Council and developers want to change the mobility plan again?

[JeffreyS]

I would call this the Swamp Land modification.

[thelakelander]

On the surface and in some specific cases, this modification would not be a bad thing. If new roadways were constructed in a grid like pattern or plug missing gaps in the existing collector/arterial network, they could relieve some existing suburban arterial roads.

However, the devil is always in the details. The way things are right now, we're opening a political Pandora's box. We've found a way to turn something that was supposed to make our future development patterns more predictable, controlled and fiscally sustainable into a mechanism that could help fund sprawl and discourage market rate growth in the core.

Where this is really a kick in the pants is with the predictability of timing the construction of legacy transit projects that would generate walkable, mixed use infill adjacent to existing and future transit stations. Since every guy can possibly spend their share of mobility funds on whatever they want, projects generated from the community visioning efforts of the last decade probably don't happen without new funding from additional resources.

[Tacachale]

I've seen an exemption like that proposed here which was used to provide multi-modal options. The developer installed bus stops and even purchased buses for the municipality.  I just don't see our developers being that magnanimous.

I totally agree that even if the developers used the moneys appropriately they would be tied to benefiting the area of their new development.  Mass transit and region wide projects would clearly be impacted as more dollars are spent on site specific improvements.

Bishop is right in that it would promote economic development, i.e. construction. The problem is that it would promote the same suburban sprawl the mobility fee was intended to counteract.

Yes, I largely agree with this sentiment. I do think some of the concern can be alleviated as long as the city stands firm on the need for bike/ped infrastructure. In fact, that concern exists whether the fee is changed or not.

On the surface and in some specific cases, this modification would not be a bad thing. If new roadways were constructed in a grid like pattern or plug missing gaps in the existing collector/arterial network, they could relieve some existing suburban arterial roads.

However, the devil is always in the details. The way things are right now, we're opening a political Pandora's box. We've found a way to turn something that was supposed to make our future development patterns more predictable, controlled and fiscally sustainable into a mechanism that could help fund sprawl and discourage market rate growth in the core.

Where this is really a kick in the pants is with the predictability of timing the construction of legacy transit projects that would generate walkable, mixed use infill adjacent to existing and future transit stations. Since every guy can possibly spend their share of mobility funds on whatever they want, projects generated from the community visioning efforts of the last decade probably don't happen without new funding from additional resources.

Absolutely. That's the major concern, and one of Jacksonville's oldest planning problems.

[urbanlibertarian]

This gets the money possibly spent in a suburban district instead of the urban core.  It's easy to see why this would be popular with a majority of council members.

[Jumpinjack]

^very very true.

[thelakelander]

Not really. The same amount of money would still stay within the same mobility zones. You just can't predict where, when or what projects will be funded within each zone.

[tufsu1]

This gets the money possibly spent in a suburban district instead of the urban core.  It's easy to see why this would be popular with a majority of council members.

not true.  A development still must mitigate its impact within the specified mobility zone.  So, yes a suburban project will mitigate out there, but that was always the case.

[JeffreyS]

I can predict when the mobility projects will be funded. Never.

[tufsu1]

^ I'm willing to bet that small developers (the kind we are likely to see in the urban core) will gladly pay the fee and go forward.  It is the large-scale developments that may propose to build roads instead.

[Bridges]

Just got back from council. It was re-referred. 

[icarus]

Good news Bridges! Hopefully, this gives more people the chance to talk to their councilperson.

[Jumpinjack]

Spoke with a council aide who said it will go back to LUZ and Transp. committees next week.

[Bridges]

^ I'm willing to bet that small developers (the kind we are likely to see in the urban core) will gladly pay the fee and go forward.  It is the large-scale developments that may propose to build roads instead.

It appears that the biggest thing this new ordinance hurts is sprawl reduction.  Developers will want to open up land and build on it, then count the roads they build as "vehicle reduction" on main arteries so they reduce the mobility fee, and then they want to count any transportation improvements as their mobility project.

[thelakelander]

Basically. The new ordinance actually promotes sprawl by using mobility fee money to fund it's continued expansion.

[icarus]

Basically. The new ordinance actually promotes sprawl by using mobility fee money to fund it's continued expansion.

+1,000