Follow Us

Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 

2030 Mobility Plan: Pedestrian Network

Recently identified as the fourth most deadly city for pedestrians, the proposed 2030 Mobility Plan aims improve the city's pedestrian facilities and network.

Published May 6, 2010 in Urban Issues      42 Comments    Open printer friendly version of this article Print Article

feature

Walking in Jacksonville Today



Walking in Jacksonville is dangerous everywhere, according to a national study released Monday. It found that Jacksonville is the fourth most dangerous metropolitan area in the country for pedestrians.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-11-09/story/jacksonville_is_fourth_most_deadly_city_for_pedestrians


Jacksonville's Existing Pedestrian Network (Functional Highway Classification System only)

This map illustrates Jacksonville's existing sidewalk network along the city's Functional Highway Classification Roadway network.


Existing (2008-2009) Conditions - Level of Service (LOS) for Pedestrian Mode

This color coded LOS map indicates that most of Jacksonville's sidewalk facilities are rated LOS D or worse.


Existing Network & Committed Projects - Pedestrian Mode

Committed sidewalk projects to be constructed in the upcoming years are indicated in blue.


Projected 2030 Conditions - Level of Service (LOS) for Pedestrian Mode

If current sprawling development trends continue, a significant portion of the city's pedestrian facilities will rate at LOS E or F.


2030 Multimodal Study Transportation Plan Improvements - Pedestrian Mode

The 2030 Multimodal Transportation Plan focuses on strengthening pedestrian oriented connectivity within Jacksonville's urban core and along future mass transit corridors.  Proposed sidewalk projects along Functional Highway Classification System roadways are indicated in red.


The current draft of the Mobility Plan sets aside $13.51 million for the construction of future pedestrian projects. Included in this number is $3 million for the construction of a pedestrian overpass over the Arlington Expressway, just east of Arlington Road.

Read the full report in detail







Share this article   digg   delicious   reddit   myspace   technorati   google   newsvine  

42 Comments

Actionville

May 06, 2010, 08:32:09 AM
Maybe it's just me, but all the pedestrians on the Arlington expressway illustration look like they're about to be run over. That doesn't look very safe at all.

Hurricane

May 06, 2010, 08:34:35 AM
At least we've got some money going towards pedestrian projects.  $13M is a far cry from the $200M for the 9B extension.  If people actually lived and worked downtown, we wouldn't need all of the road expansion projects.  But, it must first be desirable to live and work downtown.  It's an interest balancing act.  It's too bad the bust happened right when downtown was going to be interesting with the Shipyards... 

I think that Kernan Blvd is the best example for a road that works for cars, bikes, and walkers.  It's too bad that we didn't set aside the wide potential for all roads in JAX.

thelakelander

May 06, 2010, 08:44:54 AM
Maybe it's just me, but all the pedestrians on the Arlington expressway illustration look like they're about to be run over. That doesn't look very safe at all.

That's a conceptual sketch from the Arlington Vision Plan.  No actual project has been designed or even funded at this point.

thelakelander

May 06, 2010, 08:48:55 AM
At least we've got some money going towards pedestrian projects.  $13M is a far cry from the $200M for the 9B extension.  If people actually lived and worked downtown, we wouldn't need all of the road expansion projects.  But, it must first be desirable to live and work downtown.  It's an interest balancing act.  It's too bad the bust happened right when downtown was going to be interesting with the Shipyards...  

I think that Kernan Blvd is the best example for a road that works for cars, bikes, and walkers.  It's too bad that we didn't set aside the wide potential for all roads in JAX.

I believe if we site planned our developments better, people could live all over this county (not just DT) and we still would not need projects like 9B.  The 9B's continue to come along due to this sprawling low density land development pattern we continue to force on the landscape through public regulation.  By the same token, the city's budget will continue to come up short because of unsustainable spread out growth and development that strains our infrastructure resources.

Mattius92

May 06, 2010, 12:12:48 PM
Hey $13M is better then nothing, but I am really happy that the city is trying to make the place more pedestrian friendly, we certainly need it.

DemocraticNole

May 06, 2010, 02:30:24 PM
Pedestrian mobility has to include more dense living arrangements and a more grid based system, which is easy for pedestrians to navigate. You can put all the sidewalk you want out there, but if the area is nothing but suburban sprawl, no one will use the sidewalks.

thelakelander

May 06, 2010, 02:42:32 PM
You're absolutely correct!  Luckily, the proposed Mobility Plan attempts to integrate land use (such as more dense living arragements) with mobility (bike, ped, transit & roads) and gives the private sector credit adjustments for embracing smart growth principles (like gridded streets) in their project's design.  

CS Foltz

May 06, 2010, 03:34:08 PM
lake I concur with the general principles regarding the "Mobility Plan" .............something along those lines has been severely lacking for the past...........oh say 50 YEARS! Gridded streets and walkability are an integral part when included..............don't know about the BRT end of things! Especially if JTA is involved in that part! Those silly people can't even get some bus shelters where needed (Like everywhere!!:)) Smart growth to me is a no brain er when you take the long view vision! Current Administration can't spell the word vision.......at least that's obvious to me!

tufsu1

May 06, 2010, 04:23:38 PM
Those silly people can't even get some bus shelters where needed (Like everywhere!!:))

maybe that's because some folks keep fighting them over the advertising on shelters!

Mattius92

May 06, 2010, 05:00:10 PM
Those silly people can't even get some bus shelters where needed (Like everywhere!!:))

maybe that's because some folks keep fighting them over the advertising on shelters!

So I guess they would rather get rained on then have to look at advertisements. Pretty sad.

tufsu1

May 06, 2010, 08:28:21 PM
I think it is important to note that much more than $13.5 million will be spent on pedestrian facilities....just about every new or widened roadway will include sidewalks and/or other pedestrian facilities.

Also, a major focus of the plan is improving the pedestrian system around transit...remember that just about  every transit rider is also a pedestrian.

thelakelander

May 06, 2010, 08:34:50 PM
Great points!

Mattius92

May 06, 2010, 08:40:32 PM
I think it is important to note that much more than $13.5 million will be spent on pedestrian facilities....just about every new or widened roadway will include sidewalks and/or other pedestrian facilities.

Also, a major focus of the pna is improving the pedestrian system around transit...remember that just about  every transit rider is also a pedestrian.

That is true, because even out in the boonies were I live, any new roads built have sidewalks, even if they seem abandoned and never used, but at least they are there.

urbanlibertarian

May 06, 2010, 08:45:39 PM
Existing Network & Committed Projects - Pedestrian Mode

Committed sidewalk projects to be constructed in the upcoming years are indicated in blue.

Does the above map really show a committed sidewalk project ACROSS the Matthews Bridge?

urbanlibertarian

May 06, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
Oops! Map didn't show.

Mattius92

May 06, 2010, 08:52:40 PM
The Mathews Bridge is a hellhole anyways. Traffic down Arlington X-way and Atlantic is pitiful. Something needs to be done about it. Too bad there isn't any rail lines that way.

thelakelander

May 06, 2010, 08:52:48 PM
Yes, the new bridge will include a multi use path.

urbanlibertarian

May 06, 2010, 08:56:51 PM
A new Matthews Bridge is a committed project?

Mattius92

May 06, 2010, 08:59:10 PM
Yes, the new bridge will include a multi use path.

Please tell me they are going to get rid of the piece o' crap. It was built in the 1950's for heavens sake. It went over-capacity in like the 80's that's 30 years ago. 

thelakelander

May 06, 2010, 09:12:55 PM
I don't know but I hope not.  That's a pretty unique and beautiful truss bridge.  I wouldn't mind seeing it stay as a twin span to a new bridge.

Mattius92

May 06, 2010, 09:19:38 PM
I don't know but I hope not.  That's a pretty unique and beautiful truss bridge.  I wouldn't mind seeing it stay as a twin span to a new bridge.

After reading this: http://www.mathewsbridge.com/master.asp?menuChoice=whatsPDE It says there are three options.

Potential Option 1: Single Bridge Option
- Alignment Parallel to Existing Bridge
- 8 Vehicle Lanes, Transit
- Replace Existing Bridge

Potential Option 2: Separate Vehicle and Transit Bridges
- Alignment Parallel to Existing Bridge
- 8 Vehicle Lanes
- Provide Transit Crossing on Rehabilitated Existing Bridge

Potential Option 3: Phased Bridge Construction
- Construct 4-Lane Bridge
- 4 Lanes of Traffic on New Bridge
- Transit Envelope on Initial Bridge

So they might keep the bridge but add a second span next to it. What I like the most is they include transit, which is smart.

tufsu1

May 06, 2010, 10:41:47 PM
Note that the new USDOT Complete Streets Policy recommends pedestrian features be included in some way on bridge projects, even limited access facilities.

Mattius...the Mathews PD&E study was never completed...the recently passed 2035 LRTP calls for a bridge with 6 general use lanes and 2 transit/special use lanes....construction funding was shown in the far out years of the plan (2030 - 2035) so don't look for a new bridge anytime soon.

That said, I learned recently that when the painting of the Hart is finished, FDOT will start on the Mathews...apparently they'll also be redoing all the bolts and such...unlike the Hart, they won't be closing it on weekend so expect the project to take 3+ years.

jrwjax

May 06, 2010, 10:51:31 PM
It probably would be safer if people actually walked on the sidewalks. Where I live in Springfield, so many people just walk down the middle of the street, even though there are perfectly good sidewalks.  Baffling

Ocklawaha

May 07, 2010, 12:16:11 AM
Couple of Trolley Guy observations:

Philips Highway (Southern half)
North Main Street (above Trout River)
Roosevelt Blvd
Beaver Street West

All four are along future streetcar, light rail, commuter rail, Amtrak or BRT mass transit routes. These transit routes are among those that it's fairly safe to say will be on the ground sooner then later.  I would think that alone warrants a extreme need to buff up our access to these transit routes. Rail is the ultimate step above bus, and the worst situation we could have would be one in which the pedestrian would entrain or detrain and plop into a massive puddle that swallows them up, never to return to transit again.

Several charettes demonstrated the concept, route and NEED for a trans-southside pedestrian corridor that is already largely city owned.  The route that was mapped and one that drew rave reviews was a trail - sidewalk - boardwalk system that started in Arlington at Merrill Road and follows MILL CREEK, POTTSBURG CREEK and JULINGTON CREEK all the way to Mandarin.  Built to at least the standards of the Baldwin Rail Trail, this scenic route would likely become one of the crown jewels and a MUST EXPERIENCE trail for hikers-bikers-pedestrians from throughout the nation.

Myrtle Avenue between Bay and Forest is in need of a complete face lift. An urban streetscape project with new drainage, pumps, lighting and sidewalks would bring the beautiful old historic building blocks South of the railroad terminal back to life.  If the Riverside streetcar line were to be routed back down this same historically accurate car line/route, this could set off the long awaited boom in Brooklyn.  The beauty of Myrtle as both a streetcar and pedestrian corridor is obvious when one considers...

less vehicular traffic

historical building stock

historical subway

clears up the long suffering drainage problems

better access to McCoys creek greenway

Civil War Battlefield

Potential park sites

Draws new development into Brooklyn EVENLY distributed between a future Skyway Route from Forest to Bay via Riverside Avenue, a Bus or BRT corridor on Park, Streetcar Corridor on Myrtle.

Set's up Durkeeville as future streetcar territory with a simple extension up Myrtle. I would suggest that extension run from the Small Ballpark to Bay and include the balance of Myrtle in Streetscaping. (Another Civil War Battlefield park opportunity at the Brick Church Site)



OCKLAWAHA   ::)

stjr

May 07, 2010, 12:38:38 AM
Note that the new USDOT Complete Streets Policy recommends pedestrian features be included in some way on bridge projects, even limited access facilities.

This is an interesting comment, Tufsu, considering the heavy flak I got for pushing this for a better designed Fuller Warren Bridge (see the MJ thread at http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4347.0.html ).  Here is one comment from you, even, Tufsu:

Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple! 

Adding a pedestrian feature to the Fuller Warren would give us some of the most outstanding vistas of the downtown skyline and the sun setting over the wider sections of the St. Johns.  Imagine such access tied to RAM and the Riverwalks on either side.

stephendare

May 07, 2010, 12:39:58 AM
hmm

Interstates can not have bikes or peds...its just that simple!

Now maybe there could have been a separate pedestrian bridge connecting the two sides of the river....and this might make sense if/when there are riverwalks on both sides....but the state/fed won't pay fo this...it will have to be the City and/or privately funded. 

thelakelander

May 07, 2010, 06:54:58 AM
Couple of Trolley Guy observations:

Philips Highway (Southern half)
North Main Street (above Trout River)
Roosevelt Blvd
Beaver Street West

Speaking of Beaver Street, that's a corridor with strong potential that many overlook.  With the farmer's market continuing to expand, urban building fabric and the heavy presence of food related distribution and cold storage facilities, with a little public coordination that stretch could easily become a unique urban wholesale market style district.  I think to make such an idea work, Beaver would have to be reduced to two lanes between the viaduct and McDuff to slow traffic down and accommodate parallel parking, wider sidewalks, landscaping and bike lanes.



Another not mentioned is Kings Road from the proposed commuter rail line up to MLK Parkway.  With EWC as an anchor and urban fabric already in place, a complete streets makeover would be huge for one of Jacksonville's most dense and transit dependent communities.  There, people will be more likely to embrace and take advantage of non-auto oriented transportation options, thus generating additional traffic along the corridor to attract more retail and services.

Charles Hunter

May 07, 2010, 06:56:24 AM
C'mon guys, when tufsu1 wrote that - that was the USDOT policy, no pedestrians on Interstates, including bridges; the new USDOT Secretary has changed the policy to encourage looking at it.  You can't (well, you can, because you have) fault tufsu1 for an old statement because the policy has changed in the interim.

thelakelander

May 07, 2010, 07:07:03 AM
^I think he just did a poor job of explaining it.  As evidenced by the bridges in Pittsburgh, those facilities need to be separated by barriers so automobiles, pedestrians and cyclist never mix.  So it really wasn't a 100% you can't have it situation.  It seems like it was a something that could be accommodated if the right design (complete streets maybe?) was implemented.


Walking along I-277 in Pittsburgh last Summer.

tufsu1

May 07, 2010, 08:16:21 AM
C'mon guys, when tufsu1 wrote that - that was the USDOT policy, no pedestrians on Interstates, including bridges; the new USDOT Secretary has changed the policy to encourage looking at it.  You can't (well, you can, because you have) fault tufsu1 for an old statement because the policy has changed in the interim.

exactly Charles...

and yes Lake, I did do a bad job of explaining it but do stand by my original statement....you can't have sidewalks/trails as part of an interstate facility...even the concrete barrier separating the sidewalk from the road on the Acosta bridge would not be sufficient (as it is easy too jump over).

As the picture from Pittsburgh shows, the pedestrian features are physically separated from the road....and in the case of the Suncoast Parkway in Tampa, they have a 15+ foot high fence and at least 100' lateral distance separating the trail from the highway.

Mattius92

May 07, 2010, 12:10:33 PM
It would make since to have a pedestrian walkway along the Fuller Warren, but tufsu is right. Busy Interstate + pedestrians + bikers = mega disaster waiting to happen.

Apparently the Main Street bridge is the only bridge that pedestrians can cross the river. Which in a way is better then none, but for sure there could be better. I like how Nashville closed one of their old bridges and converted it to a pedestrian only bridge. However I dont think we have any bridges that we can to that to.

Lake, that Beaver Street idea is real nice, hope something like that will go through.

thelakelander

May 07, 2010, 12:21:33 PM
Pedestrians can also cross on the Acosta Bridge.  As for the Fuller Warren, you could cantilever a ped bridge to the existing structure and design it to where it would be impossible for auto and ped/bike traffic to interact.  However, I doubt anyone would be willing to pay for it.  Nevertheless, if we can put a man on the moon, a pedestrian bridge fulfilling these requirements can be done as well.


Where there's a will, there's a way. An example of a design that accommodates multiple modes, yet keeps them physically separated, in Richmond, VA.

Mattius92

May 07, 2010, 01:28:54 PM
Pedestrians can also cross on the Acosta Bridge.  As for the Fuller Warren, you could cantilever a ped bridge to the existing structure and design it to where it would be impossible for auto and ped/bike traffic to interact.  However, I doubt anyone would be willing to pay for it.  Nevertheless, if we can put a man on the moon, a pedestrian bridge fulfilling these requirements can be done as well.

That is very true. I know it can be done, but our leaders like to do every thing cheap cheap cheap... All of our downtown bridges have something unique or beautiful about them, not the fuller warren.

thelakelander

May 07, 2010, 01:54:17 PM
^That's what scares me about replacing the Matthews.  I seriously doubt whatever replaces it will be as structurally unique as the current bridge.

Jaxson

May 07, 2010, 02:11:22 PM
Speaking of pedestrians on bridges, I have seen more people crossing the Mathews Bridge by foot.  I, for one, would NEVER try to do that.  It looks too dangerous for me, but there are quite a few brave (or foolhardy) folks who make that trek across the St. Johns.

Mattius92

May 07, 2010, 03:34:58 PM
^That's what scares me about replacing the Matthews.  I seriously doubt whatever replaces it will be as structurally unique as the current bridge.

Would be nice for them to add another deck to it. A double decker bridges I find pretty interesting. Keep the overall look and design but just add another deck. A transit line would be nice to have on it too.

TheProfessor

May 07, 2010, 04:39:56 PM
It is interesting how it shows the Mathews Bridge becoming a pedestrian pathway.  People walk over it now, but the "path" is like 2'-0" wide with no guardrail.  It would be nice if there was a continuous path from downtown to the beaches.

Charles Hunter

May 07, 2010, 10:01:27 PM
^That's what scares me about replacing the Matthews.  I seriously doubt whatever replaces it will be as structurally unique as the current bridge.

Would be nice for them to add another deck to it. A double decker bridges I find pretty interesting. Keep the overall look and design but just add another deck. A transit line would be nice to have on it too.

If I remember correctly, the DOT had to strengthen the bridge just to add the new solid center part.  Adding a whole new deck to the existing bridge seems impossible.  Well, if you spend enough money - but then you could probably build a brand new bridge.

Mattius92

May 07, 2010, 10:14:31 PM
It can be done, but not with our cheap uncreative poeple we have running our place. However in the long run something has to be done with that bridge.

stjr

May 10, 2010, 01:13:13 AM
C'mon guys, when tufsu1 wrote that - that was the USDOT policy, no pedestrians on Interstates, including bridges; the new USDOT Secretary has changed the policy to encourage looking at it.  You can't (well, you can, because you have) fault tufsu1 for an old statement because the policy has changed in the interim.

Just to be clear, Charles, my original context was "where there is a will, there is a way".  In this spirit, I had suggested the possibility of a pedestrian walk appropriately separated by effective barriers or at another level.  Tufsu and Reednavy in particular inferred there was absolutely no way any pedestrian walk could be attached to an interstate bridge.  As Lake posted, this turned out not to be true.  I did feel the stance taken in response to my suggestion was representative of the lack of creativity and flexibility associated with FDOT projects, a proposition that was central to my starting the thread on what the Fuller Warren bridge could have been. 

gridsketch

June 13, 2010, 05:02:56 PM
We should focus the conversation on people crossing dangerously. Even in places where there are sidewalks  people are crossing in the middle of the block. Yes, it's a bad idea but many people don't have cars. If you work at a fast food joint making minimum wage; at a strip mall on the 6 lane boulevard. You may HAVE TO JAYWALK. Often times the nearest intersection is a 10 minute walk. Add that to 60 minute bus frequency; a job that requires you to be on time and you have a recipe for disaster. I like the traffic islands in thelakelander's image post. pedestrians still have to run across the street but at least they can take refuge protected somewhat from trees and a curb. In some states like California they have removed painted crossing lines at intersections to discourage walking for the sake of liability. This forces more people the into cars for "safety" require parents to drive their children only a few blocks from school causing more traffic and a demand for even faster wider roads. We need more inner ring suburb infill and plan for "workforce" housing where people who need to walk, work. Someone should write a bog/white paper about jaywalking across long boulevards.

buckethead

June 13, 2010, 05:19:38 PM
OLE!!!



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/OdOOIxcUjAs" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/OdOOIxcUjAs</a>
View forum thread
Welcome Guest. You must be logged in to comment on this story.

What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
  • Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
  • Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
Register now
Already have an account? Login now to comment.