Jacksonville's 2030 Mobility Plan
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/827039136_kLE76-600x10000.jpg)
Over the next few weeks, Metro Jacksonville will highlight the details of Jacksonville's proposed 2030 Mobility Plan and show how the proposed infrastructure and land use changes could impact the development and quality of life of our community. Today, we will get started with a look at the 2030 Multimodal Transportation Study's Executive Summary.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan
This study is groundbreaking...and Jacksonville is being viewed as a leader statewide in mobility (and mobility fee) planning....the City's Planning department should be commended on this effort.
The challenge now is in plan implementation.
Brad Thoburn also deserves some credit for this....the concept was initiated while he was Planning Director...and he is very supportive of this plan and others being conducted throughout the state in his new role at FDOT.
Nice plan,
Have to disagree with the 5 year plan part, US17 and Blanding are totally ignored at first, and Normandy is widened to 6 lanes. Yay, more cars, less rail on the westside.
They use FEC lines for commuter rail on US1, can they not work with CSX on the line down US17?
How are they reducing mileage by adding road capacity and not rail capacity in a high travel corridor?
The rest of the plan is nice, good to see someone pushing commuter rail.
jandar...there is commuter rail going down US 17, just not in the first 5 years....these are big projects that are going to take 10+ years to get implemented.
The main reason the southeast line shows up early in the plan up is that there is an expectation that FDOT and Amtrak will reach an agreement w/ FEC in the nex few years to resume service on that line, with a station in St. Augustine.
Everybody on this site has asked for change for years and now something that help bring that change is on the table. The key will be getting council to buy in, accept and approve the plan this fall.
According to the model, the average trip length for the Downtown TCEA/CBD, the Urban Priority Area, and the Urban and Suburban development areas are all about the same (9.09-10.28 miles). That really seems odd to me. I would think that there should be more disparity between some of the development areas.
Regarding the 5-year plan, Rome was not built in a day. We have to start somewhere and at this point, the FEC line seems to be more viable and integrates well with the city's vision of redeveloping Philips Highway as a transit friendly corridor.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2010, 08:23:37 AM
The intellect behind it is Killingsworth, but Brad deserves recognition for fostering a good idea.
The long term implications of this plan are literally game changing for the city, and a return to intelligent reality based development.
You think they will use local union labor for this, or outsource it to contractors from other states with workers from other countries, like the court house?
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 09, 2010, 08:28:53 AM
jandar...there is commuter rail going down US 17, just not in the first 5 years....these are big projects that are going to take 10+ years to get implemented.
The main reason the southeast line shows up early in the plan up is that there is an expectation that FDOT and Amtrak will reach an agreement w/ FEC in the nex few years to resume service on that line, with a station in St. Augustine.
That makes sense then if they are including the Amtrak stuff in the commuter rail part.
The sad part is if they work with CSX, they could have commuter rail up on the CSX lines probably quicker than the Amtrak stuff as there is less government involvement.
As I was reading, I am nodding feverishly and copying down my favorite parts, such as "According to the American Public Transportation Association, every dollar of public money invested in rail attracts $6 in new private investment.", "Fully funding the streetcar line from downtown to riverside (king street)"
"A viable mass transit system becomes a high priority. With this in mind, commuter rail and streetcar starter lines have been included within the Five Year CIE."
I cannot think of a better start to a Friday morning than to read this. It sounds like it could be verbatim from an article on here. I am sure there may be a couple of kinks to iron out, but overall I am thrilled. I know this site will be instrumental in seeing to implementation, and I know we won't be disappointed with the effort. Let's make it happen.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2010, 08:43:51 AM
Thats a bidding process, JC. The Planning Department doesnt handle that. But whoever does the actual work, the savings to the City as a result of implementing the ideas will be in the billions of dollars.
Sure, I am aware of how contracts are rewarded and I don't intend to derail this topic but..... Doesn't it make sense to have these types of considerations in mind at the planning stages? I realize there is almost zero value placed on union labor in the south, and, as evident by the Wal-Mart, scourge of Jacksonville, that everyone is looking for the lowest price. However, there are so many qualified men and women in the local area who are unemployed that this could be a win win for everyone! Local money made, local money spent, that sort of thing.
I know most people don't give a crap, but here are some recent numbers! Needless to say, THESE POTENTIAL JOBS ARE SO VALUABLE THAT THE CITY SHOULD KEEP THEM IN TOWN!
QuoteConstruction Unemployment Rate Hits 27.1% as Another 64,000 Construction Workers Lost Jobs in February 2010
Share This Article
(1)
Mar 10, 2010 5:17 PM
The construction unemployment rate jumped to 27.1% and construction employment dropped to a 14-year low as another 64,000 construction workers lost jobs in February, according to federal employment figures released recently.
The industry's job losses in February were consistent with the prior six months and not mainly attributable to exceptionally bad weather, according to Ken Simonson, chief economist for The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), Arlington, Va. Simonson added that construction unemployment is at the highest level recorded since the federal government began making the data available in 1976. And he noted that non-residential construction experienced significantly more job losses than the residential sector in February: 53,500 jobs lost versus 10,600.
Simonson also noted that job losses appeared widespread across construction sectors, with non-residential specialty trade contractors experiencing the largest monthly decline of 1.7%.
http://ecmweb.com/ezone/construction-unemployment-20100310/
I am ecstatic about the commuter rail and streetcar plans for within 5 years. Not only will it improve the congestion in our city, I see it as enriching the lives of the citizens. The thought of zipping down to St Aug on the train, staying a day, and zipping back up (all without a car) is amazing.
I can't wait!
Wow, that's pretty dramatic. The mobility tax idea is phenomenal. Hope it goes through
OK, I'm missing something on the mobility fee/tax...is that something designed to be assessed to the developers if the propose a change (i.e., something like Nocatee would get hit with a much larger mobility fee than a development in one of the urban zones) or is that a tax assessed on property owners that live in the area (higher prop tax increase for, say, Bartram Park vs Arlington or some such)?
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 09, 2010, 07:56:42 AM
The challenge now is in plan implementation.
Forever and always the hard part in this city.
Is it just me or does table E-4 have some things in twice
(Rail and Philips Hwy 4-6)
(Entries 1 and 9)
and why have bus-rapid transport and rail on same corridor (with pretty much same stations)
(I'm probably missing something :( )
I think the duplicitous routes of BRT and Commuter Rail in some places has been something complained about by those on this site in the past. Like I said, I am sure some warts will come to the surface, but it's a great starting place none the less.
The Council needs to approve this asap. Then we need to start selling it to developers, new business and all manner of in fill.
QuoteThen we need to start selling it to developers
If it is approved and adopted I don't think we have to sell developers anything, they will be required to follow this-which would be a good thing.
Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't carefully read the full study... Is this saying that the city is going start on a commuter rail project within 5 years???
I meant selling developers on doing projects in Jax that they might not have before the plan. Attracting developer dollars is a big part of investing in transit.
When you say Jacksonville....do you mean city counsel? Jta? Who is proposing this for 2030?
Cooly, this plan will have to be approved by Council and the planning department is leading the way. Right now I'm eating lunch in Pensacola but I'll try to answer several other questions in this thread when I get to town later tonight.
if those duplicate entry in table E-4 are errors then that lowers cost projection by 74 / 50 millions (1/5th of cost)
makes it easier to sell, when it costs less
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 09, 2010, 10:37:46 AM
OK, I'm missing something on the mobility fee/tax...is that something designed to be assessed to the developers if the propose a change (i.e., something like Nocatee would get hit with a much larger mobility fee than a development in one of the urban zones) or is that a tax assessed on property owners that live in the area (higher prop tax increase for, say, Bartram Park vs Arlington or some such)?
the mobility fee will be paid by new development only...and will be paid at the time of permitting/approval....similar to an impact fee.
Quote from: PhanLord on April 09, 2010, 11:03:00 AM
Is it just me or does table E-4 have some things in twice
(Rail and Philips Hwy 4-6)
(Entries 1 and 9)
and why have bus-rapid transport and rail on same corridor (with pretty much same stations)
(I'm probably missing something :( )
part of the reason things are listed twice is that they are in different mobility districts...for example, commuter rail along Philips is shown as $20 million twice...the real cost to the City (25% share of total cost) is $40 million.
And, yes, sometimes there are road and transit projects right next to each other...regardless of commuter rail, portions of Philips Hwy will need to be widened to 6 lanes (which offsets the need to widen I-95)...the key will be to include sidewalks and bike lanes in the widening along with new design standards.
Not sure I believe the streetcar and 2 commuter rail lines within 5 years (who has the $$?). Sounds great, though!
Nice that the local end must come up with 25% but the funding end is still somewhat murky to me! With the current council and administration in place.............the going will be slow!
I read. I swooned. I recovered. And now I ask: what can we do to make sure this actually becomes a reality? Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but this site is littered with stories about great plans that were approved and endorsed and acclaimed and celebrated, but that eventually died a slow and lonely death or were chipped away at until the original, brilliant intent was lost or destroyed. We have been tireless advocates for change and now it seems to be upon us. This could begin the transformation of this sleepy little burgh of complacent "also-rans" into a major metropolitan player who finally recognizes its potential and position as the gateway to the rest of Florida to the south and 80% of the population of the US to the north, with roads, rail and runways to spare. So what do we do to make sure it really comes to pass? How do we mobilize and get behind this? I'll start with a more obvious question: What can I do to make sure this becomes a reality?
Quote from: cline on April 09, 2010, 08:32:35 AM
According to the model, the average trip length for the Downtown TCEA/CBD, the Urban Priority Area, and the Urban and Suburban development areas are all about the same (9.09-10.28 miles). That really seems odd to me. I would think that there should be more disparity between some of the development areas.
Under normal circumstances the disparity would be greater. The problem is we've done a great job of neutering the vitality of our urban core over the last few decades. It really is a shell of it's former self. Thus many of the everyday offerings that should be within walking distance of residents in the urban core, aren't there which forces the urbanite to make vehicle commutes of their for services that should be within walking/mass transit distance.
Quote from: CS Foltz on April 09, 2010, 09:02:00 PM
Nice that the local end must come up with 25% but the funding end is still somewhat murky to me! With the current council and administration in place.............the going will be slow!
The proposed Mobility Fee will take the place of traffic concurrency. If approved, the city won't be coming up with the mobility fee money. That will be generated by new development. The money generated will go to help pay for these mobility projects that will be designed to alleviate future traffic congestion from continued growth.
Anyway, one thing that establishing a local funding source will do is make it easier to gain additional federal dollars for many of these projects.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 09, 2010, 08:56:37 PM
Not sure I believe the streetcar and 2 commuter rail lines within 5 years (who has the $$?). Sounds great, though!
There is a first phase streetcar line that is shown as being funded 100% under the plan. The funding for the commuter rail lines are 25% of their total cost and represent the city's share that will be needed to get these LRTPs off the ground.
With that said, in my heart I do believe that there is a very good chance we could have our first "starter" line up and running (or under construction) in five years or less. Imo, the commuter rail lines could go either way. We could get creative with local funding and other funding sources and use them to construct a starter commuter rail line (then use this as our local match for additional federal dollars) or put the cash under a pillow and wait years to secure federal dollars before breaking ground on anything.
Personally, I'd back the idea of implementing these projects incrementally as the funds come in. If we don't, it will be pretty difficult to meet the goals of SB 360 (ex. reducing VMTs, greenhouse gas emission, encouraging multimodal friendly development, etc.) anytime soon.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 09, 2010, 08:50:37 PM
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 09, 2010, 10:37:46 AM
OK, I'm missing something on the mobility fee/tax...is that something designed to be assessed to the developers if the propose a change (i.e., something like Nocatee would get hit with a much larger mobility fee than a development in one of the urban zones) or is that a tax assessed on property owners that live in the area (higher prop tax increase for, say, Bartram Park vs Arlington or some such)?
the mobility fee will be paid by new development only...and will be paid at the time of permitting/approval....similar to an impact fee.
OK, then in that case, that makes outstanding sense to me...it allows development to continue, but basically shifts what's most cost effective. A developer wanting to develop new land still has the option to do so, but there's less immediate cost benefit from just plowing unused land. Their books need to indicate that the development cost + mobility tax will be more than covered by their return on investment (which in some cases it might actually do so), and in turn they fund mass transit development. That seems like a completely reasonable win-win. Up front there will be a fight against it by the developers, but there's also incentive for them to consider more cost effective development in the other areas.
So the next question on this becomes to what degree home/land owners will experience this tax...it's pretty standard that corporations don't pay tax, they just pass the additional cost down to the buyers. Or are higher land/home prices to be considered a feature rather than a bug (i.e., increase the cost of living outside of an urban area)? And if so, generally speaking, what's the expected increase in land/home cost going to be? I'd imagine that's going to be a critical selling point to the plan.
One last question...does a plan like this either mitigate or complete eliminate the need for something like Amendment 4? The way I see it, instead of an absolute county-wide vote on new development, the mobility tax changes the economic incentive for where new development occurs. It seems that a significant chunk of local funding will come from the mobility tax...with Amendment 4 in place, any suburban/rural development could be voted down, dramatically decreasing the effectiveness of the tax. Or can this plan and something like Amendment 4 work together effectively?
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 09, 2010, 09:35:32 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 09, 2010, 08:50:37 PM
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 09, 2010, 10:37:46 AM
OK, I'm missing something on the mobility fee/tax...is that something designed to be assessed to the developers if the propose a change (i.e., something like Nocatee would get hit with a much larger mobility fee than a development in one of the urban zones) or is that a tax assessed on property owners that live in the area (higher prop tax increase for, say, Bartram Park vs Arlington or some such)?
the mobility fee will be paid by new development only...and will be paid at the time of permitting/approval....similar to an impact fee.
OK, then in that case, that makes outstanding sense to me...it allows development to continue, but basically shifts what's most cost effective. A developer wanting to develop new land still has the option to do so, but there's less immediate cost benefit from just plowing unused land. Their books need to indicate that the development cost + mobility tax will be more than covered by their return on investment (which in some cases it might actually do so), and in turn they fund mass transit development. That seems like a completely reasonable win-win. Up front there will be a fight against it by the developers, but there's also incentive for them to consider more cost effective development in the other areas.
There may be a fight but at the end of the day, you have to pay your own way. John Q. Public can't continue to subsidize every sprawling development that doesn't pay for its way while straining our infrastructure network in the process. All the plan does is try to alleviate this situation by encouraging better and more thoughtful new development and making the bad ones pay their "fair share." Nevertheless, even for those choosing to construct in suburban/rural areas, there will be incentives for them to plan and design their projects in a more sustainable manner. The plan includes fee adjustments or credits for developments that are constructed along future/existing transit corridors, have higher densities, a mix of uses, multimodal friendly streetscapes, etc.
QuoteSo the next question on this becomes to what degree home/land owners will experience this tax...it's pretty standard that corporations don't pay tax, they just pass the additional cost down to the buyers. Or are higher land/home prices to be considered a feature rather than a bug (i.e., increase the cost of living outside of an urban area)? And if so, generally speaking, what's the expected increase in land/home cost going to be? I'd imagine that's going to be a critical selling point to the plan.
This is really up to the individual developer and project proposed. The projects that are designed to help the city begin to comply with the goals of reducing VMTs, greenhouse gas emissions will benefit from mobility fee credit adjustments. Those that don't, won't receive these adjustments. In any event, I believe the fee is roughly around the same or a little less than what was required under concurrency. Over the next few weeks, Metro Jacksonville will be diving deeper into the plan and we'll all get a better read on some of the detailed questions you're asking about.
QuoteOne last question...does a plan like this either mitigate or complete eliminate the need for something like Amendment 4? The way I see it, instead of an absolute countywide vote on new development, the mobility tax changes the economic incentive for where new development occurs. It seems that a significant chunk of local funding will come from the mobility tax...with Amendment 4 in place, any suburban/rural development could be voted down, dramatically decreasing the effectiveness of the tax. Or can this plan and something like Amendment 4 work together effectively?
I see them as working together, assuming this plan is passed before Amendment 4 goes into effect (if Amendment 4 passes). I say this because if it passes the comp plan would be adjusted to allow for land use policies that integrate and work with multimodal transportation options. So, if Amendment 4 becomes reality, the multimodal friendly land uses would already be allowed within the adopted comp plan.
Quote from: PhanLord on April 09, 2010, 05:26:53 PM
if those duplicate entry in table E-4 are errors then that lowers cost projection by 74 / 50 millions (1/5th of cost)
makes it easier to sell, when it costs less
Don't forget that we are going to have to do something to meet the requirements of SB 360.
QuoteFlorida's Community Renewal Act (Senate Bill 360, SB 360), adopted in 2009, amended the Growth Management Act by removing state-mandated transportation concurrency requirements in areas designated as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas or TCEAs.
Resulting from the definition of a "dense urban land area" or DULA provided within SB 360, the City of Jacksonville has been designated a TCEA. As outlined in Senate Bill 360, within two years after a TCEA becomes effective, local governments are required to amend their local comprehensive plans to include "land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility within the exception area, including alternative modes of transportation."
Local comprehensive plans must also comply with 163.3177, F.S., which requires the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient land use patterns. Pursuant to SB 360 and 163.3177, F.S., the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department has prepared a draft 2030 Mobility Plan.
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning+and+Development/Community+Planning/Mobility+Plan.htm
The only way to reduce our long term infrastructure costs is to change the way we plan, design and develop. If anyone is interested in truly saving taxpayers money, then they should really support a plan that integrates land use with multimodal transportation options.
Aren't there proposals in the Legislature to do away with some of the smart growth requirements, as being "anti-job"? (and anti-developer-profits)
The plan envisions that the mobility fee for a single family home would range from around $4000 to $6000 depending on the district.
This compares quite favorably with communities around the state that have impact fees...for example, Naples charges about $20,000 in transportation impact fees and the average statewide is around $5000.
Hillsborough County is also looking at mobility fees...and their study is showing a range from $10,000 to $40,000 for a single family home...and that's just for funding roads (no transit)!
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 09, 2010, 10:42:20 PM
Aren't there proposals in the Legislature to do away with some of the smart growth requirements, as being "anti-job"? (and anti-developer-profits)
that was last year....and how we ended up with the 2009 version of SB 360 versus the 2005 version of SB 360.
this year, the Legislature is trying to lay low....so as not to further stir the Amendment 4 pot.
I am going to make sure local labor leaders know about this. We need to fight for these jobs to stay local!
Concurrency does not take into account the strain on the local infrastructure and the effected area where any development takes place. The Mobility Plan at least address's that issue, but I am still apprehensive about the funding that will have to take place. Local level will still have to provide seed money or come up with start cost to initiate anything of consequence with a long range outlook! The Federal Government can not be depended to provide money for everything (after all this is John Q Public money also and we have to consider future generations who must be able to pay for checks this generation writes) It is obvious to me, we need to do something now or we will miss the opportunity's to do something that should have been done long ago before now! Last time I checked the City will be something like $58 Million Dollars in the red next Budget Cycle, so I have to question just how are we supposed to provide money that is not there?
The mobility fees will be generated by new development, just like the old concurrency system that it will replace. Not John Q. Public. With that said, they won't pay for everything. However, it will be funds that can be pooled with other revenue sources to move projects forward.
lake.........I understand the point but still have to question "funds that can be pooled with other revenue sources to move project forwards"! Most funding for much of anything is already earmarked for a specific project or projects.........the only possible funding I know of would be the "General Fund" and if we are in the red, there we go again...........writing checks without the funds to back it up! You and I can not do that without consequences and neither can the City or the Federal Government.........we are now a "debtor nation" and thats not good over the long haul!
I'm confused....what projects are you referring to? The majority of the mobility plan projects will be funded with money generated from the mobility fees over a 20 year period. Several of the plan's transit projects will be eligible for additional federal funding, while the plan provides the required local funding match.
lake............I understand the majority of the mobility plan projects will be funded with money generated from the Mobility Fees and several will be eligible for additional federal funding (your & my tax dollars and John Q Public's)but the "required local funding match" is what is mystifying me. If we are in the hole, then just like the federal end...........we are busy casting them bones on a possibility! I agree that we need to do something, should have done it long before now but better late than not at all! $58 Million Dollars in the red next Budget cycle and the federal end is in the Trillions............unless there is dedicated funding available (earmarked specifically for transit funding) we are not going to go forward! Should I point out the issue with "parking for the Landing" ? That was promised also, but has yet to take place. Issue's like this has made me into a pragmatic whether I wish to be or not!
Quotelake............I understand the majority of the mobility plan projects will be funded with money generated from the Mobility Fees and several will be eligible for additional federal funding (your & my tax dollars and John Q Public's)but the "required local funding match" is what is mystifying me. If we are in the hole, then just like the federal end...........we are busy casting them bones on a possibility!
"Required local funding match" basically refers to mass transit projects that are eligible for federal funding under programs already in place, such as the FTA New Starts program:
QuoteProjects eligible for New Starts (49 USC §5309) funding include any fixed guideway system which utilizes and occupies a separate right-of-way, or rail line, for the exclusive use of mass transportation and other high occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed cantenary system and a right-of-way usable by other forms of transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, and exclusive facilities for buses (such as bus rapid transit) and other high occupancy vehicles.
to learn more about this program, click here: http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/planning_environment_5221.html[/i]
A part of the requirements for the New Starts program is that a certain percentage of local money must be used. The mobility plan is just a method for gaining the local dollars needed to participate in such a program. However, we don't have to apply for federal funding or take advantage of programs like this. We can always just vote to increase our taxes and pay for additional projects that way.
QuoteI agree that we need to do something, should have done it long before now but better late than not at all! $58 Million Dollars in the red next Budget cycle and the federal end is in the Trillions............unless there is dedicated funding available (earmarked specifically for transit funding) we are not going to go forward!
FTA New Starts is a program specifically set aside for transit projects. We can either take advantage of programs like this or pay for projects 100% with local dollars, while cities like Charlotte, Orlando and Houston take all they can get. Either way, the money set aside for these programs will be spent. Also, from my understanding, the mobility fee has nothing to do with the city's general fund. So issues like the Landing's parking lot don't come into play in this arena.
Ok lake.........makes sense to me! I, speaking just for me now, do not have a problem with an increase in Tax's if that tax addition is fixed to mass transit and can only be spent for that issue! There has been too many instances of the left hand paying the right, not to mention "You should not spend what you don't have"! If the City were to take it upon themselves to police their spending, maybe the public would be amiable but not until! As to other Cities getting something that we don't.............I would guess we can thank the current Administration for that perspective.....no vision and no plan! Mobility Plan did not come from the Mayors office as is evident by the structure and the potentials! I am all for getting federal funds if that allows Jacksonville to come into the next century unlike now!
Take a look at St. Louis...voters, with 62% in favor, just approved a 1/2 cent sales tax for transit....had it not been approved, their transit system would have seen a 25% service cut.
Opponents argued that the transit agency's budget problems stemmed from the decision to fund a Metrolink extension with 100% local funds.
how would that play in Jax....CS...lake?
Who knows? We don't have a real transit system in Jax just yet. ;)
Seriously though......who knows? Did their budget problems stem from building an extension with 100% local funds or were there other circumstances involved?
there were other circumstances of course...but you know naysayers...they locked in on the metrolink extension.
I guess what I was trying to get at is that this community will not be able to improve transit significantly without people agreeing to some local investment...some of that could come from mopbility fees, buit we'll likely need to look for additional revenue streams as well.
tufsu.........as lake says who knows since we have nothing other than JTA and their grand plan of concreting everything is sight! To me a 1/2 cent sales tax is more even handed for everyone and gives a dedicated funding source which may be better in the long run for the City! You know...........like Delaney did for the Better Jacksonville Plan, off election year and managed to slide it through with the voter turnout that took place! If the City were not starting out in the hole, to the tune of $58 Million Dollars, I would say.........go sales tax increase for a blank amount of time! We have to start somewhere and may as well be now!
God knows I love rolling a hand grenade under a door to light up a room!
(http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/Little_Rock_23_sm.JPG)
Another Yellow Streetcar or the original Forest Green with gold leaf lettering??
The Skyway extension south to Atlantic and the FEC RY, will not only tap a real destination for the little monorail system, it will also reach residential, and a cross-platform commuter rail market. I'll wager that the ridership doubles when it opens, and doubles again when it is connected to Commuter Rail. Now about those missing middle cars we own the rights too? Time to MAN UP!
Just getting the rail and streetcar modes to feed into the Skyway at the two multi-modal centers (JAX TERML, and/or ATLANTIC) should force the Skyway to reach toward the Stadium/Randolph/Shipyards.
The Streetcar to Park and King, even as far north as the "S" line above Shand's, will bring the entire urban core into a true neighborhood of retail, grocery's, restaurants, services and cultural attractions that simply do not exist today. Any developer from "THE SHIPYARDS" to the "ST. JOHN," that has packed up and left town is going to have to reconsider that decision. No longer in a desert (and BOY do I know something about deserts!) this could be the fuse that sets off the powder keg that is our downtown as we all know it could be. It should be fun to see our city listed with cities in Poland, Brasil, and Colombia, as booming while the rest of the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT? The Business Journal's recent story on the development of the old FORD PLANT into a Cruise Terminal, with the aide of Jack "Dinimite," and MUCH preservation work, might open a broad door for the cross-town DUVAL-BEAVER streetcar line from PORT TERMINAL to LEE STREET, past the new Courthouse and City Hall.
The former Ford assembly plant that sits at the base of the Mathews Bridge could one day be a cruise ship terminal and destination port, according to a study conducted by a group of students at the University of Florida.
Read more: UF students design cruise terminal for old Ford site - Jacksonville Business Journal:
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2010/04/05/daily42.html?ana=from_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_jacksonville+%28Jacksonville+Business+Journal%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Commuter Rail to the Southside along Philips will not address the needs to reach the Beaches and Ponte Vedra. Building BRT lanes along Philips, Southside, Arlington Expy., (and frankly I'd toss in trolley bus lanes on San Jose), will serve to funnel these longer distance commute buses and coaches into core stations. JTA would be completely remiss if it doesn't jump on this chance to make the Kings Avenue Transfer Station, Transportation Center at JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL, or a new transfer facility at Atlantic and the FEC/Skyway, earn their keep. IE:OPEN UP the damn Information and ticket windows, lease out the day care, open the restrooms and get some DTV ambassadors and security up and running. As long as JTA stays with the Gillig BRT's we have running today, the buses on JTB, San Jose and other routes should turn at the railroad tracks. With coaches such as the Silver Eagles, comfortable longer distance commutes could be made (from non-rail points) all the way in to the central core. But the COACH (not a bus) MUST APPROXIMATE the train in creature comforts.
You have done well my children... The Ancient One has spoken...
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 11, 2010, 02:39:09 PM
there were other circumstances of course...but you know naysayers...they locked in on the metrolink extension.
I guess what I was trying to get at is that this community will not be able to improve transit significantly without people agreeing to some local investment...some of that could come from mobility fees, buit we'll likely need to look for additional revenue streams as well.
Lol, you're starting to sound like Mike Miller. Anyway, you're right. However, change should happen incrementally by improving what's already in place before anyone comes to the community and asks for tax increase of any sort. This community (JTA or whoever) is going to have to prove that they have the ability to manage a decent system. This can happen by making an effort to move forward with what's in place. By this I mean....
1. Better utilizing and integrating the skyway with the existing bus system.
2. Implementing BRT by running existing buses on the proposed routes before waiting for federal funds to add the bells and whistles.
3. Getting a "no-frills" starter rail line off the ground and into implementation.
4. Getting the bus shelter program up and running.
5. Creating a system that eases the end user's ability to transfer and pay for fares.
All of these are things that can be improved without finding an extra dedicated revenue source for mass transit locally. These are all important elements that have the ability to improve our current system, build up JTA's image and ridership. They also will make it easier to ask for a dedicated source whenever that time comes. The mobility plan and fee is a good start, but to be honest its coming from the city's planning department. Jacksonville needs JTA to step up it's game up.
I like this idea but, we need to stay on top of it so no one forgets. We all know how the city takes most good ideas and shelves them in the hopes that they'll be forgotten by those who want to see these ideas get off the ground. as far as stopping sprawl in it's tracks, Maybe an environmental issue can be brought up. We can get the EPA to help us. I'd like to see any new construction such as those lovely strip malls and the those condos and town homes be outlawed tn the name of preserving the environment. We can instead focus construction on the urban core and the urban core only. we can keep what sprawl is in place now, we just won't add anymore by disrupting nature.
Perhaps if we get this approved and people see some ground broken we could take a new fee to the polls. If people can see it happening they may vote to pick up the pace and increase the scale. What we have to do is start so the question will change from if to when, how and how much can we have.
QuoteLocal comprehensive plans must also comply with 163.3177, F.S., which requires the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient land use patterns. Pursuant to SB 360 and 163.3177, F.S., the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department has prepared a draft 2030 Mobility Plan.
I think that this new statute will be a key driving force in requiring Jacksonville to move forward with this plan. If we don't, then we won't be in compliance with state law.
I suppose the city council could deny the entire plan, but we will still need to comply with 163.3177 and it's doubtful we will be able to do that without investments in transit.
Gentlemen.............I agree with the general train of thought and the direction the discussion appears to be heading! Approval of the Mobility Plan should be a start, but we still will have to face a lack of funding at the local level! All of the plans and vision we can generate will not take the place of having a dollar to put into any plan from any agency to benefit the entire region! Unless the city takes it upon themselves to control its spending we will continue to operate in the red and I can not understand the lack of thought with an eye towards the future! It is time for either this Administration to step up their game or stand aside and let someone else take the lead before we run out time to achieve something that will benefit us all!
We have to approve this comp plan now before ammendment 4.
JefferyS ......I agree! Too bad the Council has the final say on this ya know?
Don't sweat the small stuff Lunican, JTA will issue POGO STICKS to the entire population!
MAYBE NOT THIS TIME?
Actually JTA's James Boyle, who was sick with the flu, made a wonderful presentation on JACKSONVILLE COMMUTER RAIL and touched on STREETCAR before the TPO last week.
A wave of excitement seemed to roll over the St. Johns and Clay folks as Nassau and Baker perked up their ears.
Some interesting questions, but one really stood out... "Won't more trains increase the noise complaints and be unacceptable in our neighborhoods?? JAX CITY COUNCIL!
James did a great job of promotion for an idea at least 30 years past due.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Lunican on April 11, 2010, 07:55:56 PM
QuoteLocal comprehensive plans must also comply with 163.3177, F.S., which requires the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient land use patterns. Pursuant to SB 360 and 163.3177, F.S., the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department has prepared a draft 2030 Mobility Plan.
I think that this new statute will be a key driving force in requiring Jacksonville to move forward with this plan. If we don't, then we won't be in compliance with state law.
I suppose the city council could deny the entire plan, but we will still need to comply with 163.3177 and it's doubtful we will be able to do that without investments in transit.
just about everyone in the state is trying to figure out how to deal with 163.3177....interestingly, studies are showing that successful transit only has a minimal effect on greehouse gas emissions.
Friend TUFSU, could it be because most transit systems, especially in this relm are powered by fossil fuels?
As for 163.3177, me thinkith yon Village Elders are about to experience a moment of misericordia in the monastery.
OCKLAWAHA
Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 11, 2010, 09:09:09 PM
Quote from: Lunican on April 11, 2010, 07:55:56 PM
QuoteLocal comprehensive plans must also comply with 163.3177, F.S., which requires the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient land use patterns. Pursuant to SB 360 and 163.3177, F.S., the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department has prepared a draft 2030 Mobility Plan.
I think that this new statute will be a key driving force in requiring Jacksonville to move forward with this plan. If we don't, then we won't be in compliance with state law.
I suppose the city council could deny the entire plan, but we will still need to comply with 163.3177 and it's doubtful we will be able to do that without investments in transit.
just about everyone in the state is trying to figure out how to deal with 163.3177....interestingly, studies are showing that successful transit only has a minimal effect on greehouse gas emissions.
A minimal effect is better than going in the opposite direction. However, this is why investing in multimodal transportation options and integrating supportive land use changes is important. Nothing alone will have a great impact. However a mix of higher building densities, bicycle and pedestrian connections along with efficient mass transit has the power to have a great impact.
Quote from: Lunican on April 11, 2010, 07:55:56 PM
QuoteLocal comprehensive plans must also comply with 163.3177, F.S., which requires the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient land use patterns. Pursuant to SB 360 and 163.3177, F.S., the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department has prepared a draft 2030 Mobility Plan.
I think that this new statute will be a key driving force in requiring Jacksonville to move forward with this plan. If we don't, then we won't be in compliance with state law.
I suppose the city council could deny the entire plan, but we will still need to comply with 163.3177 and it's doubtful we will be able to do that without investments in transit.
I find this to be a beautiful thing. For the last few years, we've said things would move this way and either Jax could accept it and plan accordingly or be pulled kicking and screaming. It looks like we'll be pulled kicking and screaming.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2010, 09:44:55 PM
I find this to be a beautiful thing. For the last few years, we've said things would move this way and either Jax could accept it and plan accordingly or be pulled kicking and screaming. It looks like we'll be pulled kicking and screaming.
Maybe so Lake, but you know what they said about me 30 years ago? Sometimes it helps to admit it!
I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us are...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad....
"WHY IS JACKSONVILLE PLANNING CONDUCIVE TO MASS TRANSIT?"
"Have you guessed the riddle yet?" Ocklawaha said, turning to Peyton again.
"No, I give it up," Peyton replied. "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea," said Ock.
"Nor I," said Mike Miller.
Peyton sighed wearily. "OCK, I think you might do something better with the time," he said, "than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers."
"Pogo sticks heir Peyton, Pogo Sticks..."
"Hee hee..."OCKLAWAHA
Did anyone see the channel 4 news special on transit infrastructure in the first coast area?
They (interviewed guests, Richard Clark, Charles H Crist) were pitching the outer beltway like no ones business.
When I see it, my cynical side emerges, and it all smells like a sweetheart deal to turn millionairs into billionairs.
Someone talk me off the proverbial ledge. (or should I just jump?)
No reason to jump. The Outer Beltway will require the private sector to pony up the $2 billion in cash to construct it before the first toll is collected. Still waiting to see who's man enough to risk that type of money on road project that will struggle to collect enough toll revenue to support itself.
It was unclear to me what portion of the 2B was privately invested. Someone also suggested the estimated cost was refigured at 20% - 30% lower. Significant.
I really doubt that a private investor(s) will drop 2B in hopes of earning a profit to be collected from tolls. Bailout provisions to follow?
My guess is if someone does pony up the cash, once it fails and goes into default, the taxpayer will be left holding the bag. From my understanding, this scenario is currently playing out in Greenville, SC.
Well it's bound to have an amazing success among cows at Gustaffson's. That plus, Sharron, a sawmill village (3 homes today) South of Penny Farms, that last had a direct connection to the outside world via the South-Western Railway of Florida, a narrow gauge line from Green Cove to Melrose, in the 1890's, could be in for a land boom!
OCKLAWAHA
The Disney World Monorail covers 14 miles, the Jacksonville Monorail covers 2 miles. I never thought a theme park system would be bigger than a metro city's system. Thats odd.
Where are they extenting the Skyway to in this 2030 plan?
^Atlantic Blvd in San Marco.
Quote from: Coolyfett on May 13, 2010, 07:54:25 PM
The Disney World Monorail covers 14 miles, the Jacksonville Monorail covers 2 miles. I never thought a theme park system would be bigger than a metro city's system. Thats odd.
Disney also has the largest bus system (ridership) in Florida...its called "captive market"
Quote from: Coolyfett on May 13, 2010, 07:54:25 PM
The Disney World Monorail covers 14 miles, the Jacksonville Monorail covers 2 miles. I never thought a theme park system would be bigger than a metro city's system. Thats odd.
Where are they extenting the Skyway to in this 2030 plan?
Disney might be a theme park, but they are also an incorporated city. The Disney Transit network is world class and the monorail is the busiest in the world, making it a great testbed for any future mono-toys.
Our's certainly needs to be expanded in 4 directions, if we get just one route that is successful, (NOTE I DIDN'T SAY PROFITABLE) the other 3 might take care of themselves. We need to define success early on, 2x current? 3x? Whatever... OCKLAWAHA
I did a fictional extension of the Skyway system with about 5 additional miles added to it.
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mattius92/SkywayExtensionPlan.jpg)
Legend:
Orange: Existing System
Red: Added line
Yellow: Current and proposed stations
Blue: Alternative Route for the Riverside Extension.
The extensions will have these following stations:
Riverside Extension: Fidelity, Five Points, and St Vincents.
Bay Street Extension: Courthouse/Hyatt/Future Convention Center and Sports Complex
San Marco Extension: N. San Marco and S. San Marco.
Does anyone have a .pdf of mobility plan they can email me? The coj website is being wonky and wont allow me to open it. pm me if you do and I will send my email address.
Quote from: Mattius92 on May 13, 2010, 11:46:46 PM
I did a fictional extension of the Skyway system with about 5 additional miles added to it.
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mattius92/SkywayExtensionPlan.jpg)
Legend:
Orange: Existing System
Red: Added line
Yellow: Current and proposed stations
Blue: Alternative Route for the Riverside Extension.
The extensions will have these following stations:
Riverside Extension: Fidelity, Five Points, and St Vincents.
Bay Street Extension: Courthouse/Hyatt/Future Convention Center and Sports Complex
San Marco Extension: N. San Marco and S. San Marco.
Nice job. Actually your stadium line is dead on right, and your San Marco extension get's to the right spot though the right-of-way might be costly over following the west side of the FEC RY down to Atlantic where a Intermodal Station could serve trains, bus, Skyway.
The Riverside Line would run into the Great Wall of RAP and be shot to pieces before you could get it off the slide. The best Mass Transit Systems tailor their product according to community needs and standards, thus a Monorail in Riverside, 5-Points, or Avondale, would fly like a lead balloon. However YOUR LINE screams streetcar and it is along the original streetcar route or within a block of it all the way, so again your on target, just change the mode.
Never give up, never surrender!OCKLAWAHA
Streetcar would be just fine, however the biggest key to reviving the Skyway is making it actually go somewhere.
However that might be fine if the Jacksonville Terminal was converted back into a station for commuter and regular passenger rail and have a connection from Jacksonville Terminal to the Skyway station, which they already have so all they need to do is bring back good ol' rail. Then commuters from all over the city can hop on the Skyway to their jobs in the inner city.
The stadium route, I believe is in the books, but no-one wants to risk it.
The Skyway is an isolated downtown peoplemover. While limited skyway expansion would be beneficial long term, streetcar and commuter rail lines that stretch transit options out into the community (feeding it with riders) are what the skyway needs most.
haha, I have a google map for that too, actually I have a google map for everything. I have so many overlays and paths its unbelievable. Heck maybe I should go into civil engineering. Naww, I am wanting to be a chief...
When you get the chance, go ahead and post more of your ideas. Many here would be interesting to see what you're cooking up.
Quote from: JC on May 16, 2010, 07:57:00 PM
Does anyone have a .pdf of mobility plan they can email me? The coj website is being wonky and wont allow me to open it. pm me if you do and I will send my email address.
The powers that be just do not see the possiblities of what a rail system could do for revitilizing downtown! Not to mention the possibilities for moving people by rail rather than a polluting bus! If the bus system were actually filled to capacity that would be one thing but it isn't! BRT is JTA's sop to the masses and they can't even provide minimal shelters without advertising! Lots of luck on that one.........silly narrow minded concrete oriented bufoons!
We have seen a skyway map like that before. The Northside is always left off lol. I think the 8th Street Shands area could use a station as well. I dont understand the RAP fear at 5 points. Whats so historic about it? That place was always adding, subtracting or changing the color of some building there. Dont see why mode would have to change just to get to 5 Points. Now King & Park or King & Post NO SKYWAY that far, but 5 Points? I see no biggie. Streetcar is the same thing like a trolley right? And how far should these little "Mr Rodgers Trolleys" go? I like the commter rail ideas and they should make those happen, but the Streetcar errr "Mr Rodgers Trolley", I am not too fund of those. Especially with the annual floods San Marco and Riverside get. Commuter to Jax Beach, JIA, GC Springs, St Augidog & Ferny Beach would be awesome. Is that something they have in the works to actually united the entire Jax Metro?
I think a skyway extension to the North end of 5 points and then a streetcar to Park & King, St Vincents, The Shoppes of Avondale, Fairfax, Murray Hill, and potentially to the St Marks/Ortega area would be the best solution.
A similar thing would work with an extension to Atlantic and then Streetcar to St Nicholas, San Marco Square, Miramar, North San Marco and potentially Lakewood would work.
I'm sure there's a Springfield solution as well, but I do not know the area well enough to comment.
This would make the skyway a backbone for a larger historic neighborhood streetcar network that would enhance the core immensely. No streetcar would be as beneficial without the skyway linking them to the core, and vice-versa.
With that in mind, I going to slightly modify my map.
Why can't the Skyway be reconfigured so possible extensions could be built at street level? The current monorail cars would need to be redesigned, but it seems like there should be a way to use the existing Skyway track downtown, and incorporate it (seamlessly) into the proposed light rail/street car. Many transit networks have portions that are "elevated", but you don't actually have to get off and switch to new line.
that is possible yet, most monorail systems are powered by several hundred volts, if some retard were to walk on the tracks and get electrocuted the city will be to blame. We have to keep care of the tards in this world. There would have to be fences all all kind of crap to keep poeple off the track.
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mattius92/MasterTransportationPlan-1.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mattius92/SanMarcoTransportationPlan-1.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mattius92/DowntownTransportationPlan-1.jpg)
This is a revised version of my transportation plan, + commuter rail.