Ten Affordable Fixes For Transportation In Jacksonville

[Captain Zissou]

Our densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre

That's interesting.  I was under the impression that Riverside was 5 times that. What would you say the density of Riverplace blvd is? I thought it was about 100+ per acre.

These posts illustrate how easy it is to skew statistics in a way that supports an argument (no matter what side you're on).  Springfield and Riverside are both more dense than 3 units per acre, but the entire westside or northside would not be.  Riverplace Boulevard is not really an "area" unto itself;density would be far less for the entire Southbank than for that cluster of condominiums and apartments.

I agree Miss Fixit.  "Our Densest Areas" are far more dense that the over generalized comment stated.  The majority of Jax is not dense, but we're not trying to build a streetcar network that encompasses the entire city.  To say that our densest areas are not ready for and could not benefit from mass transit is foolish. 

[Miss Fixit]

Our densest areas of the City are less than 3 units per acre

That's interesting.  I was under the impression that Riverside was 5 times that. What would you say the density of Riverplace blvd is? I thought it was about 100+ per acre.

These posts illustrate how easy it is to skew statistics in a way that supports an argument (no matter what side you're on).  Springfield and Riverside are both more dense than 3 units per acre, but the entire westside or northside would not be.  Riverplace Boulevard is not really an "area" unto itself;density would be far less for the entire Southbank than for that cluster of condominiums and apartments.

I agree Miss Fixit.  "Our Densest Areas" are far more dense that the over generalized comment stated.  The majority of Jax is not dense, but we're not trying to build a streetcar network that encompasses the entire city.  To say that our densest areas are not ready for and could not benefit from mass transit is foolish.

For the record, I believe that Springfield/Eastside/Durkeeville, Riverside/Avondale/Brooklyn, and San Marco/St. Nicholas would all benefit from mass transit including street car and skyway extensions to those areas.

[Dashing Dan]

In the meantime we would benefit from more frequent PCT "trolley" service.

[thelakelander]

The major question would be how would we pay for it?  I think the answer would become evident if the entire existing mass transit system was revamped.  To this day, I still believe there is a ton of duplication on existing routes that could be modified to allow higher frequencies on others.

[Dashing Dan]

I agree that our existing transit services are spread way too thin.  Every council member tries to grab as much transit service as he or she can get for his or her district.  Each district gets some transit, so no district gets very much.

If our new council members are advised to come in with more reasonable expectations, that might help.

[toi]

Lakelander -- Of the $444M in improvements preliminarily identified for funding under the mobility plan, about 11 percent of the total funds are for bike and ped.  I am suggesting that we spend what we collect over the next few years on the bike and ped improvements in all 10 of the zones - front end load them -- rather than putting 89% in the bank for a long time and spending 11% on bike and ped as it trickles in over 19 yrs.  I would think that constructing $10 Million worth of the highest priority bike and ped improvements over the next few years would make a big difference throughout the City.  As to incremental improvements to roads or streetcar lines, the improvements identified in the plan could not be done smaller than they were already identified without creating the Skyway problem that you described.  Maybe we have different expectations as to the amount of funds the City will collect over the first few years.  It would be real nice for the proponents of the mobility fee to be able to point to something on the ground in 2013 and say, the mobility fee paid for this.

[thelakelander]

Lakelander -- Of the $444M in improvements preliminarily identified for funding under the mobility plan, about 11 percent of the total funds are for bike and ped.  I am suggesting that we spend what we collect over the next few years on the bike and ped improvements in all 10 of the zones - front end load them -- rather than putting 89% in the bank for a long time and spending 11% on bike and ped as it trickles in over 19 yrs.

FYI, a significant amount of bike/ped projects connectivity projects will also be funded through mobility plan roadway projects.  As mentioned earlier, all of the projects listed in the plan for various modes are highly integrated.

I would think that constructing $10 Million worth of the highest priority bike and ped improvements over the next few years would make a big difference throughout the City.  As to incremental improvements to roads or streetcar lines, the improvements identified in the plan could not be done smaller than they were already identified without creating the Skyway problem that you described.

The downfall is, if you do ped/bike projects with no regard to land use integration and how they connect/work with other modes, you'll have a connected system but a poorly used one.  That should be something we all want to avoid.

By incremental, in regards to the streetcar and commuter rail projects, I mean planning and design.  There's no reason to wait ten years for this phase, once the money becomes available.  My guess is once you complete that process and actually have a solid idea of what you're going to build and how its going to operate, a few of these projects will come in well below the current estimated price (ex. streetcar should be able to be built for less than $10 million/mile.  The mobility plan sets aside $14 million/mile).  Once these numbers are solid and a real plan is in place, we may have the opportunity to shift funds to other needs.

Maybe we have different expectations as to the amount of funds the City will collect over the first few years.  It would be real nice for the proponents of the mobility fee to be able to point to something on the ground in 2013 and say, the mobility fee paid for this.

My general view is more of a five year window.  However, I think we'll have an opportunity to see some success in the early years and it may involve bike/ped projects like the plan's ped overpass over the Arlington Expressway or bike lanes in the urban core via the resurfacing and restripping of existing streets.  If we can committ to the mass transit starter lines, I think we'll have an opportunity to see some major TOD break ground before those actual projects get anywhere close to coming out of the ground.

[wsansewjs]

Come on! Don't throw money at improving pedestrian / bike infrastructure until you bring the actual people through the working and effective public transit.

The people of Jacksonville are STILL addicted to cars. You got to give them a smooth transition of what their car offers to what the new, improved public transit can offer. When that is possible, then people can start jumping from the car bandwagon to the public transit and start to occupy the pedestrian and bike.

When that happen, the pedestrian death rate will decline, the economic impact on the area would increase, and everyone would be happy!

-Josh

[Dashing Dan]

Unlike other municipal services like electricity and water, transit services do not come directly into your house. 

For transit service to be utilized, people have to be able to walk or bike conveniently to transit stops or stations.  That won't happen unless bicycle and pedestrian improvements happen first.

[thelakelander]

I'd still say that everything needs to have equal priority and improved simultaneously.  That's basically the core of what Complete Streets Policies and Context Sensitive Solutions are.  With that said, looking at the city as a whole, in some areas the ped and bike network may be fine but transit sucks.  In others, there may be transit but a lack of ped and bike connectivity.  The only way to truly change is apply these complete streets/context sensitve strategies to a large scale area, while understanding that the specific mobility improvement needed at the end could vary depending on the context of the surrounding environment.  The only way you do this is to apply the simultaneous approach.

[wsansewjs]

I'd still say that everything needs to have equal priority and improved simultaneously.  That's basically the core of what Complete Streets Policies and Context Sensitive Solutions are.  With that said, looking at the city as a whole, in some areas the ped and bike network may be fine but transit sucks.  In others, there may be transit but a lack of ped and bike connectivity.  The only way to truly change is apply these complete streets/context sensitve strategies to a large scale area, while understanding that the specific mobility improvement needed at the end could vary depending on the context of the surrounding environment.  The only way you do this is to apply the simultaneous approach.

So my understanding and translation of your statement...

Complete Streets Policies and Content Sensitive Solutions = Consistency.

Am I correct?

-Josh

[Dashing Dan]

Jacksonville Beach is a good example of how pedestrian and bicycle connectivity can work, even when transit is so-so.

The other way around does not work that well.

[thelakelander]

It works well east of 3rd Street due to the context.  Its not as good west of 3rd.  I think Jax Beach is a great example of why things should be done simultaneously.  It could be so much more than what it is today with thoughtful design and planning.

[Dashing Dan]

Some parts of Jacksonville Beach are very connected and walkable, as are some parts of Jacksonville.  That's not my point.

My point is that you don't need good transit in order to have good pedestrian and bicycle facilities, but that you do need good  pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to have good transit.

Agree?  or Disagree?

[thelakelander]

I definitely agree.  However, that's not the point of the Mobility Plan or the reasoning for the priority projects in it, which is what this particular discussion in generally revolved around (at least from my understanding). 

Just to refresh everyone's thinking, here is the original purpose and intent of the mobility plan:

1. Mitigate and/or retrofit suburban sprawl development patterns.

2. Opportunity to consider place-based mobility strategies (diversity, scale, physical assets and character of Jacksonville's unique neighborhoods).

3. Incorporating the guiding principles and themes of Planning District Vision Plans.

4. Objectives of the 2030 Mobility Plan:

A. Support a variety of transportation modes;
B. Reduce vehicle miles traveled;
C. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
D. Promote a compact and interconnected land development form;
E. Improve the health and quality of life for Jacksonville residents.

With all of this in mind, from my understanding, even Jax Beach has jumped on the mobility plan bandwagon and have their own in the works.