Council Passes Mobility Plan Unanimously.

iMarvin · May 24, 2011, 10:18:24 PM

Quick question: How will they get the money?

iMarvin · May 24, 2011, 10:38:30 PM

^Wow that is incredible. Just amazing.

RiversideLoki · May 24, 2011, 10:43:29 PM

This is great news!

iMarvin · May 24, 2011, 10:49:29 PM

It really is because, to think how much that will change the landscape of the city and the metro area. It shows how much we are progressing. It's really, really great.

Ocklawaha · May 24, 2011, 11:15:30 PM

YES!

With Love

OCKLAWAHA!

Charles Hunter · May 24, 2011, 11:34:38 PM

Now if we just keep them from enacting a "moratorium" on mobility fees to "encourage jobs".

JeffreyS · May 24, 2011, 11:49:43 PM

So right Charles and we need to start letting the council and Mayor know we expect this to be lived up to.

dougskiles · May 25, 2011, 04:48:28 AM

This is great news. Kudos to Bill and the council for recognizing the value.

From what I hear, the bill for moratorium on concurrency will most likely die. The sponsor, Jack Webb, was just voted out of office. But it certainly doesn't hurt to let your councilman know that you don't like it.

acme54321 · May 25, 2011, 07:13:40 AM

If there is going to be a streetcar and communter rail in 5 years someone better get cracking

Ocklawaha · May 25, 2011, 08:30:53 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2011, 07:13:40 AM
If there is going to be a streetcar and communter rail in 5 years someone better get cracking

If one is funding through the Federal Government you'd not only be right, but it would probably take another 5 years. Self funded streetcar lines can be built almost as fast as bus routes can be changed. A look at the historic TU papers in the library system demonstrates this...April "announcement of new subdivision" November "line to subdivision opens".

OCKLAWAHA

thelakelander · May 25, 2011, 08:43:53 AM

Regarding the mass transit component of the plan, from what I understand, the skyway extension to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco was removed because of fear that the bad air around the system could potentially take down the entire mobility plan. Thus, that $21 million the plan dedicated to it, has been shifted to help speed up the contruction of the streetcar line between downtown and Springfield (Shands).

Kiva · May 25, 2011, 09:01:53 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 08:43:53 AM
Regarding the mass transit component of the plan, from what I understand, the skyway extension to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco was removed because of fear that the bad air around the system could potentially take down the entire mobility plan. Thus, that $21 million the plan dedicated to it, has been shifted to help speed up the contruction of the streetcar line between downtown and Springfield (Shands).

I think a streetcar line to Shands would be great.

cline · May 25, 2011, 09:29:29 AM

While I think this is great that it passed, we will not get funds without construction. Considering the dismal state of the construction and development industry, we could be waiting a while. It is a hell of a lot better than the current system though.

I think it would have been better to have higher trip lengths for the rural and suburban development areas so they would be paying a higher fee. I think the model underestimates trip lengths for those areas.

Captain Zissou · May 25, 2011, 10:27:23 AM

Quoteink this is great that it passed, we will not get funds without construction. Considering the dismal state of the construction and development industry, we could be waiting a while. It is a hell of a lot better than the current system though.

I agree.

What is the basis for the fee amount?? Is it a percentage of project cost? A per square foot fee? Would retail have a higher fee than residential due to the higher number of people coming and going??

I of course realize the underlying basis for the fee has to do with density and the zones, but I was just curious about the particulars of how individual fees are calculated.

thelakelander · May 25, 2011, 10:32:44 AM

The way I see it, we take one step at a time. Go ahead and get the policy adopted and implemented (happening now) and then continue to work to modify codes, regulations and concepts to help stimulate additional private sector development. As the economy improves funds will grow. So at the end of the day, I'll think we'll be fine.

Regarding the mass transit projects, there's no reason we can't implement some of them for a much cheaper cost than what has been set aside for them in the mobility plan. Perhaps our focus should be on doing more with less, in regards to funding, construction strategies and opportunities to pool mobility money with other funding mechanisms. Also, when a little money comes in, i think it should be released to go ahead and get the necessary engineering and design process for these corridors completed, ASAP. At least this way, we'll have "shovel ready" projects available to go if unexpected funding opportunities comes along.