Marco bridge to be at full capacity during 2015 peak season

Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge

Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge

How should the replacement of the Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge be funded?

See the results »

View previous polls »

Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge

Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge

It’s not whether the Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge will be replaced some day, it’s the how.

The bridge connecting mainland Collier County to Marco Island is not slated for replacement until at least 2030, but officials are talking now about how to fund the project.

Tolls dominate the scrutiny of a study released Monday after more than a year of meetings, surveys and focus groups conducted at the behest of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization. The county funded the $356,400 study by Cambridge Systematics Inc., with a $1 million loan from the Florida Department of Transportation.

Along with presenting the attitudes of residents, visitors and commuters to the island — most are staunchly against tolls — the study outlines the possible revenues to be had from constructing a toll booth at the north end of the bridge.

Scenarios call for anywhere from 50 cents charged to Marco residents to $4 charged to visiting vehicles. The six scenarios all present different options, including lower introductory tolls that would rise over time versus a higher rate remaining static over time. Four of the scenarios offered call for residents to pay reduced rates of anywhere from 66 percent to 17 percent of the rates levied on non-residents.

“In terms of local funding, there’s really just nothing available,” said Phil Tindall, director of the Collier MPO. “Obviously, we’re going to rely on our friends at the state and federal levels as much as we can.”

Models call for annual toll revenues of anywhere from $800,000 to $5 million, after expenses and debt servicing.

An estimated $58 million to $72 million could be earned from tolls over 35 years, according to the study.

Money generated from tolls could cover construction costs of a four-lane span, currently slated for construction in 2030 and estimated to cost $45 million in today’s dollars.

Tindall said the study would be presented to the Marco Island City Council at its June 2 regular meeting, and to the MPO committee June 13. MPO members will be faced with deciding whether to move the study to phase two, which would give the county clearance to more closely examine funding models.

Still, Tindall said, it is hard to put a time stamp on the project.

“I wish I could give you a date, but until that second phase of the study is done, it’s really hard to give an answer as to when you might see a toll facility,” Tindall said.

And, Tindall adds, turning the Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge into a toll bridge is still not a certainty.

According to the study, tolls would likely reduce traffic over the Jolley Bridge by about 10 percent, with drivers either opting to avoid Marco or to go 10 miles and about 15 minutes out of the way to travel over the Goodland Bridge.

During daytime hours in the middle of peak season, the Jolley Bridge operates at or near capacity in both directions, carrying 1,000 to 1,400 cars per hour, the study stated.

Numbers decrease significantly in the off-season, but the study anticipates them rising beyond the bridge’s estimated capacity in the next two decades. By 2015, the bridge is anticipated to be at full carrying capacity non-stop between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. during peak season, with the southbound lane peaking well beyond the 1,400-cars-per-hour capacity from 3 to 6 p.m.

“By 2030, demand during most of the daylight hours of the day could not be accommodated by the current Jolley Bridge,” the study states. “Without an expansion of the bridge, users would have to modify the time they make their trip in order to avoid added delay, or have their time modified for them by waiting in queue.”

Most of the participants of February’s focus groups indicated that such delays are not problematic, however.

“I’ve been stuck in traffic jams for hours on the Long Island Expressway,” said one focus group participant. “There is no problem.”

But the study pointed out that the bridge was constructed in 1969, during an era of lower design standards, and is only anticipated to survive a 50-year storm event.

“A category 5 hurricane may render this structure unusable,” the report states.

Complicating matters, the high rating of 81 the bridge attained from a 2005 inspection was knocked down a notch in 2007.

The new sufficiency rating of 70 was assigned because of more advanced corrosion of steel and concrete on the upper part of the bridge and further deterioration of the base of the bridge. A rating of 50 is generally regarded as the threshold for major repair or replacement.

© 2008 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Related Links

Comments » 5

Bulldog32 writes:

Why not turn the toll into a positive. Give free passes to Marco residents with their tax bill. Offer annual, seasonal,worker passes and take the monies and put it towards Marco infrastructure, beautification, beach renourishment, etc...We are going to have 20,000 families within 15 minutes of our bridge looking to use our beach and boating facilities...LET THEM PAY!

hourigan82247 writes:

We residents don't want any help paying for this new bridge. We're all millionaires and we can handle a few million dollar assessment. I think we'd all be glad to pay a few bucks in tolls to reach our little Paradise!

Aviaconsul writes:

I do not know what was the price of Fuel considered for the study Tindall is talking about. In two decades we will be walking across the bridge or riding in buses so there will be no saturation. If the bridge is corroded then it should be repaired but certainly not expanded. "We do have millionaires on this Island but they are good at spending other people's money not theirs!"

SmokeyJoe writes:

It is a State Bridge, let the State pay for it. Also, Collier County paid for the study that indicated my previous thought. If the county wants the bridge so all county residents can use it, let the County pay for it. The County officials see how the Marco City Council is spending so much for all the capital projects and Marco residents voted to have our whole island sewered NOW whether needed or not. The county figures we just can not turn down any project. After all did we not plan to replace all problem bridges on Marco? What,s a few more Hundred Million or so?

deltarome writes:

Bridges need to be replaced, but just like us humans, a little bit of periodic maintenance and a few new parts and we can live a lot longer.
Lets look at options and vote on it, not have some city manager ram it thru like our fiscally irresponsible sewer and Collier Blvd projects.
Lets fix the corroding structure and shore up the bases.
Lets look also at lower replacement bridges. The few tall sailboats (if any) that travel thru the bridge can either go around the island or store them at a slip elsewhere on the island. Even if the city has to pay for the existing tall ships' slips, we will be millions ahead of replacing the bridge with a structure of the same height. The height makes it much more costly to build and maintain due to it's wind loading capability.
Lets be creative, not just throw money at large capital projects that never finish on budget or time.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features