2030 Mobility Plan Presentation

[Charles Hunter]

Does a developer get a "transit station" credit if they set aside space, or even build a station, if a transit line is not funded in that corridor, either "ever" or is (say) 10 years after the development?

[urbaknight]

there is a Mayoral Forum scheduled for 1/27 at Modis....it is sponsored by several planning & real estate organizations....I'm sure the question will come up there.

Sadly, only Brown, Mullaney, and Moran are scheduled to appear....Mr. Hogan declined!

That's a good thing, it just proves that Hogan is exactly the WRONG choice for mayor!

[fieldafm]

Its clear where his sympathy lies

+1

Luckily, the Plan is receiving favorable reviews throughout the various Council channels.

[Ocklawaha]

Does a developer get a "transit station" credit if they set aside space, or even build a station, if a transit line is not funded in that corridor, either "ever" or is (say) 10 years after the development?

Within a quarter mile on either side of a transit line I believe.

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

I'm not sure the exact details of the credit adjustments have been flushed out.  Nevertheless, from my understanding, transit mitigation adjustments would only be available for development located within 1/2 mile of transit projects identified as being a part of the 2030 Mobility Plan.

[Ocklawaha]

Damn! Missed it by a quarter mile!

OCKLAWAHA

[dougskiles]

Nevertheless, from my understanding, transit mitigation adjustments would only be available for development located within 1/2 mile of transit projects identified as being a part of the 2030 Mobility Plan.

That is one thing that has me a little puzzled about the plan.  If a developer builds a project within 1/2 mile of a proposed transit stop in the 2030 Mobility Plan and gets a fee reduction for doing that - how will the transit stop in the plan ever get enough funding to be constructed?

It makes sense for someone to get a fee reduction if they develop within a 1/2 mile of an existing transit stop.  Or if they build the transit stop in the development.  Of course that would assume the presence of a transit system.

[thelakelander]

Its important to make a funding commitment to a system to encourage transit oriented development growth.  Recent history has shown that once that commitment is made, development follows well before lines are actually operational.  Examples to look at include Austin's Capital Metrorail and Charlotte's LRT.  Plus, unless we're going to go the route of asking for a public referendum to raise taxes to get something off the ground (ask Tampa how that worked out), we're going to have to start generating money to pay for it.  The plan does just this.  Also, here are two things to keep in mind.

1. Transit is significantly cheaper than road construction.  For example, the cost to construct a streetcar line from DT to Riverside (over three miles) is cheaper than the cost to construct one typical BJP highway overpass (ex. Kernan/Beach overpass).

2. Mobility improvements are funded by zone, not transit corridors. For every TOD that pops up along a transit line, you'll probably have two or three times as much development take place in that zone away from it.  Nevertheless, all the money compiled in that zone goes to fund that zone's priority project.  In the case of the urban core zones, that money funds alternative forms of mobility (transit, bike, ped).  So lets say EWC expands and the Park View project and the VA Clinic near Shands get underway. They all happen to be in the same zone that has the S-Line being established as a starter commuter rail corridor.  So, their mobility fees would go to help fund that project.  

With all of this said, from the city council presentations I've attended, URBEMIS related credit adjustments will be flushed out in further detail in the upcoming months.

[dougskiles]

You know I'm 100% behind the plan, I have just been curious about that part of it.  I think that for developers wanting to go in immediately next to a transit stop the opportunity for public/private partnership should also be encouraged.  It seems like it would significantly speed up the process.  And perhaps they wouldn't have to pay anything into the Mobility Plan fund if they paid directly for a portion of the system.  In many cases, their financial contribution to the transit system would be much greater than what they would have paid into the fund - but their return on investment would be sufficient to make that worthwhile.

But, I'll admit I am very new to this - so thanks for the continued explanations of how it works.  And thanks for correcting the errors in my assumptions.  As I continue to promote the concept to people, it is very important to me that I actually know what I'm talking about.  That's what I really like about this forum - the opportunity to learn.

[thelakelander]

Because everything isn't set in stone, I think the points you made are something definitely worth looking at in further detail for inclusion.  What's been produced to date is something that has never been done before in our sprawl loving state.  Once fine tuned, what Bill Killingsworth has developed could become something that is modeled nation wide by cash strapped municipalities to get multimodal projects off the ground through better utilization of income already being generated. 

I also agree that the opportunity for pooling financial resources exists. Speaking in terms of transit, not only is public/private partnerships worth exploring, mobility plan money could also probably be used as a local match to land additional federal dollars.

[dougskiles]

I also agree that the opportunity for pooling financial resources exists. Speaking in terms of transit, not only is public/private partnerships worth exploring, mobility plan money could also probably be used as a local match to land additional federal dollars.

Right on target.  With all projects, we need to be looking at how to amplify our investment.  Everything I have heard so far suggests that the greatest opportunity for federal funding is when you already have strong local support (either municipal or private funds - preferably both).

How blessed we really were that the latest round of stimulus money bypassed Jacksonville - it would have gone straight into the monster-modal center and the BRT.

[thelakelander]

Luckily, the federal government has their eye on projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage sustainable development.  As presented so far, our multimodal center and BRT concepts don't make a strong case for either.  Looking at phase 1, what does a new "non-mixed-use office building with limited pedestrian connectivity do to promote those ideas and concepts?  We would probably get further by investing more money in the transit side of things and purchasing on of the Northbank's many vacant buildings to consolidate office needs.  

At least in this case, we could make the argument of redevelopment, sustainability (the greenest building is one that already exists) and job creation (stick a lot of jobs in the core and existing restaurants and retail would benefit from the connectivity.).  Considering many are adjacent to the skyway, there would also be a direct connection between the JTC and offices, thus promoting transit use from within.

From what I saw in the latest round of Tiger grant applications, our submittal for the transportation center (we lost) was no match for Salt Lake City's Sugarhouse streetcar (one of the big winners).  What I noticed most was that in addition to having minimal application requirements submitted, they also focused on the economic (infill development, job creation, etc.) and environmental (reducing greenhouse gas emissions, VMTs, etc.) benefits that their project would do for the surrounding community.  

[spuwho]

I would think someone like Mr Sleiman would love mobility based zoning.

- It will increase overall density city wide, which in turn helps him fill space in his strip malls
- If it fills his strip malls completely, he will be able to raise his rents
- Once rent levels go up, he can afford more urban retail formats, which tend to be more expensive psf.

For him, I see nothing but win-win.

The downside of urban infill efforts, they out-price certain neighborhoods.

On rail subsidy issues;

- I never said passenger rail was self supporting, however, if the NS CEO wants the Feds to pay for everything, infra and ops, then yes, I could then start my own.

- Instead treat the private rails with some public slots. Allow NS, CSX, UP, BNSF to create public availability slots which can be auctioned to private rail carriers. Feds can subsidize the infra (just like they do for the airlines and Amtrak) but let those entities cover ops out of the fare box.

Airlines have to auction for air slots in congested or low availability landing zones, so why not allow private carriers to auction for a slot in another type of low availability zone, a rail entrance to a large destination.

Just an option when looking at mobility overall.

[Ocklawaha]

Because of the Mobility Plan a variation of this type passenger car could become a familiar sight in Jacksonville.

- Instead treat the private rails with some public slots. Allow NS, CSX, UP, BNSF to create public availability slots which can be auctioned to private rail carriers. Feds can subsidize the infra (just like they do for the airlines and Amtrak) but let those entities cover ops out of the fare box.

With the investment in equipment and crews it would be unlikely that any carrier would bid on a slot or stay afloat without unsubsidized fares. Highway carriers, air carriers or water/sea carriers can't move without huge influxes of federal money. If the market had to pay for the roads, air and rail, we'd all be walking.

The sky belongs to everyone, but the rails are private, so it would take the iron heal of big brother to take control of profitable mainlines and then auction off the rights to run on it. What you are talking about is called "open access," and the idea has been around for a long time, but never gained much political will. I think part of that is the federal government nearly crippled the entire national network when it took over America's private railroads in WWI. Several of the railroad's were in such bad shape, or had been stripped of so much equipment, machines, tools and even track that they were forced in abandonment. Other rail lines never recovered from the neglect fostered on it by an inexperienced government operation and by the mid 1930's, with money scarce, they had to trim thousands of miles off their systems.

Railroading is maybe the most cash intensive transportation mode in that retail, manfacturing, even air and highway carriers all work on about the same formula, wholesale being 40% off + 5% for cash, leaving a possible net on retail goods and services of 45%. With railroading those expenditures would equal a wholesale of only 10-20%. Your lucky to pull an operating ratio better then 70%, in fact CSX doing that this year lit up wall street. The difference is the railroad's are not playing the nickle slots, we're talking about an incredible 30% of ten billion dollars. 

Airlines have to auction for air slots in congested or low availability landing zones, so why not allow private carriers to auction for a slot in another type of low availability zone, a rail entrance to a large destination.

Airlines also get a direct cash subsidy for essential air services for flights to cities in Wyoming, Montana, most of the Dakotas, and anywhere else where the demand is too slight to make a honest profit. Macon Georgia Airport? You bet and over $50 dollars per ticket is paid for by you and me.  The playing field is on a steep and slippery slope. $6.5 Million for Locomotives and $4.5 for cars on the newest Amtrak large fleet "discount" order... Open access or not, you better have the population of Tokyo ready to ride if you think you'll make a profit on that between Jax and Valdosta, or Daytona, or Tampa, or...

OCKLAWAHA