Talk:Florida State Road 913

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion moved from Talk:State Roads in Florida[edit]

Rickenbacker Causeway/Florida State Road 913[edit]

SPUI, please stop removing the reference by USDOT regarding their contract list for various toll facilities. Federal contracts are very specific and often quite detailed (even more so than many laws), and if anybody knows the details of a contract with the Federal government, it's the Federal government. Period. Because the contract report was so specific regarding SR 913/Rickenbacker Causeway, any disputes you have with the reference you should take up with USDOT, and any further removal of the references will be taken up with admins... at least. Your removals are bordering on bad faith, to put it diplomatically. Remember how "wrong" B.Wind and I were about the former SR 5A? 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect given the available evidence. FDOT knows about their own roads better than anyone else. I notice that FHWA page refers to SR C-905A. Does that mean Card Sound Road is still SR C-905A? NO. THE EXTENT OF A STATE ROAD, ESPECIALLY AN UNSIGNED ONE THAT ONLY EXISTS IN DOCUMENTS, IS AN FDOT MATTER. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 00:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Dan and Dan, I have just spent four hours researching this, and aside from the flashes of ego above (Dan, please refrain from personal attacks on SPUI, no matter how intently you believe in it). SPUI, I checked your references (well, as much as I could on a dial-up) as well...
... and I saw no contradiction between them. What I saw was one editor misinterpreting the data. SPUI, your point of "FDOT knowing its roads" is a valid one, despite its occasional missteps in signage (noted above) in District Six and in your former site. On the other hand, you are working on a flawed premise: State Road designation and FDOT maintenance are not synonymous. There are some undesignated roads that FDOT has constructed and maintains (usually under contract), like the Venetian Causeway; on the other hand there are a few roads and bridges with SR designations that FDOT doesn't touch (most notably the Broad Causeway, owned by the City of Sunny Isles Beach but sports SR 922 signage). In addition, neither of SPUI's references made definitive statements about SR termini (the pavement reports deal with sections of SRs, not necessarily them in their entirety). After studying a number of documents (including a letter from a former official of Key Biscayne), I can definitively tell you that the SR 913 designation extends across the Rickenbacker Causeway. But before I discuss the evidence (and EVERYTHING I've seen fits it), there is one more piece of the puzzle that needs to be mentioned here.
In addition to the USDOT contracts (and USDOT would know about their contracts as well as FDOT knows its State Roads), there is the matter of the Florida Highway Patrol. The jurisdiction of the FHP is limited by state law to the roads with FDOT designations, unless a road has been specifically added by law (as I understand it, former SRs are grandfathered, but I'm not too sure). According to the Village of Key Biscayne (or, rather, one of the people in the Village government), the SR 913 designation - which was then originally applied only between the toll booths and Interstate 95, was extended the length of the Causeway - without transfer of maintenance to FDOT - so that the Florida Highway Patrol could assist in the patrols that were being done by a then-shorthanded City of Miami police. This is plausible given the economic conditions of the City of Miami (which extended to, but not including, the Miami Seaquarium), in the mid-1990s.
Maps between 1989 and 1998 confirm this. An FDOT Official Florida Transportation Map shows SR 913 as strictly on the mainland, as do a 1994 AAA Miami-Ft. Lauderdale map, a 1995 Rand McNally Miami Metro map, and 1996 Miami area maps by Dolph's and Universal Maps. But the 1998 FDOT Official Florida Transportation Map showed the designation moved to leave no doubt that the entirety of the Rickenbacker Causeway was SR 913, as did the 2001 Universal Maps Miami-Dade County map... as do the 2005 Universal Miami-Dade County and the 2006 Rand McNally Miami Metro map.
So the pieces all fit: the entirety of the Rickenbacker Causeway is SR 913 as of 1996 or 1997. The extension does not entail FDOT maintenance, but is for the purpose of allowing for patrols by the FHP. I will be updating the SR 913 article to reflect this - I would greatly appreciate if the two of you declare a ceasefire and respect the research that I did to settle this matter once and for all. I shall hope, SPUI, that you will now permit the "SR 913" to stay put on the FSR page as it is the correct call - it is the only explanation that is consistent with all the evidence. It's confirmed by three primary sources (four, including Key Biscayne, but I can't cite it in the article). Now may I have the rest of my only day off in a six month stretch... off? B.Wind 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. According to Chapter 321.05, the FHP has the power "to patrol the state highways and regulate, control, and direct the movement of traffic thereon". Chapter 334.03 says that ""State road" means a street, road, highway, or other way open to travel by the public generally and dedicated to the public use according to law or by prescription and designated by the department, as provided by law, as part of the State Highway System." Thus, unless a law has been passed making the Rickenbacker Causeway a state road, it would appear that it may be a part of the State Highway System, but not a state road, as it is not maintained by FDOT. I find no statutes designating the causeway a state road.

Have you found anything describing this in layman's terms, specifically how non-state roads are designated as state highways to allow the FHP to operate over them?

Unfortunately your letter from the person at Key Biscayne is not a reliable source; can you find any records about it? Any newspaper articles? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 07:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to double-check your research. Have you heard of Broad Causeway (part of SR 922 but owned and maintained by the Town of Bay Harbor Islands) [1] -- and has been since 1951 [2]? 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange - FDOT defines the State Highway System as "Roads under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, and maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation or a regional transportation commission; includes roads with Interstate, US, and SR numbers." I'd guess the expressway authorities are RTCs, but I can't see Miami-Dade County being one. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 08:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And chapter 335.02 says that "The department shall have the authority to locate and designate certain transportation facilities as part of the State Highway System and to construct and maintain them with funds available to the department. Any transportation facility when so located and designated shall become the property of the state and shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the department." This seems to say that any state highway is state-maintained. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 08:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a map (PDF) of the state highway system from late 2005. It includes the north approach to the Causeway but not the Causeway itself. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 08:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thus once again FDOT contradicts itself. Hence the dispute. Do you have any recent references independent of FDOT that indicate that the designation ends at the toll booths? I've shown you part of the list that indicate otherwise, including a document from FDOT itself.B.Wind 15:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Which document is that? The USDOT page, even if it was necessarily reporting esactly what was in the contracts (rather than someone just looking on a map and finding a number for the table), says the contract is from 11/24/93, which is BEFORE it became SR 913 according to your research. The FHP page has one line, listing "SR 913" as "Rickenbacker Causeway". Assuming that's not misleading, it could apply to the road between US 1 and the toll booths, which is named Rickenbacker Causeway.
I was thinking about it today and to me there are two parts to the argument:
  1. State highways are roads maintained by FDOT or an expressway authority. The FHP has jurisdiction on state highways. Thus a locally-owned toll bridge cannot be FHP-patrolled, unless there was a special agreement.
  2. That special agreement does not necessarily mean that the Causeway is SR 913, just that it is FHP-patrolled. State Road numbers are assigned by FDOT (see for instance wikisource:1945 Florida State Road renumbering).
Basically, anything not by FDOT calling it SR 913 is making generalizations, and cannot be relied on to get the extent right. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 21:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI wrote "Assuming that's not misleading, it could apply to the road between US 1 and the toll booths, which is named Rickenbacker Causeway." Wrong - the road north of the toll booths is not Rickenbacker Causeway but Southwest 26th Road, and it has been that way since before the original Rickenbacker Causeway was opened in 1947. In fact the Rickenbacker Causeway is the southward continuation of SW 26th Road.

In addition, SPUI's assertion of "Basically, anything not by FDOT calling it SR 913 is making generalizations, and cannot be relied on to get the extent right" is interesting in itself as it declares his bias without giving references indicating that there is no other reliable source of SR information, discounting both the local governments, the Highway Patrol, the Federal government, or anything else that he refuses to consider. This is not a case of objective editing but one of hero worship, and he is not willing to concede that either A) there is no definitive FDOT source stating the location of the termini, or B) that, despite being a collection of human beings, FDOT makes the occasional error, too (and the errors have been well documented, including those by SPUI on his former site). In this case, he'd rather press his argument about his interpretation of the evidence instead of resolving the issue. The only dispute regarding this is in SPUI's mind. I shall gladly delete this paragraph upon evidence to the contrary. 20:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All the evidence points to SR 913 not passing over the causeway. It is up to you to give evidence that says otherwise. If you do not do so, I will remove your unsourced assertions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
And I will do the same to yours. Anything from a self-conflicting source doesn't amount to much in the evidence department. 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, SPUI - most evidence over the past 10 years, including FDOT "Official Florida Transportation Maps", show the Rickenbacker Causeway as part of SR 913. Some of those maps are referenced in the article, plus those from before 1996 that show SR 913 as strictly on the mainland. You have claimed "all the evidence..." yet you have provided none (and the the FDOT maintenance reports don't even touch the issue as it was never contended that FDOT was responsible for maintaining more than the part of SR 913 north of the toll booth). B.Wind 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting email I just got from FHP, which seems to contradict the law:

The Florida Highway Patrol has jurisdiction on every road in the State.
Thank you for your email.
Florida Highway Patrol
Office of Public Affairs

(I had emailed asking them why some former state roads like SR 531 are on their list.) --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Length of SR 913[edit]

In light of the research stated on the FSR discussion page, the length that's stated here was that of the original configuration. We need to update this to include the length of the causeway and (to be consistent with USDOT) Crandon Boulevard. B.Wind 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The correct length has been added, with references. B.Wind 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You added "About 1997, the SR 913 designation was extended over the entire causeway from Crandon Boulevard north to I-95 for the purpose of allowing the Florida Highway Patrol to have jurisdiction over the highway to the newly-incorporated Village of Key Biscayne and the tourist attractions along the way." What is your source for this? The reference you added doesn't say any of that. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

    • I removed the part about the motivation as it cannot be sustained with the appropriate linkage/documentation. I have also added the references showing SR 913 as extending the length of the Causeway. This includes a 1998 FDOT map - and I've seen a more recent FDOT map showing the same configuration. Shall we go round and round for another two weeks on this, or can we just let it be until either, A) you show a reference from a non-self-conflicting source, or B) I find sufficient evidence of a reversion to the pre-1996 definition of SR 913... or earlier? Even your old site indicated that you had uncertainty as to the southern terminus. Let's give this a rest and work WITH each other for a change. I'm sure Dan wouldn't object, either. B.Wind 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • SPUI, I have yet to see you add a reference that actually states that the SR 913 designation presently ends at the toll booths. In fact, neither of your references, as far as I can tell makes any definitive statements about termini of State Roads in general - do you have a definitive source that states the location for the ends of SR 913? If B.Wind doesn't supply the mapping evidence and the governmental evidence, then I shall. In either case, because of the discussion going on at State Roads in Florida and the lack of history of the bridge itself, this article is more properly located at State Road 913 (Florida) or Florida State Road 913 (I don't give a shit as to which - it is much more important to others, apparently). 17:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The GIS data is very clear. This PDF, produced from the GIS data, shows it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Where does it show the termini of SR 913 - or even if SR 913 exists? I have yet to see a definitive statement from FDOT stating the termini of SR 913. You claim that your map shows it "clearly," yet I don't even see a reference to it on your map. 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's in the Miami inset - see the little black line peeking out from under US 1? Alternately, download the GIS data and a free GIS viewer. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The map is less than convincing, to say the least. In fact, the map doesn't even identify it as SR 913. You still have yet to provide a source that definitively states a southern terminus of SR 913. B.Wind 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have - and your "reference" is useless for proving your contention. I ask you again: do you have another reference for your assertion, one that states definitively that SR 913 ends at the toll booth (despite the multiple sources to the contrary) and one from a source that does not contradict itself (as FDOT occasionally does regarding south Florida State Roads)? B.Wind 13:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of any other reliable sources for an internal FDOT designation, the GIS data will have to do. None of your sources are reliable. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 14:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that your bias has gone far than beyond reasonable, considering that at least two of "his" sources include two official FDOT maps as well. The case has been made over and over again that you need to provide a source that doesn't contradict itself (and FDOT does with regularity), but, hey, perhaps this argument is less about truth and more about ego, hmmmmm? Look at the total picture objectively and not simply through the eyes of your heroes. They are human. Convince me that they are stating that, contrary to multiple sources, including some from local governments, that the information from FDOT is incompatible with the information that has been represented on the State Road 913 (Florida) page before you revert it once again. Otherwise all you're doing is playing around. 23:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Those "official" FDOT maps were produced by Gousha, and are thus not so official. Please get a source from FDOT that indicates SR 913 going over the causeway, or I will continue to remove your bull. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 02:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Then we are at an impasse as it is clear that you are unwilling to consider beyond the two useless "references" that you have provided and you are unwilling (or unable) to provide any reference from a non-self-conflicting source supporting your position (of SR 913 not extending beyond the toll booths after 1996). I shall continue to revert your reversions until you show a definitive declaration as my references clearly - and repeatedly - show that it has. Also, as several other editors have repeatedly told you, removal of references is vandalism, and as far as I'm concerned, your continued reversions of Rickenbacker Causeway are in bad faith. Please stop marking it in the same manner as a dog marks its territory. B.Wind 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

... SPUI, will you kindly be civil on the discussion page? Lack of civility is hardly constructive, nor is it helpful for Wikipedia. B.Wind 13:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A bulletproof argument...[edit]

In the U.S. state of Florida, State Road has several related meanings:

  1. A road maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation (including Florida's Turnpike Enterprise) or a "regional transportation commission" (expressway/toll road authority). (FDOT defines the "State Highway System")
  2. A road signed as a State Road (or a U.S. Highway or Interstate Highway). (This is what the public mostly sees, unless they are dealing with maintenance, like calling to have a pothole fixed.)
  3. (claimed by B.Wind, but apparently incorrect) A road under the jurisdiction of the Florida Highway Patrol.

For the most part, 2 is a subset of 1 (the difference is mostly short connector routes and interchange ramps that are internally designated the same number as the road they connect to, as well as some unsigned routes). There are a few pieces of routes that are signed as State Roads but are locally maintained - State Road 15 in downtown Orlando is an example. Additionally, some locally-owend toll bridges are signed as parts of routes.

As for 3, B.Wind claims this is another meaning, The Florida Statutes include the following:

The patrol officers under the direction and supervision of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall perform and exercise throughout the state the following duties, functions, and powers:
(1) To patrol the state highways and regulate, control, and direct the movement of traffic thereon

However, it also includes the following:

to enforce all laws now in effect regulating and governing traffic, travel, and public safety upon the public highways and providing for the protection of the public highways and public property thereon

Note "public highways" rather than "state highways". An email to the FHP confirmed this:

The Florida Highway Patrol has jurisdiction on every road in the State.
Thank you for your email.
Florida Highway Patrol
Office of Public Affairs

State Road 913 is not a signed route, so it fails criterion 2. As per criterion 1, FDOT GIS data and pavement management reports indicate that the northern approach to the Rickenbacker Causeway, running from the toll booth north to Interstate 95, is state-maintained as SR 913. The causeway itself is owned and operated by Miami-Dade County. Thus, according to criterion 1, only the north approach is SR 913.

B.Wind (or his friend) claims the following reasons for the causeway being part of SR 913: (See Talk:State Road 913 (Florida).)

  1. He has seen agreements that enable the FHP to patrol the length of the causeway, so it is part of SR 913.
  2. "Official State Transportation Maps" (and commercially-sold maps) place an SR 913 marker on the Causeway itself. I can confirm that this is true on a 2001 map; my 1995-96 map shows no SR 913 at all.
  3. The FHWA lists it as SR 913 in a listing of "Active FHWA Toll Facility Agreements".

Now my rebuttal of these points:

  1. As above, FHP jurisdiction does not imply State Road status. Even if it did in general, there could be a special contract between the county and the FHP for patrolling the causeway; this should not magically transfer State Road status to the causeway. (Think of what would happen if the northern approach was not a State Road. There would be no number to assign to the causeway without a document somewhere assigning it. Such a document would be proof that the causeway is SR 913.)
  2. The "Official State Transportation Maps" are labeled "Cartographic Updates and Map Design by:", and were formerly prepared by H.M. Gousha (which has gone out of business). They are thus secondary or tertiary sources, and it shows in the number of errors that directly conflict with FDOT. For instance, SR 5A is shown north of Jacksonville, when it is no longer a State Road. SR 948 is on what has always (since the current numbers were assigned in 1945) been SR 25. CR 528A is shown on what has been signed recently by FDOT as CR 506. SR 2 is shown west of Jacksonville on what has been a county road since the 1980s. Using these non-reliable sources will introduce numerous errors into Wikipedia.
  3. This is a tertiary source, in that someone compiled the list and then labeled the road with their apparent numbers. It is doubtful that the contract included the number, and even if it did, (1) it is from 1993, before the supposed extension of SR 913 over the causeway, and (2) the description includes the piece from the toll booth north to US 1, which is undeniably part of SR 913 (as it is state-maintained).

Two final notes:

  1. I emailed FDOT asking if they had any source indicating the south end of SR 913. I never got a response.
  2. I do admit the possibility that the causeway is SR 913. But none of the available sources confirm this. I would favor a wording like "FDOT maintains the northern approach as SR 913" (in the causeway article - there's no need for two separate articles) without a clear statement of south end (outside the State Road infobox).

--SPUI (T - C) 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

... is really no argument at all[edit]

This is an "argument" by someone who is attempting to assert his "I'm above WP policy because I am right" argument when in fact it doesn't hold water.

All this time, he has yet to produce one piece of evidence indicating that the southern end of SR 913 is the Rickenbacker Causeway toll booth, despite the several references that have been provided not only showing that the current alignment of SR 913 extends to Key Biscayne, but also when the extension to the island occurred.

His argument of "the FDOT maps are not FDOT maps" is nonsense at every level, as they are printed, presented, paid for, and distributed by the State of Florida as an official state document - unless the presentation has changed for 2006, it's mentioned with the cost of printing the map on the document itself - and since it also states on the cover "Florida Department of Transportation," that makes it an official FDOT document. Therefore it must be accepted as such.

In addition, relying upon just one source - and one that is often self-contradictory, particularly in some parts of Florida - is asking for trouble in the error department. When human beings are involved, error will always creep into the equation; that's why we look at more than one source for verification, whether it be for the existence or nonexistence of a particular road... or, for that matter, where that road is located.

SPUI's citation of SR 948 being on NW 36th Street east of Okeechobee Road is a classic example. It had been shown in one source; subsequent sources revealed that location to be in error. It happens, but that's why we should be double-sourcing (or more) these things. Both B.Wind and SPUI have made similar errors over the past year - as have I in my limited editing last spring - but that's why we're supposed to verify the articles and assume good faith without getting involved in lame edit wars on four, five, or even six fronts (such as the idiotic one regarding the southern terminus of Interstate 95 in Hialeah).

Regarding SR 913/Rickenbacker Causeway, since there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that the articles are accurate, we can - and should - keep them that way... and separate. Clearly the two items are not one and the same, even if SR 913 stops at the toll booth. The articles can be updated and/or merged when we get concrete evidence (and not the 2006 Rand McNally, which falsely shows no SR 913 whatsoever but a CR 913) indicating otherwise.

And it's just as well that FDOT didn't respond to the request for a letter: it would have been OR, and there is far too much of that in the Florida State Roads articles, most notably the ones with exit lists and the history of the roads. Perhaps instead of denying information that was supported by references supplied by a different editor, we should do our best to try to confirm the given information with new references - and amend the articles as evidence to the contrary arise.

That, my friends, is assuming good faith and being constructive, as we should be working toward a common goal instead of attacking each other. That's the way to improve Wikipedia. 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Letter from Jeffrey Dodge of FDOT[edit]

SW 1 Avenue to the Rickenbacker Causeway toll plaza.

Thank you.

             >                                                          To 
             10/21/2006 04:08                                           cc 
                                       State Road 913                      

What are the limits of State Road 913? Thanks.

--SPUI (T - C) 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Florida State Road 913. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)