Joint Mobility Plan Workshop This Week

[thelakelander]

Ennis:  Do you agree with widening those listed roads from 4 to 6 lanes?

Yes.  From a multimodal and sustainable development perspective, the widenings of Philips Highway and Southside Boulevard will allow for the inclusion of needed infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike facilities, potential multiuse paths, landscaping and street lighting.  That type of infrastructure will be needed for future development along these corridors (especially Philips).  These projects should also help JTA establish better bus service along these arterial roadways.

[thelakelander]

Here are the public hearing dates for the transmittal round of the mobility legislation, Ordinance 2010-879. 

11/23/10 - Introduction to City Council                                                 

12/14/10 - City Council’s 1st Public Hearing 

12/16/10 - Planning Commission Public Hearing

1/3/11 - Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee Public Hearing

1/4/11 - Land Use and Zoning Committee Public Hearing

1/11/11 - City Council’s Final Public Hearing

1/24/11 - Anticipated Transmittal to DCA

[fieldafm]

So I'm thoroughly confused.
Is council going to have public input at tonight's meeting?

Anybody going to this?

[dougskiles]

Bill Killingsworth truly has done an excellent job with this.  Not often do you see a government agency put together such a complete plan.  I've seen the question asked here before to mayoral candidates and I think it bears repeating to all of them:  "Do you plan on keeping Bill in the position of Planning Director?"

With regard to the Mobility Plan, there are a few details that need particular attention:

1) There will be a method of reducing the 'trip length' for developors who are able to demonstrate that their project does not put as many automobile trips on the road as a typical development.  An example would be a downtown residential project where many of the residents would presumably work downtown.  Another would be a TOD.  The general formula has been clearly defined, however, this aspect of it has not.

2) The fees collected will go into a fund for mobility projects and will be prioritized so that an entire improvement project is funded before rolling down to the next project.  My concern with this is who decides which project is a priority?  I am hopeful that the money will be spread between the different categories according to the percentages assigned to each (road, bicycle, pedestrian and transit) and then rolled down the list within each category.  For example, if there is a large roadway project on the list and it needs to be fully funded, then we can forget about seeing any bicycle or pedestrian projects for a while.

3) My last concern is that we don't see what happened to education funding when they sold the lottery program.  Will they safeguard the mobility fund money so that it doesn't eventually become the sole source of transportation funding?

It would be great to have a Metro Jacksonville Q&A forum with Bill Killingsworth, TR Hainline and some of the others who created the plan.

[thelakelander]

With regard to the Mobility Plan, there are a few details that need particular attention:

1) There will be a method of reducing the 'trip length' for developors who are able to demonstrate that their project does not put as many automobile trips on the road as a typical development.  An example would be a downtown residential project where many of the residents would presumably work downtown.  Another would be a TOD.  The general formula has been clearly defined, however, this aspect of it has not.

You can find more information about the trip generation adjustments in Section 11.1 (page 48 of the linked pdf).

http://www.coj.net/NR/rdonlyres/ehueomh7juwh5kuhxdpd25gjavdkhpphnqqanzja7qf56ssrcuibw4cwesemltjvjq4lfwktt2lmaqoujrgz2pvykkg/Appendix+1+-Text.pdf

2) The fees collected will go into a fund for mobility projects and will be prioritized so that an entire improvement project is funded before rolling down to the next project.  My concern with this is who decides which project is a priority?

At this point, I believe all of the projects have been prioritized already as a part of the plan.

I am hopeful that the money will be spread between the different categories according to the percentages assigned to each (road, bicycle, pedestrian and transit) and then rolled down the list within each category.  For example, if there is a large roadway project on the list and it needs to be fully funded, then we can forget about seeing any bicycle or pedestrian projects for a while.

A percentage of funds will be set aside for bike/ped projects to avoid the scenario described above.

3) My last concern is that we don't see what happened to education funding when they sold the lottery program.  Will they safeguard the mobility fund money so that it doesn't eventually become the sole source of transportation funding?

Transportation funds come from a variety sources for infrastructure projects maintained by a variety of agencies.  Mobility Plan or not, funds for federal and state projects will still be available for roadway facilities they maintain on some level.

It would be great to have a Metro Jacksonville Q&A forum with Bill Killingsworth, TR Hainline and some of the others who created the plan.

That would be great. We'll see what we can do.

[dougskiles]

Thanks Lakelander - great to meet you in person yesterday.  I look for more discussion to come from this plan.  Paragraph 2 of Section 11.1 that you referenced in response to my question about trip reductions had something in there that was particularly interesting:

"Household densities less than the average of three dwelling units per acre result in an increase in trips per residential unit yielding an increase in VMT and a corresponding increase in the mobility fee calculations.  For example, an isolated rural development with 15-acre lots and no alternative to private vehicle travel could actually warrant an increase in the $50.9698 cost per VMT."

I would be surprised if this gets through without the attention of the NEFBA - but if it does, it would go a long way to discourage sprawl.

[thelakelander]

The PDF on the city's site appears to have not been updated as of yet.  NEFBA had representatives on the Mobility Plan Task Force, so I'm sure they're aware and their concerns have been included in the modified plan.  So, some of those numbers were most likely revised during the task force meetings over the last year. For example, I thought Killingsworth mentioned the VMT number as being around $24 yesterday.

[dougskiles]

I was thinking the same.  He did say $24 per VMT.  I wonder how much 'penalty' there will be, if any, to projects that promote sprawl.  Great that NEFBA was part of the plan, another example of how Bill is building consensus so that we can actually get something done.

[thelakelander]

From my understanding, there is no penalty.  Instead, there is an incentive to reduce the mobility fee if you design your project in a manner that reduces the amount of VMT it generates. 

[Ocklawaha]

FINISHING one leg of the Skyway down to Atlantic makes all the sense in the world, so here are a few questions I posed to it's designer.

Talking to Steve Arrington about the Skyway several months ago and asked why we don't expand it beyond the Hilton with TRUE-MONORAIL track, IE: without building the elevated driveway and sidewalls.

Answer: We don't need too, there isn't MUCH difference in the cost.

Question: Why not redesign the stations with a much smaller footprint and/or kiosks for food and retail that would create a sense of community and purpose?

Answer:  We don't need to the stations work fine as they are.

Question: Why not bring the Skyway down to ground level at Atlantic Avenue, so we could create a single platform between Skyway and (future commuter rail) Trains, and Skyway and Buses.

Answer: We don't want too because people might walk on the track...

Well, if the priority project of getting the Skyway into some REAL destination is indeed built, here is my answer to a couple of those questions. Tell me who is walking on those tracks? Tell me again WHY we can't just plant hedges rather then building walls? Tell me WHY we can't streamline the whole track at a considerable discount? Inquiring minds want to know?


http://www.youtube.com/v/VK_YvcxDT9E?fs=1&hl=en_US
TOKYO DISNEY - STEVE ARRINGTON, if you see this note the video at 1:08 and beyond.   I think if we did these changes, we might actually see some of the claims of economy that were made for this thing back in 1980.

OCKLAWAHA

[ricker]

so much reading in so many scattered places...
SOMEONE who KNOWS..
the Park St - Lee St viaduct.
when was it originally constructed?
torn down once and rebuilt?
will it in fact be replaced again in favor of SAVING OUR TUNNELS?
the coolest thing ever in JAX. absitively posolutely

[Ocklawaha]

Just to make it clear, I am NOT talking about running the Skyway any distance at ground level, ONLY at the terminals where cross platform connections are possible. More then likely that would mean Shand's and San Marco (at Atlantic). The stations at Riverside and Forest, Stadium and West Bay are likely to remain elevated. So PLEASE no questions about railroad crossings over the Skyway, or pedestrians walking down the Skyway track... WON'T HAPPEN!

OCKLAWAHA

[dougskiles]

Which would you rather see - the skyway extended from Central Station (Bay & Hogan) to the sports complex - or - a street car running along Riverside Avenue & Bay Street (to the stadium)?

My vote would be for the street car because it is at ground level and could have more stops along the way, thereby encouraging more ecomonic development.

[Ocklawaha]

In this choice of one or the other I'd say Skyway. The reasons are Bay Street with it's heavy traffic and stadium traffic avalanches is NOT a good place for a streetcar. Remember in spite of the many advantages over buses, the achilles heal of the streetcar is that it CAN NOT go around a fender bender.

A better route for streetcars would be from Riverside to Forest, to Myrtle, to Bay, to Lee, to Water, to Independence, to Newnan, to Beaver and hence east into the stadium area. The streetcar should avoid both the Riverside-Acosta bridge ramps for reasons of traffic and speeds, and the Lee Street Viaduct because it MUST come down in order to restore Jacksonville Terminal and bring Amtrak back downtown.

The Skyway already "owns" the right-of-way on East Bay Street and the Hogan Street junction is 1/2 finished (like the rest of the damn thing).

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

I'm of the opinion that Bay Street would benefit from a lane diet.  If game traffic wants to speed to get to I-95, they should be directed to MLK Parkway, imo.  Assuming that happened, a streetcar could run on its own ROW similar to Tampa's TECO or New Orleans' Canal Street.  Such a design would dramatically reduce the need to go around fender benders.