Ten Affordable Fixes For Transportation In Jacksonville

[ralpho37]

May I ask, in MJ's JRTC alternative plan, where is the Prime Osborn Center?  Unless I'm reading the plans wrong, it looks like the old terminal is just gone.  With that configuration, how is everything supposed to fit around the Prime Osborn Center?

[acme54321]

May I ask, in MJ's JRTC alternative plan, where is the Prime Osborn Center?  Unless I'm reading the plans wrong, it looks like the old terminal is just gone.  With that configuration, how is everything supposed to fit around the Prime Osborn Center?

The convention center is moved for the MJ plan.

[Charles Hunter]

And the old terminal building is preserved and returned to its original purpose as a transportation center.  Much of the convention center building in back appears to be gone.

[Dashing Dan]

I definitely agree.  However, that's not the point of the Mobility Plan or the reasoning for the priority projects in it, which is what this particular discussion in generally revolved around (at least from my understanding). 

Given that we agree that pedestrian and/or bicycle accessibility are necessary preconditions for transit, then is this reflected be in the prioritization of mobility plan projects?  If not, why not?

[thelakelander]

Again, let's go back and review the purpose and intent of the plan:

I definitely agree.  However, that's not the point of the Mobility Plan or the reasoning for the priority projects in it, which is what this particular discussion in generally revolved around (at least from my understanding). 

Just to refresh everyone's thinking, here is the original purpose and intent of the mobility plan:

1. Mitigate and/or retrofit suburban sprawl development patterns.

2. Opportunity to consider place-based mobility strategies (diversity, scale, physical assets and character of Jacksonville's unique neighborhoods).

3. Incorporating the guiding principles and themes of Planning District Vision Plans.

4. Objectives of the 2030 Mobility Plan:

A. Support a variety of transportation modes;
B. Reduce vehicle miles traveled;
C. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
D. Promote a compact and interconnected land development form;
E. Improve the health and quality of life for Jacksonville residents.

With all of this in mind, from my understanding, even Jax Beach has jumped on the mobility plan bandwagon and have their own in the works.

To achieve the goals of the plan, every neighborhood, corridor and project must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.  When you approach this from a holistic view, you'll find financial opportunities to integrate selected priority bike/ped projects within the confines of roadway/transit improvements.  For example, if things were done the way you've suggested (ignore transit/roadway and only focus on ped/bike), money would be spent to add sidewalks and bike facilities to long stretches of Philips and Southside, two major arterial on the Southside that pretty much lack these amenities.  These also happen to be corridors where BRT has been proposed and roadway widening is needed.  By ignoring transit and road improvements for the favor of sidewalk/bike only, when those BRT and roadway projects come on line, we'd be ripping up the new sidewalks and bike facilities that were added a few years earlier and rebuilding them as a part of each project.  I don't know about you, but I'd consider ripping up and building the same sidewalk every two or three years waste of money and extreme fiscal irresponsibility. 

Instead of this, money provided for the widening of these roads funds the rebuilding of them into urban cross sections complete with new sidewalks, bike lanes, intersection improvements and capacity enhancements that make it easier for BRT service to be operated on them (ex. "complete streets").  So in essence, pedestrian, bicycle, transit and auto modes have all been addressed in these corridors with auto money.  This is especially important for a corridor like Philips where the community's vision is to see it lined with TOD from the proposed parallel commuter rail line.


Philips Highway today. The road money used to widen this section funded by the plan, also pays for sidewalks, bike lanes, intersection and median improvements that will facilitate bike/ped and transit modes as well.

Furthermore, by combining bike/ped needs with auto/transit projects, the money in the plan actually set aside for bike/ped projects can (and is intended) be used to fill in gaps within the bike/ped network on facilities that will not see transit/roadway improvements.  Also, what makes anyone believe the money set aside for bike/ped projects won't be spent improving them in the short term?  From my understanding, nowhere in the plan is that mentioned.  That position sounds more like a knee jerk reaction at this point to something where full understanding of how this thing actually works may still not be clear.


Julia Street in downtown.  Sidewalks are already in place, a transit center is a block away and the entrance to FSCJ is across the street.  By changing roadway design policy, all you need is some paint to add bike lanes.  That could be done with bike/ped money in the plan or simple coordination with public works.

Last but not least, there's a real opportunity at hand to modify policies of how we current design or transportation infrastructure to improve the bike network.  The majority of streets within downtown and the city's urban neighborhoods are clearly wider (inside curb to inside curb) than they need to be for automobile travel.  These are all streets that COJ Public Works, FDOT, etc. have to maintain and resurface every couple of years.  By simple coordination, needed bike connectivity projects in the core city can be implemented in conjunction with non-mobility plan money already set aside for street maintenance.  For example, when COJ resurfaces a street like Hubbard in Springfield, why not narrow auto lane widths to make way for bike lanes?  This can be done with money where already spending, yet still advance the overall goal of citywide multimodal connectivity.  Hopefully, this helps explain why a holistic approach that simultaneously addresses a mobility issues makes more sense then favoring one mode over another.

[Dashing Dan]

  Hopefully, this helps explain why a holistic approach that simultaneously addresses a mobility issues makes more sense then favoring one mode over another.

Thanks for all of that info, but I had taken it for granted that some of the projects in the mobility plan would provide for more than one type of transportation. 

So let me reword my previous question:  Are there any transit projects in the mobility plan where bicycle and/or pedestrian accessibility requirements have not been previously (or simultaneously) addressed?

A yes or a no should be sufficient.

[thelakelander]

Yes.

[Dashing Dan]

too bad

[wsansewjs]

too bad

Why don't we add all of the bicycle/pedestrian accessibility requirements under the handicapped/ADA accessibility. Really, the majority of the ADA / handicapped accessibility requirements share the similar points.

Only the difference is the ADA / handicapped accessibility requirements takes the higher priority so why not let the bike/pedestrians ride on that?

-Josh

[thelakelander]

too bad

Now getting back to the office and seeing this online instead of my phone, I guess I'm confused about what you're asking.  All I can say is that every project in the mobility plan is intended to be seamlessly integrated with all modes of mobility and land use.  In addition, the auto/transit priority projects are independent of the bike/ped when it comes to funding mechanisms.  Plus when it comes to the transit and auto priority projects, elements of their designs will also address their connectivity with bike/ped modes (ex. Philips Highway example).

[thelakelander]

too bad

Why don't we add all of the bicycle/pedestrian accessibility requirements under the handicapped/ADA accessibility. Really, the majority of the ADA / handicapped accessibility requirements share the similar points.

Only the difference is the ADA / handicapped accessibility requirements takes the higher priority so why not let the bike/pedestrians ride on that?

-Josh

ADA/accessibility requirements (ramp slope, min. sidewalk width, etc.) will have to be implemented regardless of the project.  That's the law.   The key for Jax is going to be to go above and beyond the minimum required design standards and regulations.

[wsansewjs]

too bad

Why don't we add all of the bicycle/pedestrian accessibility requirements under the handicapped/ADA accessibility. Really, the majority of the ADA / handicapped accessibility requirements share the similar points.

Only the difference is the ADA / handicapped accessibility requirements takes the higher priority so why not let the bike/pedestrians ride on that?

-Josh

ADA/accessibility requirements (ramp slope, min. sidewalk width, etc.) will have to be implemented regardless of the project.  That's the law.   The key for Jax is going to be to go above and beyond the minimum required design standards and regulations.

That is correct, Ennis. My point is to use the thunder of the federally mandated ADA/accessibility requirements to get those pedestrians / bike accessibility requirements into fruition.

-Josh

[Dashing Dan]

It would also help if the city had a complete streets policy that applied to transit projects along with road projects.  I'm already working on that.

[thelakelander]

I guess I'm lost.  Are we talking about new bike/ped projects in the mobility plan or bike/ped issues in general?  I ask because the requirements are now law, the city can't legally build new facilities without them.  This means all bike/ped projects in the plan will include at least minimal federally mandated requirements. 

[thelakelander]

It would also help if the city had a complete streets policy that applied to transit projects along with road projects.  I'm already working on that.

Great point.  It would be nice to have a complete streets policy in effect that would apply to transportation projects across the board.  If we did, JTA would have to include a ped/bike overpass over I-95 for their 95/JTB interchange project.