Metro Jacksonville

LOL, I guess that moratorium stuff isn't spurring the type of growth that was dreamed upon last year.  Go figure.....

QuoteSt. Johns County has become the go-to place for new homes, surpassing Duval County at a fast clip.
Homebuilders pulled more permits in St. Johns for the first time in 2011. In the first four months of 2012, the gap widened with St. Johns racking up 566 permits while Duval had 345.

“It’s a vote of confidence for St. Johns County,” County Commissioner Cyndi Stevenson said of the figures.
Jacksonville officials have tried to counteract the growth of bedroom communities in neighboring counties. Blueprint for Prosperity, an economic development plan created in 2006 by the city, warned Jacksonville faces a diminished standard of living if lots of high-income workers keep choosing to live outside the city limits.

But St. Johns County kept gaining a bigger share of new home starts and in 2011 tallied 1,356 permits compared to 1,091 for Duval.

Jacksonville City Council President Stephen Joost said he wants to see whether the change is “a trend or a blip.” He said he would be concerned if there is a long-term shift of families choosing St. Johns. He said the city needs to invest in the urban core so professionals will live there.

“That’s why we want to develop downtown so much,” he said. “We need infill because we are running out of developable space.”

full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-05-23/story/st-johns-county-overtakes-duval-new-home-starts

I hope we can start getting some council members to admit this was as bad an idea as we told them it was and pronounce they will let the moratorium sunset.

If a private entity failed as badly as our recent government has at spurring development, they would be run out of town on a rail. 

The moratorium of the mobility plan is only exceeded in stupidity by the recent propositions for riverside.

Of course it's a failure. That's what moratoriums cause are failures. Yet, Jacksonville loves the word and loves to enact them on whatever they can.

I don't think the moratorium had any real impact on the continuation of this years-long trend.  In the 60's Jax was on the road to becoming a Southern version of Detroit, with the most prosperous growth moving outside of the city. 

Consolidation postponed that day of reckoning but now it is in full force again.

Are the schools in the more prosperous areas of Duval really that much worse than SJC, or is it a matter of perception/lumping together?

From the same article:

  Jacksonville City Council President Stephen Joost said he wants to see whether the change is "a trend or a blip." He said he would be concerned if there is a long-term shift of families choosing St. Johns. He said the city needs to invest in the urban core so professionals will live there. "That's why we want to develop downtown so much," he said. "We need infill because we are running out of developable space." 

&

  While St. Johns gains favor with homebuyers, Jacksonville's residential market has spawned a spate of new apartment construction. In the past six months, the city has issued building permits for 842 new apartment units, versus 427 single-family homes over that same time.

Moore said construction of new apartments is partly from pent-up demand because developers couldn't previously get bank financing.

But the apartment communities also cater to single adults and married couples without children who want to live closer to work and entertainment attractions.

Northeast Florida Regional Council President Brian Teeple said younger professionals who haven't started families are looking for urban lifestyles. He said those professionals can draw relatively high salaries, offsetting the dire scenario set forth in the Blueprint for Prosperity report. "Downtown is strategy number one as far as I'm concerned," he said of appealing to those residents.   

Thanks for posting Lake.  Yeah I read that and laughed and thought the same thing. 

"But just think how much WORSE it would have been without the moratorium", says some councilman ducking for cover.

SJC has higher fees but better services. It's obvious we tried to compete on the wrong side of that equation.

Quote from: vicupstate on May 24, 2012, 05:44:38 AM
Are the schools in the more prosperous areas of Duval really that much worse than SJC, or is it a matter of perception/lumping together?

Schools in the demographically similar areas of Duval are on par with the schools in northern St. Johns. Additionally, the best schools of all levels in Duval compare favorably to the best in SJC, and anywhere in the state. But our bottom and the overall average are a lot lower.

St. Augustine's Wards Creek Elementary School serves grades PK-5 in the St. Johns County School District. My grandson is enrolled as a full time student in their pre-K program. It is among the few public schools in Florida to receive a distinguished Great Schools Rating of 10 out of 10.

Maybe this helps to explain why they are currently building over 100 homes with a mile of my house, and many times that number if you move up the road to the rest of WGV, Rivertown, Julington Creek, etc. I'm in St. John's and from what I'm seeing the boom is on... again!

OCKLAWAHA

^So when did you guys decide to suspend your impact fees in order to stimulate your economy, Ocklawaha?

OK so let me get this straight. Lowering the tax on development did not spur any growth. So raising the tax on developers, land owners, business owners and customers will? 

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
OK so let me get this straight. Lowering the tax on development did not spur any growth. So raising the tax on developers, land owners, business owners and customers will?

It's not that hard really, it's all demand driven.  As Ock posted above, if parents think that moving somewhere with a 10/10 school for thier child is worth the extra 10k - 15k home price, then they'll pay it. 

Impact fees don't 'cost' the developers anything if their products are in 'demand'.

^Bill, being responsible for your negative impact to public infrastructure isn't a tax.  However, pocketing the cash from your private project and dumping it's negative financial impact on the public is exactly how taxes get raised.

The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

^It will also help to pay for infrastructure improvements to make us more competitive with our neighbors. It is abundantly clear that just being somewhat cheaper isn't working.

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 12:11:13 PM
The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

It already gets passed on to us.  But in a way that is much more straining and unfair (to other developers and citizens) than the mobility plan proposes. 

The mobility plan also has another aspect to it.  Not everything has to be built in new development.  There's inventory and infill development that won't require such a high fee.

QuoteSo raising the tax on developers, land owners, business owners and customers will? 

First off, no taxes were raised.  The Mobility Fee is setup in a way that gives a financial incentive to minimize the impact of a developments surrounding.  The real estate industry got behind it, helped craft it and agreed to it... and City Council passed it unanimously.  What's really interesting is when you hear someone say that the fee is making their project financially unfeasible.  Nevermind the fact that Mobility is INFINATELY cheaper than the old concurrency fee.  If 2-4% of your project cost is holding up your development... you weren't financially capable of doing it in the first place.

The notion that this is a tax being forced on someone is ludricrous. 

I'm by nature, very wary of taxes.  I'm a fiscal conservative in this regard.  What I am very interested is fair taxation.  The people that use the service, are the ones that should be taxed accordingly.  It's a fair and equitable user fee, simple as that. 

Think of this way, you pay a gas tax everytime you fill up at the pump.  This tax pays for the roads YOU use.  Now what if you took away that gas tax and instead your property tax now covered the very same thing the gas tax payed for.  How is it fair that someone that doesn't have a car... or perhaps a family of three with only one car... now carries the burden for building roads for someone that has a family of four and four cars, and all of them commute to work and school 20 miles each? 

It's the same thing as the Mobility Fee.  Someone in Mandarin shouldn't have to pay for transportation improvements caused by a new Wal Mart being built on New Berlin Rd in the Northside, anymore than someone off Kernan paying for a bike lane being installed in San Marco.

And the whole notion that the Mobility Fee moratorium was going to spur growth is also nonsense.  Market demand, cheap land(in many cases previously platted land that was foreclosed on) and more free flowing credit all caused the new commecial and multifamily starts in town... many of which were in the pipeline far before the moratorium was put into place.  Believe me you don't find land that meet certain site characteristics, acquire it, acquire tenants, get your financials in order then build it in a span of two months. 

How do you prove that point?  Look at all the multi-family developments going on line now that were already covered under existing redevelopment agreements that weren't subject to the Mobility Fee in the first place.  How are these projects getting built when their concurrency fees aren't being waived?  Kind of counterintuitive logic, isnt' it?

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 12:11:13 PM
The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

Your mind is already tainted.  Why does a developer or anyone have to be evil?  Nevertheless, I think we both can at least agree that public infrastructure comes with a cost, both to construct and maintain, and money doesn't grow on trees. 

Whatever you want to call it to float your boat is a semantic debate at best but the reality is its a fairer method (over the concurrency system it replaced) to cover the ill impacts of growth on public infrastructure while also enhancing our quality of life.  This city is full of arguments about what we can't do but short on solutions that actually enhance our viability and quality of life.  The award winning mobility plan and fee is an attempt to do just that.

Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2012, 12:33:46 PM

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 12:11:13 PM
The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

even for you, this is a dumb post.

Do not understand it or do not like the facts?

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 12:11:13 PM
The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

OK, let's just call it a tax.  At least this TAX is being directly paid by people looking to move into these developments, new commercial spaces, etc..  Without the TAX being imposed everyone is sharing the cost of improving the infrastructure. 

I don't know why this is so hard.  Say you're a single homeowner and you build a single family home, on your property that is setback 1.5 miles from the nearest county road.  Who pays JEA to run power and water to your residence?  You do.  Who pays to pave your 1.5 mile long driveway?  You do.  Who pays to have Comcast pull an extra 1.5 miles of fiber?  You do. 

While Bill and his friends are focusing their efforts on reducing all financial participation in the betterment of our city, I just sat through an incredible ULI conference this morning on infrastructure, and the value it creates in our community.

The room was full of developers, contractors, designers and government officials all nodding their heads as the speakers presented the reasons why we should invest in transit infrastructure.  I came away very encouraged by the responses I heard from people after the conference.  Make no mistake, the message is getting out that we need to change our economic model in Jacksonville.  It may not be fast enough for some, but I assure you it is happening.  Some will resist it with all their might and get left behind in the new opportunities that are being created.  Others will see the future on the horizon and be a part of the success.

The other treat of the morning was the chance to speak with simms3's father.  He is very proud of you! (as he should be)

Quote from: dougskiles on May 24, 2012, 01:12:03 PM
While Bill and his friends are focusing their efforts on reducing all financial participation in the betterment of our city, I just sat through an incredible ULI conference this morning on infrastructure, and the value it creates in our community.

The room was full of developers, contractors, designers and government officials all nodding their heads as the speakers presented the reasons why we should invest in transit infrastructure.  I came away very encouraged by the responses I heard from people after the conference.  Make no mistake, the message is getting out that we need to change our economic model in Jacksonville.  It may not be fast enough for some, but I assure you it is happening.  Some will resist it with all their might and get left behind in the new opportunities that are being created.  Others will see the future on the horizon and be a part of the success.

The other treat of the morning was the chance to speak with simms3's father.  He is very proud of you! (as he should be)

Great to hear this!

QuoteThe room was full of developers, contractors, designers and government officials all nodding their heads as the speakers presented the reasons why we should invest in transit infrastructure. 

I have seen this head nodding before.  Hopefully it is followed by more action this time.

Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2012, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 12:39:28 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2012, 12:33:46 PM

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 12:11:13 PM
The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

even for you, this is a dumb post.

Do not understand it or do not like the facts?

Hmm.  Since the original post was literally fact free, this newer post outdoes the dumbness of the previous one.

Actually, this isn't a dumb post.  It's just not completely accurate when you get down to the details.  The customer will pay what the market demands for said product.  By the same token, if you develop something, you're going to sell/lease at the market rate.  You're not going to give anyone a discount on the market because you didn't have to pay a minuscule impact fee.  Instead, you're pocketing that little cash and charging the market rate anyway. 

An impact fee, such as the mobility fee, isn't going to greatly impact a feasible project and what the bank will lend one way or another.  The fee itself is even less significant when the individual paying it decides to design their project in a manner that triggers built in credit adjustments within the system that reward them for reducing their auto trips.  This can be triggered by locating in areas where there is already significant development and infrastructure (infill), introducing a mix of uses, site design that encourages walking and cycling, etc.

As proven by St. Johns County and history itself, a moratorium on an impact fee does not change the condition of the overall market.  However, creating an environment that people want to be in and invest in does and that's one of the basic reasons for tying transportation, land use and concurrency policies together.

So either stupid or ignorant, not sure which.

Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2012, 04:54:24 PM

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 04:39:50 PM
So either stupid or ignorant, not sure which.

actually I think 'dumb' is pretty accurate.  You don't seem actually stupid, and ignorance is something all of us have in equal measure.

In fact, Ill stick pat with 'dumb'.

I think stupid. I presupposed some elementary knowledge of economics which is clearly absent. I am tired of trying to teach you. lost cause

Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2012, 05:09:22 PM

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 04:58:14 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2012, 04:54:24 PM

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 04:39:50 PM
So either stupid or ignorant, not sure which.

actually I think 'dumb' is pretty accurate.  You don't seem actually stupid, and ignorance is something all of us have in equal measure.

In fact, Ill stick pat with 'dumb'.

I think stupid. I presupposed some elementary knowledge of economics which is clearly absent. I am tired of trying to teach you. lost cause

you presupposed that others would agree with your suppositions based on a chicago school of economics theory, my friend.  And poor old milton has been thoroughly discredited over the past four years don't you think?

Agreement would mean that it was an opinion. It was not. These facts are not based on Keynes, Milton or anyone else. It is from the actual dirt on up. But hey do not let that stop you from espousing stupid opinions. It really is the only thing you do.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 24, 2012, 11:45:58 AM
^So when did you guys decide to suspend your impact fees in order to stimulate your economy, Ocklawaha?

Actually, we decided to ADD TO THEM!

Sorry for the late reply Lake, our TV, internet and phones were down all afternoon.

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
OK so let me get this straight. Lowering the tax on development did not spur any growth. So raising the tax on developers, land owners, business owners and customers will?

Actually Bill, YES IT DOES, our amenities and amenity centers are a Disneyland for grownups and young families alike.

"THE (Name of District) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAY IMPOSE AND LEVY TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS, OR BOTH TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, ON THIS PROPERTY. THESE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS PAY THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF THE DISTRICT AND ARE SET ANNUALLY BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE DISTRICT. THESE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS ARE IN ADDITION TO COUNTY AND OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND ALL OTHER TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW."


Basically this CDD, is a bond issued for development to expand infrastructure, streets, police, fire, rescue, schools, roads, etc. Some of the developers have paid down the bond (Toll Brothers in Nocatee for example) to keep the sales brisk in this economy. The homeowners pay the interest on the bond and its added as a part of our monthly mortgage bill, right along with any other taxes and fees. In our district the CDD runs about $200 extra per month. Over the life of the CDD at $8 dollars per thousand, a home in the CDD will cost you about 25K more. Is it worth it? If your going to have suburban sprawl, paying it forward is quite agreeable to myself and my neighbors.


OCKLAWAHA
Fat and happy in St. John's

why do those golf courses have to be so expensive.

Quote from: fsquid on May 25, 2012, 12:11:31 AM
why do those golf courses have to be so expensive.

Have you ever bought sod for a lawn? How about maintained one? Imagine all of that expense coupled with a clubhouse, golf carts, employees, etc. are all carried on the backs of either the homeowners, or in the green fees. No matter how you cut it, it ain't cheap.

that's why I like my $40 golf!

As everyone has stated the new development is in SJC for fundamental reasons, nothing to do with taxes or fees or lack thereof.  For all the northerners moving to SJC, fees could double essentially tacking a potential 5-10% premium on housing prices and they would still be saving a boatload due to the insanely low housing costs and low property taxes/no state income.

In addition, public schools are the big draw.  A) Good private schools in Duval are an additional $10-$20K per student per year.  In larger/northern cities these same quality schools would run $20K-$40K per student per year (so essentially the private schools in Duval are a relative bargain for the few who are willing to afford it).  SJC is one of the few counties in FL where many of the public high schools can actually stand toe to toe with your "average" northern public school, and most families are willing to go that route.

Again, if we were attracting more single young professionals, Duval County would see more growth as no single working 30 year old would want to move to SJC to some "community" (granted there are actually a lot of young people in PVB).

Families move to NE FL.  They specifically move to SJC for various fundamental reasons.  Developers follow the growth.  I wish more developers/the city tried to influence the growth and precede it/direct it responsibly.

QuoteAgain, if we were attracting more single young professionals, Duval County would see more growth as no single working 30 year old would want to move to SJC to some "community" (granted there are actually a lot of young people in PVB).

Families move to NE FL.  They specifically move to SJC for various fundamental reasons.  Developers follow the growth.  I wish more developers/the city tried to influence the growth and precede it/direct it responsibly.

Completely agree.  The public school issue is a big one.  Young families moving to NE FL will move to SJC because they can send there kid to an "A" rated school for free.  Like you said, they would have to shell out thousands each year to send there kid to private school in Duval County. Not worth it to them when there is ample, relatively cheap housing with great schools a short drive down I-95.  The problem is the rest of the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the needed infrastructure improvements to accommodate this "growth".

The Duval County school system is a problem that needs to be addressed very soon.

I wonder how many multi-family residences are being constructed in St Johns County? They seem to be popping up all over Duval. I have to say it is great to Joost talking about infilling the urban core and Downtown.

^Northwest St. Johns and Ponte Vedra have become your classic upscale bedroom communities: plentiful newly-constructed single-family homes for family living, low crime rates, high performing schools - and near-total homogeneity. This is a huge part of their success and their draw - in Julington Creek elective suburbanites can live near people who share their interests and concerns (for instance in their childrens' success at school).

A diverse county like Duval will never compare to a homogenous suburb, however we can see how much of St. Johns' success in its stronger areas has come from their willingness to invest in themselves. That's a principle any community can apply.

Good points.  I always have to remind myself that it isn't an "us' against "them" situation with St Johns County.  They offer a lifestyle that frankly, Duval is going to have a hard time competing with.  However, we can offer a lifestyle that they can't provide, either.  Diverse cultural activities, historic neighborhoods and walkable mixed use neighborhoods to name a few.  Some might argue that theirs are walkable just because they have pedestrian trails and are safe to walk in - however, I don't know of many that have commercial areas within walking distance.  Make no mistake that living in those parts is completely dependent on an automobile.

Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2012, 05:32:29 PM

Quote from: bill on May 24, 2012, 12:11:13 PM
The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

Which Evil Developer.

Is there an actual developer or is this developer in the abstract?

What proofs do you have that the developer is 'evil'?

Which "Tax"?

Which Landowner?  Which Developer?  Is the developer separate from the 'landowner'?  Which customer?

How will it be 'passed on'?  How will you guarantee that it will be passed on?  How does an extra tax determine what the market is willing to pay for a property?  Will this real or imaginary developer actually, provably charge less in the absence of the tax, even though the market is willing to pay more?  If so, is the entire theory of supply and demand wrong then?

Who exactly is calling the above mentioned 'tax' something besides a tax?  Is there really no difference between a tax, a fee, a fine or any other revenue? 

Who exactly are you claiming 'usually' tries puts a tax on one group but it lands on another?

Please prove that this person or group 'usually' does this.

If you cannot answer and prove any of these questions in a concrete way, then they obviously are not facts.  They are opinions.

And you literally cannot tell the difference between the two.

Stick to theories and your "big ideas". Reason and reality are not your strong suit.

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2012, 12:53:11 PM
Some might argue that theirs are walkable just because they have pedestrian trails and are safe to walk in - however, I don't know of many that have commercial areas within walking distance.  Make no mistake that living in those parts is completely dependent on an automobile.

ftp://ftp.bocc.co.st-johns.fl.us/gis/media/MapMart/GBT_MasterPlan.pdf

This is quite true of the current situation in Rivertown, however their plans call for a 'trunk line' bike and canoe trail running north south from their to Julington Creek Plantation. They are currently moving so much dirt over there it's hard to figure out what it's going to look like, I do know that a nice chunk of the trail is complete within the community already across the pond (east) from the new amenity center. Rivertown's major drawback, at least until they develop retail, and office space is that there is NOTHING for miles in any direction.

WGV is quite different, we have a small but growing, diverse set of retail, hotel, recreation and office spaces. While we are connected to The Shops at Murabella and WGV village by a nice system of paved (and well used) sidewalks, so far the bike trails haven't really materialized. This leaves the square mile of home in Heritage Landing cut off from the shopping areas. A new widened segment of SR16 has the typical Florida bicycle suicide lanes without any physical separation from road traffic. This is a model BTW that I DO NOT SUPPORT. The new segment of 16 does have excellent sidewalks on both sides. When it is finally stretched to 13, then Heritage Landing's siege will be lifted. Until then our 100's of walkers and joggers go back and forth to the end of the sidewalk near CR13 and SR16.

Nocatee is a different story:

QuoteThe Nocatee Greenway consists of more than 5,000 acres of connecting parks, protected wildlife corridors, and wetlands preserves. The Greenway Trails have been planned for everyone to enjoy the beauty of this preserved land. You'll find jogging and biking trails along paved roadways. There are unpaved nature trails meandering through woods and parks for the more adventuresome. Electric cart paths will connect all of the neighborhood villages with the Town Center. The first three (3) miles of the Nocatee Greenway Trails were completed in February of 2010. These trails connect Riverwood, Coastal Oaks, Tidewater and Willowcove to the Splash Water Park, the Nocatee Community Park, and the Town Center.

Palencia is rather vague:

QuoteThe Nature of Things: Looking to commune with nature? There are extensive walking trails, including a boardwalk across the marsh, and plenty of pocket parks that lend natural character via trees, shrubs and plants.

They do have a nice network of bike trails and one can get from most of the neighborhood to the Town Center or to the suburban shopping centers along US 1 via a good system of trails, but like WGV, currently there are still holes in the system and the finished product is a question.

WGV, PALENCIA, NOCATEE, and JULINGTON CREEK, all have Town Centers and at least some sort of access via a trail system. Rivertown is a project UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I'll keep y'all posted...

Oh and for what it's worth, the comment about not supporting bike lanes might beg a bit of explanation. I've always wondered why the worlds other transportation geeks haven't sat down and done the math. Here is how I see it. 1 bicycle + one 40 mph pickup truck = 1 dead bicyclist. 1 bicycle + 3 pedestrians = 4 bumped and bruised SURVIVORS. Seems to me that ANY idea of keeping bikes off of grade separated sidewalks in rural or suburban settings is a recipe for disaster. All bike trails (and yes they should be away from pedestrians IF POSSIBLE) should be separate from automobile traffic. 

'

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 25, 2012, 09:19:15 PM
Oh and for what it's worth, the comment about not supporting bike lanes might beg a bit of explanation. I've always wondered why the worlds other transportation geeks haven't sat down and done the math. Here is how I see it. 1 bicycle + one 40 mph pickup truck = 1 dead bicyclist. 1 bicycle + 3 pedestrians = 4 bumped and bruised SURVIVORS. Seems to me that ANY idea of keeping bikes off of grade separated sidewalks in rural or suburban settings is a recipe for disaster. All bike trails (and yes they should be away from pedestrians IF POSSIBLE) should be separate from automobile traffic. 

So why not widen sidewalks to accomodate cyclists and add the bike lane markings? 

Or for the more adventurous, add a seperate designated 'high speed cyclists only path' that's only 3' wide, has sweeping curves and a 6" drop-off on either side. 

Can someone tell me why "majority" of the cyclists DON'T obey the road laws and rules? I thought in the state of Florida, a bicycle is considered as legal as a motorized vehicle, and the bicycle rider must obey the same as the motorized drivers.

Even, if we build bike lanes, then when a red light turns red and the non-bike vehicles all stop, would a cyclist just zoom on past the intersection in the bike lane?

-facepalm-

-Josh

It's certainly not a "majority".

At any rate cyclists need to follow the rules of the road. At the same time, the rules and the road need to be designed to take into account this type of transportation. The failure to do so is the primary reason for the trouble.

Quote from: Tacachale on May 29, 2012, 03:30:33 PM
It's certainly not a "majority".

At any rate cyclists need to follow the rules of the road. At the same time, the rules and the road need to be designed to take into account this type of transportation. The failure to do so is the primary reason for the trouble.

From my perspective and experience, roughly 80% of the cyclists I have witnessed while walking on the side of the road or sidewalk or riding in the car, I have seen the cyclists breaking the road laws.

Now, I do agree with you that the road system and its rules needs to incorporate the cyclists and their bicycles respectively, and ALSO the walking people.

The REAL victims out of all of this mess is the pedestrians. Cyclists and motorists have the mentality of "ruling" the roads including not respecting the pedestrian's right of the way, or simply an act of ignorance by zoom by or aggressively pose a danger to the pedestrians even the pedestrians were abiding by the law via crosswalk or similar scenarios.

Again, this is my own personal opinion and feedback from my own personal experience. I am legally blind, so I had to play the role of a pedestrian. Please don't feel bad for me. -rolls eyes around-

-Josh

Quote from: wsansewjs on May 29, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
Can someone tell me why "majority" of the cyclists DON'T obey the road laws and rules? I thought in the state of Florida, a bicycle is considered as legal as a motorized vehicle, and the bicycle rider must obey the same as the motorized drivers.

Even, if we build bike lanes, then when a red light turns red and the non-bike vehicles all stop, would a cyclist just zoom on past the intersection in the bike lane?

-facepalm-

-Josh

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/why-theres-no-war-between-drivers-and-cyclists-netherlands/1955/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/why-theres-no-war-between-drivers-and-cyclists-netherlands/1955/)

Quote from: JFman00 on May 29, 2012, 04:03:07 PM

Quote from: wsansewjs on May 29, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
Can someone tell me why "majority" of the cyclists DON'T obey the road laws and rules? I thought in the state of Florida, a bicycle is considered as legal as a motorized vehicle, and the bicycle rider must obey the same as the motorized drivers.

Even, if we build bike lanes, then when a red light turns red and the non-bike vehicles all stop, would a cyclist just zoom on past the intersection in the bike lane?

-facepalm-

-Josh

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/why-theres-no-war-between-drivers-and-cyclists-netherlands/1955/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/why-theres-no-war-between-drivers-and-cyclists-netherlands/1955/)

Great article on that topic, however, it is not just quite relevant to what's going on HERE in the local scene especially Jacksonville. We are in the middle or near the point where we could use the opportunity, money, and resources to set the roads development, the RIGHT way. That's why there are topics and relevant that revolves around them that are causing hot buttons to slam.

Again, the article should be taken into consideration for our current plannings.

-Josh