Jville's Brooklyn Renaissance: Planning for the Future

[thelakelander]

I'm not all that old but I do remember when traffic was worse on Riverside than it is today. Since the widening the traffic has been much better and it's unlikely a few hundred new people and a grocery store is going to return it to its former condition. Of course there will be more traffic, but the current setup should do for a long long time. As others have said the purpose of adding transit options shouldn't be just to reduce traffic.

The largest impact on the reduction of congestion on Riverside Avenue in Brooklyn is the shrinking of downtown Jacksonville's employment base over the last 30 years.

[simms3]

I remember the old Riverside Ave, and poking along on it heading south in middle school carpool, LoL.  I also remember the news articles from the local media touting the "new" Riverside Ave to be built as creating the next Brickell Ave...I have clippings back home (I was a real nerd).

I'm young, but having been gone from Jax now for the past 7 years, my perspective on what actually constitutes "traffic" and "congestion" and large scale development and gentrification, etc has totally changed.  It just takes a lot more to phase me, I guess.  Riverside is a throughway for the remaining Ortega/Avondale folks who still work downtown, and as has been stated and proven with numbers, DT employment has shrunk and roads to have been widened, simultaneously.

I'm just glad nobody in Jax planning/development is trying to create the next Brickell Ave...what a disaster for urban scale and urban vibrancy that turned out to be!

[thelakelander]

From my view, I could care less about what benefit is most compelling in a Metro Jacksonville discussion.  My ultimate concern would be what's the proper angle to get things changed at the institutional level, which directly funnels into public policy and funding priorities.  This is the reason, I'd always debate Ock on the need for a streetcar looping around downtown instead of first doing a straight line bi-directional route that actually penetrates adjacent neighborhoods.

Thinking about a 'rubbernecking' phenomenon on a recently widened 6' lane highway with 12' wide through lanes and a wide median isn't going to result in anything other than thinking.  Also, capacity does matter if you're arguing gridlock and congestion as a reason for more public funding to be shifted to alternative forms transit. That's just the world we live and operate in.  Capacity isn't going to be an issue in Brooklyn with the new Riverside and Forest Street improvements. Capacity will become more of an issue for Park & Riverside, south of I-10 as the westside and Clay County continue to grow and the Riverside area redensifies.  However, the Skyway was never going to be expanded south of Forest Street anyway.

Presently, you have a better chance of advancing multimodal enhancements going the route of mobility choice, safety, sustainability, economic development, and neighborhood revitalization.  Don't believe me?  Just look at every new streetcar project funded in second tier American cities over the last decade.  Benefiting from TOD is at the top of their list of compelling reasons for funding short fixed urban circulator projects.  Locally, take a look at the context sensitive streets policy moving forward.  That's not being driven by roadway congestion and fears of 'rubbernecking'. That's being driven by our national headline grabbing pedestrian and bicycle death rates.

[thelakelander]

Don't get me wrong. No where did I state that transit planning does not or should not exist. 

[thelakelander]

Lol.  then why does it sound like such an annoying afterthough?  Like taking beano or something?

It shouldn't sound that way to anyone involved in transportation planning.  You've got to look well outside of this particular neighborhood before you can settle on the right solutions since no mode works well independently of the other. 

I'll admit, I may have skipped a few steps in explaining how things work and tossed some terms on concepts out there that the average person may not be familiar with. Nevertheless, technically speaking, the infill developments in Brooklyn aren't going to create roadway capacity/vehicular flow issues strong enough to warrant public dollars for fixed transit improvements. On the other hand, there are significant urban living quality-of-life issues at play when it comes to downtown revitalization.

[thelakelander]

BTW, what's the density issue with Balanky's project?  There aren't enough details to pigeon hole one's self one way or the other at this point.

[dougskiles]

BTW, what's the density issue with Balanky's project?  There aren't enough details to pigeon hole one's self one way or the other at this point.

These density concerns have me a little amused, as do the fears of congestion.  The large majority of people start walking, riding bikes and transit when driving becomes a pain in the rear.  It seems that some are wanting the virtures of a walkable neighborhood minus the economic system that makes it viable.  Density IS the food that keeps transit alive.

[thelakelander]

Looking at how times have changed, my mom was raised with her nine siblings in a small four bedroom house.  Now, we have couples with no kids living in similar spaces.

One thing any Jaxson should keep in the back of their head is that nearly every single urban core neighborhood has a current population that's 50% less than what it was in 1950.  For the most part, every sizable parking lot you see in our older neighborhoods most likely had a building with multiple people living or working in it prior to WWII. That's in addition to our existing structures which once supported larger/multiple households. So be careful when attempting to label the scale of what our core neighborhoods and current infrastructure can actually support.

[thelakelander]

^Thus the reason behind the mobility plan's land use policies to encourage higher density along existing and proposed transit corridors and that infill development directly funneling money to fund the multimodal solutions.

[TD*]

Interesting to say the least.

[thelakelander]

^Thus the reason behind the mobility plan's land use policies to encourage higher density along existing and proposed transit corridors and that infill development directly funneling money to fund the multimodal solutions.

which is the entire point of the video.

What I just explained was designed at a citywide level.  If what I quoted was the point, it was lost because of the site context the discussion focused on.  Brooklyn and downtown are exempt from the mobility plan and fee system and an extension of the Skyway isn't supported by the models the mobility plan/fee were based upon.

[thelakelander]

Yes. Brooklyn has always been exempt because the city considers it a part of downtown and it's already operating under a TCEA created years ago.  The area exempt from paying anything since day one is bounded by State (north), the river/JEA property (east), and I-95 (west/south).  This area will be included in the DIA's CRA plan they have to create later this year.

[thelakelander]

Thus the reason behind the mobility plan's land use policies to encourage higher density along existing and proposed transit corridors and that infill development directly funneling money to fund the multimodal solutions.

Im assuming that we both agree that the bold highlighted words are the subject of the sentence?

Yes, assuming this statement is dealing with the side conversation regarding Balanky's project miles south on Fishweir Creek. It was made in response to the proposed Avondale project, see below:

BTW, what's the density issue with Balanky's project?  There aren't enough details to pigeon hole one's self one way or the other at this point.

These density concerns have me a little amused, as do the fears of congestion.  The large majority of people start walking, riding bikes and transit when driving becomes a pain in the rear.  It seems that some are wanting the virtures of a walkable neighborhood minus the economic system that makes it viable.  Density IS the food that keeps transit alive.

I dont think there is a fear of 'congestion', doug.

The point is that congestion plus no walkable or transit oriented infrastructure is not a desirable situation.

^Thus the reason behind the mobility plan's land use policies to encourage higher density along existing and proposed transit corridors and that infill development directly funneling money to fund the multimodal solutions.

That wasn't in reference to extending the Skyway to St. Johns Park or strengthening connectivity between Brooklyn and downtown's historical heart (the Northbank).

[tufsu1]

I dont think there is a fear of 'congestion', doug.

The point is that congestion plus no walkable or transit oriented infrastructure is not a desirable situation.

so you're implying there is no pedestrian infrastructure along Riverside Avenue?

[dougskiles]

I dont think there is a fear of 'congestion', doug.

The point is that congestion plus no walkable or transit oriented infrastructure is not a desirable situation.

so you're implying there is no pedestrian infrastructure along Riverside Avenue?

implying hell.

The problem I see with Riverside Avenue regarding pedestrians (and I assume we are talking about the portions east of Forest Street) has more to do with the type of development on the south side of the road than the sidewalk infrastructure.  After the YMCA is rebuilt along the river, there won't be a single building that promotes pedestrian activity on the street.  And even the current layout of the YMCA is questionable because you have to walk down the side street to get to the entrance.

Then there is the issue of making a pedestrian connection from Riverside Ave to downtown.  The Acosta bridge ramps make it seem like you might as well be on the other side of the county.  And that is where the Brooklyn Skyway stop comes into play.