City of Jacksonville Mobility Fee Update

Similar documents
2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

Transportation Sustainability Program

Treasure Island Mobility Management Program

APPENDIX VMT Evaluation

Transportation Sustainability Program

Treasure Island Mobility Management Program

Green Line Long-Term Investments

Jeff s House. Downtown Charlottesville. PEC Office

ConnectGreaterWashington: Can the Region Grow Differently?

Transitioning to Integrated Sustainable Multi-mobility. A Model Climate Action Strategy

JTA S MOBILITY CORRIDORS. Improving System Performance Through Urban Design

2030 Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Mobility Working Document

Transportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017

Parking Management Strategies

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Policy Advisory Committee Meeting February 12, 2014

Yonge-Eglinton. Mobility Hub Profile. September 19, 2012 YONGE- EGLINTON

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

Ideas + Action for a Better City learn more at SPUR.org. tweet about this #DisruptiveTransportation

ACT Canada Sustainable Mobility Summit Planning Innovations in Practice Session 6B Tuesday November 23, 2010

Philip Schaffner & Jason Junge Minnesota Department of Transportation

Getting Parking Right in Emerging Mixed Use Environments

Changing Behavior and Achieving Mode Shi2 Goals

Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire NH Route 28 Western Segment Traffic Impact Fee Methodology

Charlotte Area Transit System: Moving Forward John Lewis CATS Chief Executive Officer

Metro Transit Update. Christina Morrison, Senior Planner Metro Transit BRT/Small Starts Project Office. John Dillery, Senior Transit Planner

Vehicle Miles Traveled in Massachusetts: Who is driving and where are they going?

PASCO COUNTY 2014 MULTI-MODAL MOBILITY FEE UPDATE STUDY

WMATA CONNECTGREATERWASHINGTON

Transit and Job Growth: Lessons for SB 375. Jed Kolko Public Policy Institute of California

Parks and Transportation System Development Charge Methodology

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION. Final Smart Growth Evaluation Report

Click to edit Master title style

ITEM 9 Information October 19, Briefing on the Performance Analysis of the Draft 2016 CLRP Amendment

The TDM Plan for Fort Washington Office Park NOVEMBER 1 6, 2017 FORT WASHINGTON OFFICE PARK STAKEHOLDERS

Overview of Plug-In Electric Vehicle Readiness. Coachella Valley Association of Governments

Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Georgia Department of Transportation 2006 Fact Sheet Lovejoy to Atlanta Rail Line visit the website at

Treasure Island: Background

San Francisco Mobility, Access & Pricing Study

Can Public Transportation Compete with Automated and Connected Cars?

To Infill or Not to Infill?

Subarea Study. Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. Final Version 1. Washington County.

San Francisco Transportation Plan

May 23, 2011 APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference. Metro ExpressLanes

Denver Car Share Permit Program

Draft Marrickville Car Share Policy 2014

Parking Management Element

3/16/2016. How Our Cities Can Plan for Driverless Cars April 2016

MPO Transit Study. Transit Concept for 2050 November 5, Transit Technologies

TPB CLRP Aspirations Scenario

Prime Commercial Land in Developing Area

Attachment C: Benefit-Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

2/1/2018. February 1, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Bob Yuhnke Southwest Energy Efficiency Project Regional Air Quality Council 8/6/2010

Address Land Use Approximate GSF

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6

Qualcomm Stadium Redevelopment

Transportation Sustainability Program

Minimum parking requirements create more parking than is needed.

Proposed FY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1

Equitable transit-oriented development: Tools + Tactics

Energy efficiency policies for transport. John Dulac International Energy Agency Paris, 29 May 2013

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

Broward County Intermodal Center And People Mover. AASHTO Value Engineering Conference Presentation. September 1, 2009 San Diego, CA

Climate Change. November 29, 2018 Growth Management Policy Board

APPLICATION OF A PARCEL-BASED SUSTAINABILITY TOOL TO ANALYZE GHG EMISSIONS

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development. Establishment of LAX FlyAway Stop in Santa Monica

The Latest on Joint Development Policy Guidance

Executive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1

Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing

House Committee on Transportation Policy Public Hearing HB April 5, 2017

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

Exhibit to Agenda Item #1a

PASCO COUNTY MULTI-MODAL MOBILITY FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5.

Westside Issues Major generators: employment centers, retail, residential, recreational, UCLA, LAX Rising jobs-housing imbalance Transportation improv

Metra Milwaukee District West Line Transit-Friendly Development Plan

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

7 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

City of Minnetonka Maximum Parking Regulations Urban GIS. Group Members Brad Johnston Mark Kelley Jonathan Winge

CPUC Transportation Electrification Activities

US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017

Trip Generation Study: Provo Assisted Living Facility Land Use Code: 254

Utilizing GIS Models in Prioritizing and Selecting Transportation Projects

Transportation Statistical Data Development Report BAY COUNTY 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Saint Paul s Off-Street Parking Revisions. Hilary Holmes City Planner

NEW YORK CITY CARSHARE PILOT

Proposal for September 2006 Start of Commuter Rail from Lovejoy on the Macon Line to Atlanta

RE: Comments on Proposed Mitigation Plan for the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust

NEW YORK CITY CARSHARE PILOT

Shared-Use Mobility: First & Last Mile Solution. Sarah Nemecek Project Manager

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

Transportation Demand Management Element

mileage fees primer vmt fees are in your future

City of Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan Update PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW, PART 1

Appendix F Model Development Report

CNG Strategy/Overview

Art Griffith, Capital Projects Manager, ,

Transcription:

City of Jacksonville Mobility Fee Update 2018 Mobility Fee 7 February 2018 Mobility Working Group Carnival Cruise lines photo credit

Modal Projects - Needs Goals & Objectives Data Priority Projects Avg. Length of Trip Trips per Land Use Vary by Development Area ITE daily trip rates Vary by Zone TDM trip reduction Cost / Growth (VMT) = VMT Fee VMT Fee Citywide Vary by Zone Updated Costs and Designs VMT growth forecast (Model) Mobility Fee 2

Modal Projects - Needs Goals & Objectives Data Priority Projects Avg. Length of Trip Trips per Land Use Vary by Development Area ITE daily trip rates Vary by Zone TDM trip reduction Cost / Growth (VMT) = VMT Fee VMT Fee Citywide Vary by Zone Updated Costs and Designs VMT growth forecast (Model) Mobility Fee 3

Cost per Vehicle Mile Traveled The average cost to construct new capacity to accommodate (at a similar standard of service as today) new vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of demand. Cost of New Capacity Growth in VMT = Average Cost per VMT We can start working in this equation in a different order Cost of New Capacity = Cost per VMT x Growth in VMT Derived Derived Given 4

Varying the Fee by Zone Mobility Zone VMT Change (2018-2030) Base Fee per VMT Mobility Funding Limit 1 2,455,454 $33.69 $82,734,786 2 1,503,002 $30.46 $45,777,514 3 1,366,930 $38.72 $52,931,368 4 1,398,132 $30.80 $43,067,118 5 1,289,728 $33.92 $43,751,560 6 1,381,704 $25.71 $35,528,520 7 833,767 $22.56 $18,810,703 8 1,273,865 $27.39 $34,894,472 9 1,029,427 $23.21 $23,887,993 10 562,084 $22.42 $12,603,246 13,094,093 $393,987,280 5

6

Proposed Base Mobility Fee Mobility Zone Zonal Fee Development Area Avg. Trip Lengths (Short) Avg. Trip Lengths (Long) Single Family Dwelling Dev Area: Short Trips Dev Area: Long Trips 1 $33.69 10.3 12.3 $3,298 $3,936 2 $30.46 10.3 12.3 $2,981 $3,558 3 $38.72 10.3 12.3 $3,790 $4,523 4 $30.80 10.3 12.3 $3,015 $3,598 5 $33.92 10.3 12.3 $3,320 $3,963 6 $25.71 10.3 12.3 $2,516 $3,004 7 $22.56 9.2 10.3 $1,985 $2,208 8 $27.39 9.2 10.3 $2,410 $2,681 9 $23.21 9.2 10.3 $2,041 $2,271 10 $22.42 9.1 9.1 $1,940 $1,940 Avg: $2,729 $3,168 Min $1,940 $1,940 Max $3,790 $4,523 Spread $1,849 $2,583 7

Comparison Table: Single Family Dwelling NFTPO jurisdictions in Florida Low High Date of Fee St. Johns $ 4,105 $ 5,077 2017 Clay $ 3,461 7/1/2018 City of Jacksonville $ 2,104 $ 2,840 current $ 1,940 $ 4,523 Proposed East Nassau $ 2,200 3/14/2015 Nassau $ 1,150 $ 1,168 8/25/2014 Soon to be updated Soon to be updated Assumptions: 2,000 square foot single family dwelling Source: Compiled by RSG with additional input from Impactfees.com (Duncan Associates) from 2015 National Impact Fee Survey. National Average: $3,256 Florida Average: $3,307 (as of 2015) 8

Infrastructure Mobility Fee Credit The current policy is NOT to provide Mobility Fee credits for requirements identified in the Land Development Procedure. (Section 5.8.0 in the Handbook) Option A) - If Infrastructure is identified in the Mobility Plan and also required as part of local review or the Land Dev Procedure. The Mobility Fee can be reduced by the anticipated cost to construct the identified project up to the value of the Mobility Fees that would have otherwise been paid. Option B) - Maintain existing rule. Requirements per local review and Land Development Procedures would be constructed in addition to paying for Mobility Fee. 9

Trip Credit Process Expedited: no trip reduction Trip Generation Effects (ITE guidance) use Citywide for any land use - Internal mix of uses (ITE & NCHRP 684) - Pass-by & Diverted trips - Existing uses Additional Considerations: Land Use Effects - Density bonuses (more able to use active modes, transit, shorter trips, etc.) - Adjacent land uses (regional internal trip making, shorter trips) - Income sensitive housing and other land uses with special or waived fees 10

Density Urbemis Reductions Compact development cannot reduce driving very much on its own, but we cannot reduce driving very much without it, If we are going to get people to drive less, we first need to make it possible to drive less. Compact development does that. A California planner, unidentified 11

Households per Acre Census blocks 12

Land use Focused Goals of Urbemis Density - Density drives most of the collective transportation benefits we are looking to achieve. - Overall less VMT is beneficial for congestion, emissions, energy, - Active modes (walking, biking, etc.) are more likely due to closer proximity of Generators of Trips and Attractions Multi-modal options - Proximity to land uses enables greater walking, biking (active modes), and proximity to transit to enable use of available transit 13

Other Fee Considerations Policy Incentives - Focused Mobility Fee reductions in specific locations in City for a myriad of reasons (i.e. encourage development, support public safety, etc.) Equality and Equity concerns Demographic adjustments, including housing sizes, income. - Trip adjustments based on the provision of a certain percentage of housing being offered below market rate (BMR) dwelling units. 14

Fee Collection and Expenditure Process Mobility Zone VMT Change (2018-2030) Fee Mobility Funding Limit Corridor Projects Standalone Bike Standalone Ped JTA DIA 1 2,455,454 $33.69 $82,734,786 $72,310,580 $9,041,114 $1,383,092 2 1,503,002 $30.46 $45,777,514 $38,540,280 $2,381,022 $1,481,213 $3,375,000 3 1,366,930 $38.72 $52,931,368 $39,867,524 $10,468,537 $1,345,308 $1,250,000 4 1,398,132 $30.80 $43,067,118 $37,678,508 $4,625,428 $763,183 5 1,289,728 $33.92 $43,751,560 $34,090,827 $7,468,097 $2,192,636 6 1,381,704 $25.71 $35,528,520 $21,918,983 $12,460,038 $1,149,500 7 833,767 $22.56 $18,810,703 $2,374,000 $14,791,117 $1,645,586 $0 8 1,273,865 $27.39 $34,894,472 $13,357,551 $9,964,537 $1,172,383 $10,400,000 9 1,029,427 $23.21 $23,887,993 $3,210,511 $14,469,662 $4,207,820 $2,000,000 10 562,084 $22.42 $12,603,246 $6,407,364 $993,310 $1,800,000 $3,402,573 13,094,093 $393,987,280 $263,348,764 $92,076,916 $16,334,028 $18,825,000 $3,402,573 Incrementally as fees are collected, what is the process to identify how and what projects are funded first? - Should there be a priority between modes within each zone? - Should a set % be set aside for specific modes? - What flexibility should the City have in making timing decisions? 15

Next Steps

Contacts www.rsginc.com Jonathan Slason, PE Senior Engineer Jonathan.slason@rsginc.com 802-698-3196