First Coast Outer Beltway: Should it be Built?

[CS Foltz]

Plain and simple NOOOOOO!

[finehoe]

From a purely transportation guy prospective, I can see almost no value in this beltway.

That seems to be the consensus, and is pretty obvious to anyone looking at the project objectively.  That's why I say, who will benefit from this?  The answer to that will give you the answer to who is pushing it and why.

[tufsu1]

FDOT seriosuly needs to take a step back and realize the only necessity right now is a new, higher, and wider Shands Bridge crossing.

part of me thinks that a motivating factor behind the Outer beltway is that FDOT won't have to find the money for the new bridge....best guess is a new bridge there would cost at least $200 million and the folks in Clay seem dead opposed to having it tolled to recoup those costs (as ell as operations/maintenance).

even the beltway has a potential out clause on tolls....if getting on/off at the interchanges closest to the bridge and you have a transponder, you won't have to pay a toll.

of course, this concession by FDOT may be the downfall of the whole project....because the river crossing is the only place where there is virtually no other option, thereby creating a solid revenue stream for the private constructor/operator.  

[jandar]

Well since Lake is the only one to give their answers, I'll add mine.

1. Same corridor map Lake posted makes the most sense.

2. Same routes Lake posted, but add ROW on a new bridge for another rail spur from GCS or Fleming Island to Race Track or Palencia. This allows future growth of commuter rail there.

3. I like the idea of commuter bus spur lines to feed the commuter rail. This could be a short term until a line is built across the St Johns following the new bridge.

4. I do this every morning, leaving my house near 220/blanding @ 6:20AM and am at work by 7AM near SJTC. During the heavier rush time, its 1 hour tops, a little over an hour if I am forced to drive SR16 due to a major wreck on 295 corridor.

5. If the bridge were moved north, most of the land it would pass through is already slated/has development. So not much more growth adjacent to the road. Feeder roads could still grow, and are regardless of a new bridge.

6. Add a new bridge, and fix the Shands. Its needed.

7. Why entice them with new work locations in Jax. Why not focus on Cecil area for business and SR16 area in St Johns County. Look at I-4, yes you have Orlando core, but there are work areas in pockets for miles and miles. You don't have a major work area like we do here in Jax on the southside. We need to stop thinking 1 central location and create smart growth in multiple locations.

8. To answer Lake's answer, right now Clay and St Johns are handling the depressed areas better than DCSB is. WE Cherry in GCS is almost all free/reduced lunch and is still an C school. S Bryan Jennings is a title 1 school (more than 50% free/reduced lunch) and is still an A school. Duval has come far, but really needs to clean house in some schools.

9. Mimicing Lake's answer. Building along commuter routes and existing areas. Northside/westside Industrial parks need better transport to/from and should not be excluded from commuter travel.

10. No. There should be growth in many areas. Southside is a business area. Same with downtown. There exists a potential to grow the Northside and Westside industrial/business parks smartly, attracting more businesses there. Build the jobs where the people are, don't build in one area and expect everyone to suddenly move and goto work there. People will commute in those cases.

[Lunican]

Moral of the story: Don't put three miles of water between your house and your job if you don't have a boat.

[zoo]

10. Build the jobs where the people are, don't build in one area and expect everyone to suddenly move and goto work there. People will commute in those cases.

This is the suburbanites', and Jacksonville's, fallacy. "I moved out to the stix for greenspace and good schools, so now the jobs and growth should be built out by me." This flawed thinking, cheap land prices, developers, and lending is what has caused Jacksonville's sprawl problems to begin with.

I participated in ULI's Reality Check First Coast planning-for-2060 exercise last year. In the exercise tables of 10 or so folks were asked to plan for the location of projected residential and commercial growth (represented by yellow and red bricks, respectively), on a map of NEFL showing existing residential and commercial density (also yellow and red, respectively).

As the exercise began, many of the participants' natural instincts when placing the red (commercial bricks) were to put them where all of the residential (yellow) without much red (commercial) was shown on the map. This is consistent with jandar's suggestions.

I was glad that a couple of urban planning people at the table explained to the other participants that approach only makes sense if one is happy with Jax's current sprawl pattern. After some discussion of this, the table pursued a more smart-growth pattern of putting residential (yellow) bricks where there was already significant red (commercial) density on the map, and to put MORE commercial (red) bricks where there was already red on the map (which, for the most part, happened to be in Downtown and along existing major arteries -- JTB, Beach Blvd, Atlantic Blvd, Blanding, etc.)

The complete results of the Reality Check First Coast exercise can be viewed at http://www.realitycheckfirstcoast.com/images/index_67_3692336283.pdf, and here's a quick summary of findings:

From the Reality Check First Coast exercise, the picture of the future First Coast that emerged shows a region defined by:
•   Multiple compact growth areas
•   Mixed-use development
•   A more balanced distribution of population and jobs in each County
•   Development of multi-modal infrastructure
•   New roadways that increase the flow east to west, including an outer beltway
•   Preservation, conservation, and connectivity of key natural systems

So looking at the results of the exercise, smart growth wins some, loses some. It is clear there were more than a few tables full of suburbanites who wanted the jobs to come to where they had chosen to live. Net, net? Jacksonville will likely suffer from the suburbanites' fallacy, and end up footing the bill for this ridiculous Outer Beltway idea, for many decades to come.

[fieldafm]

My mom lives in Hibernia, gf's parents live literally on the other side of the river in Switzerland(you can see the other's house from the backyard using a telescope).  I agree, the only thing that needs to be seriously considered is making the Shands bridge wider and taller.  Anything beyond that is a complete waste.
We have a beltway now, its called 295/9a and this works great.  Its almost a carbon copy of the beltway in Atlanta, which also works great.

I really dont understad this obsession with more highways in this already massive area.

[jandar]

The complete results of the Reality Check First Coast exercise can be viewed at http://www.realitycheckfirstcoast.com/images/index_67_3692336283.pdf, and here's a quick summary of findings:

From the Reality Check First Coast exercise, the picture of the future First Coast that emerged shows a region defined by:
•   Multiple compact growth areas
•   Mixed-use development
•   A more balanced distribution of population and jobs in each County
•   Development of multi-modal infrastructure
•   New roadways that increase the flow east to west, including an outer beltway
•   Preservation, conservation, and connectivity of key natural systems

I was going to type a huge response, but this post and the RealityCheck link allows me to clarify some things and try to stimulate some minds (stop being closed to thoughts, thats what this board is about)

Look at the projected growth charts, listed on page 11. Notice the explosion on the westside/clay/northside areas. Would we be able to build out smart growth then, or start now?

Look at the 2 charts on page 17. The corridor growth pattern is actually close to what I am suggesting. Yet you see the growth of commercial blocks deep into Clay County along US17 and Blanding. And right where the outer beltway would be built.

The multiple growth chart is also heavy around US17 and Blanding and close to the outer beltway.

The dispersed is the worst use and shows as much.

Even the Urban compact pattern shows heavy buildup in Clay south of I295 and along the outer beltway corridor.

For density, the Urban compact is the winner in this study. Yet this has a huge area of commercial development in Clay County. What gives?

Hmm, read on page 31.

While participants appear to favor the development of public transit over road construction, they do recognize our region's automobile dependency. All 30 tables include an Outer Beltway alignment

Even the Mobility Expert Panel states:

There is validation of the lower outer beltway as planned on the yarn map for roads. There is a conflict between the yarn map for open space, which shows a green belt and the upper outer beltway.

Yet we conclude with comments such as:

So looking at the results of the exercise, smart growth wins some, loses some. It is clear there were more than a few tables full of suburbanites who wanted the jobs to come to where they had chosen to live. Net, net? Jacksonville will likely suffer from the suburbanites' fallacy, and end up footing the bill for this ridiculous Outer Beltway idea, for many decades to come.

.

Seems to me that the think here is that if you don't agree with a CBD idea, it is a fallacy and that commuters are bad.

[thelakelander]

Concerning the Outer Beltway, wasn't it assumed that the highway would be there from the start of the process?  It was in the TPO's 2035 LRTP.  If so, then sprawl growth would be shown in those areas from the start.  However, if there was no Outer Beltway, future growth would have to be accommodated into other ways, such as along transit corridors instead.  There is no doubt that we are going to continue growing.  However, we do have a choice in whether that growth is sustainable or not.  Going the path of the Outer Beltway only gives us more of what we keep saying we're trying to change and avoid.  Its counterproductive and a massive waste of financial resources to say the least.

[Clem1029]

Along the lines of what jandar is getting at...am I understanding that the basic position here is that, considering the existing development in northern Clay, the only thing that should be done to support it is a commuter rail line? That discussions of other infrastructure improvements (particularly that is not the OB) are basically a non-starter?

[Overstreet]

Outer Beltway............Isn't that I-295/9A?  Isn't Edgewood Ave is the origninal "inner" belt way?

[thelakelander]

Clem1029, That's not my position.  Although I do believe commuter rail should be included in any option, there is no one stop solution out there.  So I'm a backer of evaluating of a mix of solutions that support sustainable growth.  That could be anything from a mix of commuter rail, changing land use/zoning and ITS to the promotion of small road "connectivity" projects in certain areas that divert existing travel characteristics by improving the grid with parallel facilities.  

[thelakelander]

Outer Beltway............Isn't that I-295/9A?  Isn't Edgewood Ave is the origninal "inner" belt way?

Pretty much.  This will essentially be our third beltway.  So if we want to see the end result, we can easily take a look at the development patterns around the first two.

[jandar]

jandar. 

Sprawl is bad.

And I would sincerely like to hear your reasoning in reference to my post and question above.

Sprawl is bad, but it happens whether we like it our not. Smart growth takes into account sprawl and works with it to alleviate traffic and other growth issues. It doesn't ignore it or force it to go away.

What is the basis of your idea that we 'should' have  growth in many areas?

Sprawl is going to happen, working with sprawl means growth in many areas. Once again, I re-iterate, ignoring sprawl that will happen regardless is the worst thing that can happen out of any planning.

This costs trillions of dollars.

What reasons would you say are compelling enough to tax the shit out of an entire country to support this kind of development?

Why tax? The outerbeltway is paid for by tolls. Why not use this, and force a ROW so that the toll is paying for the ROW that would soon be a commuter rail corridor. There are many ways to do things without taxing.

The thinking that needs to be considered:
Sprawl will happen. Not everyone wants to live in an urban environment.
The key is to control sprawl, not try to eliminate it. Why not try to do what other metropolitan areas do and create urban zones. San Francisco Bay area is a great example. You have urban areas designated in 5 counties there.
You have to address the needs of single family homes/lots and housing costs.

[thelakelander]

Why tax? The outerbeltway is paid for by tolls.

This is wishful dreaming and manipulation more than anything else.  Suckers are hard to find in economic conditions like this.  If real money could be made off this thing, the private sector would be knocking the doors down to get a piece of it.  In reality, this is a huge $1.8 billion risk, which is why its been slow moving forward.