Council Passes Mobility Plan Unanimously.

[Dashing Dan]

San Marco makes sense because the FEC RR track is a barrier to every mode of travel EXCEPT the skyway. 

The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

[danem]

The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

Question: Could they just add more cars to those trains if needed?

[JeffreyS]

The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

Question: Could they just add more cars to those trains if needed?

Yes has been the answer Ock has always told us.

[cline]

The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

Question: Could they just add more cars to those trains if needed?

Yes has been the answer Ock has always told us.

It would still be very expensive for the infrastucture.  That money would be better spent on a different mode.

[duvaldude08]

I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

But I think IMO it would get more use going to the stadium. Aside from Jags games, people venture to our sports complex for a host of other events year round. I think an extension to the stadium first make the most sense in your comparison.

[dougskiles]

With regard to the Skyway extension into San Marco, just because it is not in the Mobility Plan, doesn't mean it can't happen.  It could happen faster than a Mobility Plan project if another source of funding comes along that is directed toward the San Marco Skyway expansion.  There are three potential TODs along an expansion to Atlantic Boulevard that could contribute to the cost.  There is nothing that would keep these potential developers from working out a deal with the city to move this project along faster.

In fact, JTA has the most to gain from a large TOD at Kings Avenue.

[fieldafm]

Ock and Lake are the technical experts on the subject and can answer in more detail.

But you could drop the skyway down to grade and eliminate the double track to save a good chunk of change.  This is what makes a San Marco extension far more feasible(and relevant b/c it will tie into a very vibrant urban neighborhood) than an extension to the Stadium District.  The skyway extension proposal in San Marco would have stopped at a potential commuter rail station/platform at the railroad track at Atlantic Blvd, which would have tied all of San Marco Square into the spine.  I believe Doug's plan would have also used PCT trolleys to feed into this spine from throughout the neighborhood.

I believe there is a lease-option coming due on JTA owned land near the TOD development at Kings Ave Station which could have helped fund part of this extension.  There is also two other potential TOD spots(one bordering the railroad track at Atlantic).  This could have also spurred development at the St Joe property on Hendricks.

To answer the question about cars... yes they can be extended, and the skyway used to have bigger cars when it first opened.

[cline]

I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

But I think IMO it would get more use going to the stadium. Aside from Jags games, people venture to our sports complex for a host of other events year round. I think an extension to the stadium first make the most sense in your comparison.

I'm not suggesting that the Stadium district shouldn't be served by transit, I just think that the Skyway would not be cost effective.  I think the stadium would be better served by streetcar.  At any rate though, I think the first focus for any mode should be getting streetcard from downtown to Riverside.

[dougskiles]

It would still be very expensive for the infrastucture.  That money would be better spent on a different mode.

I agree with cline.  A streetcar to the stadium is a much better solution than the skyway.  It will bring about more infill development along the route, too.

[iMarvin]

I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

But I think IMO it would get more use going to the stadium. Aside from Jags games, people venture to our sports complex for a host of other events year round. I think an extension to the stadium first make the most sense in your comparison.

I agree. The skyway will get more use if it went to all the "hotspots" in the downtown area, but if there had to be only one extension, the stadium would make the most sense.

[thelakelander]

Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

I beliebve you are correct....assume that a single family home generates 10 trips per day...if a new home was built in the urban core and urban priority areas, the mobility fee for a developer would be around $2250 (10 X 9 mile avg. trip length X $25)....in the most rural areas of the county, it would be closer to $3500 (10 x 14 mile avg. trip length x $25).

That's the reason I think the numbers are too low.  A developer should be penalized much more (only $1250 difference in your example) for choosing to build in the rural area as opposed to the urban areas.  There is not enough disparity in the average trip lengths.  I also think we would be better served at the $50 fee per VMT as opposed to the $25 fee but at least that number can be increased over time.

A new infill or adaptive reuse property within Urban Priority (UPA) and Urban Area (UA) development areas would end up with a lower fee than suggested by tufsu1.  For example, it would recieve trip credits for the previous use on site (the urban core is already built out), if its within a 1/4 to 1/2 radius of a fixed transit corridor, if it is designed to promote walkability, its location having a much higher density, etc. and more).

[dougskiles]

But you could drop the skyway down to grade and eliminate the double track to save a good chunk of change.  This is what makes a San Marco extension far more feasible(and relevant b/c it will tie into a very vibrant urban neighborhood) than an extension to the Stadium District.  The skyway extension proposal in San Marco would have stopped at a potential commuter rail station/platform at the railroad track at Atlantic Blvd, which would have tied all of San Marco Square into the spine.  I believe Doug's plan would have also used PCT trolleys to feed into this spine from throughout the neighborhood.

You were taking notes!  That is exactly how we discussed it several months ago.  And that is still the desire.  We talked about this again at our San Marco by Design workshop Saturday and received a very good response.

Aside from the usual Skyway bashers, I have yet to talk to someone in our area who would not want to see this happen.  The question will be how do we get it funded?  I believe that is where the TODs come into play.

[thelakelander]

Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

The skyway was removed from the mobility plan completely (political hot potato).  The $21 million in the plan that was set aside for the skyway extension was shifted to the $42 million streetcar corridor going into Springfield.  Neither of these projects are in the initial CIE plan (only the Riverside Streetcar and S-Line Commuter Rail Corridor are), so I'm sure they'll be reevaluated in five years.

[dougskiles]

One more detail to go with the Mobility Plan, from what I understand.  Section 655 of the ordinance code regarding concurrency needs to be modified to remove the existing concurrency system and implement the Mobility Plan.  As of now, we are still operating under the old system and will continue to do so until this happens.  What passed last night changed the Comprehensive Plan.  Ordinance code is next.

Lakelander, do you know when this is scheduled to occur?

[iMarvin]

Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

The skyway was removed from the mobility plan completely (political hot potato).  The $21 million in the plan that was set aside for the skyway extension was shifted to the $42 million streetcar corridor going into Springfield.  Neither of these projects are in the initial CIE plan (only the Riverside Streetcar and S-Line Commuter Rail Corridor are), so I'm sure they'll be reevaluated in five years.

Do you think it will be put back in the plan?