Author Topic: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning  (Read 11202 times)

Metro Jacksonville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
    • MetroJacksonville.com
2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« on: September 16, 2011, 03:37:08 AM »
2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning



When it comes to city planning, Jacksonville is sometimes known more for it's missteps than what it does right. The 2030 Mobility Plan could change all that. This innovative plan provides a framework to integrate rail, pedestrian, bicycle and road transportation planning with land use strategies that combat unsustainable sprawl. Something we are all too familiar with.  Many in Jacksonville have come to the conclusion that investing only in roadway construction to transport people about the city will not work forever. Other forms of mobility, or moving around the city, must be considered to create a city that will not collapse under the weight of ever expanding borders and strains on municipal resources.




Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-2030-mobility-plan-the-cutting-edge-of-planning

cline

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2011, 08:58:38 AM »
I'm really glad the plan is now in place.  Now if we could just get some development going so we can start generating some money for these projects.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33077
    • Modern Cities
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2011, 09:04:49 AM »
Give it some time.  Economic climates run in cycles.  Over the long run, we should be fine.  However, one thing that remains to be seen is what will be the impact of the new economy on traditional Jacksonville development patterns.  Many predict that suburban growth will never be as popular as it was in Florida before the real estate market exploded.  If so, it may be hard to generate the money to pull off some of the more expensive road projects in the plan without finding ways to leverage mobility dollars with other financial sources.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

cline

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2011, 09:20:06 AM »
I'd rather not see the more expensive road projects get built.  I want to see the transit project come to fruition. I still wish the fees in the suburban zones would have been higher.  That would create more of a disincentive to continue our traditional suburban growth patters.  However, I also understand it takes compromises to get things through. 

Ocklawaha

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2011, 10:50:14 AM »
For the rail projects someone has to have their hand on the controller to make this car move forward. Do we have any indication that the conductor is even onboard?

OCKLAWAHA

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33077
    • Modern Cities
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2011, 10:57:39 AM »
I know who shouldn't have their hand on the controller or be allowed to touch any of the mobility plan money.  Anyway, we're on the clock.  In the next couple of years an economic analysis study needs to be developed to convince those on the edge that the alternative transportation options are worth the investment.  If not, don't be suprised to see some entity try and modify policy to snatch the money eventually generated, to fund something else.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8082
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2011, 11:44:04 AM »
I'd rather not see the more expensive road projects get built.  I want to see the transit project come to fruition. I still wish the fees in the suburban zones would have been higher.  That would create more of a disincentive to continue our traditional suburban growth patters.  However, I also understand it takes compromises to get things through. 
I don't know that it's so much a compromise as it is the fact that the city has to look out for the entire (very large) county. Our suburbs need good planning too, it just so happens that they're under the same local government.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

cline

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2011, 11:53:28 AM »
I'd rather not see the more expensive road projects get built.  I want to see the transit project come to fruition. I still wish the fees in the suburban zones would have been higher.  That would create more of a disincentive to continue our traditional suburban growth patters.  However, I also understand it takes compromises to get things through. 
I don't know that it's so much a compromise as it is the fact that the city has to look out for the entire (very large) county. Our suburbs need good planning too, it just so happens that they're under the same local government.

I believe the initial draft of the Plan had higher fees for the suburban zones but they were reduced before the final was adopted (builder lobbyist pressure).  I don't deny the fact that the suburbs need good planning as well, I just think they should bear more of the true cost.  This plan helps to get at that.  Sustainable infill and redevelopment closer to the core is more affordable for a developer, greenfield development towards the outer boundaries of the county is more expensive.  That's the way it should be but the opposite has been true in the past. 
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 11:56:10 AM by cline »

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8082
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2011, 12:05:28 PM »
^I totally with you on that.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

finehoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4007
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2011, 12:27:05 PM »
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).

Doctor_K

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1493
  • Your friendly neighborhood Hot Rod!
    • Carolina Fusion
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2011, 02:08:52 PM »
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).

Would their initials be "T.P."?  (Oh, the irony...)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create."  -- Albert Einstein

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8082
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2011, 02:18:25 PM »
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).

Would their initials be "T.P."?  (Oh, the irony...)
No, I don't think Teddy Pendergrass had anything to do with this.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

Ocklawaha

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2011, 03:33:20 PM »
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the body politic who believes that any funding of public transit as opposed to automobile-oriented transit is somehow a blow against “freedom” and a sure sign of socialism (if not downright communism).



Based on a recent interview with Bill Lind it sounds as though Jacksonville's conservatives are more misinformed then they are armed transit killers. Check out this little article.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote
The debate over the benefits of mass transit falls along a pretty clear “Mars and Venus” partisan line: Democrats cherish every ounce of mass transit, while Republicans love love love their cars. A few months back, we did a Q&A with Bill Lind, the conservative author of Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, which evaluates mass transit policies from a conservative perspective. Now that the debate over rail, both high speed and passenger, has lit up following the distribution of Obama’s stimulus funds, we thought we’d check back in with Bill to see if his views had changed, or held steady.
 
Infrastructurist: Given all the heated partisan debate that has crippled Congress in other topics like healthcare, can infrastructure really be bipartisan?
 
Lind: Yes. There should be a nonpartisan non-ideological consensus in favor of adequate infrastructure. From the conservative perspective, the federal government has two and only two legitimate functions: national security and infrastructure. The first bill passed by the first Congress was an infrastructure bill. With government involvement in canals and railroads and highways, the federal government has been involved in infrastructure from the beginning. This is consistent with a free market economy, because the markets only work if there is adequate infrastructure.
 
More specifically to the current time, conservatives do not enjoy being stuck in traffic any more than liberals. We may be in a Mercedes or Jaguar instead of a Neon, but [traffic] still isn’t fun. So when high quality transportation is offered — meaning rail, not bus — conservatives are using it. If you look at the demographics of rail transit riders. what you see is that a lot of the people on board are conservatives. if you look at the ridership on Metra around Chicago, in some counties the average income of people on trains is higher than people driving alone to work. You are turning waste time into time when you could be productive. So the fact is that where high quality transportation is provided, conservatives use it. But there isn’t much rail transit in this country for us to use.
 
I: It sounds like your definition of “conservative” basically means “wealthy people.” What about conservatives who aren’t necessarily Jaguar-drivers?
 
L: The fact is that most conservatives own cars. They have sufficient money that they own cars. which means that if they ride transit they ride from choice, not necessity. Which means they want high quality transit, not just something to get around. So the transit that is relative to conservatives is that which is relevant to people with cars — I would rather take transit than drive to work.

 
I: Do you think this plan should have greater bipartisan support at the expense of the high speed rail proposals?
 
L: We think there should definitely be bipartisan support for bringing back streetcars. Every city in the U.S. with over 5,000 people once had a streetcar line. We would like to see most cities have commuter trains — the infrastructure is already there. And we would like to see an expansion of light rail. We think all of these should be electrified and this is an important part of energy security. We would like to see a national consensus going across left and right. It’s simply a matter of bringing back what we had. We threw it away –  we subsidized national highways and taxed electric railways, and we think that was an unwise move, and we need to bring it back. Not put enormous amounts of money into a few lines that would serve geographically only a small portion of the country.
SOURCE:  http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/02/03/a-conservative-makes-the-case-for-mass-transit-but-not-high-speed-rail/
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 03:39:20 PM by Ocklawaha »

finehoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4007
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2011, 03:58:04 PM »
I don't know, Mr. Lind sounds like a bit of a twit. 

"The fact is that most conservatives own cars. They have sufficient money that they own cars." 

Uh, yeah, whatever.  Like the interviewer notes, he seems to conflate "conservative" with "wealthy".

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8082
Re: 2030 Mobility Plan: The Cutting Edge of Planning
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2011, 04:04:19 PM »
I don't know, Mr. Lind sounds like a bit of a twit. 

"The fact is that most conservatives own cars. They have sufficient money that they own cars." 

Uh, yeah, whatever.  Like the interviewer notes, he seems to conflate "conservative" with "wealthy".
And for that matter he conflates "owns a car" with "wealthy".
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?