SKYWAY RIDERSHIP DOUBLES...WE TOLD YOU SO JTA!

[thelakelander]

Yeah, if they were serious about it, then they wouldn't be axing it right off the bat.

On the flip end, if they didn't want concurrency, they could have taken it out years ago without spending the millions on consultants and paying city staff to develop the plan/fee and modify the comprehensive plan's land use policies.

[peestandingup]

Yeah, if they were serious about it, then they wouldn't be axing it right off the bat.

On the flip end, if they didn't want concurrency, they could have taken it out years ago without spending the millions on consultants and paying city staff to develop the plan/fee and modify the comprehensive plan's land use policies.

True, but maybe some of their buddies needed a job. It certainly wouldn't be the first time money gets wasted on things like this.

Doing something & saying you're going to do something are two entirely different things. Judging by the past, I wouldn't hold my breathe is all. Oh, but we got that slick new monster of a courthouse pretty easily.

[thelakelander]

All I can do is go by the past on it.  The past indicates that we've had concurrency in place for years, just like most cities throughout the state.  It's also clear that we can't afford to maintain and construct roadway infrastructure the same as we have in the past, which will be a negative on the transportation industry which is probably just as strong in lobbying as our development industry is.  We can't squeeze blood out of a turnip when it comes to finding funding mechanisms.  Money to stimulate future growth in these industries and our community will have to come from somewhere.  I'm pretty confident that money will eventually come from either impact fees like the mobility fee or out of taxpayer's pockets because I don't see our leaders telling these industries to go screw themselves.  The question I have is when this time will come and if there will be an attempt to modify projects or shift funds to something else?

[Ocklawaha]

I was going over the mobility plan page on here.  What an amazing and genius piece of planning.  I can see how the moratorium on the fee will just eliminate the foundation of the mobility plan.  Without the fee it seems like the plan does not exist.  What a shame, but if I might ask.  Are most of our leaders for the mobility plan?  I mean I figure they voted on it right?  If one was to remove the fee they would remove the mobility plan.  What is the chance the moratorium will last?  Were is JTA on commuter rail?  What happened after the feasibility study?  Sorry for all the questions, but I would really like to know.

The City Council voted for the mobility plan and then bowing to pressure from the building trades, promptly threw it under the bus. Jacksonville's extreme conservatism has given us a city with dull features - if we have any features at all. We can hope that creative minds will ultimately prevail, but I fear another, "wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." Will the moratorium last? probably.

JTA has done a commuter rail study, but thus far it looks more like a streetcar/light rail type system with stops close enough together to render a conventional train pretty useless.  The first study is more or less a study to see if we should study it! The second is more detailed. 

The Authority is making such a mess of the JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL (aka:Prime Osborn) 'JRTC' that it will be more or less dysfunctional as a commuter hub. Imagine you come into town on the train, the have to hike the equivalent of about 3-4 blocks to catch your connecting bus, Connect to Greyhound and it's between 7 and 8 blocks. They have even advanced the idea to put the platforms for north side and west side lines between the PO parking lot and Bay Street, then put Amtrak and the south side lines down by McCoy's Creek. Better wear your hiking shoes!

[cline]

which will be a negative on the transportation industry which is probably just as strong in lobbying as our development industry is. 

The "transportation" lobby probably is as strong as the development industry is.  However, it is not the "multimodal transportion" lobby.  It is the road-building lobby.  In their eyes there can never be too many roads. 

[fsujax]

Until this community decides it's transit over roads, or even a 50/50 split, then we can just forget about streetcars. Instead of arguing about parking in Riverside, they ought to be demanding more transit i.e. streetcars. Wasted energy.

[thelakelander]

The "transportation" lobby probably is as strong as the development industry is.  However, it is not the "multimodal transportion" lobby.  It is the road-building lobby.  In their eyes there can never be too many roads. 

^True but the plan/fee defines projects by zone.  That was specifically done to keep money intended for a neighborhood like Riverside being spent on something like 9B or widening Southside Blvd. and vise versa.  That's why proponents should not focus on single improvements, such as the streetcar.  Treat it like a package deal (ex. what Delaney did with the BJP).  If the road-building lobby wants to go into a place like Riverside and lobby for widening Park Street to six lanes instead of alternative forms of mobility, I'd like to see how an neighborhood group like RAP reacts when Whiteway Corner, Pele's, Five Points, and all those historic structures are earmarked for demolition to make way for an arterial highway.

At the end of the day, if there's no fee, the road building entities get no roads in the burbs either, outside of the tolls FDOT will be sending your way in the future.  Some green is better than no green.

[Tacachale]

I was going over the mobility plan page on here.  What an amazing and genius piece of planning.  I can see how the moratorium on the fee will just eliminate the foundation of the mobility plan.  Without the fee it seems like the plan does not exist.  What a shame, but if I might ask.  Are most of our leaders for the mobility plan?  I mean I figure they voted on it right?  If one was to remove the fee they would remove the mobility plan.  What is the chance the moratorium will last?  Were is JTA on commuter rail?  What happened after the feasibility study?  Sorry for all the questions, but I would really like to know.

The City Council voted for the mobility plan and then bowing to pressure from the building trades, promptly threw it under the bus. Jacksonville's extreme conservatism has given us a city with dull features - if we have any features at all. We can hope that creative minds will ultimately prevail, but I fear another, "wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." Will the moratorium last? probably.

I disagree. Jax's problem isn't "extreme conservatism", it's lack of consistent vision and followthrough. That's how we can pass a visionary plan like Better Jacksonville and then have the very next dude muck large portions of it up like the stereotypical movie fat guy who falls into the wedding cake. Both St. Pete and Tampa also have what I'd regard as a fairly conservative approach to local government, but they've gotten their act together quite well by sticking to the plan (at least in their urban areas).

I think Lakelander has it right - clearly many of our city leaders, over the span of many years, do believe in concurrency and this plan in particular, and additionally, we're reaching a point where these kinds of fees are going to be the only way to raise money for development (I think this would happen before raising taxes, due to the fact it would draw less flak from the people than taxes).

The real issue as I see it is our leadership's perennial tendency to bungle good ideas and waste a ton of potential. What I fear with this plan (or any similar plan) isn't that it'll never happen, it's that city leadership will stall it and/or tinker with it until much of its potential is just lost.

[tufsu1]

Until this community decides it's transit over roads, or even a 50/50 split, then we can just forget about streetcars.

I think that is ridiculous....we should be able to move forward on real transit even if the community was 75/25 in favor of roads.

[thelakelander]

^Yes.  There's no reason we can't move forward on real transit right now, even if its just focusing on connecting downtown with adjacent urban core neighborhoods (IMO, this is where we should start and where you'll have great buy in).  You'll never achieve 100% community buy in on anything and one form of mobility shouldn't necessarily be placed above an other without first considering the context that the improvement would serve.  That's one of the main reasons I don't like to see the streetcar improvement taken out of context when discussing the mobility plan.  It's a mobility improvement for a mobility zone where transit makes more sense than roadway widening.  It's no different than Cecil Field's mobility zone improvement being the widening of Normandy Boulevard or a pedestrian overpass over the Arlington Expressway being the top bike/ped priority in Arlington's mobility zone.

[fsujax]

ok. i will go with 80/20, 90/10 it doesnt really matter. My point is people need to demand it. Even if it is just downtown and the surronding neighborhoods.

[thelakelander]

I understand your point.  What is the most effective way for people to demand it?  Attending public meetings on transit projects? Writing council representatives? JTA? Mayor's office?

Also, do you find the general public demanding roadway expansion projects?  If so, what process are they using to make these demands?

[fsujax]

Just be outspoken about it. Show up to a Council meeting, attend a JTA meeting. I use the Riverside parking issue as a good example. Instead of everyone focusing on how to locate more parking spots, they should focus their efforts on getting City Hall and JTA to provide alternatives. As far as your second question, not sure. I think it was stated somewhere else, the road building industry is pretty strong.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I understand your point.  What is the most effective way for people to demand it?  Attending public meetings on transit projects? Writing council representatives? JTA? Mayor's office?

Also, do you find the general public demanding roadway expansion projects?  If so, what process are they using to make these demands?

You're giving 'the people' way too much credit, Lake.  The reason so few oppose the highway expansion is because it's been presented in a way that will benefit them and not cost any extra - however flawed the logic.  When 'the people' start hearing about a 'train' or a 'trolley' or any other mass transit avenue, the perception is that they'll never use it and the $20M to put it in place should be spent in other areas (not realizing the Overpass they don't have a problem with is $200M). 

You are wasting your time trying to convince 'the people' that it's something that will benefit most.  What is needed is someone in charge with the cajones to install a project - a real one, not a half-assed, poorly executed intended to fail project, and let 'the people' see for themselves.  The title of the this article is "SKYWAY RIDERSHIP DOUBLES", there's a reason. 

You have to have someone with the power and desire to plow up a cornfield.

[thelakelander]

^Many in the urban community have been doing this for years.  The mobility plan's multimodal projects would have never been included if were not for the community's visioning effots and getting those projects added to the TPO's long range master plan.  However, I fail to see the need to attempt to bring the guy living in Argyle on board before doing something when no one is asking them to spend their money on many of the needed multimodal mobility improvements in neighborhoods where they make most sense.  The neighborhood support is there, leadership needs to run with it.