Mobile Development Thread

[Bogue]

Originally Posted by CottonCity251

That would be an extra 15-20 minutes that would land them at the foot of the tunnels on the Causeway or hope there isn't a wreck in aither tunnel... seems to me most would whether wait unless they are forced to take that route. But like you said, its a pointless argument now seeing they're going to build the bridge.

Where in the world are you getting "an extra 15-20 minutes"? If I-165 connected directly to I-10 by way of the Africatown bridge then you would never encounter a tunnel or be on the Causeway. I didn't say leave it as it is and use the other. I said connect I-165 to I-10 using the existing bridge and just building over the existing roadway from where the exit signs say "Bay Bridge" down to a point on I-10. Beach traffic coming from/going to I-65 would bypass downtown altogether. It takes like 5 minutes to get from the GM&O building to I-65 right now. With the roads that are in place RIGHT NOW it takes less than 15 minutes to get from 65 to the Bayway by way of the Africatown bridge.

I'm glad they stopped I-165 short of the GM&O & PR buildings. It isn't an awful entrance point to downtown. The lights aren't really that bad there, though they could probably use better timing. Really it's probably a better idea not to funnel more traffic from downtown onto I-10 by way of Water Street as that on ramp seems very dangerous. There's no merge lane to speak of & the sightlines aren't great. Hopefully, when they do build the new monstrosity they will make getting onto it from that part of town safer and easier. I never take the Bayway out of downtown partly b/c of that on-ramp.

Here's hoping they announce for Mobile in the tanker issue, but given the current climate I wonder if the funding will be there regardless of who wins. There are a lot of important things not being funded right now.

btw, stumbled across these. Don't know if y'all have seen them.

http://www.westernrailimages.com/Gulf-Mo...z/3/620140409_gUgGx#620141732_vXUhS-A-LB

Pictures of trains from the old Gulf, Mobile, & Ohio (GM&O) Railroad Co. taken back in the late 50's as they were awaiting scrapping. Have to admit they had a style to their trains back then. The paint job is awful (red on red with a black roof... not pretty), but the shape of the body is sort of "strong but also graceful".

[jmbreland]

Originally Posted by Bogue

Pictures of trains from the old Gulf, Mobile, & Ohio (GM&O) Railroad Co. taken back in the late 50's as they were awaiting scrapping. Have to admit they had a style to their trains back then. The paint job is awful (red on red with a black roof... not pretty), but the shape of the body is sort of "strong but also graceful".

If I hadn't known the dates when they were taken, I would've thought they were taken in late 20th century due to the quality and color of the pictures. Intrigued, I looked up color photography on Wikipedia and I had no idea that the first color photograph was made way back in 1855 and QUALITY color pictures were possible as early as 1911. Nice pictures of such sleek, solid trains. Thanks for sharing!

By the way, I wonder if someone can post a rendering of the layout of the ramps that would service the new part of I-10 associated with the bridge. Bogue's comment about how it'd be dangerous to funnel more traffic onto I-10 through Water Street with the existing on-ramp got me wondering whether Water Street will be connected to the new I-10 part.

[SouthSky]

Originally Posted by jmbreland

By the way, I wonder if someone can post a rendering of the layout of the ramps that would service the new part of I-10 associated with the bridge. Bogue's comment about how it'd be dangerous to funnel more traffic onto I-10 through Water Street with the existing on-ramp got me wondering whether Water Street will be connected to the new I-10 part.

Water Street will no longer be an exit after the ALDOT project slated to begin this year. The last exit before the tunnel will be Canal Street. After the bridge is built later this decade the section of interstate after the bridge will still exist in current form (obviously minus the Water Street exit)

As for a rendering, the closest thing we have now is the video from the Mobile Chamber website:
At the four minute mark

[CottonCity251]

Originally Posted by Bogue

Where in the world are you getting "an extra 15-20 minutes"? If I-165 connected directly to I-10 by way of the Africatown bridge then you would never encounter a tunnel or be on the Causeway. I didn't say leave it as it is and use the other. I said connect I-165 to I-10 using the existing bridge and just building over the existing roadway from where the exit signs say "Bay Bridge" down to a point on I-10. Beach traffic coming from/going to I-65 would bypass downtown altogether. It takes like 5 minutes to get from the GM&O building to I-65 right now. With the roads that are in place RIGHT NOW it takes less than 15 minutes to get from 65 to the Bayway by way of the Africatown bridge.

From the fact that it takes me about 10 minutes to get from the off ramp of I-165 to the Bankhead tunnel on the Causeway speeding. Africatown bridge connects to the Causeway, which is US 90/98 already. Even if they used an elevated highway from I-10 to the bridge, it would take longer... I would like that alternate route though, I would use it. THE ONLY WAY it takes less than 15 minutes today from I-65 is at the point where you merge on I-165... NO WAY from Government Blvd, Airport Blvd, Dauphin St, or even Moffet. Most people take this route now excessively speed because there is little police presence. This route was deemed too costly(over $1billion) and would make the least difference with current/projected traffic trends. Wasn't sure if you where proposing they also put elevated highway over the Causeway from the Africantown bridge to I-10?.. that was excluded. Wouldn't fix the tunnel issues but I wish it still be built.

[elb401]

That is actually one of the last Gulf Mobile & Ohio train versions that they made. I collected train sets when I was a kid and my brother gave me a GMO set. It was one of the turn of the century (early 1900s) version. I loved it, it was my favorite. Probably, because it was from Mobile.

Also, I'm curious that once the water street ramps are gone, if the area just south of Canal St. near the shipyards with all the bail bond places will see redevelopment. I wouldn't mind living near the ship yards.....I would just like the jail to be moved. It needs to be moved anyways, it floods every time a hurricane hits.

[ExpatBaman]

Originally Posted by buckett5425

You claim there isn't a solution, but there is! The problem, is, is that people think its okay to live miles away from where they work, in suburbia, where the personal automobile is the only means of effective transportation. You claim that this new bridge will encourage development in Baldwin county, which will only further this unsustainable living arrangement.

This is why it exacerbates the issue, as roads can handle more traffic, more people will move there.

The solution is to let the problem fester, and to spend money on mass transit, and changing zoning ordinances to promote "smart growth." Think of what Mobile could do with a billion dollar investment in mass transit. It will provide for a solution, while a new bridge just postpones the problems for another generation....

(for the record, I didn't support the widening of the Twin Spans on I-10)

Buckett hit the nail on the head. Widenings only lead to more sprawl and induce more traffic. Repeatedly widening highways over the past 50+ years has failed miserably as a means to alleviate traffic congestion. Why do we continue to repeat the same mistake over and over again? Do you really think it's going to work this time or will someone be demanding more widenings 5 or 10 years from now? Think about how many lanes there will be 200 years from now if we add 2 lanes to each side every 20 years or so.

Trying to solve traffic congestion problems by adding highway capacity is like trying to cure an alcoholic by giving him more liquor. The highways are the problem.

[jmbreland]

For what it's worth, to the bane of the anti-sprawl, anti-highway widening people here on this forum, Jacksonville will boast an enviable interstate system once all the interstate construction (mostly widenings and new interchanges) is complete.

For the record, I don't support sprawl and highway widenings, but we can't just go cold-turkey. That will create more problems than necessary. We need to have firmly in place an efficient, rapid mass-transit system that people WILL use and then encourage less highway travel.

Suppose that's exactly what Alabama decides to do, its economy will become worse due to the degrading ground logistics systems in the state in the coming years due to increased congestion on the highways. We do not want that.

[SouthSky]

Speaking of sprawl, this was in today's "Today in History in the MPR.

Wednesday, February 22, 1961:
"The names of part of Old Government Street and Grant Street were changed to Airport Boulevard Tuesday by the City Commission.
"The route, a main artery to Bates Field, was changed to make finding the municipal airport simpler for strangers, the commissioners said."

[thecapitalbama]

Looks like we will know Thursday if we will win the tanker contract

MOBILE, Alabama - News 5 has confirmed the Pentagon will announce Thursday at 4 pm CST who will win the multi-billion dollar tanker contract, EADS North America or Boeing.

If EADS lands the 35 billion dollar deal, 179 Air Force refueling tankers would be built at Mobile's Brookely Field. Construction could start there as soon as the fall and could wrap up within 18 months.

Link

[SouthSky]

I was checking the commuting data just now and saw they have updated numbers. "Reunited"

"NEW" Commuting data from 2009
Mississippi
Greene 2%
Jackson 3%

Alabama
Baldwin 25.1% Mobile MSA
Washington 18% Mobile CSA

So, as of the 2009 numbers (08 in some places), Mobile-Baldwin are reunited in the MSA with Washington being included in the CSA.

MSA numbers as of rough 2011 estimates
Mobile MSA 602,877
Mobile CSA ~622,000

[elb401]

Hey south sky, that’s great, can you post the link to that info? So, it looks like the MS counties aren't coming into the Mobile MSA anytime soon. Also, Washington County's population is high enough (I think it has to be above 15%) that a congressional member, after speaking with Washington County officials, can request to have it placed in the Mobile MSA. So write a letter to Jo Bonner!

[SouthSky]

Originally Posted by elb401

Hey south sky, that’s great, can you post the link to that info? So, it looks like the MS counties aren't coming into the Mobile MSA anytime soon. Also, Washington County's population is high enough (I think it has to be above 15%) that a congressional member, after speaking with Washington County officials, can request to have it placed in the Mobile MSA. So write a letter to Jo Bonner!

Unfortunately the new guidelines look to disable local petitioning in the update in 2013. I could have read it wrong, but that is what it looks like. But at least they will be in the CSA.

The info is acquired through the Census' ACS commuting website (link) and you will need to know what to set before initiating a search.

A little tutorial:
On the selection tab under 'add layer selection' select counties. Then, above this, click draw polygon and then on the map click the county you want to study. A box should appear after a bit of loading. When it does finally appear check to make sure it selected the right county then click 'Perform Analysis on selection area'. Another box should appear. Next (this is important), click under home/work area HOME, under analysis type DESTINATION (with the pull down box select counties), select the years you want to run then click GO. After another bit of loading, your data will appear for the most recent year you selected. To see the range of data (after loading), under Report/Map outputs on the left side click 'Detailed Report'. This will show all years from your selection. Let me know if you have trouble.

If you run this for Washington in 2009, you might notice the 2009 data is incomplete. Allay your fears and call it a mistake... the 2008 numbers should suffice here.

[elb401]

Thanks south sky! Well, I guess its best to get rid of the petition option. This way you get a clearer view of a metro area.

[SouthSky]

You're welcome

The Census Bureau announced today that Alabama's 2010 census data is going to be released tomorrow at 2 pm CT...

...going to be a busy day with the tanker announcement 2 hours later.

[Port_of_Bama]

Originally Posted by SouthSky

You're welcome

The Census Bureau announced today that Alabama's 2010 census data is going to be released tomorrow at 2 pm CT...

...going to be a busy day with the tanker announcement 2 hours later.

Oh yeah !!

[elb401]

I'm tired of waiting for all these announcements. Also, could anyone tell me if Baldwin County is going to be officially included in the Mobile Metro, and if so when?

[SouthSky]

Originally Posted by elb401

I'm tired of waiting for all these announcements. Also, could anyone tell me if Baldwin County is going to be officially included in the Mobile Metro, and if so when?

Baldwin is again over the 25% threshold needed to become part of the MSA. If the numbers hold steady, they will be added back in the redefinition in 2013.

So don't worry about *other* metro areas passing us.

[SouthSky]

2010 Official Census Results
Link

Neighboring Counties
Mobile 412,992
Baldwin 182,265
Subtotal 595,257
--------------------
Washington 17,581
Total 612,838

[elb401]

Well, by the 2010 count Huntsville metro is now larger than Mobile Metro by about 4,000. (Baldwin County isn't counted yet)

[SouthSky]

Originally Posted by elb401

Well, by the 2010 count Huntsville metro is now larger than Mobile Metro by about 4,000. (Baldwin County isn't counted yet)

Yep. But we all know the bigger metro.

It looks like Mobile co was overestimated by 3000 while the city was underestimated by 2000. Baldwin was overestimated by 5000.