I wanted to start a controversial topic, and that is to say that Jacksonville does not need fixed rail transit right now. Here is a shortlist of why it will not work right now and why the city should not spend the money (and why I doubt Washington would spend the money either):
1) Not enough of a central commuting pattern whereby there is one concentrated area with 100,000 workers or more and whereby rush hour to this one area creates true gridlock that would spur a demand for alternative transit. If you can't fill a train up in rush hour, you won't have a successful system.
2) Density is not high enough. I can't remember the facts and figures, but in a class taught by an RS&H executive on urban transit we were posed all sorts of charts and graphs that come into play on all sorts of systems, and Jacksonville wasn't even dense enough for 15-minute bus lines. Its highest density supported 30-minute lines and hourly lines at most. Now Charlotte is not dense enough either, but it has a hell of a central commuting pattern and a dense Uptown that makes parking and riding in worth it (and still its trains aren't "full").
3) Besides the need, nowadays with Washington requiring major fund matching by the local municipalities involved, there has to be a will. Jacksonville does not even have an energy or will as a whole that supports downtown, the city or the core. More people in the city would probably green light a train from the beach to Southpoint before doing anything for the rest of the city. This is the hardest part because even in NYC there are people opposed to higher fees, higher taxes, contruction interrupting their commuting patterns and waking them up, etc etc, so in Jacksonville it's going to be real tough - a decade long political movement at least.
4) Aside from commuting patterns things are just too spread out. How is a starter line going to go? What neighborhoods will it serve? Those who live close in have a bad commute to the Southside, but no traffic into downtown, so how do you arrange which business district to serve and who to serve? It's really hard to serve a place like Southpoint/Gate Parkway because you can't walk anywhere when you stop there, but that is where the bulk of the people live, work and play.
Furthermore, how do you connect downtown, the convention center (which may be the train station eventually) and the sports complexes and Shands? How do you connect the city's #1 destination - SJTC? Riverside? San Marco? Springfield? All of these places are in different directions and pretty spread out and involve expensive river crossings? I never even mentioned the beach, which creates real traffic on JTB. And Arlington is also an area that has a lot of people that require public transportation, but it's so spread out and in a different direction.
Jacksonville is a real tough city to figure out. The need will be to serve the poor, but the taxpayers won't go for a straight line up to the Northside or over to Arlington. The rich are then spread thin over the rest of the areas of town (which is one of the reasons it's so hard to convince retailers to come to Jacksonville because they need to see the demographics within a certain radius). The real commuting patterns are on the Southside, where transit won't work effectively, and there is no will among wealthy business leaders to see a side of town like Charlotte's South End become the new infill area.
5) Where's the money? The city has no money coming in for this and it has bigger fish to fry (public education for one). I got my annual vehicular registration tax whereby I pay 45 mil rate on my 2011 vehicle, which ends up being a significant amount of money to swallow, and I called my mom up yesterday to ask if this was also the case in Duval, which it is not. My parents are waterfront and I think she said they pay only 18 mil on their property, and a small $20 fee or what not on their vehicles. It seems anything tangible up here is "worthy" of a 45 mil tax or some expensive fee, and I already pay 8% and rising sales tax, not to mention state income tax (6%), much more expensive housing (which means a higher tax base), taxes on my district, higher gas prices (maybe that's from a higher gas tax or maybe that's a function of being in a larger city), and I pay the most expensive water/sewer bills in the country, fees and all attached. Even with these higher taxes and much higher base, each neighborhood has a community improvement self-taxing authority to pay for paving roads, beautification, and astonishingly police presence because the city doesn't have enough to pay for all of this.
One can tell Jacksonville does not have high taxes or a wealthy/large tax base/taxable value. When I comment that the city looks like it is in the poorhouse, this is what I mean. There is little landscaping. In FL where the roads should hardly need maintenance the roads are in bad condition. Everything looks cheap and if it's not new it looks like it's slowly falling apart. I think aesthetics in Jacksonville's case come first before transit, but there aren't even high enough taxes to pay for simple aesthetics.
On top of that, people in Jacksonville can't really afford higher taxes. There aren't enough high paying jobs whose recipients live in Duval. Downtown trophy office buildings can't even break $100 psf in a sale (and these big buildings should be the tax base, but when the majority of your office buildings are cheap suburban campus style buildings, you're going to have to rely more on the residents). Houses top out at $2M in the most wealthy areas now, and the average home price in Duval County is real lowwww. 18 mil tax and that's about it on that tax base is not going to get you anything you want or need.
Atlanta has a real strong taxable base - houses in the nicer areas can still top $5-10M, office buildings in Midtown and Buckhead trade for $200-$400psf and rising once again, etc etc YET still the city can't afford its failing schools or more transit and will have to raise taxes for each (on top of what it has now). Is Jacksonville prepared for a drastic tax hike? Would it ever come to be? With the exodus over the past few years of some of the most influential people out to the beach, who's going to lead that crusade?
Finally, I just want to point out a few obvious things.
1) On this very board I really have never heard anyone talk about streetcars or light rail or commuter rail in terms of actual commuting. I have only heard comments like "would be convenient to take a streetcar in from Riverside to avoid drinking and driving." Perhaps a lunch hour deal sort of thing (but really nobody takes a train anywhere during lunch hour as realistically you just don't have the time).
This is indicative of a lack of demand for the real services of fixed rail transit. As some have stated, the buses get you where you need to go. I took the bus home from Episcopal High School to Ortega probably 10 times when I went there years ago for curiosity's sake (and I actually saw someone I knew on the bus at the transfer downtown).
The current bus stops are not sufficient. The buses themselves are about the best I have ever seen, however. I think the routing can be improved and the bus stops need to be built. Fix what you have before you scream for what you don't really need.
Also, TAXIS. You want to avoid drinking and driving? Taxis do the trick. The problem is the nightlife is not concentrated enough for there to be taxis in Jacksonville, so how the hell do you think you're going to get streetcars or light rail?? Nashville is one of the few small towns with a decent taxi population and it is possible to hail a cab there. The only other three cities in the south where it is possible to hail a cab are Miami, Atlanta and New Orleans. Note that these cities also can support transit. Nashville has just concentrated everything downtown and along a corridor. There are more bars in a 5 block area of downtown Nashville than there are bars in metro Jax. The new MCCC is right there, as is the arena, hotels, the tourist district, and offices and condos. The West End is fairly compact, too.
Nashville functions more like a real city, yet only has 1.6 million people. It has that commuter rail, which is ok, but it really can't yet support full on transit. I think Jacksonville should get its cues from Nashville because it is on the right track for everything.
2) Seattle and Minneapolis are among the densest of cities in America, and yet each just got their first light rail line. How have they survived without for so long and served 3-4 million people?
I feel like Seattle is right up there with San Francisco in terms of urbanity and density, and yet it has individualized neighborhoods, tough traffic, pedestrian traffic and bike traffic that can compete with NYC and Chicago, and it has one of the most successful downtown areas in the world. It is considered a true gateway market, ahead of LA in many cases, and occasionally is more desirable as a place for investment than San Francisco.
It survived decades without trains (in fact Atlanta is the city that beat out Seattle to win the MARTA grants in the first place, and Atlanta is country compared to Seattle).
Jacksonville simply doesn't need trains yet, or streetcars. Kansas City and Indianapolis are much denser and more concentrated, have the heavy centralized commuting patters and more people, and yet they're doing just great without trains.
It's that simple. Fix what you have first. Get a political will. Get people to want to be downtown first, grow downtown second, and then maybe examine streetcars/trains.
Is this an April Fool's joke? I'm out and about but I'll respond in detail later.
For me it boils down to designing the city for what you want it to become instead of just hoping the sprawl will just magically fix itself.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 09:58:12 AM
I wanted to start a controversial topic, and that is to say that Jacksonville does not need fixed rail transit right now.
I can't remember the facts and figures, but in a class taught by an RS&H executive on urban transit ...
OK I'll bite:
What class and what "RS&H executive"?
I call for April's Fools.
-Josh
Just as building roads/adding lanes increases demand (does not reduce congestion), adding fixed ROW transit generally increases development around it. Phoenix and Las Vegas "survive" without mass transit, but if that's the quality of life you want, by all means build more roads. The change takes time, and a system will likely operate at a fiscal loss (possibly forever), but there are unpriced externalities that very arguably outweigh the costs. It's a more tenuous argument, but in terms of nightlife, I think bars and clubs are so spread out precisely because there are few fixed hubs to center around (instead there are dozens of mini-hubs spread out everywhere).
On the argument of taxes, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/). You don't really have density if you have to/choose to surround what might be called density with a sea of parking lots or monster parking garages.
I'm with Lake, this thread must be a joke.
QuoteOn this very board I really have never heard anyone talk about streetcars or light rail or commuter rail in terms of actual commuting.
You should really check out the search feature on this site. It can be your friend. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the various proposed commuter rail lines as they relate to commuting (paid for by a mobility fee by the way). And please don't confuse streetcars and light rail with commuter rail (which it appears that you have).
And like Dan said, please let us know the name of the RS&H exec. who taught you in in this urban transit class. I mean, it must have been really informative since you are know able to impart all of this new found transit knowledge on all of us amateurs.
A) Who cares the name of the person who taught the class? Instead of trying to take down an argument by either deriding a person I will choose to keep anonymous or calling bullshit, why not pick apart the arguments?
B) I read the articles on this website and the posts and I frequently use the search feature. I know what's been discussed from Lake's very informative articles, but I also know what people post. The two are different, and I have not heard many if any posts that explicitly say that said poster is tired of sitting in traffic hell on his/her commute to downtown and would prefer to take a train in. There aren't that many posters who have 9-5 jobs IN downtown just as there aren't that many in all of Jax who work downtown, and many posts regarding how people would use streetcars involve bar hopping. Do your own flippin search.
I haven't claimed any expert arguments. I pointed out some knowledge imparted me in a class regarding density and standard metrics used generally across the board to determine appropriate transit methods, but 99% of what I posted is simply stating the obvious. Sounds like you guys just can't handle the obvious.
Prove to me I'm wrong that there is no will in Jax for public transit.
Prove to me that we don't have other transit issues we should work on first (i.e. bus stops and routing - something that has also been discussed heavily on this very site)
Prove to me that commuting patterns are actually centralized rather than scattered all about.
Prove to me that there is a way of paying for this, whether it be streetcars, light rail or commuter rail. If the city can barely pay for landscaping, how the hell is it going to shell out huge amounts of money for a starter streetcar line or light rail line? And then with extremely low coffers and a low tax base, without raising taxes how do you think citizens would rather allocate money? Schools or a starter train line?
On top of that, where does the starter train line go? That's a question I posed that nobody has answered. Lake and others have written articles with several different options, but it's a difficult question to answer. It's especially difficult in Jacksonville. Nothing is centralized, there is a river, and everything makes it more difficult.
Prove to me that in Jacksonville, if you build mass transit all of a sudden everyone will want to live intown and infill will occur and companies will all of a sudden pack up and move. Prove to me that you don't have to have some of that first, in the first place, before you can further increase that momentum with transit. Are people just waiting for trains to be built in Jax before they decide to live downtown? Are developers just itching to build in Jax pending trains? Come on!!! Let's not be that stupid.
Prove to me that Jacksonville cannot survive and thrive without fixed-rail transit when much larger, much more successful cities have indeed done just that.
If you can't squash my points either logically or with examples or with fact, then don't call my arguments ridiculous. It's that simple.
I'm not saying quell the discussion. Keep the discussion about fixed-rail transit alive and burning, but light a fire under the city's feet to fix its deeper more underlying problems first.
Get the city to find a way to attract a more educated under 35 population. This is your choice rider and your future intown resident, and a demographic who can afford to live intown and won't require the best public schools for their family, which is not put together yet.
Get the city to reach out more and to be more appealing to visitors. Visitors are big. The airport and Gate Parkway are the only aesthetically pleasing areas of the city. This should not be. 95 should be a little better (first impressions). Downtown should be better. I still contend a convention center is more of a priority than trains at this point.
There's just other stuff that needs to be done before the city can warrant the need for trains. Building mass transit for basically any city is a major decade long process. And by decade long, I don't mean discussed on a website for a decade, but discussed city-wide for a decade and then voted on, usually in the form of a tax increase. This is the reality.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 01:18:37 PM
A) Who cares the name of the person who taught the class? Instead of trying to take down an argument by either deriding a person I will choose to keep anonymous or calling bullshit, why not pick apart the arguments?
I'm not interested in an ad hominen argument, but I was taught in high school that you are only as good as your sources. Without sources your argument doesn't carry much weight, even though I might be inclined to agree with you.
Dashing Dan, thanks for being a real tough guy. So one sentence in my post involved charts handed out in a class showing basic metrics of density required for certain transit options (nevermind that the teacher didn't make the charts and that they came from some other source, maybe RS&H itself), you want the teacher's name before you make any responses. How about PM me? A) I don't remember the darn teacher's name - it was a woman if that helps. B) Who cares? The meat of my post involves general arguments, obvious statements that don't involve hard fact, but may be proven with hard fact if you so have them. You're copping out.
People make all sorts of claims on this site, myself included, and maybe not all the time does the person want to call out the source. Quit being a hypocrite here because you don't like the basis of my arguments, none of which involve that class or that teacher.
I like your argument. I'm just curious about the reference to RS&H. I used to work there. Anyway, you've told me enough for me to figure out who it was.
So let the fun begin! I will read the responses with great interest.
Fair enough (ps I think I was being too hard in my response, but seriously I'm just preparing myself to be bashed and putting on a thick skin ahead of time). I wouldn't be surprised if the thread doesn't go far, but I eagerly await Lakelander's response. I'm surprised he thinks this is an April Fool's! This thread is very very real and I only made it after getting too tired of hearing people say "we NEED public transit/streetcars". Goodness gracious Seattle didn't even NEED light rail for a really freakin long time and it's probably one of the top 7 urban/dense cities in America and is considered a gateway city/24-7 market.
If infill were happening and there was a burgeoning rental market and downtown weren't so depressed, I would be inclined to say "let's pile on the momentum and building a streetcar line" along a route where more infill could occur (i.e. Lavilla, Brooklyn, Riverside). As it stands now, I don't see any action intown, and that's not because there aren't trains running back and forth. It's because of much more serious, much deeper issues in the city/metro.
simms3: In the past I have been walloped on this site for expressing opinions that are similar to yours, so I'm looking forward to seeing someone else, namely you, standing in the line of fire this time.
QuoteProve to me that there is a way of paying for this, whether it be streetcars, light rail or commuter rail.
There is. It's called the Mobility Plan. Evidently you don't know what the search function is because if you did, you would see that the Plan is posted on this site. It is also on the COJ website. I would suggest reading up on it.
QuoteOn top of that, where does the starter train line go?
What "starter train line" are you referring to? Streetcar or commuter rail? It makes a difference. If you're referring to commuter rail, again, this has been discussed. The appropriate "starter line" would be the SW or SE line. IMO, SW.
QuoteProve to me that in Jacksonville, if you build mass transit all of a sudden everyone will want to live intown and infill will occur and companies will all of a sudden pack up and move.
Who has claimed that this will happen? It's not about putting in mass transit and then all of the sudden people start having a religious experience and decide to move downtown. I hope you're not that dense. It's about giving people options.
QuoteGoodness gracious Seattle didn't even NEED light rail for a really freakin long time and it's probably one of the top 7 urban/dense cities in America and is considered a gateway city/24-7 market.
You're right they didn't. But look at what has happened since the built it. Billions of dollars in development near the stops. Are you saying that's a bad thing?
But hey, you took a class right? You must know everything then.
By the way, if streetcar is so pointless, why is Atlanta spending like 70MM on a 2.7 mile long streetcar line?
No people will ever use mass transit until they get over their love affairs with their cars. And they won't do that without it being worth their while; some sort of incentive.
As it is now, it won't happen in Jacksonville. Jacksonville isn't so much a city as a collection of small towns surrounding an empty center. Jax is just too spread out, too diffuse. And it lacks any real structure.
This 'build it and they will come' mentality has crippled Jax for decades. It's part of why we have the Skyway. It's why we have half-empty apartment blocks.
Nothing good will happen overnight. Downtown has to first have residents and businesses. Once that happens, once people start commuting en masse to the city center, then mass transit will start to make sense. Then people will realise the incentive to give up driving (save time, save $$$ for parking).
If you lay a lot of rails or whatever right now, you're going to have empty trains, streetcars, etc. There's no reason to think people will use them when they don't use the buses.
Stephen, what's April Fool's about it? You lived in Seattle, didn't you? Is it not a top 7 urban city in America? I'll name them:
NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, DC, Seattle and Philadelphia. Seattle does even better now that it has extensive streetcars, automated buses, and a functioning light rail line (which has spurred massive development on the south side of downtown near the stadiums), BUT it got to top 7/Gateway City/24-7 hour market before it had much public transit.
Minneapolis is seeing a crazy amount of infill and a real burgeoning rental market, downtown and surrounding neighborhoods in ALL directions. Some of this infill is along their light rail line, but most is not. It's occurring for different reasons than convenience to trains.
In my own city, the two hottest areas for infill outside of Midtown/Buckhead right now are on the Westside and on the Eastside in Old Fourth Ward/Poncey Highlands. Neither is served by MARTA and the Beltline is years out, especially when looking at light rail. The infill is occurring for a whole host of reasons besides transit, and I could go into some of it, but that's for a different discussion.
Here's Jacksonville's biggest obstacle to urbanizing:
There ARE NOT ENOUGH hyper-educated young professionals, secular Jews (usually a big component of your intown population, they go to prestigious universities and then take high paying jobs), wealthy blacks, corporate executives, tourists, business travelers, etc etc. These are the folks who prefer to live intown or in walkable areas. The tourists obviously have the potential to bring a major economic impact to CBDs and intown areas. The corporate executives spearhead projects and ensure that the city they have invested in grows and thrives. All of this is missing from the big picture, so the question is not public transit, but rather how do you get these people into your city? Just having trains is not enough. Developers follow these people. Infill follows these people. Jobs precede these people. Certain jobs. Job creation precedes even that, and that is where the big question lies. That is where the discussion needs to be. If the darn city can't even attract these people, the demographic that is the basis of any successful urbanized city, then transit is practically last on the list.
You know what follows corporations? Big-time law firms. Law firms are a growing industry, occupy class A CBD office space, and employ overpaid and over-egoed young professionals who love to live in expensive intown condos and apartments, eat in pricey restaurants du jour, they have museum memberships and shop in high end stores. They alone would make a dent in your urbanity.
Outside of my window is the headquarters of King & Spalding, which is one of the most prestigious law firms in the country and occupies the majority of the most expensive office building in the south - 1180 Peachtree, which was sold for $400psf to GE Capital by Hines post-development, probably due to K&S's absurd rent for close to $40 for a nearly 600,000 SF chunk. I can promise you that Midtown Alliance, the City of Atlanta, Fulton County, and even the state of Georgia very much like that situation from a tax basis perspective (and they also love the similarly priced 50 story tower 2 doors down that serves as Alston & Bird's HQ, consistently traded hands for well over $300psf since 1987 from IBM to Sumitomo to Hines), and I can also promise you that the hundreds of K&S employees under the age of 45 making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year are littering Midtown and all the surrounding neighborhoods. This is one of several big 50 law firms HQd here, and one of dozens of big 50 law firms with major presence here due to all the corporations.
Jacksonville has only one: Foley & Lardner, a reflection on the lack of a major corporate presence in the city.
Shahid Khan is potentially the first real big player to come through Jacksonville since the days of Alfred duPont, William Astor, etc etc. He is a mover and a shaker, and that's what the city needs more than transit. Peter Rummell is arguably influential, especially this year as head of ULI, but I'm not sure what all he has done for the city. God there's not a soul in Atlanta who can't rattle off ten names of people/billionaires/politicians who have done BIG things for the city and made things happen.
The right leadership will get those jobs that will mean a brighter future for the city and its core, and may eventually lead to the demand or a strong reason for fixed-rail transit.
With or without trains our taxis here are very much in need of improvement.
Cline, Atlanta is building that for tourists, which are in abundance in downtown Atlanta. That streetcar line was not the first choice; the city lost out on one for Midtown, which it will fund itself if the tax passes this year.
The line you are referring to does hit an area that is relatively dense (Edgewood), especially when compared to anywhere in Jax, and it connects a 35,000 student university with a downtown 5x the size of downtown Jacksonville with the 3rd or 4th largest CC in America, 12,000 hotel rooms, and connects to MAJOR tourist attractions. The end goal is to benefit the tourists and visitors by connecting the Aquarium, World of Coke, CC, Centennial Park, CNN Center, hotels, and the MLK Memorial on the other side of downtown. Commuters won't use it. Downtown workers probably won't use it, but perhaps some students and certainly visitors will.
Also, the push for the transit tax and for the Beltline has been among the largest pushes in the country's history. The transit tax will mean $7.22B in new projects without Washington's help, and a lot more if Washington decides to pitch in. The Beltline has been one of the most talked about projects in the country, and it is not meant to alleviate traffic so much, but rather provide options, as you say, for an already dense area that is seeing and has seen an explosion of infill (and is currently not served by mass transit). When I say explosion of infill, I mean tens of thousands of people have moved to within a half mile or so of the Beltline in the last decade. That is not because of the Beltline in and of itself; that is because of a shift occurring within Atlanta which is urbanizing the city and not quickly but by no means slowly turning the city into a Gateway Market/24-7 city. This shift has to do with the jobs market, complications from sprawl (traffic and sprawl make Jacksonville's sprawl problems seem not like problems at all...imagine 5 denser Duval Counties next to each other with a 5 mile stretch of office buildings in the middle).
Atlanta remains a magnet for young professionals, which is how you build up a core. Aside from uber wealthy families in the Back Bay, the inner areas of Boston are dense and walkable and urban and thriving not because of families, but because of a huge amount of very upwardly mobile young professionals, born out of the local universities and the corporate culture and global connections. Certainly tourists help, too, especially in the Downtown Crossing neighborhood. Tourists and business travelers can really do wonders to perk up a CBD and give the appearance of vibrancy. Something else Jacksonville should look into before trains.
Transit works in Boston because it has a ton of fundamentals which are the opposite of Jacksonville - that is to say centralized commuting (traffic there is HORRENDOUS), uber density, corridors, and it serves an entire region - New England.
I do know about the Mobility Plan and have actually commented on it, as well as the articles about starter commuter and streetcar lines. I'm not anti-rail, but I think rail is kind of a step you take once you get the basics down. Jacksonville does not have the basics down.
Quote from: stephendare on April 01, 2012, 04:05:52 PM
Yes, I lived in Seattle before the rail and it sucked (although it was better than JTA) in terms of mass transit .after living in San Francisco, it was actually a pain in the ass to get around. But the neighborhoods of Seattle are imminently walk able so people just tended to stay in their neighborhood.
People bitched about the transit and had been belly aching about it for the previous ten years.
Most people felt that Seattle had taken too long, so I am not sure why you would make up stories about Seattle not needing retail.
The truth is that they kept having a creative class drain to both the south (Cali) and the east (Tokyo )
All good points, but my point is that Seattle survived and still thrived as a 24-7 city and with 3-4 million people before it finally got the transit it needed. Jacksonville does not actually need the transit, does not have close to 3-4 million people, is a 9-5 city, does not have the density, and I would not call the city thriving. Look at the fundamentals of Seattle, which allowed it to prosper despite. They are entirely different from Jacksonville, and I am not even referring to planning or zoning, I am referring to the fundamentals that make a city tick. Sure Seattle does even better now, but it has always done much better than Jacksonville has due to these fundamentals, which is why it is where it is today despite not having public transit for the majority of its history.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 09:58:12 AM
I wanted to start a controversial topic, and that is to say that Jacksonville does not need fixed rail transit right now. Here is a shortlist of why it will not work right now and why the city should not spend the money (and why I doubt Washington would spend the money either):
Right off the bat, I’d say you’re already off on the wrong path by grouping all “fixed rail transit†options in the same “non-feasible†type of category. This position is like saying a community doesn’t need any paved roads because an expressway may not be feasible in a particular environment. In short, any transportation option (mass transit, roads, maritime, etc.) should be evaluated on an individual basis regarding the context of the corridor it is meant to serve as opposed to overall urban area statistical averages.
Quote1) Not enough of a central commuting pattern whereby there is one concentrated area with 100,000 workers or more and whereby rush hour to this one area creates true gridlock that would spur a demand for alternative transit. If you can't fill a train up in rush hour, you won't have a successful system.
This is where grouping “fixed transit†in a single category gets you in trouble. You’re position here would be more applicable to a heavy, light, or commuter rail system moreso than a streetcar, intercity, or corridor rail service. So I’ll address it in this light. Yes, a heavy rail system, similar to MARTA would not make sense in Jacksonville. However, a streetcar or a corridor service connecting Jax with its suburbs and other metropolitan areas would.
Quote2) Density is not high enough. I can't remember the facts and figures, but in a class taught by an RS&H executive on urban transit we were posed all sorts of charts and graphs that come into play on all sorts of systems, and Jacksonville wasn't even dense enough for 15-minute bus lines. Its highest density supported 30-minute lines and hourly lines at most. Now Charlotte is not dense enough either, but it has a hell of a central commuting pattern and a dense Uptown that makes parking and riding in worth it (and still its trains aren't "full").
It’s a bad idea to dictate fixed rail by density. You’re better off designing mass transit by corridor and connecting points. That’s why you see sprawlers like Phoenix, Norfolk, and Salt Lake City successfully implement various rail systems in the last decade that flies in the face of your position. On the flip end, you could have all the density in the world but if the service sucks and fails to go where transit riders want to be directly connected into, it won’t be as successful.
Quote3) Besides the need, nowadays with Washington requiring major fund matching by the local municipalities involved, there has to be a will. Jacksonville does not even have an energy or will as a whole that supports downtown, the city or the core. More people in the city would probably green light a train from the beach to Southpoint before doing anything for the rest of the city. This is the hardest part because even in NYC there are people opposed to higher fees, higher taxes, contruction interrupting their commuting patterns and waking them up, etc etc, so in Jacksonville it's going to be real tough - a decade long political movement at least.
I believe this position is faulty based on two things that we specifically resolved in the structuring of the Mobility Plan & Fee.
1. It’s foolish to focus soley on or treat downtown as the focal point of any transit system. It should one stop of several for a transit spine connecting several neighborhoods together. In this sense, a stop at Shands Jacksonville, Gateway, or Five Points is just as important as one in Downtown Jacksonville because they all combine to facilitate a corridor that gives transit users direct access to a mix of neighborhoods, employment, and entertainment centers.
2. The mobility fee, which has been set up to generate the funds for 10 transportation projects over the next decade (2 fixed transit, 8 are road widenings), splits the city up into zones. Money generated in the urban core would go to transportation improvements within those zones. Money generated in the suburbs would go to transportation improvement projects within those zones. Thus, there’s really no reason to have someone in a place like Mandarin or Cecil fund a mass transit project connecting downtown to the surrounding communities at this point. This sets up perfectly for a community like Jax to start small and expand over time.
Quote4) Aside from commuting patterns things are just too spread out. How is a starter line going to go? What neighborhoods will it serve? Those who live close in have a bad commute to the Southside, but no traffic into downtown, so how do you arrange which business district to serve and who to serve? It's really hard to serve a place like Southpoint/Gate Parkway because you can't walk anywhere when you stop there, but that is where the bulk of the people live, work and play.
First, define what type of “starter†system? If it’s corridor service on the FEC, you’re looking at a statewide corridor and fighting to get an extra stop or two between downtown Jacksonville and St. Augustine. With trains potentially running on an hourly basis, it provides you the opportunity for TOD to grow at three or four sites. Later down the line, it makes it feasible for commuter rail to serve the same corridor.
If we’re talking about a streetcar, I’d suggest the Riverside/Downtown line that is to be funded 100% by the mobility plan. Such a service should then be fed by restructuring all Westside bus routes into this line. In essence, you’re starter becomes a transit spine and it provides the city with a chance to also benefit from TOD in areas like Brooklyn and LaVilla. Imo, it’s a great way to add connectivity between downtown and some adjacent neighborhoods for less than $50 million (which would be paid by the mobility fee). I can tell you right now, we’ll burn twice as much cash building a convention center.
QuoteFurthermore, how do you connect downtown, the convention center (which may be the train station eventually) and the sports complexes and Shands? How do you connect the city's #1 destination - SJTC? Riverside? San Marco? Springfield? All of these places are in different directions and pretty spread out and involve expensive river crossings? I never even mentioned the beach, which creates real traffic on JTB. And Arlington is also an area that has a lot of people that require public transportation, but it's so spread out and in a different direction.
All this has already been worked out. Check out the 2030 Mobility Plan or North Florida TPO’s site for exact routes. Unlike an individual giving their personal opinions at some college class, this is real stuff that has been approved by various levels of state and local government. Also, every single place in town does not have to be connected (or should it be) by fixed rail. Any decently operated mass transit system should include multiple modes seamlessly integrated together.
QuoteJacksonville is a real tough city to figure out. The need will be to serve the poor, but the taxpayers won't go for a straight line up to the Northside or over to Arlington. The rich are then spread thin over the rest of the areas of town (which is one of the reasons it's so hard to convince retailers to come to Jacksonville because they need to see the demographics within a certain radius). The real commuting patterns are on the Southside, where transit won't work effectively, and there is no will among wealthy business leaders to see a side of town like Charlotte's South End become the new infill area.
Jacksonville is actually pretty simple, just like Charlotte or any other city. Start small and grow it over time. Also, stop isolating fixed rail. Any rail service is only going to be as successful as the bus system set up to feed riders into it.
Quote5) Where's the money? The city has no money coming in for this and it has bigger fish to fry (public education for one). I got my annual vehicular registration tax whereby I pay 45 mil rate on my 2011 vehicle, which ends up being a significant amount of money to swallow, and I called my mom up yesterday to ask if this was also the case in Duval, which it is not. My parents are waterfront and I think she said they pay only 18 mil on their property, and a small $20 fee or what not on their vehicles. It seems anything tangible up here is "worthy" of a 45 mil tax or some expensive fee, and I already pay 8% and rising sales tax, not to mention state income tax (6%), much more expensive housing (which means a higher tax base), taxes on my district, higher gas prices (maybe that's from a higher gas tax or maybe that's a function of being in a larger city), and I pay the most expensive water/sewer bills in the country, fees and all attached. Even with these higher taxes and much higher base, each neighborhood has a community improvement self-taxing authority to pay for paving roads, beautification, and astonishingly police presence because the city doesn't have enough to pay for all of this.
One can tell Jacksonville does not have high taxes or a wealthy/large tax base/taxable value. When I comment that the city looks like it is in the poorhouse, this is what I mean. There is little landscaping. In FL where the roads should hardly need maintenance the roads are in bad condition. Everything looks cheap and if it's not new it looks like it's slowly falling apart. I think aesthetics in Jacksonville's case come first before transit, but there aren't even high enough taxes to pay for simple aesthetics.
On top of that, people in Jacksonville can't really afford higher taxes. There aren't enough high paying jobs whose recipients live in Duval. Downtown trophy office buildings can't even break $100 psf in a sale (and these big buildings should be the tax base, but when the majority of your office buildings are cheap suburban campus style buildings, you're going to have to rely more on the residents). Houses top out at $2M in the most wealthy areas now, and the average home price in Duval County is real lowwww. 18 mil tax and that's about it on that tax base is not going to get you anything you want or need.
This type of financial thinking is so last decade. Several communities across the country are now finding innovative methods to fund various civic projects (rail included) without the help of Washington. Houston’s LRT starter is an example of this and FEC’s All Aboard Florida could potentially become another as far as fixed rail is concerned. Also, the 2030 Mobility Plan was structured in a manner to generate money for mass transit (including rail) without the help of DC or raising taxes. Unfortunately, as you state, the political will needs to be there to collect the transportation concurrency fee. With the mobility fee moratorium scheduled to sunset this year and the national economy clearly improving, it will be interesting to see if council lets the moratorium expire.
QuoteAtlanta has a real strong taxable base - houses in the nicer areas can still top $5-10M, office buildings in Midtown and Buckhead trade for $200-$400psf and rising once again, etc etc YET still the city can't afford its failing schools or more transit and will have to raise taxes for each (on top of what it has now). Is Jacksonville prepared for a drastic tax hike? Would it ever come to be? With the exodus over the past few years of some of the most influential people out to the beach, who's going to lead that crusade?
Apples and oranges. Instead of comparing Atlanta and Jacksonville, valid comparisons with Jacksonville should be urban areas of similar scale. Places like Salt Lake City, Charlotte, and Memphis.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 09:58:25 AM
Finally, I just want to point out a few obvious things.
1) On this very board I really have never heard anyone talk about streetcars or light rail or commuter rail in terms of actual commuting. I have only heard comments like "would be convenient to take a streetcar in from Riverside to avoid drinking and driving." Perhaps a lunch hour deal sort of thing (but really nobody takes a train anywhere during lunch hour as realistically you just don't have the time).
This is indicative of a lack of demand for the real services of fixed rail transit. As some have stated, the buses get you where you need to go. I took the bus home from Episcopal High School to Ortega probably 10 times when I went there years ago for curiosity's sake (and I actually saw someone I knew on the bus at the transfer downtown).
Making my living in the transportation planning and engineering industry for a living, I’d say you’ll need a lot more model and statistical data before coming to such a conclusion . This happens to be an urban oriented discussion board. The majority of people here are going to be focusing on transit from an economic sustainability and quality-of-life stand point. A good transit system balances economic development with several other factors include commuting patterns, and an ability to provide efficient service to transit dependent neighborhoods.
QuoteThe current bus stops are not sufficient. The buses themselves are about the best I have ever seen, however. I think the routing can be improved and the bus stops need to be built. Fix what you have before you scream for what you don't really need.
Yes. Immediate improvement of the existing bus and skyway operations has always been advocated here. However, while you’re improving existing services you should also be planning for the future, which is also heavily advocated here.
QuoteAlso, TAXIS. You want to avoid drinking and driving? Taxis do the trick. The problem is the nightlife is not concentrated enough for there to be taxis in Jacksonville, so how the hell do you think you're going to get streetcars or light rail?? Nashville is one of the few small towns with a decent taxi population and it is possible to hail a cab there. The only other three cities in the south where it is possible to hail a cab are Miami, Atlanta and New Orleans. Note that these cities also can support transit. Nashville has just concentrated everything downtown and along a corridor. There are more bars in a 5 block area of downtown Nashville than there are bars in metro Jax. The new MCCC is right there, as is the arena, hotels, the tourist district, and offices and condos. The West End is fairly compact, too.
Nashville functions more like a real city, yet only has 1.6 million people. It has that commuter rail, which is ok, but it really can't yet support full on transit. I think Jacksonville should get its cues from Nashville because it is on the right track for everything.
Taxis have nothing to do with real transit serving a community. They are not even worth the discussion. Anyway, checking out Nashville makes sense considering it’s a true peer community. Transit wise, I’d put more weight on a few other peers such as Salt Lake City.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 10:03:29 AM
2) Seattle and Minneapolis are among the densest of cities in America, and yet each just got their first light rail line. How have they survived without for so long and served 3-4 million people?
I feel like Seattle is right up there with San Francisco in terms of urbanity and density, and yet it has individualized neighborhoods, tough traffic, pedestrian traffic and bike traffic that can compete with NYC and Chicago, and it has one of the most successful downtown areas in the world. It is considered a true gateway market, ahead of LA in many cases, and occasionally is more desirable as a place for investment than San Francisco.
It survived decades without trains (in fact Atlanta is the city that beat out Seattle to win the MARTA grants in the first place, and Atlanta is country compared to Seattle).
Actually both very bad examples for proving your point. I encourage you to look into the history of these cities and transit planning efforts there.
SeattleNot including the Amtrak corridor service, Seattle had a waterfront streetcar line open in 1982, a commuter rail service start in 2000, the South Lake Union Streetcar open in 2007, and the Link LRT open in 2009. Coming into the 1980s, Seattle lost 63,241 residents over a 20 year period. It survived but revitalization on a grand scale aligns with the implementation of various transportation improvements as well.
MinneapolisMinneapolis lost 153,335 residents during decades of continuous population loss between 1950 and 1990. Strange enough, their original streetcar operations ceased in 1954. Serious discussions about bringing back rail started during the 1990s, LRT broke ground in 2001 and opened in 2004. By the 2010 census, Minneapolis actually increased in population by 14,195 residents.
QuoteJacksonville simply doesn't need trains yet, or streetcars. Kansas City and Indianapolis are much denser and more concentrated, have the heavy centralized commuting patters and more people, and yet they're doing just great without trains.
Both have decent downtowns (compared to Jax’s) but it’s a stretch to say they are doing great without more reliable transit. Kansas City is a spread out community where citizens have been pushing for better transit for years now. Indy has a compact downtown but connectivity from the downtown to the rest of the city sucks.
Realistically speaking, we’ve also gotten by without viable mass transit. After all, our urban core has only lost 100,000 residents since 1950. Detroit has lost more than 1 million. However, I believe we want and need to do more than just get by.
If better transit has economically benefitted smaller communities like Memphis, Little Rock, Kenosha, and Salt Lake City, I’d say we’d do ourselves a huge disjustice to assume that it can’t do the same for Jax.
QuoteIt's that simple. Fix what you have first. Get a political will. Get people to want to be downtown first, grow downtown second, and then maybe examine streetcars/trains.
Transit planning and downtown development are two different animals and should not be 100% mixed together. In regards to transit, fix what you have and plan what you want to be at the same time. Then find ways to incrementally implement improvements that lead to political will for grand scale change.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
All good points, but my point is that Seattle survived and still thrived as a 24-7 city and with 3-4 million people before it finally got the transit it needed. Jacksonville does not actually need the transit, does not have close to 3-4 million people, is a 9-5 city, does not have the density, and I would not call the city thriving. Look at the fundamentals of Seattle, which allowed it to prosper despite. They are entirely different from Jacksonville, and I am not even referring to planning or zoning, I am referring to the fundamentals that make a city tick. Sure Seattle does even better now, but it has always done much better than Jacksonville has due to these fundamentals, which is why it is where it is today despite not having public transit for the majority of its history.
Another inaccurate statement. There has been some form of fixed rail transit operating in Seattle since 1982. Looking back, Seattle was incorporated in 1869. The city's first streetcar system went into operation in 1884 and shut down in 1941. So over the course of the city's development, it has had rail for 87 years and no rail for 53. Furthermore, it's period of decline aligns during its 39 year stretch without rail. Sorry, that's not just getting by. That's growth, decline, and getting back to what built its density in the first place.
simms3 is saying that we need higher densities in Jacksonville. I agree, especially downtown and in Springfield and Brooklyn, where there's nothing like a zoning overlay standing in the way of higher densities.
Can fixed rail transit make higher densities happen? Not all by itself.
So what do we do in the meantime? Rubber tire trolleys? Bike sharing? Car sharing?
How about making it harder to develop land at the fringes? The mobility fee takes a stab at this, but there's an indefinite moratorium in effect. Besides, I'd like to see something that might be more effective than just charging a higher fee for development further away from the core.
Thanks Lake, but one question. How do you explain the complete lack of infill going on right now in Jacksonville? What are developers waiting on? Why aren't people moving into the core en masse as has been the case literally across the board elsewhere, even in smaller cities with hardly a bus service?
Also I have consistently mentioned and agreed with corridor situations as you point out. I don't think Jacksonville has its corridors in a row, either. And do you believe that the lack of public transit in Jacksonville is its most pressing issue? My whole point is that it is not the most pressing issue, but may turn out to be an issue much further down the line.
Also, re: Atlanta, my comparison was just to point out the tax situation. Mobility Fee or not, Jacksonville does not have the tax basis or the taxes levied to support itself.
Re: Seattle, as plays into my point about timing, in one of the most liberal and transit friendly cities in America it took decades to get what they have now. Jacksonville is one of the most conservative, anti-transit cities in America. It will take even more will and effort to get anything done. And while the city as a whole may have lost population until the 1980s, the streetcar did not serve all of the central area and yet all of the central areas have seen steady construction for a while now, and certainly before any additional lines were added in the 2000s. Bellevue has seen and is seeing its own surge in infill, and yet is not connected to transit. When I think of corridors and satellite cities evolving around transit stations, I really think of DC. Somehow I don't picture the demolition of our urban neighborhoods for the construction of high-rises and mid-rises. Do you?
Re: Minneapolis, a population loser, as well, but that doesn't explain the whole story - population shifts do. Similarly, Atlanta is pretty steady in its population, sometimes losing sometimes gaining, but there is just an absurd amount of infill. Lower income residents have been priced out and higher income white collar workers are moving in. That is what has occurred in Minneapolis, as well. How do you explain all the infill that is not near their light rail line?
Is the number one driver of infill and the urbanization of cities the presence of transit, or is it a deeper more fundamental issue?
And finally, if you had $500M to spend for Jacksonville would you choose:
A) Transit, and the options are limitless to the price tag. You're the planner, you get to choose. Maybe even set aside money for incentives for TODs, too.
B) The following improvements: a new mid-size convention center on courthouse site, waterfront park on Shipyards site, incentives for corporate relocations to downtown, and perhaps some incentives for downtown rehab/new dev.
Which do you think would go further in today's climate towards economic development?
Also, if today's millage rate is 18, would you be ok to increasing it to 20? 25? 30? How high would you be willing to go personally? How high do you think the city could afford before it taxes people out? Do you think the city has a chance at a penny sales tax on top of the two half-pennies now? i.e. 8% sales tax
RE: Taxis.
People on this board have been describing situations in which they would use a streetcar from Riverside to Downtown to avoid drinking and driving, but lacking are the situations in which they would use the streetcar for actual commuting. I posed taxis as an alternative answer half humorously, but not even taxis would work in Jax as nightlife is spread too thin and there are not daytime tourists/conventioneers.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 01, 2012, 05:12:57 PM
simms3 is saying that we need higher densities in Jacksonville. I agree, especially downtown and in Springfield and Brooklyn, where there's nothing like a zoning overlay standing in the way of higher densities.
Can fixed rail transit make higher densities happen? Not all by itself.
Exactly, you're preaching to the choir but ignoring the rest of the service. You can't build density without transportation infrastructure that stimulates pedestrian scale development patterns. So you'll need to do more than modify land use policies. That's why the mobility plan was configured to combine the two and included incentives for infill development along transit corridors. However, as long as there is a moratorium, expect status quo.
QuoteSo what do we do in the meantime? Rubber tire trolleys? Bike sharing? Car sharing?
Why fool around with a rubber tired trolley? You're better off going with a bus since it gives you the same thing. Bike sharing, car sharing, etc. should be pushed regardless of where reliable mass transit stands. These are complementing services. This isn't a chicken and egg pattern. We need to learn to multitask.
QuoteHow about making it harder to develop land at the fringes? The mobility fee takes a stab at this, but there's an indefinite moratorium in effect. Besides, I'd like to see something that might be more effective than just charging a higher fee for development further away from the core.
Right now, with a moratorium you have nothing. The easiest and quickest thing to do at this point is seriously advocate for the sunsetting of the mobility fee moratorium. While the fee is actually generating cash, you can still work on all these alternatives.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 05:24:57 PM
RE: Taxis.
People on this board have been describing situations in which they would use a streetcar from Riverside to Downtown to avoid drinking and driving, but lacking are the situations in which they would use the streetcar for actual commuting. I posed taxis as an alternative answer half humorously, but not even taxis would work in Jax as nightlife is spread too thin and there are not daytime tourists/conventioneers.
In my responses about planning, I'm not talking about trips to nightclubs or isolating particular corridors and modes. I'm talking about the incremental integration of a seamless city wide transit system. With this in mind, it doesn't matter how long the skyway or an initial streetcar segment is. Whatever it is, it has to be well integrated, directly serve a variety of destinations and be fed riders by the existing bus system. Taxis have nothing to do with achieving the economic and multimodal mobility goals expressed by the mobility plan, the LRTP or the city's adopted visioning plans.
Trains would probably be the least of my worries as well, at least until the city grows (if it ever does) and develops (is it possible with Jacksonville's mentality?) into what it could. Sounds like JTA is doing a reform right now and might focus more on mass transit. If that's the way they want to go, then so be it. If Jacksonville moves toward mass transit, then I won't hold them back. Maybe trains could help. Afterall, you look at at Miami, New York, Chicago, etc. and where would they be without trains? Yeah, they got the landfill, but still. And yes, Jacksonville is far from being able to do what any major city in America could do. Not a step in the wrong direction, though. My point on this post, if that's the route they go, then let them. If we end up with a nice skyway/trolley/monorail and it still doesn't do anything, then we can do the "I told you so" stuff. Besides, a train would be cheaper than a taxi.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 01, 2012, 05:37:52 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 01, 2012, 05:12:57 PM
simms3 is saying that we need higher densities in Jacksonville. I agree, especially downtown and in Springfield and Brooklyn, where there's nothing like a zoning overlay standing in the way of higher densities.
Can fixed rail transit make higher densities happen? Not all by itself.
Exactly, you're preaching to the choir but ignoring the rest of the service.
What do you mean by "the rest of the service"?
What I'm trying to say is that we need to look at
everything, including land use policies, car sharing, bike sharing, and
rubber tire trolleys buses.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 05:17:17 PM
Thanks Lake, but one question. How do you explain the complete lack of infill going on right now in Jacksonville? What are developers waiting on? Why aren't people moving into the core en masse as has been the case literally across the board elsewhere, even in smaller cities with hardly a bus service?
What exactly do you consider infill and what boundaries would you like to see this infill in? Right now, there’s really been no incentive on a land use, mobility, and zoning level for large scale new construction infill to take place. In fact, I’d say our land use and zoning practices make it more difficult for large scale infill to happen. The mobility plan’s land use component begins to address this but without the financial incentive (the mobility fee’s credit adjustment system), it has no teeth, thus no effect. The best thing that Jax can do at this particular point is to let the mobility fee moratorium expire this fall.
QuoteAlso I have consistently mentioned and agreed with corridor situations as you point out. I don't think Jacksonville has its corridors in a row, either. And do you believe that the lack of public transit in Jacksonville is its most pressing issue? My whole point is that it is not the most pressing issue, but may turn out to be an issue much further down the line.
I believe there are a lot of significant issues facing urban Jacksonville as a whole. Mass transit, public education, maintenance of public parks, public policy overregulation, poor municipal leadership, etc. are all issues that come to mind. However, I don’t believe you can resolve one particular issue without working on another. We’re going to have to multitask and that includes finding ways to improve mass transit in the short term.
QuoteAlso, re: Atlanta, my comparison was just to point out the tax situation. Mobility Fee or not, Jacksonville does not have the tax basis or the taxes levied to support itself.
But it’s not an end all to the mobility improvement situation, which is what the topic of this thread is. As evidence, I’ve given you an example (the mobility fee) as an innovative funding mechanism that has the ability to generate hundreds of millions regardless of Jax’s current tax situation.
QuoteRe: Seattle, as plays into my point about timing, in one of the most liberal and transit friendly cities in America it took decades to get what they have now. Jacksonville is one of the most conservative, anti-transit cities in America. It will take even more will and effort to get anything done.
But this is what we’re doing right now. Some like Ock have been at it for over 30 years now. We’re going to keep giving more effort until change happens. In the six years MJ has been at it, we’ve radically modified JTA’s original BRT plan, have gotten streetcar and commuter rail projects into the LRTP (can’t get federal funding without it), and into the mobility plan (local funding mechanism for a few corridors). In addition, we’ve helped a movement to get the land use situation modified to support future mass transit corridors and stand in a great position to get a new transit director to help revamp JTA.
QuoteAnd while the city as a whole may have lost population until the 1980s, the streetcar did not serve all of the central area and yet all of the central areas have seen steady construction for a while now, and certainly before any additional lines were added in the 2000s.
That’s okay. You can’t build Rome in a day. Implementing incrementally is the only workable method. There’s no Bill Gates that’s going to drop down on Jax and give us a billion to do anything extensive any time soon. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t apply tactical urbanism concepts to incrementally improve.
QuoteBellevue has seen and is seeing its own surge in infill, and yet is not connected to transit. When I think of corridors and satellite cities evolving around transit stations, I really think of DC. Somehow I don't picture the demolition of our urban neighborhoods for the construction of high-rises and mid-rises. Do you?
Bellevue is a suburb of a large city with a land mass restricted by water. In this situation, it’s more similar to South Beach than Jacksonville. Personally, I’d rather see small scale infill. I’d be perfectly happy with a network of pedestrian scale one to two story buildings filling up our surface parking lots than having all of those units piled 30 stories high. Luckily, despite this city’s continued insistence of killing small business growth and infill, it’s happening (ex. Julie’s Urban Grocery, Aardwolf Brewing, King Street, Murray Hill’s Edgewood Avenue, etc.) in several urban core neighborhoods.
QuoteRe: Minneapolis, a population loser, as well, but that doesn't explain the whole story - population shifts do. Similarly, Atlanta is pretty steady in its population, sometimes losing sometimes gaining, but there is just an absurd amount of infill. Lower income residents have been priced out and higher income white collar workers are moving in. That is what has occurred in Minneapolis, as well. How do you explain all the infill that is not near their light rail line?
In no case have I stated that you can’t have any infill without fixed rail. However, you can’t deny the fact that fixed rail generates pedestrian scale infill, which over time becomes a part of the population and density that supports it. Nevertheless, I’d totally disagree with you if you think you can just densify your way into being able to support rail. Historically, rail builds large scale connected density. Without it, you’ll get sporadic pockets of density. Atlanta is a place that has lots of examples of both. Nevertheless, it’s also five times larger than urban Jacksonville. When comparing the two, you have to take that into account.
QuoteIs the number one driver of infill and the urbanization of cities the presence of transit, or is it a deeper more fundamental issue?
The number one driver of pedestrian scale development is transportation infrastructure that generates that style of development pattern. So yes, in the last twenty years, fixed rail is probably the greatest driver of large scale urban development. However, it’s not the only and without land use policies to support, infill opportunities can be limited.
QuoteAnd finally, if you had $500M to spend for Jacksonville would you choose:
A) Transit, and the options are limitless to the price tag. You're the planner, you get to choose. Maybe even set aside money for incentives for TODs, too.
B) The following improvements: a new mid-size convention center on courthouse site, waterfront park on Shipyards site, incentives for corporate relocations to downtown, and perhaps some incentives for downtown rehab/new dev.
Which do you think would go further in today's climate towards economic development?
I can be a pretty cheap guy. Give me a $100 bucks and I'll stretch it out for a few weeks. For $500 million, I could do them all. I think most of our problems can be resolved without throwing millions at them. I’m of the belief that our transit system is better off being initially reduced in scale to effectively become reliable in areas best suited to support it. So I rather be great in one part of the county (we call this a city but it’s really a county) than bad in all of it. Thus $100 million on mass transit (on top of the bus system modification I’d immediately do to save existing cash) would be more than enough to link downtown with most of the denser pre-consolidated city. A change in the mentality of Public Works and I’d start doing lane diets on most streets in Jax to build up safe bike/ped connectivity to support mass transit operations. That leaves $400 million for a ton of other things. I’d throw another $100 million into a pot to make historic preservation more feasible for the private sector.
The modification of zoning regulations wouldn’t cost me anything but would result in bringing in the most market rate changes. As for DT incentives, I’d simply create a 10-year tax abatement zone for downtown and most of the Northside’s distressed communities. It also wouldn’t cost me anything other than time to lobby for direct connectivity with proposed regional rail systems (FEC/Amtrak, All Aboard Florida, etc.). At that point, I have a good 32 square mile area with true urban living is really possible with direct connectivity to a few suburbs and the rest of the state via intercity rail options.
That leaves me with $300 million to throw into parks, public education, etc. and this city would be radically changed at the end of a decade. As for roads, I’m willing to substitute vehicle capacity to make alternative modes more feasible and the city’s financial conditions more stable. That change in policy mentality would make this situation similar to Richard Pryor’s Brewster’s Million’s.
Also for public education, I’d consider making urban core
(neighborhood schools are more important in walkable neighborhoods than autocentric subdivisions) magnet schools “district†magnets, meaning if you live within a certain boundary of a magnet, your kid can automatically attend that school. I believe that would be a great method for the repopulation of higher educated families in communities such as Durkeeville, New Town, and New Springfield.
Last, to be honest, I’d would spend much on turning the Shipyards into a park. I’d finish the riverwalk without pavers and carve out a little park space. The rest would be subdivided for mixed-use development (including industrial/wholesale/maritime if it made sense based on the long term mixed use vision). So the selling off of property would actually make me money instead of costing.
QuoteAlso, if today's millage rate is 18, would you be ok to increasing it to 20? 25? 30? How high would you be willing to go personally? How high do you think the city could afford before it taxes people out? Do you think the city has a chance at a penny sales tax on top of the two half-pennies now? i.e. 8% sales tax
At this point, I’d be fine with keeping the tax structure the way it is, with a focus on modifying public policy and better taking advantage of what we already have. When that’s in place, I’d have a better picture as well as the public’s support to consider tax increases, if necessary.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 01, 2012, 06:15:00 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 01, 2012, 05:37:52 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 01, 2012, 05:12:57 PM
simms3 is saying that we need higher densities in Jacksonville. I agree, especially downtown and in Springfield and Brooklyn, where there's nothing like a zoning overlay standing in the way of higher densities.
Can fixed rail transit make higher densities happen? Not all by itself.
Exactly, you're preaching to the choir but ignoring the rest of the service.
What do you mean by "the rest of the service"?
What I'm trying to say is that we need to look at everything, including land use policies, car sharing, bike sharing, and rubber tire trolleys buses.
You are correct. A mass transit system (fixed or rubber wheeled) is no good if it is planned in isolation. I was under the impression that you felt the focus on fixed transit was being done in isolation, which it isn't. It was just a particular mode that Simms3 chose to isolate in this particular thread.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 01, 2012, 06:54:56 PM
You are correct.
I was figuring that it would take at least a day or two before we would get to this point. What do we do now?
Lol, I still say we continue to multitask. Push for the sunsetting of the mobility fee moratorium because you could have a local funding mechanism generating cash for mass transit, bike, and ped improvements before the year is up. It makes everything else more viable, imo. In the meantime, there's no reason not to lobby for a new JTA head who values transit as a higher priority than road building, or plan for complementing things such as bike sharing, etc.
Btw - what is the update on the "new JTA" and their gear toward mass transit?
Thanks. Personally I'm still not convinced, but I will agree that land use policies in Jacksonville are abominable, probably one of the biggest situations holding the city back. I believe if there is a demand and a will for people to live intown, developers will capitalize on that and build, regardless of the kind of transit in place. Having transit never hurts, but right now there aren't enough workers in any local business districts to generate much ridership and the commuting patterns aren't centralized. There also isn't a general population enthusiastic about downtown life. Central City Philly suffered significantly even with central commuting patterns and some of the most extensive transit in the country. Companies and people returned when other issues were resolved and abatements were offered, but there were also fundamentals in place that Jax does not have yet.
Lots of private equity developers are looking at factors other than transit. They are looking at demographics, quality of jobs and job growth, barriers to entry, and the general development scene - how heated it is, pricing, etc.
Also, I wish there were a way to develop the other side of Bay St because I would love to see the Shipyards become a huge grand riverfront park. Unfortunately the city put the jail there. While other cities put their jails, courthouses, and government buildings in undesirable areas, Jacksonville put everything on the most prime land in the city.
And by infill I mean almost anything. It could be the Churchwell lofts replicated time and time again all over the core. It could be stick construction that addresses the street. High-rises obviously. 1534 Oak is a great example of infill, but in Jax right now it is the only incident of infill. I'd love to see dozens of 1534 Oak developments going up in Riverside and Springfield and San Marco, but not only is there no demand, there are policies in place that would essentially prevent such development. Change policies, get a pool of young professionals who would live in such infill and pay the higher costs, and perhaps there will be momentum to get streetcar lines in there. I'm not all about giving out incentives to build infill or TODs if there is no natural demand in the first place or fundamentals in place. That's just throwing money down the drain. Demand comes from jobs and demographics.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 01, 2012, 07:27:49 PM
Lol, I still say we continue to multitask. Push for the sunsetting of the mobility fee moratorium because you could have a local funding mechanism generating cash for mass transit, bike, and ped improvements before the year is up. It makes everything else more viable, imo. In the meantime, there's no reason not to lobby for a new JTA head who values transit as a higher priority than road building, or plan for complementing things such as bike sharing, etc.
All of that is absolutely a must, but still the fundamental issue of jobs and job growth and attracting the right population to afford and prefer the city life is probably priority numero uno if one had to prioritize.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 08:11:22 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 01, 2012, 07:27:49 PM
Lol, I still say we continue to multitask. Push for the sunsetting of the mobility fee moratorium because you could have a local funding mechanism generating cash for mass transit, bike, and ped improvements before the year is up. It makes everything else more viable, imo. In the meantime, there's no reason not to lobby for a new JTA head who values transit as a higher priority than road building, or plan for complementing things such as bike sharing, etc.
All of that is absolutely a must, but still the fundamental issue of jobs and job growth and attracting the right population to afford and prefer the city life is probably priority numero uno if one had to prioritize.
Transit and Urban settings attract the demographic you say we need. QOl=Horse Attracting new businesses and Urban people=Cart
Job preservation and job growth are extremely important. I consider having a reliable transit system is a central component of any plan to create a community with a quality of life where companies and their employees want to relocate. I believe that the cities willing to invest in themselves will be the ones to set themselves a part from those that don't, when it comes to job creation. Mobility projects such as Atlanta's Beltline should not be overlooked or under estimated, imo. Something so simple, creates a condition where livability and economic development in communities such as Atlanta's West End becomes more viable. I believe a viable multimodal mass transit system strengthening neighborhood connectivity for Jacksonville will provide similar results.
Quote from: simms3 on April 01, 2012, 08:04:53 PM
Thanks. Personally I'm still not convinced, but I will agree that land use policies in Jacksonville are abominable, probably one of the biggest situations holding the city back. I believe if there is a demand and a will for people to live intown, developers will capitalize on that and build, regardless of the kind of transit in place.
However, there is a huge difference between developers capitalizing verses development happening in a manner that promotes the vision of the community. What I'm endorsing is that the community has specified how it wants to grow. Now policies and transportation investments need to be made to allow for that vision to eventually come reality. As of right now, city policy makes it truly unfeasible for pedestrian scale development to take place in Jacksonville at a larger level.
QuoteHaving transit never hurts, but right now there aren't enough workers in any local business districts to generate much ridership and the commuting patterns aren't centralized. There also isn't a general population enthusiastic about downtown life. Central City Philly suffered significantly even with central commuting patterns and some of the most extensive transit in the country. Companies and people returned when other issues were resolved and abatements were offered, but there were also fundamentals in place that Jax does not have yet.
It seems you may be confused about the types of fixed transit and their purpose. Quite frankly, the reason for a streetcar would have more to do with long term economic development and improved neighborhood connectivity at an affordable cost. In addition, there is a large collection of cities that have successfully implemented streetcar lines simply for the tourism aspect, which goes against many of the points you make here. Downtown life, city wide commuting patterns, etc. are secondary in a sense. If we were talking about a more extensive LRT or heavy rail system, then the points you make here would be more applicable. For some reason, it seems like you're grouping the characteristics of all forms of fixed transit into the same bag.
QuoteLots of private equity developers are looking at factors other than transit. They are looking at demographics, quality of jobs and job growth, barriers to entry, and the general development scene - how heated it is, pricing, etc.
I don't deny this. Perhaps more important than private equity developers are the individual residents who may be willing to invest in smaller scale projects due to the attraction of an urban lifestyle at an affordable price point. Another major factor could be urban core destinations on constrained properties that ccould benefit from reliable transit connectivity. For example, medical centers like Shands and St. Vincent's could benefit. In Orlando, the prescene of Sunrail is allowing Florida Hospital to expand by hundreds of thousands of square feet without providing a significant number of additional parking stalls.
QuoteAlso, I wish there were a way to develop the other side of Bay St because I would love to see the Shipyards become a huge grand riverfront park. Unfortunately the city put the jail there. While other cities put their jails, courthouses, and government buildings in undesirable areas, Jacksonville put everything on the most prime land in the city.
And by infill I mean almost anything. It could be the Churchwell lofts replicated time and time again all over the core. It could be stick construction that addresses the street. High-rises obviously. 1534 Oak is a great example of infill, but in Jax right now it is the only incident of infill. I'd love to see dozens of 1534 Oak developments going up in Riverside and Springfield and San Marco, but not only is there no demand, there are policies in place that would essentially prevent such development. Change policies, get a pool of young professionals who would live in such infill and pay the higher costs, and perhaps there will be momentum to get streetcar lines in there. I'm not all about giving out incentives to build infill or TODs if there is no natural demand in the first place or fundamentals in place. That's just throwing money down the drain. Demand comes from jobs and demographics.
It appears that Brooklyn should be seeing some form of infill later this year. However, I truly believe the sunsetting of the mobility fee could enhance the potential of infill because developers get incentives for developing infill projects. Such mobility plan credit adjustments could easily add up into the millions saved or in additional profits for developers.
Jacksonville would be much more attractive for young professionals if we did more to exploit our outdoor recreation opportunities, e.g. urban kayaking and surfing.
The Southern Off Road Bicycle Association (SORBA) is also doing good work. It's pretty flat around here, so anything we do to promote bicycling would also help us to attract young professionals.
^Yes, we're sitting on some natural crown jewels in the form of Hogans and McCoys Creeks in downtown.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Hogans-Creek-September-2010/P1410024/1011601968_Vduxy-M.jpg)
Hogans Creek