Metro Jacksonville

2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1133037488_TVZVt-M.jpg)

When it comes to city planning, Jacksonville is sometimes known more for it's missteps than what it does right. The 2030 Mobility Plan could change all that. This innovative plan provides a framework to integrate rail, pedestrian, bicycle and road transportation planning with land use strategies that combat unsustainable sprawl. Something we are all too familiar with.  Many in Jacksonville have come to the conclusion that investing only in roadway construction to transport people about the city will not work forever. Other forms of mobility, or moving around the city, must be considered to create a city that will not collapse under the weight of ever expanding borders and strains on municipal resources.




Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-2030-mobility-plan-the-cutting-edge-of-planning

I'm really glad the plan is now in place.  Now if we could just get some development going so we can start generating some money for these projects.

Give it some time.  Economic climates run in cycles.  Over the long run, we should be fine.  However, one thing that remains to be seen is what will be the impact of the new economy on traditional Jacksonville development patterns.  Many predict that suburban growth will never be as popular as it was in Florida before the real estate market exploded.  If so, it may be hard to generate the money to pull off some of the more expensive road projects in the plan without finding ways to leverage mobility dollars with other financial sources.

I'd rather not see the more expensive road projects get built.  I want to see the transit project come to fruition. I still wish the fees in the suburban zones would have been higher.  That would create more of a disincentive to continue our traditional suburban growth patters.  However, I also understand it takes compromises to get things through. 

For the rail projects someone has to have their hand on the controller to make this car move forward. Do we have any indication that the conductor is even onboard?

OCKLAWAHA

I know who shouldn't have their hand on the controller or be allowed to touch any of the mobility plan money.  Anyway, we're on the clock.  In the next couple of years an economic analysis study needs to be developed to convince those on the edge that the alternative transportation options are worth the investment.  If not, don't be suprised to see some entity try and modify policy to snatch the money eventually generated, to fund something else.

Quote from: cline on September 16, 2011, 09:20:06 AM
I'd rather not see the more expensive road projects get built.  I want to see the transit project come to fruition. I still wish the fees in the suburban zones would have been higher.  That would create more of a disincentive to continue our traditional suburban growth patters.  However, I also understand it takes compromises to get things through. 

I don't know that it's so much a compromise as it is the fact that the city has to look out for the entire (very large) county. Our suburbs need good planning too, it just so happens that they're under the same local government.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 16, 2011, 11:44:04 AM

Quote from: cline on September 16, 2011, 09:20:06 AM
I'd rather not see the more expensive road projects get built.  I want to see the transit project come to fruition. I still wish the fees in the suburban zones would have been higher.  That would create more of a disincentive to continue our traditional suburban growth patters.  However, I also understand it takes compromises to get things through. 

I don't know that it's so much a compromise as it is the fact that the city has to look out for the entire (very large) county. Our suburbs need good planning too, it just so happens that they're under the same local government.

I believe the initial draft of the Plan had higher fees for the suburban zones but they were reduced before the final was adopted (builder lobbyist pressure).  I don't deny the fact that the suburbs need good planning as well, I just think they should bear more of the true cost.  This plan helps to get at that.  Sustainable infill and redevelopment closer to the core is more affordable for a developer, greenfield development towards the outer boundaries of the county is more expensive.  That's the way it should be but the opposite has been true in the past. 

^I totally with you on that.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).

Quote from: finehoe on September 16, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).

Would their initials be "T.P."?  (Oh, the irony...)

Quote from: Doctor_K on September 16, 2011, 02:08:52 PM

Quote from: finehoe on September 16, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).

Would their initials be "T.P."?  (Oh, the irony...)

No, I don't think Teddy Pendergrass had anything to do with this.

Quote from: finehoe on September 16, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).

QuoteThe debate over the benefits of mass transit falls along a pretty clear “Mars and Venus” partisan line: Democrats cherish every ounce of mass transit, while Republicans love love love their cars. A few months back, we did a Q&A with Bill Lind, the conservative author of Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, which evaluates mass transit policies from a conservative perspective. Now that the debate over rail, both high speed and passenger, has lit up following the distribution of Obama’s stimulus funds, we thought we’d check back in with Bill to see if his views had changed, or held steady.

Infrastructurist: Given all the heated partisan debate that has crippled Congress in other topics like healthcare, can infrastructure really be bipartisan?

Lind: Yes. There should be a nonpartisan non-ideological consensus in favor of adequate infrastructure. From the conservative perspective, the federal government has two and only two legitimate functions: national security and infrastructure. The first bill passed by the first Congress was an infrastructure bill. With government involvement in canals and railroads and highways, the federal government has been involved in infrastructure from the beginning. This is consistent with a free market economy, because the markets only work if there is adequate infrastructure.

More specifically to the current time, conservatives do not enjoy being stuck in traffic any more than liberals. We may be in a Mercedes or Jaguar instead of a Neon, but [traffic] still isn’t fun. So when high quality transportation is offered â€" meaning rail, not bus â€" conservatives are using it. If you look at the demographics of rail transit riders. what you see is that a lot of the people on board are conservatives. if you look at the ridership on Metra around Chicago, in some counties the average income of people on trains is higher than people driving alone to work. You are turning waste time into time when you could be productive. So the fact is that where high quality transportation is provided, conservatives use it. But there isn’t much rail transit in this country for us to use.

I: It sounds like your definition of “conservative” basically means “wealthy people.” What about conservatives who aren’t necessarily Jaguar-drivers?

L: The fact is that most conservatives own cars. They have sufficient money that they own cars. which means that if they ride transit they ride from choice, not necessity. Which means they want high quality transit, not just something to get around. So the transit that is relative to conservatives is that which is relevant to people with cars â€" I would rather take transit than drive to work.


I: Do you think this plan should have greater bipartisan support at the expense of the high speed rail proposals?

L: We think there should definitely be bipartisan support for bringing back streetcars. Every city in the U.S. with over 5,000 people once had a streetcar line. We would like to see most cities have commuter trains â€" the infrastructure is already there. And we would like to see an expansion of light rail. We think all of these should be electrified and this is an important part of energy security. We would like to see a national consensus going across left and right. It’s simply a matter of bringing back what we had. We threw it away â€"  we subsidized national highways and taxed electric railways, and we think that was an unwise move, and we need to bring it back. Not put enormous amounts of money into a few lines that would serve geographically only a small portion of the country.
SOURCE:  http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/02/03/a-conservative-makes-the-case-for-mass-transit-but-not-high-speed-rail/

I don't know, Mr. Lind sounds like a bit of a twit. 

"The fact is that most conservatives own cars. They have sufficient money that they own cars." 

Uh, yeah, whatever.  Like the interviewer notes, he seems to conflate "conservative" with "wealthy".

Quote from: finehoe on September 16, 2011, 03:58:04 PM
I don't know, Mr. Lind sounds like a bit of a twit. 

"The fact is that most conservatives own cars. They have sufficient money that they own cars." 

Uh, yeah, whatever.  Like the interviewer notes, he seems to conflate "conservative" with "wealthy".

And for that matter he conflates "owns a car" with "wealthy".

I learned today that that builders association has successfully lobbied for legislation to be introduced that puts a moratorium on the mobility fee payments for a year.  I think it will be up next month.  The argument was that since nobody is building now anyway that it won't matter.

I hope our council takes a hard look at how successful the moratoriums in Clay and Nassau were in encouraging growth versus St Johns County, which held on to their impact fees.  My feeling is that it will do nothing to encourage more building; it will only provide more taxpayer subsidies to developers who were going to build regardless.

QuoteThe argument was that since nobody is building now anyway that it won't matter.

LOL!  So if nobody is building now anyway then why suspend it for a year?  That's some logical Jacksonville lingo in the works right there. 

Your gut feeling is right.  The real reason there is not much building going on right now is because there's no market.  Half of our homes are underwater, we have thousands of empty existing homes and empty office and retail square footage whose square footage adds up into the millions.  I can't wait to see this one hit the public.  If the developer isn't paying his fair share then they're asking for taxpayers to further subsidize them.

I'd love to see these guys come with some real stats on this moratorium stuff.  This state is full of real life examples of impact fee/concurrency moratoriums that did nothing to encourage growth in regions that simply did not have a market new development.

Who's sponsoring this bill so we can plaster their name to the general public?

QuoteSo when high quality transportation is offered â€" meaning rail, not bus â€" conservatives are using it. If you look at  the demographics of rail transit riders. what you see is that a lot of the people on board are conservatives... ...So the fact is that where high quality transportation is provided, conservatives use it. But there isn’t much rail transit in this country for us to use...
...They have sufficient money that they own cars. which means that if they ride transit they ride from choice, not necessity. Which means they want high quality transit, not just something to get around.

Regardless of his rich man, poor man statements, Mr. Lind makes some points that everyone from the TIMES-UNION to CITY HALL need to sit up and notice. JTA'S ridiculous BRT plan that parallels the local railroad lines and the Skyway has not been designed by people with credible surface transportation expertise. This might explain why in the transition committee for Mayor Brown, JTA'S contract planners tried a last minute move to remove all rail from the recommendations.  "We've already studied that and we're not going to do it," was the words they used. perhaps this is good news, because looking at the record, do we really want them to mess this up?

The only thing in JTA'S BRT sales pitch that has a modicum of truth in it is the national moniker "Just like rail only cheaper..." It doesn't look like rail, it won't become rail, it doesn't perform like rail, for all of the hype, it is after all, just another bus. Even though the JTA price tag has been as low as $2 Million per mile or as high as $26 Million per mile they continually claim BRT is "CHEAPER then rail." Memphis has built streetcar for $3 Million per mile, and several commuter lines have come in around $2 Millinon per mile, hardly the hundreds of millions that JTA claims rail will cost. CHEAPER? Yes BRT is "cheaper," perhaps they should look up the definition of the word Cheap!

As Mr. Lind says, bus transit is not attractive to a large segment of the population and will not attract choice riders. Do I think BRT has a place in Jacksonville? Yes, but not running alongside or under true fixed route mass transit, competing with ourselves is just plain stupid. 

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: thelakelander on September 16, 2011, 08:34:56 PM
Who's sponsoring this bill so we can plaster their name to the general public?

When I find out more specifics, I will let you know.  Likely, you will beat me to it.

I expect it to come out under the disguise of a 'job creation' bill or something similar.

Well it appears that council will torpedo the mobility plan this Tuesday by voting to place a moratorium on mobility fees for an extended period of time.  Evidently, they already have enough votes and actually believe that this will stimulate the economy despite it not working anywhere else in the State. 

Long story short, we (the taxpayers) will subsidize private development interests 100% until council decides to accept mobility fee money. Only in Jacksonville. ::)

I'll go on the record here and say this won't improve our economic conditions.  Concurrency, Mobility Fees, Impact Fees or whatever we want to call them didn't create the underwater homes, vacant strip malls and office complexes consuming our landscape now.    Placing the burden on an already struggling taxpayer won't stimulate the economy either.  However, it will hamper us by indefinitely delaying public infrastructure improvements Jacksonville must invest in to economically compete with its peers in the 21st century economy.

Quote from: dougskiles on September 17, 2011, 07:19:09 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 16, 2011, 08:34:56 PM
Who's sponsoring this bill so we can plaster their name to the general public?

When I find out more specifics, I will let you know.  Likely, you will beat me to it.

I expect it to come out under the disguise of a 'job creation' bill or something similar.

Btw, the bill was introduced by Bill Bishop and co-sponsored by Lumb, Carter, Love, Holt, Crescimbeni, Gaffney, Lee, Anderson, Redman and Schellenberg.

The hits just keep on coming - from all the usual suspects.

I hear Oregon is nice...

Lol.  Sometimes I just don't understand Jacksonville.  We say we want jobs, good economic development, parks and schools.  However, we don't want to pay taxes to fund these things and when someone finally cooks up an innovative way to fund some improvements without tax dollars, we sink that too, while increasing the financial burden of bad development on ourselves.  We complain about the amount of money the skyway loses but fall in love with an Outer Beltway that will need a level of annual subsidies that could be as much as 12 times the skyway's.  We claim to want to be fiscally conservative but when someone comes up with an idea to save $800,000 by not building a road in the front of the courthouse, we complain about that two.  We can use buzz words and preach about our potential all day but the one and only thing holding Jacksonville back from greatness is ourselves. 

Btw, I'm just venting.......

Ennis, i think we all just need to run for City Council. I am not joking!

Quotethe one and only thing holding Jacksonville back from greatness is ourselves.

This city continues to shock me with its backward ways.  Urban core council people, of all of them, should be supporting mobility fees.  sheesh  way to show their behinds once again

Quote from: thelakelander on October 05, 2011, 04:24:14 PM
Lol.  Sometimes I just don't understand Jacksonville.  We say we want jobs, good economic development, parks and schools.  However, we don't want to pay taxes to fund these things and when someone finally cooks up an innovative way to fund some improvements without tax dollars, we sink that too, while increasing the financial burden of bad development on ourselves.  We complain about the amount of money the skyway loses but fall in love with an Outer Beltway that will need a level of annual subsidies that could be as much as 12 times the skyway's.  We claim to want to be fiscally conservative but when someone comes up with an idea to save $800,000 by not building a road in the front of the courthouse, we complain about that two.  We can use buzz words and preach about our potential all day but the one and only thing holding Jacksonville back from greatness is ourselves. 

Btw, I'm just venting.......

Yeah until the educated are running things... the dipshits will continue to win.  The same names always come up when such destructive decisions are made.  Putting personal mantras ahead of common sense makes no sense, but it seems that is all Jacksonville has got. 

IMO, certain credentials or prerequisites should be required for all elected city leaders.  Perhaps a degree in political science, planning, ethics, buisness, or finance etc (depending on position).  Maybe then we could have qualified city leaders running our city!

Quote from: fsujax on October 05, 2011, 04:27:39 PM
Ennis, i think we all just need to run for City Council. I am not joking!

This is a good idea. I am not joking either. The urban core and its organizations and metrojacksonville could get a candidate in office. There is enough volunteerism in these neighborhoods and through metrojacksonville that it can be done. Just as I mentioned a 'DRAFT ENNIS DAVIS' effort to replace Killingsworth I think he or another educated and well liked individual would do very well in a race. We collectively have the knowledge and resources to do it successfully. Its time to be the change you seek.

Ennis, Bob, Stephen, et al.

Can the Mayor veto this attempt to torpedo the Mobility Plan?

He has to vote to approve it.  We'll have a detailed front page story on this in the morning.

I am stunned.

I thought that the base of support was too broad for this to happen.

Let's face it, with very few exceptions, we have a group of very easily influenced leaders in our city right now.  They all want to be the hero and "save" the economy.  Never mind the 99.9% of citizens who will continue to pay the hefty price tag of sprawl, gotta have those hammers swinging at all cost!

No doubt a developer has been making promises he will never deliver on. 

Love, lumb, gaffney, anderson etc. All represent areas that support mobility plan 2030. I have to think they all wont let it die or will have a modification bc they know most of their active constituentcy support it. They are not dumb. There are other ways to key pieces. Parallel tracks.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on October 05, 2011, 08:25:45 PM
I am stunned.

I thought that the base of support was too broad for this to happen.

The support for the mobility plan and fee over the old traffic concurrency system is strong.  However, the impact of mobility choices on quality of life and economic development is still something that needs to be seriously discussed in Jacksonville.  Right now, we're still focused on stimulating a growth based economy.  It's time we admit that dead horse as sailed.

John, I hope you are right. Those people are smart councilmen and I am shocked by their support of a moratorium. I do believe there is another story behind the scenes and I bet it's a stinky one.

Quote from: John P on October 05, 2011, 09:04:50 PM
Love, lumb, gaffney, anderson etc. All represent areas that support mobility plan 2030. I have to think they all wont let it die or will have a modification bc they know most of their active constituentcy support it. They are not dumb. There are other ways to key pieces. Parallel tracks.

It appears its going to be suspended for at least a year.  At the very least I hope the City keeps track on the number of permits made before & after and the amount of mobility money lost.  It will be pretty interesting to see what type of small scale projects could have been funded with the money given to private development.  For example, I think Dollar General had to pay a $60,000 mobility fee for one of their recent projects.  How far could you stretch $60,000 to paint bike lanes on an existing street with enough pavement width to accommodate them or fill in a small gap in the sidewalk network?

Lakelander: Is this what you're saying?

When the mobility fee option was being put together, the development industry saw it as better than concurrency.  But now that concurrency is optional, the development industry doesn't see any further need for the mobility fee.

Something similar to that.  The development community would prefer not paying anything, considering that would improve their bottom line (most are in the business to make money, so that's understandable to a degree).  The mobility fee is viewed by all as a better option than the old fair share system.  However, the change of events politically and the economy gave them the opportunity to convince council pass their impact cost to John Q. Taxpayer for at least a year (in the name of job creation of course).  My guess is that we'll see a rush of permits pulled when the moratorium gets close to expiring or a push to get the sunset deferred for another year.  The key for Jacksonville residents will be to make sure this deferment stuff doesn't happen. 

Given that governments don't have any money of their own to spend, they may be shooting themselves in the foot.

^I believe they're pumping their toes full of slugs.

Look who sponsored it. Seems like a done deal

What a remarkable lack of foresight. If only the mayor were in a strong enough position to fight this.

from:    pwhitford
Sent at:  11:05 AM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 12:20 PM. ✆
to:   mayorbrown@coj.net,
Clay@coj.net,
WBishop@coj.net,
RClark@coj.net,
Redman@coj.net,
LBoyer@coj.net,
MattS@coj.net,
Gaffney@coj.net,
EDLee@coj.net,
WAJones@coj.net,
RBrown@coj.net,
Holt@coj.net,
doylec@coj.net,
Gulliford@coj.net,
JimLove@coj.net,
KimDaniels@coj.net,
JRC@coj.net,
Joost@coj.net,
GAnderson@coj.net,
RLumb@coj.net

date:    Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:05 AM
subject:   Ordinance 2011-617

Dear Mayor Brown and Council Members:

Please do not put a moratorium on the Mobility Fee.  Vote against Ordinance 2011-617.  Jacksonville taxpayers subsidizing 100% of private development's negative impacts on public infrastructure is not acceptable or productive. The Mobility Fee helps Jacksonville’s citizens maximize the benefits of needed development.  A moratorium will not encourage development in a community where over 50% of residential properties are currently underwater and office vacancy rates are over 20%.  To date, there is little to no evidence to support the proposition that such a moratorium significantly stimulates any private sector development and hence no evidence of the measure’s actual benefit to anyone other than a few developers. That is a non-argument.  Please do not support the moratorium. 

Thank you,


Now let's see what happens...

Also on the agenda at the 2/11/14 full meeting of the Jacksonville city council was Ord. 2014-57. Good or Bad?