A new transportation funding source is in the works. Let's hope it helps fund a little transit this time around.
QuoteTALLAHASSEE â€" Developers and local governments are urging lawmakers to proceed carefully as they consider new ways of funding transportation needs in large urban counties like Duval.
The state is studying a “mobility fee†as part of a major overhaul of growth-management laws approved by the Legislature this year. The measure repealed, in counties like Duval, state rules requiring developers whose projects would overload local roads to pay impact fees to upgrade those roads.
Under the plans being considered, all developers would instead pay a mobility fee to help pay for transportation needs expected to be caused by development.
The mobility fee would be similar to impact fees, though the aim is to more fairly distribute the costs across developments. Previously, developers who put a certain road over its capacity could be forced to shoulder the entire cost of upgrading the road â€" even if previous developments had also increased the strain.
Also, the mobility fee could be used by local governments to decrease congestion or improve transportation and transit elsewhere.
“Go slow,†said attorney David Powell of Hopping, Green and Sams, a law firm whose clients include developers, at meeting of two legislative committees that will likely shape any laws about the fees. “Let’s all understand what we’re getting into.â€
It’s not clear how much control state lawmakers will try to assume over the size and structure of the mobility fee. The Department of Community Affairs and the Department of Transportation are set to submit a report to the Legislature in December that will include recommendations for legislation governing the fees.
Some local governments have already begun planning for the mobility fee.
Under a plan being developed for Jacksonville, developers would pay varying amounts based on how close their properties were to the city center, essentially increasing the fee for those whose developments would put the most strain on local roads and transit systems.
“They’ve been very proactive, and they want their fees to be sensitive to the trip length,†said Debbie Hunt, assistant secretary at the Department of Transportation.
One area of agreement among developers and planners is that lawmakers need to weigh carefully how to put the new policy in place. Some of those who spoke to lawmakers Thursday asked them to consider creating pilot projects to make sure that the fee works before implementing it across the state.
“I think it’s important for the Legislature to see that process unfold,†said T.J. Fish, executive director of the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Lawmakers seemed to be leaning that way, as opposed to allowing it to take effect statewide at the same time.
“We’ve created a lot of disasters that way,†Rep. Lake Ray, R-Jacksonville, said after the meeting.
Even when governments are allowed to charge the fee, though, the new provision likely won’t pay for all the new wear and tear on transportation systems caused by new development. Fish said local governments would likely try to rein in the fee to some extent.
“The development community does not actually want the mobility fee to charge what it costs,†Fish said.
Instead, the state might need to find other ways of paying to improve transportation and ease congestion, including an increase in the gas tax.
“The mobility fee by itself won’t completely fund those solutions,†said Janet Bowman of the Nature Conservancy, a conservation group.
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2009-11-05/story/lawmakers_urged_to_go_slow_with_new_transportation_funding_source
QuoteUnder a plan being developed for Jacksonville, developers would pay varying amounts based on how close their properties were to the city center, essentially increasing the fee for those whose developments would put the most strain on local roads and transit systems.
Actually, under the Jax plan, people would pay less and receive credits for building denser development in the city and along transit corridors. Basically, the less vehicle miles your development puts on the roads, the less mobility fee you pay.
It could become something that helps level the playing field when it comes to investing in sustainable development practices and sprawl. The reality is the days of outright subsidizing poor development practices can't go on forever. Although used primarily to deal with air quality issues in California, several cities there have something similar in place.
Alachua County has been pretty agressive in developing a new mobility plan...
Alachua County's Plan to Effectively Link Transportation and Land Use
http://growth-management.alachuacounty.us/TPIF/cm_docs.php
The 'quiet' emergence of the First Coast Beltway ( AKA "Reinhold Memorial Parkway"- tongue in cheek) and other yet unseen but recently vested development is clear indication that the optimistic outlook in hopes of restraining edge cities and "sprawl" is perfectly too late.
Watch too for the continued push for expanded regional Northeast Florida Transportation arrangement.
It will require a monumental shift from where we were to where we need to be if we are to aspire to the higher ideals profiled in MJ.
I realize these are harsh words- in twenty five yeras involvement,I have found little on the ground 'smarts' in these matters.
Color me skeptical but I don't see anything more than a very flawed fee system being introduced. The article mentions the creation of pilot programs prior to full implementation of the fees. (the fee's creators would be free to pick targets which favored certain private citizens/corporations over others)
The other troubling aspect as I see it is equal protection under the law: Some property owners would be rewarded by increasingly higher property values, while others are penalized for owning property further from the urban core.(in the case of Jacksonville, this could be hard to define. Is it downtown? perhaps the least densely populated area?) Development cost would be artificially higher for them making their property values lower.
I wouldn't worry too much about the Outer Beltway. I'll believe its really going through when the find the investors willing to put the +billion up in cash to build that dog.
A Lesson for the Outer Beltway dreamers
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6656.0.html
Quote from: buckethead on November 05, 2009, 08:48:22 PM
Color me skeptical but I don't see anything more than a very flawed fee system being introduced. The article mentions the creation of pilot programs prior to full implementation of the fees.
From what I understand, the state will have its own mobility fee. I believe this is what the focus of this article is on.
QuoteThe other troubling aspect as I see it is equal protection under the law: Some property owners would be rewarded by increasingly higher property values, while others are penalized for owning property further from the urban core.(in the case of Jacksonville, this could be hard to define. Is it downtown? perhaps the least densely populated area?) Development cost would be artificially higher for them making their property values lower.
If you build development in an area that means your users will clog and destroy the local infrastructure more than one in a more walkable, transit friendly area, why would it be considered a penalty? Anyway, the concept is not new. California has been doing it for a while. It will be interesting to see how things ultimately work out.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the finer points. Are these fees based on population centers/cores, determined by the density of the proposed developement, geographic center of a defined populated area, or something entirely different.
I suppose I am wondering whether it would constitute governments determining winners and loser in real estate speculation.
At this point its probably still in the air. However, the article implies that Jax's fees will be potentially based on trip length. That sounds more like a usage issue. Sort of like driving on a toll road or riding on a merry-go-round. Take it for five miles or one ride and you might pay a $1. Stay on it for 10 or two rides and you'll pay double.
What I find troubling is the fact of "Mobility Fee" (I hate that word) may not be used in the area that it is needed! We already had something similar......was called "Concurrency" and that is no longer applied to projects in Duval either. Makes me wonder how the builders got that one taken out also? Mobility Fee not used in the area that is being developed is silly since the development is creating the problem! Good idea but the execution will be a mother and enforcement will be politically motivated and controlled!
The Mobility Fee is supposed to be used for future deficiencies caused by new development. Those deficiencies could be relieved multiple ways, such as road widening, transit, ITS, intersection improvements, etc. It will be up to each municipality to decide what projects they want to invest in and what mode is best by corridor. For example, if traffic gets worse on I-95, due to new development, your options could be to expand the interstate, expand Philips or establish commuter rail on the FEC to deal with that deficiency. Let's just hope Jacksonville's plan includes a mix of projects instead of only being primarily road based, like concurrency was.
A VMT-based mobility fee is similar to many communities' impact fees today...and the system may in fact replac bopth concurrency and impact fees....but a key point is that the fee will often be higher than the current fee in cities/counties that don't have impact fees....I can just see developers reaction to that.
Bottom line, this has a long way to go.
Something that occurred to me is.....how will trip length be calculated......trip length from where to where or center to a center or will some politician decide from where to where? There would be alot of fine tuning to make or break this scenario.............a permanent funding solution should be considered along with this proposal!