I dub thee Mount Cady
From this site:
For those who don’t mind the early rise and want to build strength and endurance, this is a great place to train and challenge yourself! If you haven’t done hills or this type of bridge before this is also a good place to learn! We skate early to beat the heat.
The 436 bridge on Cady Way is a smooth and wide well designed bridge for skaters and bikers alike. There is rollout on both sides of the bridge so no need to hit the brakes! Beware as you can easily reach 20mph+ rolling down either side
. Any experienced skaters will be happy to help those who need assistance if it’s their first time doing hills.
Mount Cady cost “only” $6,000,000. A real bargain.
I hit 32 mph, but alas, I was really cranking it in high gear! Nice “hill”.
I wonder how $6M compares to the cost of the new interchange at 436 and 50. And the value to the community…
There are a few bridges around that don’t seem worth the money spent on them, but Cady Way isn’t one of those… IMO. The trail is actually is built on a transportation corridor where the road alternatives are high-volume arteries. The bridge crosses where there are few good options for at-grade crossing.
“Mount Cady” cracks me up, though 🙂
In today’s paper is an article about a beam manufactured too long to fit the 436/50 construction project. Four inches too long over, I think, 258 feet. Perhaps if they put it in the shade? The article stated that this will allow a faster flow of traffic.
In the same paper is an article by a Mr. Hattaway, forgot his first name (Bob?) that illustrates his feelings that traffic needs to be slowed rather than sped up.
An interesting set of contrasts, on different pages, so as to not confuse the reader.
The road diet article is about Mr. Hattaway. It’s written by Dan Tracy. I was mulling over a post on it.
The SR 50/SR 436 interchange is part of a six-laning project from there out to SR 417 (3.6 miles); about $66 million.
It’s kind of hard to separate it out, but widening usually costs about $15 million per mile if you don’t need ROW. So the interchange is probably about $30 million+.
And while it will “reduce delay,” it will also further blight the corridor, as 6-lane commercial arterials tend to do.
I’d like to see a cost/benefit analysis of this bridge, comparing it to a signalized crossing, looking at traffic volumes and impacts (including idling times) in all directions.
For me, beyond the ever growing demand to appease traffic-intolerant cyclists, a big question on projects like this is the funding source. Was this built with transportation/air quality funding, or was it built with recreational funds? What is the work trip vs. recreational trip ratio?
This is not an idle, bitchy, question, but rather one about accountability.
BTW, Eric: My friends in Houston Texas used to do hill climbs in parking garages. A hill is where you find it, when you live on a damp billiard table. 🙂
“I’d like to see a cost/benefit analysis of this bridge, comparing it to a signalized crossing, looking at traffic volumes and impacts (including idling times) in all directions.”
I think a signalized intersection would cost ~$250,000.
If a signalized intersection wasn’t responsive enough, a crossing guard group at ~$200,000 to cover 14 hours a day, seven days a week (probably less, but let’s just suppose).
At $200,000 a year, it would take 30 years to break even.
PM,
Here’s the bridge
And it’s won awards.
Here is the list:
Cady Way Trail Phase II Bridge over SR-436 – Orange County, Florida
1. Award of Merit – Design Category, Open Space – Orange County Design Excellence Awards, 2008.
2. Award of Honor – Structural Systems – Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers (FICE)’s Engineering Excellence Awards, 2007.
3. Engineering Award of Merit – Southeast Construction magazine’s Best of 2006.
It’s been my observation, that the real point of awarding each other these types of awards is, “How the heck did you sucker the fools into paying for that thing?”
I would also like to point out that the purpose was not to accommodate the trail users, but to keep them out of the way. Can you imagine the motorist anger if a cyclist poked a button and stopped 6 lanes of traffic?
Apparently stopping four lanes is okay, though when the same trail crosses Bennett Rd.
It’s an impressive structure, and no doubt adds safety and convenience, and may well have been the best solution (trail users don’t like or trust signals). But I still wish we had better analysis of these types of facilities. In an air quality non-attainment zone, the elimination of traffic ques and idling is very important in the reduction of VOC emissions. Urban and transportation planners (I’m talking to you, P.M. Summer) seldom do zero-sum evaluations of facilities like this one, and instead pass along conclusions based upon unproven predeterminations.
“In an air quality non-attainment zone”
We aren’t in one of those (yet). I expect we will be if the swamp fires kick up again.
A different bridge was built for a different trail that opened three years before this one and crosses an interstate. It cost $3.5. It is impressive, too.
The life of pedestrian bridges doesn’t seem to be very long. Re-alignment, widening, changes in regulations or laws — lots of reasons, seems to make them obsolete in pretty short order.
I have seen several built in the ’70’s that are either closed or were torn down and not replaced.
Of all the trails in the metro, Cady has the greatest possibility for transportation impact. It is nearly a straight shot down a transportation corridor from a major suburban area to the urban core. Just by existing it has attracted transportation cyclists (many of our readers use it). If we did a better job of connecting it to low-volume routes (it has some permeability issues requiring access at major roads in the burbs), added a strong encouragement element (public awareness, social marketing) to high gas prices and education for how to ride effectively on the roads to and from the trail and people’s destinations, you might see something measurable.
Right now our trails exist in a recreation mindset.
Ideally, to function as a transportation facility, that bridge should have spiral ramps on both side of the roadway for connectivity… at almost double the cost.
We’ve tried to balance the transportation/recreation funds dilemma by using transportation funding to BUILD facilities, and recreation funding to maintain them. But with a less than 1% commute trip share for trails (here), it’s a problematic area of expenditure.
“spiral ramps on both side of the roadway for connectivity”
There are cheaper ways. Paths could be constructed alongside or under the ramps and when the ramp came back down to street level, they would intersect.
It’s been a while since I looked, but 6 months ago, there was absolutely no admission to the trail from the highway.
The Pinellas trail has some good examples of connectivity to fly-overs from the street level. Yes, this bridge fails at that. Probably because of the recreation mindset.
Something that bothers me about all the new bridges is that they are made primarily from steel. That means painting — constant painting.
I know about painting steel since I was in the Navy and the Merchant Marine and did a good bit of it there. I can debate the pros and cons of different types of paint, the importance of proper surface preparation, what happens at the microscopic level, ad nauseum.
I also know that concrete, for short runs over highways, is more effective.
So it annoys me, as a taxpayer, that an expensive bridge is built that will require high maintenance dollars — maintenance dollars that likely won’t be available until the rusty thing is demolished– in not very many years.
Well, the bridge abutments are far enough back to allow two more travel lanes in each direction, so it’s built for the long run. The suspension design also allows for greater flexibility on future roadway design (and more safety for current road users). Maintenance is higher, as was construction, but the long term costs make more sense.
Now for my snark attack. Looking at the Google Street View link, I see no one on the trail, but I do see two cyclists on the sidewalk beneath the trail bridge… unable to access it.
“I see no one on the trail, but I do see two cyclists on the sidewalk beneath the trail bridge… unable to access it.”
Sorry, I thought you knew that. I’ll bet there are not more than 100 people a weekday that ride over that bridge. Maybe 200 a day on the weekends, except for the people that use it for training.
If anyone doubts my estimates, I will gladly back down if a camera was mounted to count the traffic.
“Build it and they will come” doesn’t apply to this bridge.
“Build it and they will come” only applies (in any significant way) to recreational use anyway. The notion that infrastructure like this creates significant transportation mode shift is a delusion.
If it was combined with other forms of encouragement and stimulus (like high fuel cost) that would be another story.
To use potentially inflammatory buzz words (and I earned my cred working with the SNVCC while I was in high school in the way-back sixties), this really is a good example of segregation and integration. The bridge (and trail) work much better if they are integrated into the local environment. But the segregationist mindset of recreational planners prevent that.
That’s why I say facilities like this this should be built with recreation funding, not transportation funding. Andy Clarke used to talk about hiding projects like this in transportation projects because they were (to quote him) “decimal dust”.
Dust bunnies and curb bunnies.
Keri wrote:
“Of all the trails in the metro, Cady has the greatest possibility for transportation impact.”
Kevin’s comment:
True, but two things need to be done first.
1. Complete the plans for expansion and connection with other trails.
2. Eliminate the rule that closes the trail after sunset. This is Rule 14 on the link below.
It has great potential for being a straight, level and direct connection between where people are and where they want to go. As others have noted, it also needs more connections to get on it at convenient locations to be part of a true transportation network. A good example of how to do this right is the “greenway” trail network in Davis, California.
Source:
http://parks.orangecountyfl.net/images/Maps/CadyWayMap_web.pdf
Unlike the tunnel on the Wekiva trail, Cady has no physical closure at night. I suspect that rule exists to relieve the parks dept of liability if someone is injured or assaulted at night.
It’s just one more symptom of toy bicycle syndrome.
“2. Eliminate the rule that closes the trail after sunset. This is Rule 14 on the link below.”
Some cities secretly wish they could close some streets after dark.
Keri wrote:
“Cady has no physical closure at night. I suspect that rule exists to relieve the parks dept of liability if someone is injured or assaulted at night.”
Kevin’s question:
Is there adequate lighting at night? This becomes a “social safety” issue. See:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html
Although I am lit up like a Christmas tree from all angles at night, all of the lights are to ensure that I am seen, not for me to see by. All of the transportation cycling infrastructure in Toronto is well lit at night.
The key differences between transportation and recreation routes are: “Is it lit at night?” and, “Is snow cleared in the winter?” OK, the latter is less of an issue in Orlando. 🙂
It also comes out of two different budgets and bureaucracies: Transportation vs. Parks and Recreation. It is truly amazing watching the bureaucratic turf wars when cyclists petition for a particular route to be upgraded to Transportation.
Kevin,
I suspect none of it is lit. Andrew would know the answer to that. I know there is at least one extremely dark and secluded section where I would not ride alone at night because of social safety concerns.
Not lit, but then I am old enough to remember when most Florida streets weren’t lit either.
Wasn’t until the late ’60’s lighting became common here as a way to discourage drug addicts from breaking into homes.
PM commented on the lack of connectivity from the bridge to the arterial.
You’re probably seeing an older view of it. At-grade connections have been made which require no spiraling, etc.
As for an at-grade crossing instead of an overpass, I absolutely agree. But our DOT will not install signals less than 1/4 mile apart, or where the pedestrian MUTCD warrants are not met. So that would mean crossing three unsignalized high-speed lanes at-grade (with a median refuge). A similar crossing on a nearby trail resulted in user avoidance; especially parents with kids. (Though the Dept. buckled in and put in a signal; no 1/4 mile issue there.)