Metro Jacksonville

Ten Affordable Fixes For Transportation In Jacksonville

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1343320240_mLRPzbm-L.jpg)

When it comes to transportation infrastructure, there are a lot of noteworthy capital projects that our community would benefit from.  However, we must accept the reality that our city is staring at a budget deficit of $65.9 million in 2012, $144.7 million in 2013 and $165 million in 2014.  With this in mind, here are ten quick-fix affordable transportation improvements that should be considered during the first term of the Alvin Brown Administration.


Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jun-ten-affordable-fixes-for-transportation-in-jacksonville

Ennis, Nice work.

I'd focus immediately with number 10.
Imagine the coordinated rail effort of these companies in conjunction with the Promised 680' Downtown Public Pier, Baystreet Pier Park, Downtown Jacksonville Tradeport Pier. What a fun project. What an opportunity to engage the community immediately. What an opportunity to showcase our river to the world. What an opportunity to say "Lets get to work in Jacksonville".
What an opportunity to immediately work with an identifiable project with FIND for the next funding cycle. What an opportunity to embrace the Public Trust Doctrine as it relates to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River.

nice article...very succinct and on point

The first thing I would do is redesign the Transit Center.  The metrojax site plan blows the COJ's out of the water.  When you see the two side by side, it's a no brainer.  I agree that we need to start promoting and advertising the streetcar.  The development time of any significant project is 2-5 years minimum.  If they started with design work today, they would open their doors for business right as the streetcar was coming online.

Number 8 is probably the most bang for the buck.  My favorite is number 7 integrate the bus system with a free skyway. The overall savings and increase in use would make subleasing the lower platforms and wrap advertising more valuable.

Can I make a really pretty pretty sophisticated report based on this article that can be printed and hand out to everyone? It would be kinda like an annual report format. MetroJacksonville and all the jazz would be included. :)

Here is one of my example I designed for a mock-up company.

(http://wjsimpson.com/images/portfolio/griffin.png)

-Josh

That would be pretty cool Josh.

I say bang out #7 this afternoon, #5 over the weekend, and then draw up legislation next week incorporating 3 and 4 into existing road maintenance plans. Those seem so obvious and easy to be almost comical. Then spend your time and energy really going after #2 (such a big ticket and important project like that needs to be done well, and hopefully soon) and #10 (to get the big money flowing).

The biggest problem with number 2 is what to do with that conference center.

How many conferences and conventions do we currently have that could not be absorbed by the Hyatt or another venue on a temporary basis??  What would the economic impact be of a 4 year hiatus on conventions in Jax??  There will be a few years lag between the closure of the current convention center and the opening of a new convention center nearer the core, but I don't think that should be a deterent to moving it from the Prime Osborn. 

Thank you for including 4. Simple trees, to make sidewalks pedestrian friendly!!

Nice article.  However, I disagree that the way forward in achieving shorter commutes is to focus on planning and building mass transit lines now.  Not only is mass transit commuting slower in terms of average commute times, it is expensive to operate, and will reduce other opportunities to invest in keeping older communities vibrant and competitive with newer communities.  We are nowhere near the densities that are necessary to support fixed rail transit, and our biggest difficulty with bus transit is that we are so spread out and low-density that funding enough routes for easy movement around the City is not financially feasible.  Why would we think that these same challenges would be overcome with fixed rail?  Our densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre, yet the research I have seen suggests that densities of 8 units per acre is the minimum needed to see a significant switch over from car commutes to mass transit.  Mass transit will only be viable where it is faster than getting in the car, barring some massive increase in the cost of car ownership relative to income such that a much greater percentage of people are forced to go without a car.  The Skyway is a perfect example of that.  It is far faster to get into the car and drive from the Northbank to the Southbank than it is to take the Skyway.   Any fixed mass transit system will have some headways (intervals of service) compared to an individual mode of transit (car, pedestrian or bicycle), which has no headway.  With higher densities, pedestrian and bicycle modes become more competitive with the car, though not necessarily faster overall. 

We could get the greatest bang for our buck by (1) aggressively shaping public policy to support developers seeking to build denser projects in the developed parts of the City, and (2) taking the mobility fees collected over the first several years and directing all of them towards pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including improvements to crosswalks, street trees, and bus shelters, as more eloquently said by Mr. Davis.  There are many gaps in our pedestrian network that could be filled with a relatively small amount of money compared to what it costs to build a new road or rail line.  The T-U recently reported that roughly 1 in 5 of all transportation-related deaths in Jax were pedestrians, yet I would bet good money that the proportion of pedestrians to cars on our transportation network through the day is far lower than that.   We can fix this. 

The alternative to spending mobility fees quickly on a variety of pedestrian and bicycle improvements is to put the mobility fees in the bank, in ten separate accounts for each of the ten mobility zones, until there is enough money to build a road or rail improvement, each of which typically amount to more than $5M.  There is just not going to be enough money coming out of the Mobility Fee to see any near term road or rail improvements.  The funding contemplated for fixed rail in the mobility plan not like what was done in Charlotte or Tampa, where the rail was put in first -- the funding for rail lines and so forth under the mobility plan is simply too speculative to stimulate private investment.  Under our new system, the developers pay into the mobility trust fund first, and then hope that by the year 2030, enough funds materialize for the rail or what have you, plus the government determines to fund the substantial operating costs of such an improvement. 

As to the relative benefits of sidewalks and bike lanes, these have virtually limitless capacity, compared to a streetcar or fixed rail line, have minimal operating costs, and have the benefit of having zero headway-related delay (waiting for the train, etc.)   Instead of trying to collect many millions for capital and operating funds for a streetcar from Riverside to Five Points, for example, how about spending thousands to improve the sidewalk  from the Fuller Warren Bridge to Memorial Park?  If it were roughly as wide as the northbank riverwalk extension (except where it has to be squeezed down to deal with expensive-to-move obstructions or hostile landowners), that would provide much more in the way of capacity than any streetcar would.    Build it smooth enough and wide enough to allow bikes and peds to share, and sign it as part of the riverwalk.  That would be cool and cheap.

QuoteOur densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre

That's interesting.  I was under the impression that Riverside was 5 times that. What would you say the density of Riverplace blvd is? I thought it was about 100+ per acre.

Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 21, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

QuoteOur densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre

That's interesting.  I was under the impression that Riverside was 5 times that. What would you say the density of Riverplace blvd is? I thought it was about 100+ per acre.

These posts illustrate how easy it is to skew statistics in a way that supports an argument (no matter what side you're on).  Springfield and Riverside are both more dense than 3 units per acre, but the entire westside or northside would not be.  Riverplace Boulevard is not really an "area" unto itself;density would be far less for the entire Southbank than for that cluster of condominiums and apartments.

Quote from: toi on June 21, 2011, 10:52:51 AM
Nice article.  However, I disagree that the way forward in achieving shorter commutes is to focus on planning and building mass transit lines now.  Not only is mass transit commuting slower in terms of average commute times, it is expensive to operate, and will reduce other opportunities to invest in keeping older communities vibrant and competitive with newer communities.

Mass transit is actually cheaper to construct, operate and maintain than our current method of building roadways and spreading our limited resources too thin.  That's how we've gotten into our poor budget situation now.

QuoteWe are nowhere near the densities that are necessary to support fixed rail transit, and our biggest difficulty with bus transit is that we are so spread out and low-density that funding enough routes for easy movement around the City is not financially feasible.

The style of transportation infrastructure you investment builds the environment around it.  If you want density, you invest in the things that stimulate it.  If you want sprawl, you make investments in things that stimulate autocentric development (which we've done a great job at since 1950).  Rarely to you see density come before pedestrian friendly transportation infrastructure is put into place.  The only place I can think of in the last half century is Miami's suburbs (due to land constraints) and its pretty bad for the pedestrian.

QuoteWhy would we think that these same challenges would be overcome with fixed rail?  Our densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre, yet the research I have seen suggests that densities of 8 units per acre is the minimum needed to see a significant switch over from car commutes to mass transit.

Based on history, I believe your assessment is pretty off-base.  Viable mass transit isn't built off of an imaginary average density number across the board.  Instead it's based on the systems ability to connect people directly to where they want to go.  It's also insane to expect that fixed transit should be designed to immediately serve what essentially amounts to a 800 square mile county.  For proof, I offer Charlotte's recent 9.6-mile LRT line.  That city is less dense than Jacksonville, the LRT line does not take people all over that sprawlbug, yet it does effectively tie in a number of destinations along the particular corridor it is designed to serve.  So effective that ridership has already exceeded expectations.  The same is true for new systems in St. Louis, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix, all of which are also reaping in economic development and job creation benefits that Jacksonville can only dream of.

QuoteMoreover, it is a false hope to suggest that building mass transit will reduce commute times.  Mass transit will only be viable where it is faster than getting in the car, barring some massive increase in the cost of car ownership relative to income such that a much greater percentage of people are forced to go without a car.

Imo, the major benefit of mass transit is economic development and the creation of an environment where you don't have to use a car or sit in traffic for everyday needs.  Jacksonville does not have that now and we're already suffering economically because of it.  As for auto congestion, you're right.  There's nothing you can do to truly relieve auto congestion in my mind, short of calling for a building moratorium (which is counter productive to the goal of transportation investment to help spur economic development).

QuoteThe Skyway is a perfect example of that.  It is far faster to get into the car and drive from the Northbank to the Southbank than it is to take the Skyway.

The skyway is an incomplete fixed system that will greatly benefit from elimination of bus route duplication and future streetcar and commuter rail lines that will penetrate neighborhoods outside of DT.  However, with that said, I work on the Northbank.  For a trip to the Southbank, its actually more cost and time effective for me to leave my truck in the parking garage and hop on the Skyway. A side benefit is that the walking helps keep me in shape.  A more viable transit system will extend these benefits to areas outside of the skyway's limited sphere of influence.

QuoteAny fixed mass transit system will have some headways (intervals of service) compared to an individual mode of transit (car, pedestrian or bicycle), which has no headway.  With higher densities, pedestrian and bicycle modes become more competitive with the car, though not necessarily faster overall.

What happens with headways is that you eventually set your schedule according to them.  Nevertheless, mass transit is only a part of an integrated transportation system.  When everything really starts to work, you'll find yourself using your feet as the preferred mode of transportation more than anything else (again assuming you're the type who finds urban living attractive). 

QuoteWe could get the greatest bang for our buck by (1) aggressively shaping public policy to support developers seeking to build denser projects in the developed parts of the City,

I agree.  However, a part of aggressively shaping public policy is changing you your policy addresses transportation investment.  The development of a viable mass transit system plays an important role in bringing the private sector to the table.

Quoteand (2) taking the mobility fees collected over the first several years and directing all of them towards pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including improvements to crosswalks, street trees, and bus shelters, as more eloquently said by Mr. Davis.

The mobility fees are set up to actually do this as well as invest in larger projects that have been proven to spur sustainable economic development.  In general, to reach the big picture there are several components that have to be improved and integrated with one another.  With that in mind, how we handle our mass transit issues should be an equal priority to resolving our land use, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle network issues.

QuoteThere are many gaps in our pedestrian network that could be filled with a relatively small amount of money compared to what it costs to build a new road or rail line.  The T-U recently reported that roughly 1 in 5 of all transportation-related deaths in Jax were pedestrians, yet I would bet good money that the proportion of pedestrians to cars on our transportation network through the day is far lower than that.   We can fix this.

We can and we should.  The mobility plan and fee is designed to generate money for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.  We need to make sure the pot for them is actually used for these purposes and not shifted to road or transit projects, which happen to have their own funding pots within the plan as well. 

QuoteThe alternative to spending mobility fees quickly on a variety of pedestrian and bicycle improvements is to put the mobility fees in the bank, in ten separate accounts for each of the ten mobility zones, until there is enough money to build a road or rail improvement, each of which typically amount to more than $5M.  There is just not going to be enough money coming out of the Mobility Fee to see any near term road or rail improvements.

The mobility plan and fee is already designed to do what you propose.  In addition to money set aside for the pedestrian/bike projects, there is one major roadway or transit priority project for each zone.  It is anticipated that enough money will be generated to construct each one over a 10-year period.  Once those projects are funded, these steps will be repeated for additional roadway/transit projects within the plan.  With that said, since funding will be generated incrementally, there's no reason that improvements concerning these particular priority projects can't happen incrementally.  As for as the initial streetcar and commuter rail lines go, when enough money is generated to pay for their planning and design, we should go ahead and take care of these "incremental" steps.  Doing so will put us in the position to leverage additional funding opportunities that may arise in the future at the state, federal or private sector level.  In the event that this happens, some mobility funds can then be shifted to additional local projects.

QuoteThe funding contemplated for fixed rail in the mobility plan not like what was done in Charlotte or Tampa, where the rail was put in first -- the funding for rail lines and so forth under the mobility plan is simply too speculative to stimulate private investment.  Under our new system, the developers pay into the mobility trust fund first, and then hope that by the year 2030, enough funds materialize for the rail or what have you, plus the government determines to fund the substantial operating costs of such an improvement.

No so.  There is a 10-year priority project plan and the entire mobility plan and fee will be re-evaluated in five years.  Before pissing in the punch bowl too early, let's see what happens over the next five years and take it from there.

QuoteAs to the relative benefits of sidewalks and bike lanes, these have virtually limitless capacity, compared to a streetcar or fixed rail line, have minimal operating costs, and have the benefit of having zero headway-related delay (waiting for the train, etc.)   Instead of trying to collect many millions for capital and operating funds for a streetcar from Riverside to Five Points, for example, how about spending thousands to improve the sidewalk  from the Fuller Warren Bridge to Memorial Park?

All of these projects work in conjunction with one another.  It's not an either or situation.  In an urban environment, you must plan with a holistic approach and not with tunnel vision.  If you ignore one, two or more and only address sidewalk construction, you'll have a pretty nice yet empty and ineffective sidewalk.  The same goes for the other modes.

QuoteIf it were roughly as wide as the northbank riverwalk extension (except where it has to be squeezed down to deal with expensive-to-move obstructions or hostile landowners), that would provide much more in the way of capacity than any streetcar would.    Build it smooth enough and wide enough to allow bikes and peds to share, and sign it as part of the riverwalk.  That would be cool and cheap.

It be cool and it would be cheap.  But it wouldn't spur transit oriented development, it wouldn't bring revitalization to neighborhoods like Brooklyn and LaVilla.  Not saying it shouldn't happen, because I would love to see it, but I am saying that it needs to be implemented with a holistic approach.

Quote from: Miss Fixit on June 21, 2011, 11:30:46 AM

Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 21, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

QuoteOur densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre

That's interesting.  I was under the impression that Riverside was 5 times that. What would you say the density of Riverplace blvd is? I thought it was about 100+ per acre.

These posts illustrate how easy it is to skew statistics in a way that supports an argument (no matter what side you're on).  Springfield and Riverside are both more dense than 3 units per acre, but the entire westside or northside would not be.  Riverplace Boulevard is not really an "area" unto itself;density would be far less for the entire Southbank than for that cluster of condominiums and apartments.

Exactly.  Which is why it makes sense to evaluate these things by corridor and neighborhood as opposed to a citywide level.  Realistically speaking all Jax could really use is a decent 5 to 10-mile fixed transit spine that connects several major destinations together.  That could mean that some suburban low density areas may not have viable transit options.  So be it.

Quote from: Miss Fixit on June 21, 2011, 11:30:46 AM

Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 21, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

QuoteOur densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre

That's interesting.  I was under the impression that Riverside was 5 times that. What would you say the density of Riverplace blvd is? I thought it was about 100+ per acre.

These posts illustrate how easy it is to skew statistics in a way that supports an argument (no matter what side you're on).  Springfield and Riverside are both more dense than 3 units per acre, but the entire westside or northside would not be.  Riverplace Boulevard is not really an "area" unto itself;density would be far less for the entire Southbank than for that cluster of condominiums and apartments.

I agree Miss Fixit.  "Our Densest Areas" are far more dense that the over generalized comment stated.  The majority of Jax is not dense, but we're not trying to build a streetcar network that encompasses the entire city.  To say that our densest areas are not ready for and could not benefit from mass transit is foolish. 

Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 21, 2011, 11:46:40 AM

Quote from: Miss Fixit on June 21, 2011, 11:30:46 AM

Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 21, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

QuoteOur densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre

That's interesting.  I was under the impression that Riverside was 5 times that. What would you say the density of Riverplace blvd is? I thought it was about 100+ per acre.

These posts illustrate how easy it is to skew statistics in a way that supports an argument (no matter what side you're on).  Springfield and Riverside are both more dense than 3 units per acre, but the entire westside or northside would not be.  Riverplace Boulevard is not really an "area" unto itself;density would be far less for the entire Southbank than for that cluster of condominiums and apartments.

I agree Miss Fixit.  "Our Densest Areas" are far more dense that the over generalized comment stated.  The majority of Jax is not dense, but we're not trying to build a streetcar network that encompasses the entire city.  To say that our densest areas are not ready for and could not benefit from mass transit is foolish.

For the record, I believe that Springfield/Eastside/Durkeeville, Riverside/Avondale/Brooklyn, and San Marco/St. Nicholas would all benefit from mass transit including street car and skyway extensions to those areas.

In the meantime we would benefit from more frequent PCT "trolley" service.

The major question would be how would we pay for it?  I think the answer would become evident if the entire existing mass transit system was revamped.  To this day, I still believe there is a ton of duplication on existing routes that could be modified to allow higher frequencies on others.

I agree that our existing transit services are spread way too thin.  Every council member tries to grab as much transit service as he or she can get for his or her district.  Each district gets some transit, so no district gets very much.

If our new council members are advised to come in with more reasonable expectations, that might help.

Lakelander -- Of the $444M in improvements preliminarily identified for funding under the mobility plan, about 11 percent of the total funds are for bike and ped.  I am suggesting that we spend what we collect over the next few years on the bike and ped improvements in all 10 of the zones - front end load them -- rather than putting 89% in the bank for a long time and spending 11% on bike and ped as it trickles in over 19 yrs.  I would think that constructing $10 Million worth of the highest priority bike and ped improvements over the next few years would make a big difference throughout the City.  As to incremental improvements to roads or streetcar lines, the improvements identified in the plan could not be done smaller than they were already identified without creating the Skyway problem that you described.  Maybe we have different expectations as to the amount of funds the City will collect over the first few years.  It would be real nice for the proponents of the mobility fee to be able to point to something on the ground in 2013 and say, the mobility fee paid for this.

Quote from: toi on June 21, 2011, 01:37:18 PMLakelander -- Of the $444M in improvements preliminarily identified for funding under the mobility plan, about 11 percent of the total funds are for bike and ped.  I am suggesting that we spend what we collect over the next few years on the bike and ped improvements in all 10 of the zones - front end load them -- rather than putting 89% in the bank for a long time and spending 11% on bike and ped as it trickles in over 19 yrs.

FYI, a significant amount of bike/ped projects connectivity projects will also be funded through mobility plan roadway projects.  As mentioned earlier, all of the projects listed in the plan for various modes are highly integrated.

QuoteI would think that constructing $10 Million worth of the highest priority bike and ped improvements over the next few years would make a big difference throughout the City.  As to incremental improvements to roads or streetcar lines, the improvements identified in the plan could not be done smaller than they were already identified without creating the Skyway problem that you described.

The downfall is, if you do ped/bike projects with no regard to land use integration and how they connect/work with other modes, you'll have a connected system but a poorly used one.  That should be something we all want to avoid.

By incremental, in regards to the streetcar and commuter rail projects, I mean planning and design.  There's no reason to wait ten years for this phase, once the money becomes available.  My guess is once you complete that process and actually have a solid idea of what you're going to build and how its going to operate, a few of these projects will come in well below the current estimated price (ex. streetcar should be able to be built for less than $10 million/mile.  The mobility plan sets aside $14 million/mile).  Once these numbers are solid and a real plan is in place, we may have the opportunity to shift funds to other needs.

QuoteMaybe we have different expectations as to the amount of funds the City will collect over the first few years.  It would be real nice for the proponents of the mobility fee to be able to point to something on the ground in 2013 and say, the mobility fee paid for this.

My general view is more of a five year window.  However, I think we'll have an opportunity to see some success in the early years and it may involve bike/ped projects like the plan's ped overpass over the Arlington Expressway or bike lanes in the urban core via the resurfacing and restripping of existing streets.  If we can committ to the mass transit starter lines, I think we'll have an opportunity to see some major TOD break ground before those actual projects get anywhere close to coming out of the ground.

Come on! Don't throw money at improving pedestrian / bike infrastructure until you bring the actual people through the working and effective public transit.

The people of Jacksonville are STILL addicted to cars. You got to give them a smooth transition of what their car offers to what the new, improved public transit can offer. When that is possible, then people can start jumping from the car bandwagon to the public transit and start to occupy the pedestrian and bike.

When that happen, the pedestrian death rate will decline, the economic impact on the area would increase, and everyone would be happy!

-Josh

Unlike other municipal services like electricity and water, transit services do not come directly into your house. 

For transit service to be utilized, people have to be able to walk or bike conveniently to transit stops or stations.  That won't happen unless bicycle and pedestrian improvements happen first.

I'd still say that everything needs to have equal priority and improved simultaneously.  That's basically the core of what Complete Streets Policies and Context Sensitive Solutions are.  With that said, looking at the city as a whole, in some areas the ped and bike network may be fine but transit sucks.  In others, there may be transit but a lack of ped and bike connectivity.  The only way to truly change is apply these complete streets/context sensitve strategies to a large scale area, while understanding that the specific mobility improvement needed at the end could vary depending on the context of the surrounding environment.  The only way you do this is to apply the simultaneous approach.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2011, 11:18:33 AM
I'd still say that everything needs to have equal priority and improved simultaneously.  That's basically the core of what Complete Streets Policies and Context Sensitive Solutions are.  With that said, looking at the city as a whole, in some areas the ped and bike network may be fine but transit sucks.  In others, there may be transit but a lack of ped and bike connectivity.  The only way to truly change is apply these complete streets/context sensitve strategies to a large scale area, while understanding that the specific mobility improvement needed at the end could vary depending on the context of the surrounding environment.  The only way you do this is to apply the simultaneous approach.

So my understanding and translation of your statement...

Complete Streets Policies and Content Sensitive Solutions = Consistency.

Am I correct?

-Josh

Jacksonville Beach is a good example of how pedestrian and bicycle connectivity can work, even when transit is so-so.

The other way around does not work that well.

It works well east of 3rd Street due to the context.  Its not as good west of 3rd.  I think Jax Beach is a great example of why things should be done simultaneously.  It could be so much more than what it is today with thoughtful design and planning.

Some parts of Jacksonville Beach are very connected and walkable, as are some parts of Jacksonville.  That's not my point.

My point is that you don't need good transit in order to have good pedestrian and bicycle facilities, but that you do need good  pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to have good transit.

Agree?  or Disagree?

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.

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?

Quote from: ralpho37 on June 22, 2011, 06:03:06 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2011, 04:42:59 PM
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?

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

Quote from: thelakelander on June 22, 2011, 04:42:59 PM
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.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7543-p1150348.JPG)
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.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/520659587_N9BMu-M.jpg)
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.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2011, 09:38:11 AM
  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.

Yes.

too bad

Quote from: Dashing Dan on June 23, 2011, 12:39:33 PM
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

Quote from: Dashing Dan on June 23, 2011, 12:39:33 PM
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).

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 23, 2011, 12:46:02 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on June 23, 2011, 12:39:33 PM
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.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 23, 2011, 01:51:08 PM

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 23, 2011, 12:46:02 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on June 23, 2011, 12:39:33 PM
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

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.

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. 

Quote from: Dashing Dan on June 23, 2011, 02:20:03 PM
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.

We might need to start small, like with a resolution of intent that the city could adopt.  But I definitely think that we are onto something!  At one of the stops on the Pub Crawl, maybe we could talk about it some more.

There's a good chance I'll be going out of town tomorrow night, so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make this month's crawl.  Nevertheless, we'll definitely need to get together.  In the meantime, I just come across this conversion of an existing street in DT Clearwater into a bikeway.  Historically, the freight tracks ran down the center with an auto lane on each side.  The context sensitive streets approach used replaced one of the auto travel lanes.

(http://www.skyscrapersunset.com/tours/110517-19/61.jpg)

(http://www.skyscrapersunset.com/tours/110517-19/47.jpg)
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191618

I am planning to be at the transportation transition meeting tomorrow.

As a planner I like those images but as a cyclist I find them a little frightening.

The train WILL stay on its side of the line. You just have to make sure you stay on your side. ;D

From some reason we got away from the walkways. The ones that we do have area old as hell and unattractive. They are underutilized as well.

They are underutilized because they were not designed with mass transit, network connectivity and land use integration in mind. No matter what the mode is, its never a good idea to plop something in place without properly thinking about the surrounding environment.

Amen to that!

Less than 100 people use the AMTRAK to visit or depart from Jacksonville on a daily basis. Restoring the Palmetto train and extending it from its current terminus in Savannah may add another 30 passengers per day. I have checked the passenger figures at all stations from DC to Jacksonville and the future of transportation does not lie in AMTRAK.

We can move the Existing Grayhound Bus Terminal next to the existing AMTRAK station and integrate their services.  All the plans for development of a commuter rail system in Jacksonville overlook a basic issue.  There is very little track time available currently for freight.  Passenger Rail is a losing venture for railroads.  Who is going to pay for the availability of track?

Mr. Davis makes some interesting suggestions but the AMTRAK move back to the Prime Osborne is an example of Vision based on lack of reality.

malseedj, welcome to the forums.  He's my response to the points you've raised concerning my advocation of passenger rail as an economic catalyst in the future of Jacksonville.  Hopefully, this will clear up any misunderstanding of what's in play locally.

Quote from: malseedj on July 23, 2011, 11:17:57 PM
Less than 100 people use the AMTRAK to visit or depart from Jacksonville on a daily basis. Restoring the Palmetto train and extending it from its current terminus in Savannah may add another 30 passengers per day. I have checked the passenger figures at all stations from DC to Jacksonville and the future of transportation does not lie in AMTRAK.

The future of transportation does not lie on any one particular mode.  However, all of our modes should be well interconnected with each other and planned in a manner that promotes sustainability, cost efficiency and economic development.  Time has proven that intermodal transportation centers play a huge role in achieving proper urban connectivity.

QuoteWe can move the Existing Grayhound Bus Terminal next to the existing AMTRAK station and integrate their services.

What would be the point in moving another mode of our transportation network to an out-of-the-way isolated location?  What type of economic benefit can be expected by further thining out the population density on the streets of downtown?  How would such a move spur TOD in the area around the public investment?

QuoteAll the plans for development of a commuter rail system in Jacksonville overlook a basic issue.  There is very little track time available currently for freight.  Passenger Rail is a losing venture for railroads.  Who is going to pay for the availability of track?

With any topic, passenger rail included, one must properly evaluate each corridor on an individual basis.  For example, the CSX A line will see a significant reduction in freight use, due to Governor Scott's decision to approve Sunrail.  The lion's share of freight traffic will be relocated to the CSX S line. 

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/cfrail/florida-rail-map.jpg)
This map clearly shows the rerouting of freight traffic in yellow and the affect  it will have on Jacksonville. Most of the freight trains will head due west from  Jacksonville, instead of the current route south on the A-Line. This will reduce  the amount of freight trains scheduled to travel along Roosevelt Blvd and into  Orange Park. The 61 mile segment being purchased by the State of Florida is  highlighted in blue.

In short, because of Orlando's Sunrail project, Jacksonville has the opportunity to benefit from increased capacity from a reduction of future freight traffic on the rail line paralleling Roosevelt Blvd between DT Jax and Clay County.  For addition background, feel free to read this link:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2006-aug-central-florida-commuter-rail-deal-may-help-jacksonville

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/commuter_rail/s_line/S-Line-BRT-comparison.jpg)
City owned S-Line ROW between DT Jacksonville and Gateway Mall.

Second, let's address the S-Line between DT Jacksonville and the Northside.  Track along this corridor was pulled up years ago and now the right-of-way is owned by the City of Jacksonville.  The 2030 Mobility Plan and Fee is expected to generate the funding needed to bring this corridor back to life, which will be instrumental in helping bring redevelopment,  revitalization and job creation to the Northside.  A side benefit would be the city actually leasing this ROW to a short line railroad, which could then utilize it to connect JAXPORT with FEC's Bowden Yard.  Such a move would take trucks off the city's streets and generate revenue needed to substain passenger rail operations.  For more background on the S-Line, here are a few links to visit:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-feb-move-over-billion-dollar-bus-its-s-line-time

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-feb-rebuilding-the-northside-saving-the-s-line

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-apr-csx-jaxport-plan-opens-the-door-for-commuter-rail

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-4547-jax-port-new.jpg)
CSX's proposed Springfield bypass in Nassau County would divert JAXPORT contain trains around Jacksonville instead of through it.

Third, let's address JAXPORT's rail situation.  The plan here calls for CSX to invest some of their profits from selling their Orlando line in creating a new belt railway north of Jacksonville that would reroute port trains away from the city.  As in the CSX A line situation, this means increased capacity on the existing rail line paralleling North Main Street, south of I-295/9A.  Here is a link to provide you with a little background on this situation:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-apr-csx-jaxport-plan-opens-the-door-for-commuter-rail


(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/818493650_2kvxk-600x10000.jpg)
FEC and Amtrak working together to return passenger rail back to the East Coast would suggest that some private companies are willing to allow passenger rail operations on their right-of-way.

Now let's address the last proposed commuter rail line, which is the FEC between DT Jax and St. Augustine.  Ironically, FEC has been the one railroad in town that has been very open to allowing passenger rail on its tracks.  Not only in Jax but also in South Florida.  In addition, if the State and Amtrak is successful in gaining funding to return intercity rail to Florida's East Coast, infrastructure would be upgraded to increase capacity needed for both freight and passenger service.  Here are a few links to provide you some background with this particular situation:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-dec-fdot-proposing-118-million-for-amtrakfec-project

QuoteMr. Davis makes some interesting suggestions but the AMTRAK move back to the Prime Osborne is an example of Vision based on lack of reality.

You may not personally like the concept of passenger rail but that does not mean what's being planned and discussed lacks reality.  Without statistical data backing the assumption, the suggestion that there is no capacity or that extra capacity can't be created is simply a personal opinion not based on fact.  Hopefully, the links and information provided in them helps illustrate that what is being advocated didn't just fall off the back of turnip truck.