Jacksonville: One of America's Least Walkable Cities
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2913256367_KKWCt3s-M.jpg)
The good news is Jacksonville is a more walkable friendly city than Charlotte. The bad news is that isn't saying much. Here is a look at Walk Score's 2014 ranking of America's most walkable cities.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-nov-jacksonville-one-of-americas-least-walkable-cities
Honestly, I don't understand how Miami and Tampa rank as highly as they do. For Miami's higher density I find it to be every bit as auto-dependent and unwalkable as Atlanta, Houston (which encompasses 500 sq mi in this case), and Dallas (see Houston sq mi). Tampa has never struck me as a walkable place pretty much anywhere. In fact, give me a Midtown Atlanta any day with 2 Publix stores and landscaped sidewalks and a bit of retail and more restaurants/bars than Brickell area in Miami, with its awkward gated condos, the lone Publix, part-time residents, one price fits all restaurants, and limited one size fits all bar scene.
I do understand how cities such as Charlotte and Atlanta rank lower than might be expected (and Atlanta actually used to rank higher if my memory serves me correctly). Clearly a good chunk of people live in high density mixed-use neighborhoods or urban environments that far far exceed anything presented in Jacksonville, Tampa, or many cities that rank more highly on the list. However, due to the topography, the era in which each city was built out, the lack of a street grid in 90+% of each city limit/metro, and the overall dichotomy between the urban areas and the suburban areas (even within city limits) it's clear that most people in each metro/city do no live within walking distance of commodity retail, or anything for that matter.
The difference in urban structure/transit options/infrastructure/block size between much of suburban Jax and urban Jax is surprisingly low. You go to an Atlanta or Charlotte and you'll find a relatively dense, walkable core with 10-20,000 ppsm over a larger than average area for equivalent sunbelt cities, and then an immediate drop off to garden suburbs and a further drop off to 2-lane arterials that wind around, making planning/mixed-use/walkability all but impossible in most of each respective metro. I remember a study in college showing average metro block size, and Atlanta was by far the largest in the country. But that includes a street grid with 15-22,000 ppsm in the central core, so the dichotomy between central Atlanta and the rest of the city/metro couldn't possibly be greater.
Of course it appears the score is for City Limits (there again, Buckhead with its 2-5 acre lots is in city limits).
Jax with its relatively large grid and uniform population disribution has a fighting chance to be a widescale walkable city like a Minneapolis. Just needs better planning and leadership.
Miami is pretty easy to figure out. First, walkscore goes by city limits, so cities of small land area are going to fare significantly better than those that have annexed land since 1950.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Studies/2014-Walkscore/i-JSxpXhb/0/XL/Walkscore%20comparison-XL.jpg)
Also, it's only 36 square miles with an average population density of +11,000. Despite working with nearly 100 less square miles of land, it almost has as many residents as Atlanta does.
Chicago - 2,714,856 - 227.64 square miles - 11,842 residents/sq mile
Houston - 2,160,821 - 599.59 square miles - 3,501 residents/sq mile
Jacksonville - 836,507 - 747.00 square miles - 1,100 residents/sq mile
San Francisco - 825,863 - 46.87 square miles - 17,179 residents/sq mile
Atlanta - 443,775 - 133.15 square miles - 3,154 residents/sq mile
Miami - 413,892 - 35.87 square miles - 11,136 residents/sq mile
full 2012 list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Miami-Dade_County_Florida_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Miami_Highlighted.svg/250px-Miami-Dade_County_Florida_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Miami_Highlighted.svg.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Miami_neighborhoodsmap.png/620px-Miami_neighborhoodsmap.png)
Miami is an example of a primarily low rise city where the majority of residential blocks are occupied. Nearly every neighborhood in the city is walkable in the sense that they contain a mix of uses within a compact gridded block setting. Most don't realize it but many neighborhoods that some here would be afraid to visit and that aren't popular with millennials and tourist are considered more or just as walkable as some of the well known districts.
Little Havana Walkscore - 86
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Studies/2014-Walkscore/i-n8bsvXh/0/M/Miami%20-%20Little%20Havana%201-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Studies/2014-Walkscore/i-kwzvNXc/0/M/Miami%20-%20Little%20Havana%202-M.jpg)
Wynwood/Edgewater Walkscore - 85
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Studies/2014-Walkscore/i-gRsCg4N/0/M/Miami%20-%20Edgewater%201-M.jpg)
Brickell Walkscore - 84
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Studies/2014-Walkscore/i-ncPZ6PK/0/M/Miami%20-%20Brickell%202-M.jpg)
Different city, but by comparison, Miami Beach's South Beach has a Walkscore of 87. Jacksonville's most walkable district is downtown, with a Walkscore of 73.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Studies/2014-Walkscore/i-FPMwC7f/0/M/Miami%20-%20Little%20Havana-M.jpg)
Aerial of Little Havana. Typical of Miami's built environment outside of downtown and Brickell.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Studies/2014-Walkscore/i-2tcnWVB/0/M/Miami%20-%20Brickell-M.jpg)
Aerial of Brickell. Little Havana is considered more walkable.
Although the public realm (streets) is autocentric (this is even changing now) neither Atlanta, Houston or Dallas can claim the level of population density within their city limits and urban core. Outside of a few decent districts, like Jax, the majority of those places are pretty sprawly or much lower in population density. I'm actually pretty excited to see how much Miami will change over the next decade. The density is there. The public realm just needs to be addressed.
Fascinating.
Certainly "Jacksonville" person/square mile computation,@ 747 square miles,and much of that undeveloped, alters Jacksonville profile.
How might we rank when Jacksonville assessment draws on developed areas,established neighborhoods?
( I will likely never again walk my native Miami neighborhood due to safety concerns,I wonder if the walk option is preempted in many areas around the nation .....on another note,I recall Miami neighborhoods where many residents did not have personal automobiles, primarily due to financial and perhaps cultural reasons,indeed a reflection of Cuba;these neighborhoods had bona-fide 'to scale' grocery stores,handily sprinkled throughout)
Yes, Jacksonville's Walk Score rating is negatively impacted by consolidation:
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6961-1937.jpg)
^City of Jacksonville prior to 1968 consolidation with Duval County. Before consolidation, the City of Jacksonville was 30.2 square miles.
With a 1950 population of 204,517, Jacksonville had a population density of 6,772.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1234384968_5rEgt-M.jpg)
Jacksonville's 2010 census tracts align fairly close with the old city's boundaries. Unfortunately, unlike Miami, our urban core's decline since 1950 has mirrored that of Rust Belt cities like Detroit, Toledo and Cleveland. Using the census data from the tracts that made up the old city, we can identify the population and density loss of the old city of Jacksonville.
1950 Old City Population Density: 204,517 / 30.2 square miles = 6,772
2010 Old City Census Tract Density: 104,047 / 30.2 square miles = 3,445
Net Urban Core Density Loss (1950 - 2010): - 3,327 residents per mile
Net Urban Core Population Loss (1950 - 2010): -100,470 residents
Nevertheless, when it comes to Walk Score, we'd be looking at a 30.2 square mile city with a population density of 3,445. Cities close to this size today include:
Flint, MI: 100,515 / 33.4 square miles = 3,065 residents per mile
Everett, WA: 104,655 / 33.5 square miles = 3,080 residents per mile
Richmond, CA: 106,516 / 30.1 square miles = 3,449 residents per mile
Clearwater, FL: 108,732 / 25.6 square miles = 4,213 residents per mile
Lansing, MI: 113,996 / 36.1 square miles = 3,171 residents per mile
Their Walkscore rankings are:
40 - Flint
45 - Everett
54 - Richmond
41 - Clearwater
40 - Lansing
If I had to make a guess, I'd say the present condition of preconsolidated Jacksonville would fall within the range of these cities. Somewhere in the 40s or 50s, placing it as a "car dependent (most errands require a car)" or a "Somewhat Walkable (Some errands can be accomplished on foot)" city.
Going a step further. If the 1950 population density remained, here's a couple of similar sized communities today:
Glendale, CA: 194,478 / 30.5 square miles = 6,295 residents per mile
BUffalo, NY: 259,384 / 40.4 square miles = 6,471 residents per mile
Pittsburgh, PA: 306,211 / 55.7 square miles = 5,521 residents per mile
Their Walkscore rankings are:
66 - Glendale, CA
65 - Buffalo, NY
60 - Pittsburgh, PA
All of these cities fall within the "Somewhat Walkable (Some errands can be accomplished on foot)" Walkscore category.
^This information suggests that a one-size fits all approach should not be applied to Jacksonville. In reality, we are a declining rust belt city surrounded by growing sunbelt suburbs, all within the same municipal boundary. Our challenge is now our "in-city" suburbs are aging and the new growth is crossing into different communities (St. Johns/Clay County). What we do about this will either make or break Jacksonville's future. However, since our rust belt city and sunbelt suburbs are totally different environments and needs, they must be addressed differently if we want a long term financially viable and attractive overall city.
I can't believe Chesapeake scored as high as 20.8. I'd give it a negative 12.
Lake, you and I are on same page. I get the thing about Miami (been all around the city). I guess you're right about the poorer areas being walkable (though combine heat and crime in NW Miami and it's not a "comfortable" walking area), but my point was that despite the density (which puts it on par with Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Seattle, Los Angeles) you very rarely see people walking around and my general experience has been that the city is built around the car. I personally don't find Brickell to be a walkable area at all for its built density, which again was another one of my points. My final point was that I get Atlanta and Charlotte - they are mostly low density even within city limits...I went on about that. The dropoff in density within the two cities between their urban districts and the rest of their city limits is probably more stark than any of the other major cities on the list (look at the pic of Atlanta you posted - green or red, no in between).
Miami Beach is a whole different story. Miami Beach should have a delta of way more than 3 from the Brickell neighborhood. If Miami Beach is 87, Brickell should be in the 60s, but that's my subjective ranking.
I guess if I had my subjective way, Miami would not rank higher than Chicago or DC or Seattle, and Jax wouldn't rank higher than Charlotte.
There's Transit Score now and Bike Score, so I suppose if you somehow integrate all three for a ranking of which cities are best for going car free, then Miami would drop significantly. Should be well below Los Angeles in my opinion.
Yeah, there is a huge difference between South Beach and Brickell in terms of walkability, despite both having high residential and mixed use density. I don't think Walkscore accounts for the actual streetscape when determining their rankings.
^That's something that I surely hope Walkscore finds a way to address, given its popularity and rise in image as this authority on what's walkable and what isn't. And not just street design, but other factors that would affect foot traffic, like crime, climate, topography, conditions of infrastructure, etc. As it is, I pretty much picture it as "Proximityscore." It shows an indicator of walkability, but not walkability in full.
"Nearly every neighborhood in the city (Miami) is walkable in the sense they contain a mix of uses within a compact gridded block setting"
Indeed this describes some of the neighborhoods I witnessed as a Miamian. Neighborhoods that accommodated a sizeable automobile-less population. Did the presence of auto-less citizens contribute to neighborhood evolution towards walkable by necessity?
I imagine the mix of uses would entail diverse individual components, to "scale".
(Even in the face of brisk development,Land Use/Zone activity in my Avondale neighborhood, it appears a walkable bonafide grocery store for example, not in the picture)
It would be nice to think that pre-consolidation Jax is as walkable as anyplace else. But I do not think that's true. The most walkable nondowntown neighborhood, Springfield, has a 68 Walkscore. By contrast, Columbus (which has a below-average citywide score of 40) has about 20 neighborhoods that do better.
^That's not an indictment on Jax's urban core. Walkscore's criteria penalizes cities that have annexed large parcels of low density areas since 1950. So Columbus suffers from the same thing as Jax, which is massive land area (223 square miles) from late 20th century annexations. In 1950, Columbus was only 39.4 square miles with 375,901 residents and a population density of 9,541. Obviously, it was a much larger city prior to WWII than Jax. Over time, it's density has been diluted for the exact same reason as most sunbelt sprawlers. In other words, if you applied walkscore's criteria to their old limits, their ranking would probably jump into the 60s or 70s.
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on November 19, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
^That's something that I surely hope Walkscore finds a way to address, given its popularity and rise in image as this authority on what's walkable and what isn't. And not just street design, but other factors that would affect foot traffic, like crime, climate, topography, conditions of infrastructure, etc. As it is, I pretty much picture it as "Proximityscore." It shows an indicator of walkability, but not walkability in full.
This is why I dont give too much thought into Walk Score. Not sure if they've changed, but I remember a few years ago I was fooling around with it & my old address in Lexington got a higher score than my old place in Charleston. My place in Lex was NOT walkable, like at all (not even a shoulder). The only reason it came up higher was it was close to Hamburg Pavilion (a chain shopping/restaurant destination). The place in Charleston was in the core. Not really around many businesses at the time, but still. Way WAY more walkable/bikeable.
::)
I like the term "Proximityscore". It's a lot more accurate. Live adjacent to a 150,000 square foot strip mall and you're likely to have a higher walkscore than staying within two blocks of San Marco Square. It doesn't matter if reaching that shopping center means playing frogger across an 8-lane highway (with no sidewalks) and dodging vehicles in a 50-acre surface parking lot.
Proximity to staple goods (i.e. grocery, services, I suppose restaurants, pharmacy, gym) is what gives an area a higher walkscore.
So yes, Avondale and San Marco with their pilates places and persian rug stores and consignment shops and books shops does not make the area "walkable" in the sense that residents can go car free because they still have to drive to the grocery, to the doctor, to the bank, etc etc. What is Riverside/5 Point's walkability score? I imagine that's highest for Jax?
I just tested: Inputting the Riverside Publix address = 89 Walkability. Makes sense.
1 Independent Dr in DT Jax got 92 (how? I have no clue)
The description:
Quote1 Independent Drive is a Walker's Paradise, which means daily errands do not require a car.
1980 San Marco Blvd (Starbucks) got a 75, and I can understand why it'd be less than Riverside/5 Points.
I just tested my apartment's address and nobody can beat me! ;)
100 Walkscore, 100 Transitscore, 82 Bikescore
Quotexxx Xxxxxxx Street is a Walker's Paradise, which means daily errands do not require a car.
This location is a Rider's Paradise with 94 nearby bus routes and 11 rail routes.
There are excellent bike lanes and the terrain is flat as a pancake. xxx Xxxxxxx Street is very bikeable, biking is convenient for most trips.
Lol. I just checked the walkscore of 9964 Old Baymeadows Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256. That's the Publix at Baymeadows and Southside. It's 86.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1317373220_rCPtw8H-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/Sharon-Bensing-Pedestrian/i-J9WHfKv/0/M/3-M.jpg)
Evidently, according to Walkscore this location is very walkable, which means most errands can be accomplished on foot. In reality, if you lived in one of the nearby apartment complexes, you could reach a number of things on foot. However, sidewalks may not be a part of your trip.
To rub it in more, I also tossed in the location of Pizza Palace in the heart of San Marco Square. It's walkscore ranking is 75.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/qoaziu.jpg)
Tuesday,December 10 7:30-11:00 a.m.
Omni Jacksonville Hotel
245 Water Street
Event Mgr 904 265 2236
Walkability in the Urban Planning Process
Featuring Guest Lecturer Jeff Speck
Author, Walkable City
It ought to be called "shit" because that's what it is. My experience, and Lake's example above, just proves that.
They need to include LOTS more data than just "stuff that's around" for any kind of accuracy determining a "walk score". Taking a ride with a simple Google Maps street view would give you a much better idea of walkability than that stupid site.
A pedestrian death heatmap might be more accurate.
Honestly, I think trying to collect and analyze all the data and factors needed to come up with a truly accurate "walk score" would take a prohibitive number of person-hours. I think the biggest thing overlooked is the actual human element, and it's really much simpler than looking at any secondary indicators. Every place that someone would be interested in the "walk score" of is full of residents. Survey them! Ask about their walking, their sense of safety. It doesn't matter what's nearby if the people aren't actually doing the walking. Now if that were what Walkscore.com did, was to conduct surveys of walking behavior, I would be much more interested in it.
^^But even that lends itself to many discrepancies. What someone deems "comfortably walkable" and "convenient by foot" in NYC might be totally different from what one considers walkable in Jacksonville.
Also, ask someone from Seattle or San Francisco if they care to walk around Miami, and you might get a response like "hell no, too hot!", but ask someone from Jax and they may think Miami is very walkable because they're used to the heat (and it IS way more walkable than Jax, which shapes people's opinions). Conversely, ask someone from Jax/Miami if they would want to walk around Boston or Minneapolis, two cities considered extremely walkable by American standards, and you might get a "hell no, wayyy to cold!".
Finally, ask someone from this site if they'd walk around the seedier parts of Brooklyn or the Tenderloin in SF, and you might get some answer that goes like this: "Yes, there are ethnic restaurants and grocery stores and bars within walking distance and convenient to public transportation and DENSE, it would YES!" (of course all based on density and a love affair with a concept not offered in [insert small/sunbelt city here]. But ask someone who actually lives in NYC or SF if they'd walk around some of the seediest parts of the city just because they're "walkable", and you might get a "who are you kidding? Russian roulette in daylight, certain death by night - I won't even take the bus through that part!"
Generally I like the Walkscore because its metrics aren't subjective and it gets most things right. Really, it's hard to lump a sprawled out sunbelt city like Jax in with a bunch of older, denser, built around the person cities such as Boston or Chicago. I don't even know how you "rank" Jax, Houston, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, etc etc. But I can see how one can rank NYC, SF, Boston, DC, Philly, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Minneapolis, Providence, Richmond, etc etc.
I don't mean ask people about their armchair opinions of how walkable they think a plethora of cities' neighborhoods across the country are that they don't live in. I mean ask them about their behavior. Where they walk and why and what their experience is like.
This was also noted in this article...
10 Least Hipster Cities: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movoto.com%2Fblog%2Ftop-ten%2Fleast-hipster-cities&h=kAQFGHy-w
"Jacksonville ranked as the least walkable city."
A saw this nugget this morning on Baymeadows Road and decided to run it through Walkscore. This location comes in at 55 (Somewhat Walkable).
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Misc-Jax-Roads/i-hVJwRBZ/0/M/P1680466-M.jpg)
Friends of mine,Californians,when visiting Jacksonvile,routinely walk from Lambs Yacht Center west of Roosevelt Blvd. to Downtown and back.The locals can't fathom such.
This thing looks pretty busted to me. 303 Anastasia, about 2 blocks east of the Bridge of the Lions in St. Augustine scores just 62, lower then San Marco, both of which are infinitely more walkable then ½ the cities in the list. The St. Augustine Visitors Center at 10 West Castillo scores a healthy 89, but the Oldest School on the PEDESTRIAN ONLY ST GEORGE STREET scores lower at 82. Over on Vilano Beach, on old Vilano Blvd, the Marina store, in the center of broad decorative sidewalks, fountains, Publix, restaurants, hotels etc within a block or two scores just 15! Me thinks this is flawed.
Ock, I would think it has to do with distance. You can see a breakdown of the closest 8 places and their distances by category. I wish I could give counts greater than 8, but even so, I think this hints at why they're scoring low:
Within .5 miles:
303 Anastasia Blvd (walk score 62):
Restaurants: 8+
Coffee: 0
Bars: 4
Groceries: 2
Parks: 0
Schools: 2
Shopping: 2
Entertainment: 3
Errands: 1
Vilano Rd (walk score 15):
Restaurants: 8+
Coffee: 0
Bars: 0
Groceries: 2
Parks: 0
Schools: 0
Shopping: 0
Entertainment: 0
Errands: 0
For comparison, my spot in Kansas City (walk score 89):
Restaurants: 8+
Coffee: 8+
Bars: 7
Groceries: 3
Parks: 2
Schools: 4
Shopping: 8+
Entertainment: 4
Errands: 8+
I would agree that a "walk score" doesn't necessarily show "walkable," as you've shown some good examples of places that very well may be walkable, depending on the definition, but are scored "car-dependent" because they have less within a given distance. Having more destination choices within a given area is definitely a factor in how walkable the area is, but not the only one. Some people can find a place with few destination choices perfectly walkable. And really, many people's needs could be perfectly catered by a small number of diverse establishments, so if those needs are being met within walking distance and people are doing the walking, that should factor greatly into how the location is scored. I think that's kind of what walkscore.com is attempting, but it barely scratches the surface. It lists and plots places ad nauseum, but suppose all of the shops within walking distance are antique stores, or all the restaurants are fast food. The parks could all be small and without amenities. It's not showing a full picture.
I get sick of the "Jacksonville: Original Home of Pedestrians Deaths" slogan many people think is justified. Most of the time, the pedestrian/bicyclist incidents are their own fault; Not crossing and the crosswalk properly; Dark clothing; Not having lights on the bike at night, etc.
I know that this is sacrilegious to say, but whenever I hear about a pedestrian/bicyclist incident when it might be their own fault, the first thing that comes to mind ISN'T "Great, another pedestrian death in Jax; It's because of the vast suburban sprawled layouts, blah blah blah blah" it's "Did the pedestrian use the crosswalk" etc.
A couple of months ago I was driving down Main Street at speed limit during night, and a pedestrian wearing dark clothes was crossing Main going in a diagonal direction towards me already in the freaking middle of the slow lane; I BARELY saw him, and I was in the fast lane. Now if I would have hit him, causing his demise, it would have most likely been on the news, and some of yall would have attributed to me, with the instant 'blame the automobile' mentality such as..."me speeding" or maybe "the Main St suburban layout" etc. Many times, reckless actions (sometimes drugs etc) cause people deaths, and no amount of crosswalks, lampposts, bike lanes etc can help that. Maybe if they reduced the speed limit to 5MPH, it would help....
IMO it would be a complete waste of money to build sidewalks in deep suburban areas, for the sake of boosting up a walkscore right now (Southside Blvd etc); Maybe way in the future would be a better time. You might see an occasional jogger on a new hypothetical Southside Blvd sidewalk, that's about it. IMO the slacking areas around the core with foot traffic should be a top priority.
Forgive me for reading between the lines here, but maybe a city whose Main Street has a "fast lane" deserves a 'blame the automobile' mentality.
Quote from: I-10east on December 03, 2013, 11:42:56 PMIMO it would be a complete waste of money to build sidewalks in deep suburban areas, for the sake of boosting up a walkscore right now (Southside Blvd etc); Maybe way in the future would be a better time. You might see an occasional jogger on a new hypothetical Southside Blvd sidewalk, that's about it. IMO the slacking areas around the core with foot traffic should be a top priority.
I happen to own a condo right off Southside and I totally disagree. When I bike from there, it involves me first putting it in the back of the truck and driving to a safer area of town to bike. Sorry, I don't trust that white shoulder line to protect me from 45mph drivers texting, talking on their phones and putting make-up on.
There are thousands of multifamily units on Southside and there's a rapidly growing population that walks to nearby retail and places of employment. Next time you're down, check out the area around Southside (south of the I-95 flyover) and Philips (near Avenues) where there are no sidewalks or crosswalks along wide highways lined with more retail square footage than downtown Jax could ever dream about realistically having. Goat's paths everywhere. Totally unacceptable for a city the size of Jacksonville in the 21st century.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Misc-Jax-Roads/i-pNGC6Rv/0/M/southside%20square%20lake-M.jpg)
You literally have to get in your car to drive from BOA's complex to adjacent restaurants, groceries, residences, and retail because there are no sidewalks or crosswalks.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Misc-Jax-Roads/i-rXRnHh9/0/M/Southside-Philips%20Highway-M.jpg)
Oh, and this beauty that FDOT is currently spending millions to repave. No sidewalks, no crosswalks and too many roadway lanes to logically count. I guess it's against the law to consider walking from Avenues Mall to Walmart or Latitude 30 across the street.With all of that said, Southside would greatly benefit from a separated multi-use path running the length of the street, at least from Philips to Beach Boulevard. Given the highway's width, the number of residential units and the amount of retail/office space, it would get more use than you can imagine for a suburban area.
Quote from: I-10east on December 03, 2013, 11:42:56 PMIMO it would be a complete waste of money to build sidewalks in deep suburban areas, for the sake of boosting up a walkscore right now (Southside Blvd etc); Maybe way in the future would be a better time. You might see an occasional jogger on a new hypothetical Southside Blvd sidewalk, that's about it. IMO the slacking areas around the core with foot traffic should be a top priority.
I missed the part I just highlighted in bold above. It's not an either/or situation. Southside is a FDOT facility. Most FDOT roads in the urban core already have sidewalks. Upgrading missing links in the urban core primarily falls on COJ and their roadways. With that said, money for improving both with bike/ped facilities was included in the mobility plan. Now that we're finally collecting mobility fees, there should be funds in a couple of years to make some decent improvements citywide.
Lake, over the past few months I've been slowly creating a map of the sidewalks of Jacksonville, completing (so far) the area bounded by the river and the old East Florida Railroad to the north/east and 103rd St and I-295 to the south/west (this includes Riverside, Avondale, Murray Hill, Woodstock, Lakeshore, etc.) I'll make a large post about it with lots of screenshots within the next week.
Despite showing only a portion of the city, the map really highlights how incomplete streets aren't just in Jacksonville's post-WWII rings of development, as large swaths of the core are severely lacking a complete or even useful network of pedestrian paths well into 100 years of their existence. Even as a native I was pretty surprised by the results. There is NO way that that has a negligible effect on the rate of automobile-pedestrian incidents, or the general culture of pedestrians fending for themselves and thwarting the rules, as the infrastructure is a huge let-down to anyone who tries to follow them anyway. That culture has generations and decades behind it, and the high pedestrian fatality rate is not just people being stupid -- pedestrians nor drivers -- as you can expect that to contribute to a relatively flat rate countrywide. The design and completeness of the pedestrian network plays a huge part, and Jax's is a mess.
* I can say from experience that design affects behavior. I walk everywhere, and I'm someone who likes to follow rules. But I find that the more incomplete or more car-centric an area I'm walking, the more I'm compelled to 'make my own path' even when I don't necessarily have to, as the area just doesn't feel designed with my needs in mind to begin with. Sidewalks and crossings truly feel like an afterthought in certain roadway designs. This is especially obvious during road construction, when the sidewalks are the first things closed, but car traffic is kept flowing at almost all costs, complete with warnings and detours. Pedestrians are left in the dark, with no signs directing them around or warning them of the closure ahead. Most opt to just cut through the construction zone, and how anyone can expect otherwise is a mystery to me. This has been a big problem in parts of KC lately.
^I have a citywide GIS sidewalk inventory map I made for the planning department back in 2011. It shows all sidewalks at the time as color coded by existing (green) or proposed (blue). A second map illustrates all gaps in the network in red. We utilized this information to identify corridors to connect the city's overall sidewalk network via mobility fee funded projects. I also did one for the city's bike facilities network. The shapefiles are on a disk that I'll have to dig up and convert over to a jpeg graphic to upload. I'll put it on my list of things to do tomorrow (later today). I also made an attribute table that includes data listing sidewalk coverage (ex. sidewalk on one side of street, sidewalks on both sides, etc.) at the block level. All I can say is we have a ton of streets and a lot more that are permitted but not yet constructed. That contract took a few months to finish.
Cool. I figured something like that already existed, but it was a fun project to work on. I just used satellite/aerial and Google Street view imagery and tried to include gaps as small as a few feet, also excluding sidewalks that were overgrown beyond recognition.
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on December 04, 2013, 12:09:44 AM
Forgive me for reading between the lines here, but maybe a city whose Main Street has a "fast lane" deserves a 'blame the automobile' mentality.
I referred to the left lane as the fast lane, and the right lane is the slow like many drivers do. Faster traffic normally pass on the left, simple as that; That doesn't mean you have to speed. Not unless that you think that every urban street should be a two-lane road. Hell, why have any streets at all? Just make everything into sidewalks and bike lanes...
Quote from: I-10east on December 04, 2013, 05:48:05 AM
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on December 04, 2013, 12:09:44 AM
Forgive me for reading between the lines here, but maybe a city whose Main Street has a "fast lane" deserves a 'blame the automobile' mentality.
I referred to the fast lane is the left lane, and the slow lane is the right like many drivers do. Faster traffic normally pass on the left, simple as that; That doesn't mean you have to speed. Not unless that you think that every urban street should be a two-lane road. Hell, why have any streets at all? Just make everything into sidewalks and bike lanes...
You just proved everyone's point. Regardless of left lane/right lane, the fact alone that you have the attitude that the left lane on lil' ol' Main Street is the "fast lane" is very indicative of why Jax/FL is so behind in this arena. A 4-lane, 2-way URBAN street should not have a "fast lane", whether in practice or figuratively.
Now can we talk about how fortunate you are that you are even allowed to post on MetroJacksonville still? By definition, you are a complete and total troll. Now please get a life and move along, elsewhere.
Mods? Ban. Now.
^^Man, you're tripping hard. Keep on hating....
Quote from: simms3 on December 04, 2013, 06:10:24 AM
You just proved everyone's point. Regardless of left lane/right lane, the fact alone that you have the attitude that the left lane on lil' ol' Main Street is the "fast lane" is very indicative of why Jax/FL is so behind in this arena. A 4-lane, 2-way URBAN street should not have a "fast lane", whether in practice or figuratively.
Fast lane, left lane; sofa, couch; football, pigskin...Do you have to be THAT anal? Calling for someone's BAN just because you disagree with me? Seriously? You're the true troll...
^^^I'm not falling for your ticky-tac 'trying to get me all riled up' style trolling. Why do you always got to butt in all of the time?
^^^Please stop with the condescending 'know it all' stuff Stephen, because I made some valid points on the top post of the earlier page. Notice I didn't argue with Lake at all, because he doesn't provoke arguments; Just like I didn't provoke one. I said that MANY (not all) think that Jax has a 'Home of Pedestrian Death' slogan, and I'm entitled to believe that; The truth hurts. Scrub Palmetto said an opinion, then I said mine, albeit sarcastically only because you people are taking this 'fast lane/passing lane/left lane' synonyms WAY too anally. Main St is not a NASCAR speedway. I don't even wanna talk about Simms, or even acknowledge him; Hopefully he does the same vice-versa.
^^^I can tell how fast you post that it's manufactured negativity. Stay trolling Stephen...
QuoteJACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A 35-year-old man was struck crossing San Jose Boulevard near Hartley Road early Tuesday afternoon
The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said a man in his 30s was struck by a northbound SUV about 2:45 p.m. while crossing the six-lane road outside of a crosswalk just north of Interstate 295.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/pedestrian-hit-by-car-on-san-jose-boulevard/-/475880/23271106/-/11qgdpw/-/index.html
Why did he cross the street 'outside of a crosswalk'? Answer: http://goo.gl/maps/L7dZu
Here is a spot that could have easily been a crosswalk, but instead they just put up green arrows. http://goo.gl/maps/1KQul
A woman was just hit and killed while using the exact crosswalk this guy avoided, a little over a month ago. Because the crosswalk doesn't have a decent median refuge for nine 12'-wide vehicle lanes going through there, people get the assumption it's safer to cross in other areas. In reality, the whole damn thing is a pedestrian death trap. Unfortunately, this is what happens when we decide make our design priorities focus on one mode at the expense of all others.
QuotePlease stop with the condescending 'know it all' stuff Stephen, because I made some valid points on the top post of the earlier page.
Its what he does best, sort of the straw that stirs the cocktail.....
Ya know? Along with the TRANSIT COALITION I believe we might want to add another committee or goal within the pedestrian group...
"CROSSWALK JACKSONVILLE!"
Would it not be cool to go from the third worst killing field in the USA to the top 10 in say, um, 10 years? Could be done.