FL: I-95 (concurrency with US 1 and US 90 in Jacksonville?(around Exits 348-350)

[Markkos1992]

After seeing the concurrencies log a couple months ago, I took the time to go through all of them to keep track of what I truly clinched.

However, for some reason, it is showing concurrencies on I-95 with US 1 and US 90 around Jacksonville. After looking at the construction projects there on GSV, I could not come up with any definite conclusion on if either road touches I-95.  I recognized the US 17 concurrency north of I-10 because they seem to actually be on the same road at some point.

[theFXexpert]

There was a post on AARoads that explained US 1 and 90 were incorrectly signed on Kings Rd. and Prudential Dr. and that the signage will be corrected as part of the Overland Bridge project.

AASHTO's route log also shows US 1 and US 90 joining I-95 and then leaving after about a mile.

[ntallyn]

Those routes are SO horribly signed through downtown. And 17 isn't any better (heading north, the signage goes from Roosevelt Blvd to I-10 East to "TO US 17" at Forest Ave (but then no signs at the bottom of the ramp).

[froggie]

AASHTO's route log also shows US 1 and US 90 joining I-95 and then leaving after about a mile.

FDOT shapefiles updated this past week show the same, though the actual distances are more like 1/3mi for US 90 and about 3/4mi for US 1.

Looking at aerial imagery of the construction completed thus far suggests that the US 90 mainline won't meet the I-95 mainline anymore once construction is completed.

[theFXexpert]

Looking at aerial imagery of the construction completed thus far suggests that the US 90 mainline won't meet the I-95 mainline anymore once construction is completed.

Yes; sort of.
Traffic staying on US 1 and US 90 will be kept in C/D lanes.

[rickmastfan67]

Looking at aerial imagery of the construction completed thus far suggests that the US 90 mainline won't meet the I-95 mainline anymore once construction is completed.

Yes; sort of.
Traffic staying on US 1 and US 90 will be kept in C/D lanes.

And for the purposes of this project, we've been considering the 'C/D lanes' as part of the mainline.

Plus, with looking at StreetView right now (Feb '16), NB I-95 is currently using the future C/D lanes.  I'm really digging the new flyover to get to US-90 EB from I-95 SB that I see.

[ntallyn]

I'm really digging the new flyover to get to US-90 EB from I-95 SB that I see.

That's about the only part of the road that's worth driving right now!

[theFXexpert]

And for the purposes of this project, we've been considering the 'C/D lanes' as part of the mainline.

Yeah, that's what I thought based on how US 92 and I-4 are handled in Tampa near the fairgrounds.

[michih]

I think this issue can be closed. Any objections?

[Markkos1992]

There was a post on AARoads that explained US 1 and 90 were incorrectly signed on Kings Rd. and Prudential Dr. and that the signage will be corrected as part of the Overland Bridge project.

AASHTO's route log also shows US 1 and US 90 joining I-95 and then leaving after about a mile.

The signage is still incorrect based on June 2017 GSV. 

[neroute2]

At what point do we realize that signs are just as, if not more, official as internal databases?

[yakra]

The point at which it's most convenient.

[rickmastfan67]

Looks like no changes will be needed to US-1 (well, a minor change since the new configuration to get onto I-95) & US-90.  FDOT has changed the signage AND posted FL-5!!!!!

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2017.msg2412153#msg2412153

So, this thread will stay open till I deal with the 'minor' reroute of US-1 due to the interchange reconfiguration.

[rickmastfan67]

After looking some more around in StreetView at this interchange complex, I might have to do some 'exit number' tweaks to I-95.

Currently, the '349' point for US-90 EB (FL-10) no longer has a posted number on the C/D lanes.  So, I have the following options:

1) Change it to US90_E, which to be honest would look a little weird in I-95's file.
2) Leave as-is reflecting the 'historical' exit number. (This is my preferred option)

To be honest, if I could have gotten away with separating US-1 & US-90 from I-95 here on the C/D lanes (see US-219 & I-90 in NY), I might have done so.  However, both routes have direct on-ramps to I-95 NB, which bypass the C/D lanes, which made that option a complete no-go. 

Also the CD lanes have MM with I-95's mileage (even though they say CD in them) in both directions, which makes more of a case to keep the I-95 concurrency (that & the FDOT GIS & AASHTO agreement) IMO.

So, what do you guys think about the exit number issue?

[Markkos1992]

I really would have preferred that FDOT used exit numbers on the C/D lanes.  I want to go with the old 349 becoming 348B based on the C/D Road exit NB being 348, but the C/D Road exit SB being 350A really confuses things IMO.

On another note, I guess a new segment of FL 5 in Jacksonville will need to be added to the HB.