shoulders and a bike/ped path...the cited width of the bridge is 120-ft.
The New Urbanists and Renewal Forumers, not surprisingly, are solidly against MDOT's plan. They feel A) that the bridge should be built along the CSX RR corridor, to tie into their vision of a relocated US 90 along the CSX corridor through Biloxi and Gulfport, and B) that the bridge should be no more than 4 lanes wide.
MDOT originally wanted the bridge contact let by the end of November. That's been put on hold due to a holdup in federal relief/recovery dollars...MDOT claims they've already spent $100 million on hurricane recovery, and until yesterday had only received $5 million in reimbursement from the Feds. Yesterday they got $20 million more, but that still leaves a $75 million backlog...significant when one considers a new Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge will easily top $200 million, regardless of the design/location chosen.
My take on the bridge: I've borrowed elements from both sides in crafting my proposal. First up: MDOT should build a 2-lane "temporary" span at the existing location to get US 90 traffic at least moving and avoid an up-to-10-mile detour via I-10. The New Urbanists feel that this is the right way to go until a permanent bridge can be agreed upon and built, and I tend to agree.
My "permanent" solution, which is hingent on the CSX tracks being relocated north of I-10 as many propose, is to build a signature span generally at the location of the CSX RR crossing of Biloxi Bay. This span should be aesthetic in design, a high-bridge to eliminate need for a drawbridge span, and have 6 traffic lanes. The New Urbanists disagree, but I feel existing traffic is borderline enough to justify 6 lanes, and future traffic volumes will certainly warrant a wider span. Rather than full shoulders on both sides of each roadway, I would carry a 2-ft left shoulder and a 10-ft right shoulder on each side. My signature span would also carry a dual-track LRT line across the Bay. Although my span is wider than MDOT's proposal (132-ft vs 120-ft), my span carries both vehicle lanes and rail transit.
With a "permanent" span, the 2-lane "temporary" span could then be converted into a bicycle/pedestrian crossing, providing non-vehicular traffic a means to get across Biloxi Bay.
This and my other ideas for my transportation vision for the Gulf Coast can be found on my website here: http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/gulfcoast/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)