Haven't read this plan but my guess, knowing the past work of Metro Jacksonville, it probably is a very nice plan concerning rail transport. I don't want to be dismissive of your work since it is composed of years of planning. At the same time though, I'm going to be a bit harsh. Why am I going to be harsh? Because I want to see plans I see here succeed.
Be harsh. We certainly are and will continue to be.
You said the word "we". "We" composes of what percentage of people in this great city? Is it a significant amount?
We is the people who decided it was important for them to be a part of the planning process. Out of that percentage, a majority were for a more sustainable Jacksonville. It is because of that, concepts like this are able to move forward.
Will this transport plan require the city to go into any debt? The Tea Party line of Jacksonville is going to pay hash attention to that.
No. Our current road only focused system causes us to go into debt. The mobility plan basically integrates land use with transportation planning in a manner to get our community from falling further into sprawl generating debt.
What reason should the city go into debt to pay for this project? If no debt, what reasons should the city use it's cash accounts to pay for this plan?
The city isn't using its cash. The mobility fee will replace traffic concurrency. The private dollars that will be generated from development to deal with traffic capacity issues that development creates will be used to fund local mobility improvements. Unlike traffic concurrency, those mobility improvements will be multimodal, meaning roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be addressed.
What makes this project more important than say going into debt to pay for underfunded pension plans? The city employees are quite angry at the moment with the idea of further cuts in their pension plans. The last thing they want to see is a gigantic project being built using "spare money" they just negotiated out of their plans.
You do know that road building is significantly more expensive than modifying land use and investing in cheaper transportation solutions such as transit, bike and pedestrian based options? If there is a true concern about debt, people should be up in arms over projects like 9B and the Outer Beltway. Those are the elephants in the room. Not a streetcar line that will cost less than a typical Jacksonville overpass or 1/8 the price of the new courthouse.
How about usability by the current residents? The first argument someone living in suburbia is going to make is "I'm not going to ride it, why should I pay for this?"
The same could be said by the urban resident who won't be using a 6 laned Normandy Boulevard near Cecil Field or a 4 laned New Berlin Road north of SR 9A. You could replace the cheaper transit solution, purchase hundreds of millions in extra ROW, pay to demolish a large number of buildings and widen Park Street through Riverside instead. Assuming this would result in tax money needed to cover the additional costs, would that suburban resident be willing to pony up the dough to improve mobility in the urban core, even if it were road based?
The media probably can help turn the tide but the media isn't everything. There's a reason why Rick Scott is our next governor and NE Florida voted overwhelming for him. In way, NE Florida is the reason why Scott was the GOP Primary winner instead of McCollum.
The media could do better but it has helped over the last couple of years. None of these issues were even being discussed a couple of years ago.
If you go right now to the general public, the first reaction will probably be - "Why are we building this even if we're not going to use it and nobody else I know will ride it?" Your going to need a very strong counter argument against this.
The strongest argument is a money based one. Out of the 10 mobility zones in the city, in two particular zones, mass transit is a better and cheaper solution to future congestion than road expansion. Not only is it cheaper but it stimulates economic development that will benefit the city's tax rolls. In addition, the plan has been developed in a manner that tax dollars may not have to be used to fund this and the other projects (7 are road expansion projects) listed in its CIE.
The strongest counter you can find is a large group of people who says "If you build this, I will ride it!". If you find this group of people, your life will be much easier. If you can't find that group of people, what is your counterargument?
The strongest argument is money based. Put or keep money in people's pockets and they'll raise less opposition. Take it out of their pockets and you'll wake up the hornet's nest.
Will this plan require the use of eminent domain? If yes, then the argument must be full proof.
No, eminent domain should not be necessary. It will be better and cheaper to work within existing public ROW (streets).