The S-Line: The Key To Urban Economic Revitalization?

[Metro Jacksonville]

The S-Line: The Key To Urban Economic Revitalization?



While much of the City of Jacksonville's economic development focus has been centered on downtown and big-ticket items such as the Duval County Courthouse and a new convention center, Metro Jacksonville exposes an amenity that surpasses them all:  The S-Line Right-of-Way.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-the-s-line-the-key-to-urban-economic-revitalization

[justinthered]

So does the funding for this already exist through the mobility plan? What is the quickest timeline for this plan to happen?

[thelakelander]

Only about $60,000 in funding exists at this point.  The mobility plan is intended to generate funding for a variety of projects that would be completed over a 20 year period.  It was approved and a moratorium was placed on the fee shortly after.  At the time, a Family Dollar had already paid $60,000 into it. 

It can't generate the funds necessary to construct anything without council letting the moratorium sunset this fall.  If that happens, the initial (roadway/transit) mobility plan projects are expected to occur over a five to ten year period.  The bike and pedestrian projects could happen a lot quicker because they are significantly cheaper.

[JeffreyS]

The city council's betrayal of it's constituents to provide favors to their GOB developer insiders will not soon be forgiven or ever forgotten. (by me anyway)

It really seems like the council wants more pedestrians killed and less economic development.

[strider]

Great article.  This does seem exactly what needs to happen.  The activity something like this will generate will allow many of the issues people have with the urban areas to self correct. The article also illustrates both the good and the bad about Jacksonville.  It's political leaders actually know what do to (they passed the mobility plan) but are too afraid (or greedy?) to actually allow it to be implemented (as shown by being intimated by the development lobby and passing the moratorium.).

[toi]

The mobility fee funds once collected are currently set to be divvied up into 20 separate accounts - 2 for each of the 10 mobility zones.  Each zone has a bike/ped account, into which about 10 percent of the fees collected in that zone will go, with the other 90 percent into the road/rail account.  Unless this structure is changed, it is safe to say we won't see much in the way of bike/ped improvements in the short term, even though they are much cheaper.  One way to change it is to allow the City to direct a much greater proportion of the funds collected towards bike/ped improvements in the early years of its implementation -- that way we can see some meaningful results and improve public safety more quickly.  In terms of non-automotive modes of mobility, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are the cheapest thing going:  no capacity issues, almost no operating costs, small footprint, and often achievable without need for new right-of-way.  The current mobility plan will result in funds sitting in accounts for a long time before being spent, until the big dollars are accumulated to build one road or streetcar improvement (not to mention the operating cost issue).

I think the author overstates the significance of the moratorium in terms of collecting funds.  Instead of focusing on how we can extract more money from a mostly-dead real estate development market, how about focusing on how we can promote redevelopment and infill?  The constituents who live and work in such projects will become the future advocates for improved infrastructure in these areas.  For example, what signal are we sending to would-be developers in Riverside-Avondale with the current debate over a relative handful of parking spaces in the King Street area? 

The listing of various road and infrastructure projects and their cost underscores that our collective focus and priorities matter a great deal.  Long term, it is less about the money than it is about what we want.  It is unrealistic to collect substantial funds for projects that lack widespread support, no matter how unpopular or small the group is that we try to collect the funds from. 

[thelakelander]

Instead of focusing on how we can extract more money from a mostly-dead real estate development market, how about focusing on how we can promote redevelopment and infill?

I'm glad you mentioned this, Toi.  The mobility plan actually is set up to do just this.  In addition to the fee structure, the plan integrated comprehensive land use policies with proposed mobility improvements.  The fee itself is actually set up to encourge redevelopment and infill by leveling the cost of doing just that.  For example, infill and redevelopment projects with higher densities along existing and future transit corridors pay a significantly lower fee.  Those that don't, end up paying a higher fee.  Like the mobility fee, the land use changes were approved, so there are a chunk of areas within this city that higher densities are now allowed.  However, there's no real incentive to take advantage of these policies without the complementing fee.





full City of Jacksonville Mobility Plan presentation: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-dec-2030-mobility-plan-presentation

In addition, if we want to truly promote infill pedestrian scale development, we need to invest in the infrastructure that stimulates that development pattern.  At this point, you'll be hard pressed to find a pattern where development occurred before the infrastructure was put in place.  That's the same for an urban core and suburbs.

Unfortunately, in Jacksonville we have a problem with veering from the proven path of reality, and over complicate these issues with strategies that are typically based on unproven opinions and fears (ex. build density than invest in infrastructure, etc.).  It's a problem that we've suffered with for over 1/2 a century.  At some point, we've got to admit failure, change our policies, do the right thing, and simply get out of the way and let the free market take control.  It's simple and inexpensive.

[toi]

Sure Stephen.  Look at the Business Journal's weekly reports of building permits issued, and look at the permits issued for commercial construction, week after week.  For example, this past week, I see one new commercial building permit for one new building, valued at $150K.  I don't know whether that particular building would have had to pay a mobility fee.   There was also one new home permitted for construction in Duval County.  Also, keep in mind that many projects are pre-mobility fee.  While St. Johns Town Center has had construction on several outparcels in the past couple of years and recently, that is all pre-mobility fee.   And yet, while Metro Jacksonville continues to rail against (no pun intended) the mobility fee moratorium, the JTA gas tax is heading towards the sunset, affecting its ability to borrow for infrastructure improvements right now.  I'm not trying to be mean, here, and I appreciate all of the core group's focus on these issues. I know it is hard work to provide the researched content that you all provide.  I am hopeful that the author's efforts will help show the public that other Cities have developed their infrastructure differently and with greater emphasis on things like bikeways, the pedestrian and light rail. 

Article explaining 6-cent JTA tax revenues - http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-05/story/jta-ask-council-gas-tax-increase-and-extension

Tom

[thelakelander]

Sure Stephen.  Look at the Business Journal's weekly reports of building permits issued, and look at the permits issued for commercial construction, week after week.  For example, this past week, I see one new commercial building permit for one new building, valued at $150K.  I don't know whether that particular building would have had to pay a mobility fee.   There was also one new home permitted for construction in Duval County.  Also, keep in mind that many projects are pre-mobility fee.  While St. Johns Town Center has had construction on several outparcels in the past couple of years and recently, that is all pre-mobility fee.

Keep in mind the process is a marathon, not a sprint.  Development happens in cycles.  There will be ups and downs and everyone is fully aware that this economic cycle is in a down position.  Yet if you can incentivize a method to promote quality infill development (which the plan does), you can encourage niche markets to perform better in a city that has historically made developing this niche unfeasible.

Furthermore, yes many developments are pre-mobility plan/fee.  However, they have an option to modify if they choose so.  In many cases, modification will save tons of money.  Nevertheless, all of this is moot if no program of any kind exists.  Instead of making any progress, we're simply falling further and further behind.

Last but not least, no one mentions it, but why not utilize the fee as a dedicated funding source that is used for local matching grants for various programs and P3 opportunities out there.  There's multiple innovative ways to take advantage of the concept that will speed up the implementation of several items needed to trigger quality growth, development, and job creation throughout our community.

And yet, while Metro Jacksonville continues to rail against (no pun intended) the mobility fee moratorium, the JTA gas tax is heading towards the sunset, affecting its ability to borrow for infrastructure improvements right now.

At this point, I'm actually fine with the gas tax situation.  I've heard arguments from both sides but I'm of the opinion that Jacksonville may be better off if JTA were revamped into a transit  only agency, leaving the roadway side of things in the hands of FDOT and COJ public works.  Fixed rail discussion aside, we've got a lot to improve with our existing mass transit operations.  More focus and accountability in this particular arena is needed.  The fact that the gas tax is sunsetting encourages needed discussion and solution making, regarding the future of JTA and its role in making Jacksonville a better place.

[toi]

Ennis - thanks for your reply.  I do not disagree that the powerpoint presentation that was widely used in the promotion of the Mobility Plan emphasized the theory that infill would pay significantly less.  They used an example of Jackson Square, which had something like 60 units per acre, which would pay far far less, but the reason for that was that the trip generation model calculation had a geometric reduction in trips coming from projects that were very high density -- a density that is not likely to be common in this market for many years if ever.  I had argued to the point of being quite annoying that the City would better achieve the goal of promoting infill by making the standard per trip cost ($24.14) lower for a selected area of the City -- say Mobility Zones 7-10 under the City's maps (very roughly, areas that were initially developed between the City's founding and 1950).  To do that, one way is to delete from the list of improvements to be funded by the older areas of the City the 25% share of the SE commuter rail line that parallels the planned BRT line, and delete the 25% share of the other two commuter rail lines, and delete the Skyway Extension, which by my calcs would have cost much more than constructing an enclosed, air-conditioned bike path along the corridor they wanted to put it.  One could also argue about the need to 6-lane Philips Highway (also parallel to the BRT), whether at all or with mobility fee funds. 

I am not saying, commuter rail is bad, I am just saying, the proposed way of paying for it will hurt it from ever happening, and moreover, the bigger issue is that we have gracious plenty infrastructure in our older areas to easily handle more density, so why not recognize that and not try to charge these areas a cost much greater than their impact?  Instead of having standard mobility fee roughly 25% cheaper than in the less developed areas, make it 75% cheaper, at least for projects that have some minimum floor area ratio or density?  In the end, the committee agreed to delete the Skyway extension but then directed staff to not change the total cost of projects funded - staying at the 444 million number.  I hope we can revisit what the charges are for infill and redevelopment before the market recovers from the current depressed state.

[aclchampion]

I'm confused about a couple of details in the story. Specifically this paragraph:
"It's not a coincidence that the S-Line provides a direct rail connection between JAXPORT's Talleyrand Terminal and the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad's Bowden Yard on the Southside.  Now that this connection no longer exists, freight bound for FEC is shipped to the Southside by truck, speeding up the destruction of publicly maintained roads such as Emerson Street."

As far as I know, the S line never directly connected Talleyrand with Bowden Yard. To go from Talleyrand to Bowden, trains have to go either to Moncrief Yard or Simpson Yard then be moved to Bowden. And Norfolk Southern and CSX both make several trips a day with 100 car piggyback trains over the FEC Bridge to Bowden. And vice versa. So that connection is very much alive.

[thelakelander]

To do that, one way is to delete from the list of improvements to be funded by the older areas of the City the 25% share of the SE commuter rail line that parallels the planned BRT line, and delete the 25% share of the other two commuter rail lines, and delete the Skyway Extension, which by my calcs would have cost much more than constructing an enclosed, air-conditioned bike path along the corridor they wanted to put it.

I never heard of an enclosed air-conditioned bike path (sounds pretty crazy) but I can see excluding an entire section of the town from paying an impact fee is a political time bomb that could have sunk the entire plan before it even got to council.  Because, you're taking from other areas to pay for improvements that have greater benefit elsewhere. 

One could also argue about the need to 6-lane Philips Highway (also parallel to the BRT), whether at all or with mobility fee funds.

This is a project that I was originally against but it makes sense, when properly coordinated with FDOT and JTA.  Philips is a rural highway with no sidewalks, poor street lighting, and dangerous biking conditions, and intersection safety crossing issues.  Any new TOD along that corridor will benefit from Philips being converted into a context sensitive urban street design.  Such a project would also allow enhanced bus service (its not real BRT) to operate along the SE corridor without federal dollars (freeing that request up for commuter rail).  Now that JTA has continued to pursue federal funds for Philips, if granted, that will basically kill commuter rail paralleling Philips for the foreseeable future.

[aclchampion]

And I believe this is probably a typo:
"In the mid-1950s, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad's downtown freight terminal and the wharfs it served, were removed..."

ACL and SAL didn't become Seaboard Coast Line until 1967.

[JeffreyS]

This map should be reason enough to make commuter rail one of our guiding priorities.

[thelakelander]

And I believe this is probably a typo:
"In the mid-1950s, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad's downtown freight terminal and the wharfs it served, were removed..."

ACL and SAL didn't become Seaboard Coast Line until 1967.

Yes, should have been SAL.  Thanks.  I'll correct that.