Jacksonville's 2030 Mobility Plan

[thelakelander]

According to the model, the average trip length for the Downtown TCEA/CBD, the Urban Priority Area, and the Urban and Suburban development areas are all about the same (9.09-10.28 miles).  That really seems odd to me.  I would think that there should be more disparity between some of the development areas.

Under normal circumstances the disparity would be greater.  The problem is we've done a great job of neutering the vitality of our urban core over the last few decades.  It really is a shell of it's former self.  Thus many of the everyday offerings that should be within walking distance of residents in the urban core, aren't there which forces the urbanite to make vehicle commutes of their for services that should be within walking/mass transit distance.

[thelakelander]

Nice that the local end must come up with 25% but the funding end is still somewhat murky to me! With the current council and administration in place.............the going will be slow!

The proposed Mobility Fee will take the place of traffic concurrency.  If approved, the city won't be coming up with the mobility fee money.  That will be generated by new development.  The money generated will go to help pay for these mobility projects that will be designed to alleviate future traffic congestion from continued growth. 

Anyway, one thing that establishing a local funding source will do is make it easier to gain additional federal dollars for many of these projects.

[thelakelander]

Not sure I believe the streetcar and 2 commuter rail lines within 5 years (who has the $$?).  Sounds great, though! 

There is a first phase streetcar line that is shown as being funded 100% under the plan.  The funding for the commuter rail lines are 25% of their total cost and represent the city's share that will be needed to get these LRTPs off the ground. 

With that said, in my heart I do believe that there is a very good chance we could have our first "starter" line up and running (or under construction) in five years or less.  Imo, the commuter rail lines could go either way.  We could get creative with local funding and other funding sources and use them to construct a starter commuter rail line (then use this as our local match for additional federal dollars) or put the cash under a pillow and wait years to secure federal dollars before breaking ground on anything.

Personally, I'd back the idea of implementing these projects incrementally as the funds come in.  If we don't, it will be pretty difficult to meet the goals of SB 360 (ex. reducing VMTs, greenhouse gas emission, encouraging multimodal friendly development, etc.) anytime soon.

[Clem1029]

OK, I'm missing something on the mobility fee/tax...is that something designed to be assessed to the developers if the propose a change (i.e., something like Nocatee would get hit with a much larger mobility fee than a development in one of the urban zones) or is that a tax assessed on property owners that live in the area (higher prop tax increase for, say, Bartram Park vs Arlington or some such)?

the mobility fee will be paid by new development only...and will be paid at the time of permitting/approval....similar to an impact fee.

OK, then in that case, that makes outstanding sense to me...it allows development to continue, but basically shifts what's most cost effective. A developer wanting to develop new land still has the option to do so, but there's less immediate cost benefit from just plowing unused land. Their books need to indicate that the development cost + mobility tax will be more than covered by their return on investment (which in some cases it might actually do so), and in turn they fund mass transit development. That seems like a completely reasonable win-win. Up front there will be a fight against it by the developers, but there's also incentive for them to consider more cost effective development in the other areas.

So the next question on this becomes to what degree home/land owners will experience this tax...it's pretty standard that corporations don't pay tax, they just pass the additional cost down to the buyers. Or are higher land/home prices to be considered a feature rather than a bug (i.e., increase the cost of living outside of an urban area)? And if so, generally speaking, what's the expected increase in land/home cost going to be? I'd imagine that's going to be a critical selling point to the plan.

One last question...does a plan like this either mitigate or complete eliminate the need for something like Amendment 4? The way I see it, instead of an absolute county-wide vote on new development, the mobility tax changes the economic incentive for where new development occurs. It seems that a significant chunk of local funding will come from the mobility tax...with Amendment 4 in place, any suburban/rural development could be voted down, dramatically decreasing the effectiveness of the tax. Or can this plan and something like Amendment 4 work together effectively?

[thelakelander]

OK, I'm missing something on the mobility fee/tax...is that something designed to be assessed to the developers if the propose a change (i.e., something like Nocatee would get hit with a much larger mobility fee than a development in one of the urban zones) or is that a tax assessed on property owners that live in the area (higher prop tax increase for, say, Bartram Park vs Arlington or some such)?

the mobility fee will be paid by new development only...and will be paid at the time of permitting/approval....similar to an impact fee.

OK, then in that case, that makes outstanding sense to me...it allows development to continue, but basically shifts what's most cost effective. A developer wanting to develop new land still has the option to do so, but there's less immediate cost benefit from just plowing unused land. Their books need to indicate that the development cost + mobility tax will be more than covered by their return on investment (which in some cases it might actually do so), and in turn they fund mass transit development. That seems like a completely reasonable win-win. Up front there will be a fight against it by the developers, but there's also incentive for them to consider more cost effective development in the other areas.

There may be a fight but at the end of the day, you have to pay your own way.  John Q. Public can't continue to subsidize every sprawling development that doesn't pay for its way while straining our infrastructure network in the process.  All the plan does is try to alleviate this situation by encouraging better and more thoughtful new development and making the bad ones pay their "fair share." Nevertheless, even for those choosing to construct in suburban/rural areas, there will be incentives for them to plan and design their projects in a more sustainable manner.  The plan includes fee adjustments or credits for developments that are constructed along future/existing transit corridors, have higher densities, a mix of uses, multimodal friendly streetscapes, etc.  

So the next question on this becomes to what degree home/land owners will experience this tax...it's pretty standard that corporations don't pay tax, they just pass the additional cost down to the buyers. Or are higher land/home prices to be considered a feature rather than a bug (i.e., increase the cost of living outside of an urban area)? And if so, generally speaking, what's the expected increase in land/home cost going to be? I'd imagine that's going to be a critical selling point to the plan.

This is really up to the individual developer and project proposed. The projects that are designed to help the city begin to comply with the goals of reducing VMTs, greenhouse gas emissions will benefit from mobility fee credit adjustments.  Those that don't, won't receive these adjustments.  In any event, I believe the fee is roughly around the same or a little less than what was required under concurrency. Over the next few weeks, Metro Jacksonville will be diving deeper into the plan and we'll all get a better read on some of the detailed questions you're asking about.

One last question...does a plan like this either mitigate or complete eliminate the need for something like Amendment 4? The way I see it, instead of an absolute countywide vote on new development, the mobility tax changes the economic incentive for where new development occurs. It seems that a significant chunk of local funding will come from the mobility tax...with Amendment 4 in place, any suburban/rural development could be voted down, dramatically decreasing the effectiveness of the tax. Or can this plan and something like Amendment 4 work together effectively?

I see them as working together, assuming this plan is passed before Amendment 4 goes into effect (if Amendment 4 passes).  I say this because if it passes the comp plan would be adjusted to allow for land use policies that integrate and work with multimodal transportation options.  So, if Amendment 4 becomes reality, the multimodal friendly land uses would already be allowed within the adopted comp plan.

[thelakelander]

if those duplicate entry in table E-4 are errors then that lowers cost projection by 74 / 50 millions (1/5th of cost)

makes it easier to sell, when it costs less

Don't forget that we are going to have to do something to meet the requirements of SB 360.

Florida's Community Renewal Act (Senate Bill 360, SB 360), adopted in 2009, amended the Growth Management Act by removing state-mandated transportation concurrency requirements in areas designated as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas or TCEAs.

Resulting from the definition of a "dense urban land area" or DULA provided within SB 360, the City of Jacksonville has been designated a TCEA. As outlined in Senate Bill 360, within two years after a TCEA becomes effective, local governments are required to amend their local comprehensive plans to include "land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility within the exception area, including alternative modes of transportation."

Local comprehensive plans must also comply with 163.3177, F.S., which requires the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient land use patterns. Pursuant to SB 360 and 163.3177, F.S., the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department has prepared a draft 2030 Mobility Plan.

http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning+and+Development/Community+Planning/Mobility+Plan.htm

The only way to reduce our long term infrastructure costs is to change the way we plan, design and develop.  If anyone is interested in truly saving taxpayers money, then they should really support a plan that integrates land use with multimodal transportation options.

[Charles Hunter]

Aren't there proposals in the Legislature to do away with some of the smart growth requirements, as being "anti-job"?  (and anti-developer-profits)

[tufsu1]

The plan envisions that the mobility fee for a single family home would range from around $4000 to $6000 depending on the district.

This compares quite favorably with communities around the state that have impact fees...for example, Naples charges about $20,000 in transportation impact fees and the average statewide is around $5000.  

Hillsborough County is also looking at mobility fees...and their study is showing a range from $10,000 to $40,000 for a single family home...and that's just for funding roads (no transit)!

[tufsu1]

Aren't there proposals in the Legislature to do away with some of the smart growth requirements, as being "anti-job"?  (and anti-developer-profits)

that was last year....and how we ended up with the 2009 version of SB 360 versus the 2005 version of SB 360.

this year, the Legislature is trying to lay low....so as not to further stir the Amendment 4 pot.

[JC]

I am going to make sure local labor leaders know about this.  We need to fight for these jobs to stay local!

[CS Foltz]

Concurrency does not take into account the strain on the local infrastructure and the effected area where any development takes place. The Mobility Plan at least address's that issue, but I am still apprehensive about the funding that will have to take place. Local level will still have to provide seed money or come up with start cost to initiate anything of consequence with a long range outlook! The Federal Government can not be depended to provide money for everything (after all this is John Q Public money also and we have to consider future generations who must be able to pay for checks this generation writes) It is obvious to me, we need to do something now or we will miss the opportunity's to do something that should have been done long ago before now! Last time I checked the City will be something like $58 Million Dollars in the red next Budget Cycle, so I have to question just how are we supposed to provide money that is not there?

[thelakelander]

The mobility fees will be generated by new development, just like the old concurrency system that it will replace.  Not John Q. Public.  With that said, they won't pay for everything.  However, it will be funds that can be pooled with other revenue sources to move projects forward.

[CS Foltz]

lake.........I understand the point but still have to question "funds that can be pooled with other revenue sources to move project forwards"! Most funding for much of anything is already earmarked for a specific project or projects.........the only possible funding I know of would be the "General Fund" and if we are in the red, there we go again...........writing checks without the funds to back it up! You and I can not do that without consequences and neither can the City or the Federal Government.........we are now a "debtor nation" and thats not good over the long haul!

[thelakelander]

I'm confused....what projects are you referring to?  The majority of the mobility plan projects will be funded with money generated from the mobility fees over a 20 year period.  Several of the plan's transit projects will be eligible for additional federal funding, while the plan provides the required local funding match.

[CS Foltz]

lake............I understand the majority of the mobility plan projects will be funded with money generated from the Mobility Fees and several will be eligible for additional federal funding (your & my tax dollars and John Q Public's)but the "required local funding match" is what is mystifying me. If we are in the hole, then just like the federal end...........we are busy casting them bones on a possibility! I agree that we need to do something, should have done it long before now but better late than not at all! $58 Million Dollars in the red next Budget cycle and the federal end is in the Trillions............unless there is dedicated funding available (earmarked specifically for transit funding) we are not going to go forward! Should I point out the issue with "parking for the Landing" ? That was promised also, but has yet to take place. Issue's like this has made me into a pragmatic whether I wish to be or not!