Outer Beltway Plan Up In Smoke!

[middleman]

Not all development is the same.  You can have either sustainable or unsustainable development. Every transit trip begins and ends with walking.  Commuter rail promotes infill walkable development along an established transportation corridor (typically within a 1/2 mile radius of rail stations) while a new 46 mile expressway stimulates autocentric development in formerly virgin land.  Automobiles cover much larger distances than our feet do, which contributes to the sprawled out nature of automobile friendly development.

With all due respect, this might be the case in densely populated urban areas, but it's not what happens in suburban or exurban areas served by commuter rail. My experience is that most of the users of commuter rail in suburban/exurban areas drive in from distant locations. Where new commuter rail routes become available, new developments are created to take advantage of it (I.E., urban sprawl). Are you denying this? Do you really believe a new commuter train station doesn't contribute to new population areas (10 mile radius) created to take advantage of the easy commuter access?

[thelakelander]

Not all development is the same.  You can have either sustainable or unsustainable development. Every transit trip begins and ends with walking.  Commuter rail promotes infill walkable development along an established transportation corridor (typically within a 1/2 mile radius of rail stations) while a new 46 mile expressway stimulates autocentric development in formerly virgin land.  Automobiles cover much larger distances than our feet do, which contributes to the sprawled out nature of automobile friendly development.

With all due respect, this might be the case in densely populated urban areas, but it's not what happens in suburban or exurban areas served by commuter rail. My experience is that most of the users of commuter rail in suburban/exurban areas drive in from distant locations. Where new commuter rail routes become available, new developments are created to take advantage of it (I.E., urban sprawl). Are you denying this?

Yes.  If its not built with transit as a central anchor then its not a Transit Oriented Development.  What you're describing can't happen without significant additional investment in roadway infrastructure and land use regulations that promote autocentric growth.  With that said, you can have a presence of both, but you can't blame it on commuter rail.  

By the way, here are three examples communities that are no different that those in Clay County have enjoyed walkable development springing up around their commuter and intercity rail stations.

Davis, CA (Amtrak Capitol Corridor)


Farmington, UT (Front Runner Commuter Rail)

Station Park - Now under construction.
http://www.centercal.com/stationpark.html


Santa Fe, NM (Rail Runner Commuter Rail)

DESTINATIONS IN THE PARK AND PLAZA
The Railyard Park + Plaza provides a special central gathering place Santa Fe residents and visitorsâ€"a place where Santa Fe comes together. Among the highlights:

A Children’s Play Area designed to promote children’s creativity and activity, including a climbing wall, a water play feature, slides, and special toddler features

An Outdoor Performance Space for concerts, movies, trapeze shows and other public events

Picnic Areas with grills and tables set amid shade trees and park gardens

5,000 feet of Bicycle and Walking Trails link to a citywide trail network

An innovative Water Harvesting System stores rainwater for plant irrigation to make the park sustainable for the dry climate of Santa Fe

The Acequia Madre, a 400-year-old irrigation ditch, feeds trees, gardens and grasses as a historic counterpart to the modern water harvesting system

Community Food Gardens filled with native and edible plants are nourished in part by the Acequia Niña, a newly created lateral ditch extending from the Acequia Madre

Drought-resistant Gardens include the beautiful Bird and Butterfly Garden and Railway Gardens

The Railyard Plaza provides space for the Santa Fe Farmers Market and other community events that draw thousands to the Railyard each week

A modern interpretation of a historic Wood Water Tower holds 40,000 gallons of rooftop rainwater and is a Railyard Plaza landmark

http://www.railyardpark.org/

If you want pedestrian friendly development to spring up around your rail station, you integrate your land use with the system.  If you want sprawl to be dominate, locate your stations in the middle of nowhere and don't integrate land use which will force you to spend money on.......roads.......to facilitate that style of growth.

Do you really believe a new commuter train station doesn't contribute to new population areas (10 mile radius) created to take advantage of the easy commuter access?

I don't believe you can make significant investment in roads, zone far flung properties to allow for autocentric growth and then make the claim that its there because of a rail station in Fleming Island, Downtown Green Cove or Orange Park.  To get to that point, you would have to promote and facilitate that style of growth, which has nothing to do with rail stations placed at locations that encourage infill and redevelopment.

[jcjohnpaint]

Not all development is the same.  You can have either sustainable or unsustainable development. Every transit trip begins and ends with walking.  Commuter rail promotes infill walkable development along an established transportation corridor (typically within a 1/2 mile radius of rail stations) while a new 46 mile expressway stimulates autocentric development in formerly virgin land.  Automobiles cover much larger distances than our feet do, which contributes to the sprawled out nature of automobile friendly development.

With all due respect, this might be the case in densely populated urban areas, but it's not what happens in suburban or exurban areas served by commuter rail. My experience is that most of the users of commuter rail in suburban/exurban areas drive in from distant locations. Where new commuter rail routes become available, new developments are created to take advantage of it (I.E., urban sprawl). Are you denying this? Do you really believe a new commuter train station doesn't contribute to new population areas (10 mile radius) created to take advantage of the easy commuter access?

We have to stop somewhere and start somewhere. 

[Ocklawaha]

My sentiment on the whole dumb project is the angle they are projecting the masses to travel. Granted there is probably a demand for a direct route to Cecil from Clay, but the demand into Jacksonville has to be exponentially higher.

The crazy thing with all of the demand for a cut-off to Gainesville from Jacksonville, (recently a proposed turnpike by the way), OLD MIDDLEBURG ROAD would seem to provide a ready made corridor, either into Clay or beyond toward Starke.

The other insane thing about this beltway is the way they cross the river far south of ANY population center. Hell it would be good for me and my 200 neighbors but that's about it. Which Clay County representatives signed off on boxing in the old Naval Airport, on rail, on US-highway, next to a river port?  sheer genius.

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

Improvements to Old Middleburg Road are already planned.  It just won't be a limited access facility.

[Captain Zissou]

Just some quick math, at Miami Beach's density, Duval county could house 9,650,000 people.  While this couldn't happen for hundreds of years, that fact that we currently aren't even at 15% of this density makes it hard for me to believe that a 2nd beltway was ever even conceived. 

There is so much develop-able land within the inner beltway. Developers in NE Florida have gotten lazy with their cookie cutter sprawl communities and our city leaders are happy to foot the bill.  This is the first time we've ever done anything to reign them in.

[jcjohnpaint]

and everyone I talk to considers moving back into town due to how inconvenient it has become to live so far away. 

[CS Foltz]

Amazing to me how those kinds of area's don't seem to get really filled in with housing developements until a "really needed spur" get installed .....thanks to the deep pockets of the taxpayers! 9B, to me, is a classic example and don't forget 9A will be upgraded just so port traffic can haul containers all over it! No vision and no plan............current port director talks big, no substance! Downtown is still not on the radar and most likely won't be!

[tufsu1]

and everyone I talk to considers moving back into town due to how inconvenient it has become to live so far away. 

and yet there are still lots of people moving to places in St. ohns County...remember, there are lots of factors at play...and when you have a young family, quality of schools is pretty high on the list

[north miami]

The "Beltway" is not reflective of "smart growth" or proper growth management application.
The beltway reflects decades old boosterism.In the early 1970's a beltway alignment concept officially emerged in Clay county planning maps.Reinhold Corp and General Development Corp. were key drivers and indeed the roadway alignment of that era depicted a graceful arc,comfortably swinging through Penny Farms.

Reinhold's stamp of involvement at key Brannon Chaffee and Lake Asbury "Sector Plan" is a matter of public record.

Another key "Driver" for the critical Brannon/Chaffee leg has been the erroneous promotion and image of Blanding Blvd./SR 21"alleviation",which itself was sacrificed as a major arterial due to the same county boosterism and developer pressure driving the grand Beltway image.Literally often the same faces.

The call for another alternate "North-South" roadway itself proved hauntingly erroneous,for Blanding Blvd. is not so much a "North-South" roadway but rather a Northeasterly-Southwesterly alignment and the truly North-South Brannon Chaffee alignment created an ineffectiveness - a simple geometry exercise.

Brannon/Chaffee was never designed as an effective long term "alleviation" for SR 21.
The promotional history is loaded with boomer's references to the DOT 'wanting' these projects however the DOT has made it clear that they do not "want' these unpopular roadways-the DOT takes it's direction from the local government.

As I have often noted mayor John Delaney played a pivotal role in the Corp of Engineers/Water Management District permitting for the key Brannon/Chaffee leg.(This file received an unprecedented number of FOI review requests)

The Boosters have learned to veer away from the the myriad images of "Alleviation" in favor of "economic" aspects.

We are outgrowing the erroneous narrative,ghost images,naked emperors.

[middleman]

Yes.  If its not built with transit as a central anchor then its not a Transit Oriented Development.  What you're describing can't happen without significant additional investment in roadway infrastructure and land use regulations that promote autocentric growth.  With that said, you can have a presence of both, but you can't blame it on commuter rail. 

Walkable communities surrounding commuter rail terminals is great!!!!! I would love to see growth in Florida managed in such a way. I sincerely hope it happens.

Come on, I'm not blaming commuter rail for causing sprawl problems. I'm just saying that when you extend commuter rail into the suburbs and exburbs, it causes more development. Just like expressways. This is not an anti-rail position. It is to point out the reality that any improvement in transportation efficiency, whether highway or rail, promotes development. And clearly, highway improvements cause more sprawl than railway improvements. My point is that blaming highways alone for urban sprawl is disingenuous. Its caused by all transportation improvements in a metropolitan area... including improved rail service. You can't say highways are evil for causing urban sprawl when the improved rail system you promote will do the same thing.

[middleman]

My sentiment on the whole dumb project is the angle they are projecting the masses to travel. Granted there is probably a demand for a direct route to Cecil from Clay, but the demand into Jacksonville has to be exponentially higher.

Ocklawaha, thank you for presenting a reasonable alternative to the problems on Blanding, and the "hated" beltway. I wish I had your skills at presentation, I would love to present a graphic of what I think the proper route for a Blanding "pressure value" route would be.

[thelakelander]

Yes.  If its not built with transit as a central anchor then its not a Transit Oriented Development.  What you're describing can't happen without significant additional investment in roadway infrastructure and land use regulations that promote autocentric growth.  With that said, you can have a presence of both, but you can't blame it on commuter rail.  

Walkable communities surrounding commuter rail terminals is great!!!!! I would love to see growth in Florida managed in such a way. I sincerely hope it happens.

Come on, I'm not blaming commuter rail for causing sprawl problems. I'm just saying that when you extend commuter rail into the suburbs and exburbs, it causes more development. Just like expressways. This is not an anti-rail position. It is to point out the reality that any improvement in transportation efficiency, whether highway or rail, promotes development.

Sure, rail stimulates development.  I don't think I've ever claimed that it didn't.  However, due to the nature of it being a pedestrian oriented transportation mode, that development tends to better utilize the land its on.  You typically end up with higher density, environmental friendly walkable mixed use development around stations.  It also tends to be infill and adaptive reuse oriented, which is opposite of greenfield development.

And clearly, highway improvements cause more sprawl than railway improvements. My point is that blaming highways alone for urban sprawl is disingenuous. Its caused by all transportation improvements in a metropolitan area... including improved rail service. You can't say highways are evil for causing urban sprawl when the improved rail system you promote will do the same thing.

I don't blame highways.  Autocentric land use regulations that accompany them are worse.  I only make the point that they are designed for automobiles and autocentric development is typically spread out, low density and pedestrian hostile development.  Its basically the worst style of development you can have because it spreads your public resources out too thin.

[thelakelander]

My sentiment on the whole dumb project is the angle they are projecting the masses to travel. Granted there is probably a demand for a direct route to Cecil from Clay, but the demand into Jacksonville has to be exponentially higher.

Ocklawaha, thank you for presenting a reasonable alternative to the problems on Blanding, and the "hated" beltway. I wish I had your skills at presentation, I would love to present a graphic of what I think the proper route for a Blanding "pressure value" route would be.

Why would it be ideal to destroy the quality of the neighborhoods along Old Middleburg Road because Blanding is too congested in Clay County?  At what point do we stop paying for more expensive bigger belts, admit we have a weight problem and commit to getting in shape instead?

With that said, instead of focusing on beltways and highways, the better road based solution is to create a more connective road network (where feasible) to reduce the amount of short trips on existing arterials.  Grids work because they disperse traffic by giving drivers a choice of paths to take to get to the same destination.  We should look at going back to that concept.

[tufsu1]

Walkable communities surrounding commuter rail terminals is great!!!!! I would love to see growth in Florida managed in such a way. I sincerely hope it happens.

Come on, I'm not blaming commuter rail for causing sprawl problems. I'm just saying that when you extend commuter rail into the suburbs and exburbs, it causes more development.

ah...you just hit on the big question...is it the location (i.e., suburbs / leap-frog) or the form (i.e., auto-oriented) that makes something sprawl.