Council Passes Mobility Plan Unanimously.

[cline]

ink this is great that it passed, we will not get funds without construction.  Considering the dismal state of the construction and development industry, we could be waiting a while.  It is a hell of a lot better than the current system though.

I agree.

What is the basis for the fee amount??  Is it a percentage of project cost? A per square foot fee?  Would retail have a higher fee than residential due to the higher number of people coming and going??

I of course realize the underlying basis for the fee has to do with density and the zones, but I was just curious about the particulars of how individual fees are calculated.

It is the total cost of the transportation plan divided by the increase in vehicle miles traveled from 2008 to 2030 (the planning horizon).  It comes out to be about $50 per VMT. 

The way I see it, we take one step at a time.  Go ahead and get the policy adopted and implemented (happening now) and then continue to work to modify codes, regulations and concepts to help stimulate additional private sector development.  As the economy improves funds will grow.  So at the end of the day, I'll think we'll be fine.

Regarding the mass transit projects, there's no reason we can't implement some of them for a much cheaper cost than what has been set aside for them in the mobility plan.  Perhaps our focus should be on doing more with less, in regards to funding, construction strategies and opportunities to pool mobility money with other funding mechanisms.  Also, when a little money comes in, i think it should be released to go ahead and get the necessary engineering and design process for these corridors completed, ASAP.  At least this way, we'll have "shovel ready" projects available to go if unexpected funding opportunities comes along.

I agree with this.  It would have been awesome to have this in prior to the building boom.  We could have had some great stuff going.

[JeffreyS]

So the Streetcar line we are looking at will eventually be from King street (St. Vincents) to Shands via the Landing. Great

[cline]

Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

[thelakelander]

So the Streetcar line we are looking at will eventually be from King street (St. Vincents) to Shands via the Landing. Great

^Along with an extension to the Stadium District.  Basically, the routes indicated in the North Florida TPO's 2035 LRTP.

[tufsu1]

Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

I beliebve you are correct....assume that a single family home generates 10 trips per day...if a new home was built in the urban core and urban priority areas, the mobility fee for a developer would be around $2250 (10 X 9 mile avg. trip length X $25)....in the most rural areas of the county, it would be closer to $3500 (10 x 14 mile avg. trip length x $25).

[cline]

Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

I beliebve you are correct....assume that a single family home generates 10 trips per day...if a new home was built in the urban core and urban priority areas, the mobility fee for a developer would be around $2250 (10 X 9 mile avg. trip length X $25)....in the most rural areas of the county, it would be closer to $3500 (10 x 14 mile avg. trip length x $25).

That's the reason I think the numbers are too low.  A developer should be penalized much more (only $1250 difference in your example) for choosing to build in the rural area as opposed to the urban areas.  There is not enough disparity in the average trip lengths.  I also think we would be better served at the $50 fee per VMT as opposed to the $25 fee but at least that number can be increased over time.

[fieldafm]

That's the reason I think the numbers are too low.  A developer should be penalized much more (only $1250 difference in your example) for choosing to build in the rural area as opposed to the urban areas.  There is not enough disparity in the average trip lengths.  I also think we would be better served at the $50 fee per VMT as opposed to the $25 fee but at least that number can be increased over time.

The mobility fee structure was one of the most contentious parts of the plan.  I'm fine with the current structure, provided the ability to re-evaluate the structure can be examined again in 5 years.  I think overall the plan that was passed last night was a HUGE win for the city.  There is going to be a bit of compromise in every negotiation and I think the deal overal is very fair. 

Of course I would have liked the San Marco skyway extension to have stayed in the plan, but the reality is that portion of the plan was a huge political hot potato and I can understand why it was replaced.

This is one of the most fair deals the city has seen in quite some time.  It's a day to be very proud to call Jacksonville your home.  I would encourage you to write a note of thanks to the planners office and your council representatives. 

[cline]

The mobility fee structure was one of the most contentious parts of the plan.

Uh, obviously.  The fee is the basis of the whole thing.

[iMarvin]

Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

[fieldafm]

Uh, obviously.  The fee is the basis of the whole thing.

Well, the alternative was stripping out the fee altogether(discussed heavily and legislation is still out there that proposes this) rendering the complete plan worthless.

I don't believe these types of things should be an all or nothing proposition.   

Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

Shands streetcar line.  If you look at the plan available online, you can see the proposed line drawn out on the map.  The one thing that is dissapointing is that the San Marco skyway proposal had some specific TOD opportunities that were much closer to being shovel ready.  That being said, a streetcar line connecting what could be a burgeoning urban medical cluster isn't bad in the least bit.  There is so much opportunity to bring back high density infill along the 8th, Jefferson, Davis and Main Street.

[JeffreyS]

If we get this broken ground in Riverside then San Marco will demand they get some too.

[JeffreyS]

I think you could see some wonderful urban renewal if you extended the skyway from the Jacksonville Terminal (A.K.A Prime Osborn) up Myrtle to Durkeeville then kings to Edward Waters. Less than 2 miles.

[acme54321]

I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

[cline]

I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

[iMarvin]

To me it doesn't make sense to not extend the skyway. A streetcar is great and all but with all the other options, no one will ride the skyway. I have always wanted the skyway to be extended down to San Marco Square, Five Points, the Stadium, and Shands. The skyway should be extened down Riverside Ave, Hendricks Ave,  Bay St, and whatever street you get to Shands with. That way the skyway is useful.