Well, damn. That's quite a response and much appreciated. But Branan Field / Chaffee couldn't possibly handle the traffic from development that was built based on a demand for housing in that area & the lure of Clay County Schools. It is simply incorrect to try and assert otherwise.
Ideally, new development should pay for itself if you want your community to be financially viable long term. There's several ways to make that happen. It can come in the form of mobility fees, concurrency, higher taxes, TIF districts, etc. In the event of new development not being able to cover the its cost on corridors that don't have the capacity, then it's not market rate feasible unless you're draining money from other resources. If you're a true believer in supply and demand, growth will find a way, regardless of if the public invests $2 billion in the country or not. The problem with this method is it means growth may not happen where some, who stand to financially benefit, want it to happen.
What I remember from the discussions about the roadway is that much of the opposition came from St. Johns County, not Clay County, and that many in Clay County very much desired another bridge across the St. Johns River. The St. Johns County folks successfully blocked that, IIRC.
FCE has been lobbied for, for more than 30 years, by some. Nevertheless, here's an example of opposition from Duval when it realized it was being double taxed to subsidize a project that will send jobs south of the county line.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-09-10/story/rick-scott-says-alvin-brown-backs-toll-road-mayor-still-says-no?page=4The public may not have demanded a $2 billion highway, true, but they did demand roadway expansion. FDOT had to look at regional needs and go from there.
FCE has been lobbied for by influential decision makers for decades. The public didn't demand anything out there. For years, the state said it wasn't feasible. Then some came up with the idea to get it built as a P3 project. When that failed, due to no private entity being foolish enough to light their investment money on fire, FDOT recently decided to piecemeal funding for it. If backers are lucky, it may take another 20 years for the entire thing to come to reality. With that said, some are already drawing lines and having wet dreams of a northern outer beltway. But make no mistake about it, the public is certainly not "demanding" the construction of a northern outer beltway, just like it did not with the FCE.
This quote: "FCE doesn't connect you to anything that Branan Field Chaffee Road didn't" is flat-out incorrect as well. The southern Orange Park / northern Middleburg area is going to get tremendous relief from that roadwork connecting and heading over to Green Cove Springs and the expanded Shands Bridge.
I'm talking about the 15-mile segment current under construction. I don't believe the rest isn't funded for construction. Nevertheless, if we were truly concerned about congestion relief, we'd scrap the beltway, widen/convert a few existing roads into complete streets, add another river crossing, revamp zoning regulations and invest several modes of transportation. Clay would still get the growth and development it wants. It would just be more fiscally viable long term.
Subsidizing can be in the eye of the beholder, Ennis. All of government involves taking money from one taxpayer and paying it out to others -- that same taxpayer and others, to lesser and greater degrees -- so it all boils down to subsidizing something or someone in different ways for different things. I note that you didn't (I don't think) particularly take issue with the heavy hand that would be required to *not* alleviate suburban traffic conditions in favor of trying to force more residents into the more compacted urban areas of our region.
At the end of the day, growth should pay for itself regardless of whether it's in Clay, Jax's urban core or Apopka. If it's not, somewhere down the line the chickens will come home to roost and it won't be pretty when they do. Just ask Detroit, Fresno or Birmingham.
Yes, there's plenty of land in the urban core and Jacksonville isn't heavily compacted. But if you could hear my relatives who grew up on the Northside (of all places) react with shock and horror at discussions about buying in Springfield . . . come on, man. There are certain realities at play in every urban environment and few are the American regions that come even remotely close to favoring policies that work against the American dream of owning a home with a "real" yard and neighborhood schools . . . and the roadways that allow us to get there and back from work.
My position has nothing to do with whatever you're envisioning in this quote. I live in the Southside for crying out loud. However, I'm not sure what I highlighted in bold is the "American Dream" of the 21st Century, according to US Census statistics generated over the last 15 years. Btw, roads are needed and our existing roads need to be maintained and reinvested in. I don't hate roads. I'm just not a fan of going down a path of fiscal irresponsibility. Big difference.
Transportation planners, etc., may be frustrated at how that game works but it's a bit disingenuous to hint at or assert that dishonesty is driving the train. It isn't. People know what the deal is. And they are A.O.K. with the bargain that has been struck, period. That's why I'm so hopeful Shad Khan and others can be successful downtown; tip the balance a bit back towards Center City.
I'm not frustrated. I'm paid to alter the game to something that will allow our communities to discover innovative methods that result in spending our tax dollars more wisely. Most of the road projects coming arcoss my desk these days are being planned and designed as context sensitive or complete streets. Many retrofits aren't expanding auto capacity. They are focusing on utilizing our thoroughfares more multimodal friendly. As time goes on, we'll see less FCEs (100% auto-centric roads built on ideas from the 20th century) and more projects like the FWB expansion and Riverplace Blvd retrofit. In addition, we'll see more demand for altering of land uses to meet the economic and quality-of-life style demands of the 21st century. This will ultimately impact how our core cities and suburbs look. However, this doesn't mean one has to improve at the expense of the other.
