Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

[Jason]

FDOT is also planning to rebuild the nearby I-95 interchange.  I wonder how that design will affect the small residential neighborhood to the north?

Bulldozers....

[tufsu1]

Besides, just out of curiousity, I am a developer. I have lived in this neighborhood and seen its growth. What is your experience?

I am an urban planner with a specialization in transportation planning.  I have a Masters degree in Urban Planning and have been certified since 1998.  Is this good enough?

[southerngirl]

Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as motorist.

The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't.  The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ.  It's dangerous and overcrowded.

Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings.  River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.

I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.

The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards.  And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.

NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community? 

[David]

Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as a motorist.

The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't.  The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ.  It's dangerous and overcrowded.

Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings.  River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.

I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.

The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards.  And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.

NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community? 

Very much so. Thanks for clarfiying!

[gatorback]

So only people living near this area would have a say?

[southerngirl]

Don't you think that people whose homes, kids, cars and lives are directly tied to the street should have a bit more say than cut-through commuters?

We know that River Oaks Road is a nice convenience for cut-throughers. Let me tell you about one I saw today at about 2 p.m.  She was a high schooler, driving a big SUV, no seatbelt, flying down River Oaks doing at least 45 trying to catch the light.  This is what we see all day every day.  And that's before Jackson Square traffic starts doing the same dangerous things.

Add hundreds more of these folks onto our little streets and it'll be no time before there are painful lessons the city learns about listening to the people who know what traffic does on this street.

[vicupstate]

I haven't read everything in this thread, so forgive me if this has been covered already, but is the ONLY significant objection to this project from the neighborhood, is the impact on traffic on River Oaks? 

If so, it seems to me a remediation or compromise could be found.   

Perhaps what is needed for River Oaks (regardless of this project, since speeding/cut throughs are already a problem) is speed bumps. 

I recently lived on a street with significant cut through traffic.  Speed bumps (too large to take at normal speed limit) were added, as were small shrub 'islands' at a couple of intersections (which narrowed both lanes).  These had a noticeable effect on speed and reduced cut-throwns quite a bit.  Inexpensive traffic calming measures do work.   

[Joe]

I haven't read everything in this thread, so forgive me if this has been covered already, but is the ONLY significant objection to this project from the neighborhood, is the impact on traffic on River Oaks?    

It's the only objection that's even potentially valid/legal, yes. Even then, I suspect that if an impartial traffic engineering firm were to evaluate River Oaks, they'd determine that it's well under capacity. The real issue is that people who live on an urban cut-through street are presumably angry that ANYONE is using their street, regardless of its actual capacity. They are trying to turn it into a cul-de-sac to increase their property values. Your suggestion about speed bumps is far more reasonable, in my opinion.

However, it's also quite obvious that many people are also opposing this project because they don't want any apartments near their homes. They are worried about the "type" of people that would move into apartments on Phillips Highway. You can read between the lines about the rest.

It would  be illegal for the city to deny a zoning change because residents are worried about the "type" of people moving into a new development. However, sadly, the traffic complaints could be used as phoney justification for a zoning denial.

Hopefully, the city council will try a more moderate approach to residents' concerns. It would be really easy to monitor future traffic increases once Jackson Square is built. Hopefully the street would only be closed AFTER other traffic calming devices had been attempted.

[thelakelander]

Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as motorist.

The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't.  The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ.  It's dangerous and overcrowded.

Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings.  River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.

I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.

The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards.  And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.

NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community? 

I watched the council meeting on tv last night.  From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street.  I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened.  Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.

[southerngirl]

Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?

When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.

You want your kids running out to play in that?

[thelakelander]

I seriously doubt the city/developer plans to widen River Oaks Road to two lanes with a continous median.  That's an insanely expensive and un-needed traffic calming solution.  Evidently, this project has been deferred so both sides can meet to iron out their differences.  Hopefully, it will be a forum where everyone can get on the same page.

[southerngirl]

I watched the council meeting on tv last night.  From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street.  I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened.  Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.

Word today is the median will go all the way down River Oaks -- conveniently providing the developer with a place to plant the trees that will be required to replace the ones that he's taking down for his development (since he has NO space left on his 18 acres for planting...that's all for buildings). Can I spell it out any more clearly -- they are going to take River Oaks Road and turn it into a major entrance for their development!

As for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days.  Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...

Lakelander -- we WISH that there could be a decent, HONEST conversation about all of this, but it 's becoming increasingly obvious that the backroom stuff and tacit approvals are happening  and we are NOT getting the whole truth -- from the city or from the developer.

That's what we want -- the truth. These are our homes. Our families. Our lives. We just want the truth.

[tufsu1]

Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?

When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.

You want your kids running out to play in that?

If the City wanted to do this, they would have to acquire the land via eminent domain...and if the only reason for doing so would be for this development project, they would have a difficult time....while the Supreme Court upheld what the City of New London, CT did for a redevelopment project, most states (includfing FL) have since updated their eminent domain laws.

[tufsu1]

As for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days.  Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...

Those who conduct traffic studies are required to use professionally acceptable methods...if not, they can lose their certification/license.

That said, if you still don't trust the City's and/or Developer's traffic people, the neighborhood could always go and hire their own traffic consultant.

[thelakelander]

I watched the council meeting on tv last night.  From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street.  I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened.  Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.

Word today is the median will go all the way down River Oaks -- conveniently providing the developer with a place to plant the trees that will be required to replace the ones that he's taking down for his development (since he has NO space left on his 18 acres for planting...that's all for buildings). Can I spell it out any more clearly -- they are going to take River Oaks Road and turn it into a major entrance for their development!

They are taking over a former car dealership.  The new site plan has more green space than the dealer did.  No one is going to take blocks of resident's property and spend money widening that long of a stretch of road.  That type of expense would most likely make a development like this unfeasible.  The PUD site plan shows a side entrance that's already there, connecting to River Oaks.  However, most of the vehicular traffic will flow directly into/off Philips Highway.

PUD site plan

As for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days.  Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...

Has a traffic study been completed?  It would be interesting to see what numbers they come up with.

Lakelander -- we WISH that there could be a decent, HONEST conversation about all of this, but it 's becoming increasingly obvious that the backroom stuff and tacit approvals are happening  and we are NOT getting the whole truth -- from the city or from the developer.

That's what we want -- the truth. These are our homes. Our families. Our lives. We just want the truth.

I hope that the upcoming meeting between the developer, the city and the residents is one that clears up a lot of misconceptions on all sides.  If everyone is willing to tell the truth and work together, this can be something that benefits all parties.